directed by: Ivan Reitman
written by: Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis
starring: Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver
seen: 29th November, 2006 - comment: 2nd May, 2017
Comedy that did not make me laugh. Maybe it's because I first saw this film when I was older (meaning not a child) and I already had my own criteria for humor set up differently. Where Ghostbuster's fanbase seems to be affected by a huge cloud of collective nostalgia I'm confused as to what they love so much about it and why does it have its cult status. First and foremost, there's not that much happening in the film. Instead of being entertained I have time to wonder about rules of the fictional world it happens in. Those titular ghosts - are they ghosts of the deceased? Demons from hell? Gods from parallel realities? Weird green blobs with hot dog cravings? All of the above? What kind of mishmash is that? (And because I am about to talk a bit about the 2016 movie later, I will state right now that I don't understand that in the re-telling either.)
Another thing I don't get, and I wonder if that's because of the conventions of '80s film-making, because maybe it is, that the screenplay pays little to no attention to its characters and their relationships. We get a few one-liners like "I collect spores" and "This reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head", but we don't know anything else about them. They don't have any lifes of their own and their friendship is fictional as well, it's assumed they are friends but the movie doesn't really show it. We get pointless filler like montages of generic ghostbusting with glossy music instead of something relating to the plot or to the characters. For example, the Ernie Hudson character is written in without any explatanion and without any qualification. And he really doesn't need to be there because the poor fellow does nothing specific, unless you count playing second fiddle. Bill Murray's character is the one that gets most alone screen time but it's rather unfortunate because he's a total creep and potentially a sex offender so while I might be entertained by his stoic approach I am more disgusted by his pervy behavior and general doucheness. That leaves the demon with a good picks for gatekeepers and keymasters as the most sympathetic character because he just wants to enter a rotten world and destroy it and that's understandable. And the whole movie is just weirdly sexual, including the agitated singing of Ray Parker jr., and it gives off a "horny teen movie which accidentaly included only adults in its cast" vibe.
And when I say that nothing much is happening, I mean the unintetional parts. It's cool when heroes encouter an unexpeted opponent on their way to victory - stairs to the 22nd floor without a functioning elevator. But what about the previous sequence? Ghostbusters are arriving at the scene, the building has a portal to hell or somewhere worse opened up at the top and there are people and reporters all around. They are crazy about the four dudes' celebrity status and don't seem to be conderned with the impending apocalypse . Ghostbusters are gloating and enjoying the praise. With all of my professional respect the only comment that comes to my mind is WTF? And then the road cracks, the four of them disappear in the crack, a moment of suspense ensues, they climb out and stay for another round of applause and cheers before leaving to check out the problem upstairs... wtf? Did the production have a script editor that would prohibit the comedians from doing whatever they wanted like stroking their egos in place of an actual well worked-out entertainment product? I can honestly say that the most entertaining thing asociated with Ghosbuters is the Epic Rap Battles Of History episode which has Ghosbusters rapping against Mythbusters and it truly is epic.
And now comes the genuine blasphemous part. I went to rewatch the movie recently so I could write a comment longer that the first sentence and I was aware of the fact that they made a female reboot last year. I said to myself: "Oh yeah, I don't like the original one, I won't probably like the reboot, I should watch both of them in one session and then try to describe why I don't like them both and recommend to internet trolls to base their hate on the finished product and not a casting notion." And bippity boppity boo, against all odds, I enjoyed the new one quite a bit! Probably because it's not really that similar to the one from 1984. It has its own flaws (my biggest complaint would be about the heroines being so shouty all the time - it feels like Melissa McCarthy doesn't have a single line without a raised voice) but it also has a lot of original (and funny) ideas. The movie offers more thought-out and functional world, properly introduces all of its protagonists, shows off their powers in action, and knowingly incorporates their friendship into the story, oh, here come the happy tears. And what is the most important thing, none of the Ghostbusters gets their clitoris licked by a ghost, which is something that, sadly, cannot be said about the 1984 movie.
