The Awkward Movie Challenge: Ghostbusters
Mike:
Oh, Jeffrey, you know me only too well, but I think it’s better to have mean-spirited opinions than none at all, which seems to be the case with your Ghostbusters review. Shit. That came off really mean. I’m sorry, Jeffrey. You know I still love you.
Truth be told, I kind of had to struggle to formulate any opinions about the film myself. 10-year old Mike Segretto would not have had this problem. That guy loved Ghostbusters with a pure, unquestioning love. Yes, this was partly because of all the neat-o monsters and ghosts and slime and what-have-you, but it was so much more than that. The so-much-more of which I speak is Bill Murray. He dominates Ghostbusters to such a degree that if you took him out of the picture, it would almost cease to be a comedy (I only say almost because of Rick Moranis and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Dan Aykroyd has been funnier elsewhere, and Harold Ramis is best behind the writing desk). Murray’s is no small feat because his Peter Venkman is essentially an egomaniacal jackass, but the character manages to be really likable because Bill Murray is really likable. Murray invented geek-cool; he looks like an avocado, but he still exudes as much self-confidence as John Wayne. I recall attempting that little Chuck Berry walk he does in Ghostbusters in my grammar school cafeteria. A couple of jocks saw me and tried to flush me down a urinal.
Bill Murray rocks the Chuck Berry walk.
Certainly, many others like 10-year old me and 9-year old Jeffrey were equally affected by Murray and Ghostbusters, because the movie went on to earn more than $291 million and pioneered the “big special effects / big laughs” combo that has since made blockbusters out of Men in Black, Night at the Museum, and other such movies I hope I never have to see.
“Ghostbusters… another fuckin’ money machine.”
Watching it as an adult, Ghostbusters is basically innocuous fun, but I don’t find it to be particularly funny anymore. Only one line made me laugh during this latest viewing (“We’ve been going about this all wrong. This Mr. Stay Puft is okay. He’s a sailor, he’s in New York; we get this guy laid, we won’t have any trouble.”). Perhaps that’s because the humor is too family friendly. Or maybe it’s because big special effects don’t really mix well with comedy, which is why a picture like Monty Python and the Holy Grail works so spectacularly (imagine if the knights rode on actual horses… or if the killer rabbit wasn’t a little plush toy. Yawn). But then you have movies like Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, which have good special effects yet still manage to be really goddamn funny. And, come to think of it, as great as the demon dogs and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man are, some of the special effects in Ghostbusters are pretty crappy 25 years down the road. The showdown with Gozer looks like a Starship video.
"We built this city…"
More ideologically disturbing is how Ghostbusters plays so fast and loose with the definition of “ghost.” I mean, we can all agree that a ghost is the apparition of a once-living creature, right? So what the hell was that green “slimer” thing before it died? A frog? An unripe potato? Clearly, Harold Ramis was trying to pull a fast one on us.
Ultimately, Ghostbusters kind of feels like the runny-nosed little brother of more “serious” special effects-laden blockbusters like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Bill Murray and Rick Moranis remain fun to watch, though, and the film continues to deliver the mollifying waves of pop-culture nostalgia needed to sustain the pulmonary system of an aging Generation X’er such as myself.
Ah… that’s the stuff.
Mike gives Ghostbusters… 42 ½ Grover Clevelands!
Pages: 1 2
Every time I see Ghostbusters, I think it's funnier than I remembered it. Are you sure you guys didn't accidentally watch Ghostbusters 2?
1Maybe you guys should watch "Men in Black" next, if only for Gentle Rosenberg. He's the best Jewish alien ever! And I am not biased!
Or maybe you should watch "The Holiday." I'm still deciding.
2I strongly disagree with you guys. Ghostbusters is a classic piece of film. Bill Murray is nothing short of brilliant. Rick Moranis puts in his finest performance ever. I've seen this movie over 20 times. Of course it doesn't have the same impact as it originally did, but I re-watch it and savor the jokes as if they were a favorite Merlot: when I want something comfortable and familiar it's there for me. I always manage to find something new too. When Ray shows Peter the car and is listing off the problems with it, watch Peter's face. At one point it drops into depression ever-so imperceptibly that when i finally discovered it it was golden. I showed it to Harmon and he agreed.
Basically I'm saying you guys suck donkey dick. Maybe you should review donkey dick.
3I'm confused. When did I say I didn't like it?
4I think the problem is you didn't say you love it, nor that it's funnier every time you see it. This lack of gushing is confusing to we Jons.
5I gotcha. Well, to be clear, I do love Ghostbusters. It's just very difficult of me to assess how much of that love is based on my fond memories of growing up with it. I definitely have to disagree with Segretto on the special effects ... I don't know if it's possible to create special effects that look amazing forever, and the effects never took me out of the story the way that many CGI effects do today.
I guess the fact that I can still watch it and enjoy it means that it is simply a good movie. Agreed on Rick Moranis: a stellar performance. The "meet-cute" between Weaver and Murray is underdeveloped and somewhat creepy, but I blame Hollywood's need to insert a half-assed love story into everything over any particular missteps on the part of the writers.
That being said, I think we can all agree that the decision to make the Environmental Protection Agency the enemy is pretty strange.
6Oh, and I really like Men in Black, too.
Whaddya say, Mike? Do we watch the Holiday when I'm in New York to appease your ball and chain?
7Depends. How drunk will we be?
8Yes, the EPA thing was definitely weird... but it was the 80s. People did a lot of dumb things in the 80s. I'm almost saying a lot of very apologist things, though.
9One of the best comedic screenplays ever written, I think. The goal of every writer is to write a line of dialogue that A) establishes character B) moves the plot forward and/or C) is entertaining. You always strive to nail at least two of those, and if you can hit all three buttons with a line once and a while, you're doing pretty good. But practically every line in Ghostbusters manages to convey both character and be entertaining, and the majority of them also move the plot along as well. I can't remember the exact running time, but I think the movie comes in around 90 minutes, an absolute shark of a movie, especially given the fact that the audience has to be introduced to the whole "Ghostbuster" concept of capturing ghosts. There's no point where the movie slows down, there's no boring bits chunks of exposition to wade through (even Egon's "Tobin's Spirit Guide" stuff is funny) there's no irritating side characters.
10One word on suspension of disbelief. I can believe Gozer the Gozarian has come back to earth looking like a Prince backup dancer to destroy the world. I can believe you can capture ghosts using a beam of charged plasma. I can even believe Sigourney Weaver finds Bill Murray attractive. What I absolutely do not buy is the EPA having enough authority to shut down so much as a lemonade stand. C'mon, the Reagan era EPA? I don't even think they let those guys have desks...
Harmon, you nailed it. I clarified that exact position to Jeff last night.
So...
Where did we land with the whole donkey dick thing?
11Jef: totally right on with the screenplay analysis. I was thinking that as I watched it, that there is no dead air in Ghostbusters. Everything matters. The sheer number of characters and subplots they are able to fully realize within that framework is pretty incredible.
Maybe I should start outsourcing the Movie Challenge ... you guys are doing much better with this one than we did.
12Speak for yourself, Dinz. I stand by every single thing I said. As I said in our piece about 'Blair Witch', comedy has a job to do: make me laugh. 'Ghostbusters' did not make me laugh. I still enjoy it 'Ghostbusters', but I think it was more to do with nostalgia than anything else. It certainly isn't dull, though.
13That's a tall order, though, on a movie that is such a huge part of the cultural zeitgeist. I don't really laugh at Preston Sturges movies, but I can still recognize and appreciate the quality of the craftsmanship.
14Cultural zeitgeist alone doesn't make it for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't loathe "Forrest Gump" and "Titanic". Also being a part of the cultural zeitgeist and being funny are not mutually exclusive. I watched "This is Spinal Tap" for the zillionth time a week ago, and it still made me laugh. Even when I didn't laugh at the jokes that have lost some power due to over-repetition, I still recognized them as being funny and recalled them making me laugh the first time around. Honestly, I don't recognize much in "Ghostbusters" as being very funny. Even when I was 10, I didn't understand what was funny about "He slimed me." Seriously, if someone can explain to me why that is such an indelible movie quote, I'll be forever in your debt.
15Wait, on the "Everything matters" point... does this mean I'm the only one who thinks Aykroyd's ghost dream thing in the theme song montage was pointless? I love that movie, but it wasn't *perfect.*
16Yeah, fair enough on the weird Succubus dream. That scene sticks out like a sore thumb. But I think it sticks out because it really is about the only moment in the movie that doesn't fit in with an otherwise sharp, efficient script.
As for not making Segretto laugh, well, I think comedy is like sex: you can't really explain WHY something turns your crank. And the thing that turns one person on is going to be completely flat for someone else, like Jeff says about Preston Sturges movies (embarrasing movie geek moment: uh, who?).
On the other hand, let's give it a try:
Bill Murray's character is confronting a ghost. A ghost. Some weird green dead thing is floating in front of him. He's alone. The last time he saw one of these things was in the basement of the New York Public Library, and it turned into some hellspawn demon that chased him and his colleagues straight back to Columbia. And this thing doesn't look anywhere near as nice as a kindly old librarian.
It notices him. It's been...eating things.
It opens it's mouth. It heads toward him.
He screams.
He expects to get eaten. Or feel the icy hand of death. Or be bodily dragged to hell. But he isn't. "He slimed me." As the tension of the potentially fatal moment is released through a classic reveral of expectation, what had appeared dramatic and tragic reveals itself as farce. The audience responds to the release of tension through laughter.
Ok, I can explain why it's funny to ME...
17Well explained, Jef. I suppose this means I'm forever in your debt. Should I start with the windows or the bathroom floor?
18Whichever one is a metaphor for "penis."
19Wow. I was about to admit that line wasn't funny (and it's one that really isn't anymore)... but now I remember why it was funny the first time. Thanks, Jef!
Seriously, though, I laugh every time I watch Ghostbusters. And I've even watched it *sober* recently, not like the last time Mc and I watched it at the same time (and totally got Chipman blitzed, which was also hilarious).
20