|
Ghostbusters is the best film. No, really. You don't need a background to this film because I'm sure 99% of you grew up on it. However, what I thought might be nice is to explore this film a little more deeply than you might be inclined to because of your familiarity with it. Re-watching Ghostbusters as an adult was eye-opening. It was my first DVD, too, so it was almost like I was seeing it for the first time. Somewhere between being a teenager and an adult, I'd developed a love for production design in film. I'm not sure what caused it - probably the brief love I had for Star Trek - but when I saw Ghostbusters on DVD as opposed to mangy VHS, I fell in love with this film and I credit this movie with pushing me into looking for a career in film. I'm not going to run with a CGI vs practical theme because that's never really interested me. Maybe it's more of a "they don't make them like they used to" thing. Ghostbusters is one of the earliest - and arguably best - examples of the "horror comedy" genre, although it's obviously more a comedy than a horror. If anything, it's a buddy movie - 4 guys blundering through a series of misadventures and then saving the world in spite of themselves. This angle is one of the film's many strengths - you'd watch these four in a film about turnip farmers, and you'd enjoy it. So even so the roles aren't exactly stretching any boundaries - Venkman (Murray) is the hustler, Stantz (Ackroyd) is the manchild, Spengler (Ramis) is the brains and Zeddemore (Hudson) is the everyman link to the audience - it doesn't matter, because you connect with these guys straight away.  Not to mention that there's precious little actual ghostbusting in the film - in fact there's only one "trapping" sequence before the finale. Everything else is about the journey, and it's those relationships peppered with gags that make the film feel so satisfying when it's actually quite light on it's title content. So how does it manage to come together as well as it does? Well, I'm not here to talk about the comedy or even really the plot, because the roles they have in the film are obvious. What I want to write about here is the other side to Ghostbusters - it's luscious art design and just what it does for the film. What is amazing about Ghostbusters to me is that it's a genuinely beautiful film. Although it's been "corrected" in some DVD releases, the entire film has a light purple cast over it, which, when combined with the NYC architecture, give a wonderful feel of something not quite being right in the city. Spooky, but only ever so slightly. This look was enhanced by modifications to the NYC skyline; Dana Barrett's apartment block featured a tremendous Sumerian temple on it's roof, achieved through a combination of matte painting and miniatures. Lined with gargoyles and featuring a beautiful etching depicting events of the film - which sadly can barely be seen on screen - the temple was the work of legendary production designer John DeCuir, who was probably best known for his work on Cleopatra (the 1963 Elizabeth Taylor version).   In fact, the full-size set was so immense that it was not only several feet off the ground at it's lowest point, and nearly 35ft high, but the enourmous 360 degree NYC panoramic painting that set required almost every generator the studio had to light it. No corner was cut. The best part of all of this, for me, is that so much effort was expended not only to amuse you, but also to involve you. Look at that set. It's ridiculous. But it's also beautiful. Every aspect of this film was gone over countless times - from the wild initial concept to the more grounded final story - until it was honed to perfection. The art department was no exception. Comedy film or not, the art dept produced a film that looked better than many dramas or even sci-fi epics of it's day - but never at the expense of the humour. The tone of the art design was spot on, and impeccable in every way. They were serious about being funny. For example, how ridiculous is this matte painting?  But it's also kind of understated. That's the beauty - quite literally - of Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters is often referred to as one of the quintessential NYC films - probably only just behind the original Pelham 123 in my book - and that's because the film is stuffed full of character. You can see it in the millions of different types of extras they use, and their brash characterisations. It's there in that finely layered detail (the Stay Puft billboards), and it's also because it captures that sense of scale - a huge city, teeming with life (or death, in this case). Although not the focus of the film, and certainly not the most outright stunning camerawork you'll ever see, László Kovács' cinematography captured that NYC spirit perfectly. The frame is almost never empty, and when it is, it's for one purpose - to highlight the enormity of the challenge ahead of our heroes. There are several shots in Ghostbusters that are tremendously wide. Not only is it a nice excuse to show the NYC skyline shrouded in that gentle purple cast, but it also serves to highlight the enormity of the city vs the Ghostbusters - a nice reflection of their uphill struggle against the EPA and the Police.    It's a dirty city and they're doing a dirty job - and who knows what is lurking in those streets? Prop design is another aspect that Ghostbusters excels in. These comedy props were rigorously designed to feel tangible and real. The Proton Pack may in fact have been fibreglass castings of styrofoam shapes covered with pneumatic fittings, but they looked heavy and every bit as dangerous as Spengler implied. In fact, their design more than slightly echoes another bit of early 80's nuclear design - the plutonium reactor from Back to the Future's DeLorean time machine:   You believe in these props these comedy actors are holding. Better still, you think they're awesome and you want your own Proton Pack. A lot of this is helped not only by their solid, clunking, lock-together design, but also the sense of procedure that goes with their use. Full of fearful respect for their equipment, you're laughed through every flick of the oh-god-will-this-kill-us switch. You're enamoured with these devices capable of unleashing more devastation than any WMD - hang on, isn't this a comedy? The industrial design behind Ghostbusters was on a par with any sci-fi of the day (or since, only matched by Cameron and Scott with Aliens and Blade Runner, in my opinion). While not as well designed or as functional as BTTF's DeLorean, the Ghostbuster's car is, much like the rest of the film, larger than life.  Made from a hearse based on the 1959 Cadillac (what else), Ecto-1 is a shiny, chromed, flashing leviathan. Despite it having no real in-film function, it's tremendous presence is the perfect counterpart to the nuclear-powered chancers who drive around inside it. It has all the bravado and front of Venkman, all the technology of Spengler, and the brawn and energy of Stantz. Once you see it on screen you realise it - there is just no other car these guys could drive. By now, you're thinking, yeah, I get it. So what? It's a good looking film and a lot of love went into it. Well, it all comes together in the end. No-one needs to be reminded of what happens at the end of the film, but just for the sake of it, let me post this screencap.  This is a working example of what Harold Ramis refers to as the "The Domino Theory of Reality". Everything has been leading up to this one shot where a hundred-foot tall, corporate mascot rendered in malignant marshmallow appears. It's a brilliant moment, fantastically revealed, and despite being so incredibly over the top, it just manages not to break your immersion in the film. Why is this? Gradually, things have started to fall into place. You've witnessed the impossible and downright ridiculous happen on your journey to this moment. But for every bout of insanity, it's flanked on one side by an incredulous but grounded core cast, and on the other, solid, believable art design, which puts you in a world where this can happen. You didn't think the Proton Packs and the Ghost Traps were silly. Even Ecto-1, which is best described as utterly flamboyant is presented to you in such a way that, yeah, you're laughing at it's appearance, but you're also excited for it to start doing it's thing. Every little step in the film has been leading you deeper into a world where you can totally accept the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man as being a credible threat to our heroes. So this, for me, is why Ghostbusters is an absolute triumph of movie making. From the first scenes which mix dusty libraries with bleeping props that have waving antenna, to the midpoint with gigantic, gaudy cars and explosive backpacks inside regal hotel ballrooms, from the final art-deco-Sumerian-God-showdown - all the while strengthened straight through the middle with a rock-solid ensemble cast - Ghostbusters carefully and precisely delivers you to a joyous, over the top denouement. In that one single moment, everything you've seen, every little set-up falls into place, and you probably didn't even realise why. It's the perfection combination of all the different disciplines that go in to film-making. Better yet, it never insults the audience with it's preposterousness, or smashes down the fourth wall in order to get a cheap laugh. Sure, the joke is on you, but it's also on the Ghostbusters themselves. This is also why we do not speak of Ghostbusters II. echoplex fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Aug 10, 2009 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
I don't have anything to add, just wanted to thank you for this nice write up. Ghostbusters is my favorite movie too. Dr Ray Stantz: Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947. Dr. Peter Venkman: You're right, no human being would stack books like this. Cage fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
This was really great. I never looked at Ghostbusters this way before. It's been one of my favorite movies since I was a kid, but I think most of that was watching them destroy a hotel trying to catch Slimer. [Dana, possessed by "The Gatekeeper," answers the door] Dana Barrett: Are you the Keymaster? Dr. Peter Venkman: Not that I know of. [She slams the door in his face. Venkman knocks again] Dana Barrett: Are you the Keymaster? Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes. Actually I'm a friend of his, he asked me to meet him here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
Cage posted:I don't have anything to add Nobody else does either. This is probably the most comprehensive OP ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
Hockles posted:Nobody else does either. This is probably the most comprehensive OP ever. I would, but I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
Thanks for making this thread. You've given me another reason to love this movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
What an incredible OP. I was thinking of writing an in-depth look at some of my favorite films, and now...I'm scared. I couldn't even dream of going as in depth as you have. Great work!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Ghostbusters 2 is better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:00
|
|
|
The movie(s?) is definitely a love letter to New York. In addition to the masterful techniques the OP talked about in slowly escalating the unbelievable elements, the fact that this movie happens in New York helps a lot. The movie repeatedly makes use of New Yorkers themselves to pull you into believing all of the craziness because in New York crazy poo poo happens all the time. The demon dog doesn't make huge headlines because it was probably just a cougar, possessed Louis is just an rear end in a top hat, and Winston says it plain as day at the end when he yells how much he "LOVES THIS TOWN!" because where else would you fight a 100 ft. tall marshmallow man? (Well, maybe Tokyo.) There's also the use of New York, physically, which the OP pointed out. The enormity of the city is presented many times, but it's the image of the city that provides for the origin of evil in both movies. In the first one, the portal to hell, like the anti-Tower of Babel, is what else? A skyscraper. Not a modern Trump travesty, but an Art Deco beauty built in the heyday of skyscrapers, where New York first entered the popular imagination as this Metropolis-like elevated city. The fact that without the eerie music Dana's building is not obviously some Sauron's tower-type building but an idyllic apartment on the edge of Central Park makes it even better. In the second movie, it's that New Yorkers are assholes, but I don't think the OP wants to talk about the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
Haha, by all means, talk about the sequel. Plot wise I think it's creatively bankrupt, but I can't get over how shockingly ugly it is. The lighting is palid, the costumes horrendous (even by the standards of the day), and the art design (Ecto 1A, etc) are awful. All that pales against how terribly phoned in most of the performances are. The highlight of the film is the Underground Railroad Station set, which is gorgeous. But you make some great points, really interesting ones, and I'm all for this sort of discussion. ShawnWilkesBooth posted:Ghostbusters 2 is better. I see that someone enjoys the continued oppression of Ernie Hudson.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
Everything in the OP is the reason I loved this movie so much as a kid; I watched every episode of the cartoon; I bought it as soon as the 2 disk set came out; I'm going for halloween as a ghostbuster. Seriously. It is to comedy/sci-fi what Terminator 2 is to action. Perfect. echoplex posted:Haha, by all means, talk about the sequel. Plot wise I think it's creatively bankrupt, but I can't get over how shockingly ugly it is. The lighting is palid, the costumes horrendous (even by the standards of the day), and the art design (Ecto 1A, etc) are awful. All that pales against how terribly phoned in most of the performances are. The highlight of the film is the Underground Railroad Station set, which is gorgeous. I couldn't have articulated it, but I thought this also even as a kid. I think GB2 is the reason Murray wouldn't talk to Raimis until recently. Not for any specific slight, but for the overall failure of the film, which I think Bill blamed on Harold. echoplex posted:I see that someone enjoys the continued oppression of Ernie Hudson. Cinnamon Bastard fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
Ghostbusters II is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. It's just that there was no way it could live up to Ghostbusters. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:09
|
|
|
Firing up Howard Huntsberry's cover of Jackie Wilson's "Higher and Higher" in the slime-coated Statue of Liberty tops anything in either movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
Can we just make this the Movie of the Month thread? This is great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Sheldrake posted:Can we just make this the Movie of the Month thread? This is great. 2nding this motion
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
I also wanted to say how much I loved the actual busting element. The real fun of ghostbusting is that they're not so much shooting the ghosts as they are wrangling them, with proton lassos. The genius of Egon's tech is that he's able to physically grab hold of something previously intangible but the genius of the ghostbusting to capturing the audience's imagination is that it creates a physical bond between the ghost and the buster. You can relate to their troubles because of the intense physical struggle to contain what are basically wild animals, instead of something more conventional but less visceral like simply shooting at them. And with enough ammo, what won't die after shooting it enough? That's also why the busting is a great device because it means that, just like real wrangling, the danger of the enemy grows as does the size. The beams, even though super-heated, having no effect on a big pile of marshmallow isn't a plot contrivance to make the heroes have to think up some other plan. How the hell could you wrangle something so huge? Nevermind the psychokinetic energy behind it, just roasting him was not going to work. They really were hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Explain. What do you mean by oppression? Am I missing something? Well, not literal get-back-the-plantation opression, but look at it this way. GB1 plotline: No-one believes in ghosts. Ghostbusters are losers. Venkman chases Dana. Ghostbusters get thier big chance, in excellent bonding scene. Everyone loves Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters hire Winston. Police hate Ghostbusters. Big 100ft creature showdown. Ghostbusters win! GB2 plotline: No-one believes in ghosts (Somehow!?) Ghostbusters are losers. Venkman chases Dana. Ghostbusters get thier big chance, in excellent bonding scene. Everyone loves Ghostbusters. Police hate Ghostbusters. Big 100ft creature showdown. Ghostbusters win! Both films are practically identical, despite how awfully akward that makes the start of GB2. However, despite Winston being in the coutroom in GB2, when they go to have their validating/bonding scene, he disappears, and it's back to the three of them again, just like the first film. In fact Winston seems absent in a lot of GB2. I always felt Hudson got a raw deal in GB2, there was no reason for him to be cut from a big, important scene and he was about the only guy trying to act in the second film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:16
|
|
|
Tell 'im about the Twinkie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:17
|
|
|
Vigo is like seven feet tall max.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
Oh gently caress you're right. I guess I never picked up on that. Hell, they even send in Rick Moranis's character as a stand-in everyman character up at the end. Winston  I can actually remember how painfully excited I was for GB2. Then it came out and, well, it was like stockholm syndrome. I wouldn't allow myself to admit it just wasn't that great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
Ghostbusters is the reason I always wanted to visit NYC. I loved the visual look of it. I've only been once, and it was kind of spectacular. On another note, the movie is one of the, if not THE best Special Effects comedy ever made. It doesn't use the effects to say "Hey, Look, we made something cool, look!" but instead uses them to create a reality for the characters, which adds to both the connection we the audience make with them, and the humor in all the situations the characters find themselves in. If they had only done the effects to be spectacular, this movie wouldn't be nearly as loved, and as oft-quoted as it is. It's a tribute to the filmmakers that they made this movie about the story, and not the visuals, in what one can easily describe as a visual spectacle of a movie. Oh: "Mother Puss Bucket!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:21
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Oh gently caress you're right. I guess I never picked up on that. Hell, they even send in Rick Moranis's character as a stand-in everyman character up at the end. Also they run Winston over with a train.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
Well it kinda passes through him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:23
|
|
|
ShawnWilkesBooth posted:Vigo is like seven feet tall max. If that's in answer to my post about busting, I agree, and is why Viggo's death doesn't pack as much punch and ties into why the OP considers the sequel a let down. I understand that they were downplaying the proton packs in favour of the new slime gun toy, but he just falls into infinity and then explodes? And not even a big satisfying, dangerous explosion, but one seen and contained entirely within a painting? I really don't know why they didn't weaken him with the slime, as shown, and then pulled him into a trap. Hell, have Dana stomp open the trap or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
Do... Ray... Egon... WINNNNSTTTOOONNNNNN
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Tell 'im about the Twinkie.  : What about the twinkie?Ghostbusters may not be my favorite movie, it may not even be in the top 10, but I think it might just be the most quotable movie I've ever seen. And, y'see? Ernie Hudson ain't oppressed, he had some of the best lines in the entire movie! I have seen poo poo that will turn you white!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
Lobok posted:If that's in answer to my post about busting, I agree, and is why Viggo's death doesn't pack as much punch and ties into why the OP considers the sequel a let down. I understand that they were downplaying the proton packs in favour of the new slime gun toy, but he just falls into infinity and then explodes? And not even a big satisfying, dangerous explosion, but one seen and contained entirely within a painting? I really don't know why they didn't weaken him with the slime, as shown, and then pulled him into a trap. Hell, have Dana stomp open the trap or something. Nah I was joking because echo said the second movie had a one hundred foot monster. And man it's scary when Ray gets turned!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:And, y'see? Ernie Hudson ain't oppressed, he had some of the best lines in the entire movie! He also has the best line in the video game Winston: TAKE IT TO THE BRIDGE! WHOO! Ray: Did He just say...Take it to the Bridge? In terms of the movie, I could quote that fucker all day. Me and friends have gone on Ghostbusters quoting sprees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:29
|
|
|
ShawnWilkesBooth posted:Nah I was joking because echo said the second movie had a one hundred foot monster. Yeah he dies inside the painting ghost world thing. Well I kinda meant the Statue of Liberty thing. It'd been done, and better, you know? It was like the car in the second film. GOTTA BE BIGGER WOOO! The other thing I love about Ghostbusters is that I think it might be one of the last, great, good-time films. It's a family film, it's a kid's film, it's a grown-up's film. It's not dark, it's not harrowing, you can get behind it but you don't have to shut off your brain because there's loads of little touches hidden in it to amuse you and enthrall you. It's a romp, but with all the theatrical fit and finish of the big 50's studio films. Back To The Future is right alongside it, too. It feels to me like film-making for the joy of making a film, and doing everything you can to make a really great product. The Blues Brothers is very close but it's damned rough around the edges, whereas Ghostbusters is polished to absolute perfection. There is literally nothing I can find fault with. Even the music video is absurd and brilliant. It really feels these days like the innocence of "those days" of films are gone, which is really apparent in GB2 which was what, 5 years later, and it's a markedly darker film (in fact vast chunks of it take place at night if I remember right). Interestingly, Back To The Future 2 was similarly dark both in tone and content.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
Uhhh the Statue of Liberty scene is one of the greatest in film history (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6wPcHukvk&feature=related) and certainly fits in the whole I LOVE NEW YORK stuff. I hate New York, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
Interestingly, Ghostbusters was Sony's highest-grossing film ever, until beaten by its Men In Black, which has a lot of similarity to Ghostbusters. And then Men In Black was beaten out by its Spider-Man, which while not as evident on film as it is in comics, also shares a lot of similarity with the Ghostbusters (and is maybe why I love the two of them so much).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
ShawnWilkesBooth posted:Uhhh the Statue of Liberty scene is one of the greatest in film history and certainly fits in the whole I LOVE NEW YORK stuff. You Masshole. (I'm from New England too...but I cut NY some slack)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
No doubt man I get super pumped during the scene I linked even as someone who hates the city. I could watch the first thirty seconds of that as a loop for hours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Interestingly, Ghostbusters was Sony's highest-grossing film ever, until beaten by its Men In Black, which has a lot of similarity to Ghostbusters. Men In Black was the Ghostbusters 3 that Evolution never was. Evolution was trying so hard to get back into the Ghostbusters groove - downtrodden, rag-tag scientists made credible by extraordinary threat, opposed by bumbling authoritarian forces, ending up with gigantic monster and comedy vehicle - but it somehow accelerated the downward curve started with GB2. Even the Winston Oppression continues - if I remember right the black scientist guy gets his head stuck in alien anus. From this I can only conclude that Ivan Rietman hates black people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Men In Black was the Ghostbusters 3 that Evolution never was. So much so it's meta...because if memory serves the black character keeps refering to the fact that Black people get poo poo on in these kinds of movies. But to be honest, I don't remember much of Evolution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
Ghostbusters really is a great movie - entertaining and enjoyable on pretty much every level. It also makes me miss my childhood and the 80's and early 90's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:50
|
|
|
I literally watched the movies back to back every day when I was three and four.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:51
|
|
|
I am so glad for this fine OP. I have actually given official pre-film talks AND impromptu speeches to friends about Ghostbusters that focus on how being a GOOD film helps it go hand-in-hand with being a FUNNY film, and the movie holds up so well even before you consider the comedy. This talk goes over especially well when I am wearing my jumpsuit and my replica proton pack that lights up and such. You know, ALL the best high-concept comedies of the 80s would have worked as straightforward drama or adventure films. Ghostbusters... Back to the Future... Roger Rabbit... Pretend that you had never heard of this film, and then imagine someone came up to you and said, "Wanna see a movie? It's about a group of research scientists who invent ghost-fighting equipment, go into business as private paranormal investigators, and save the world from a Sumerian god and her eldritch abomination from an alternate dimension." And you'd think, well, that certainly sounds interesting. Part of this no doubt came from the unusual writing structure (Aykroyd writes a serious weirdo movie, Ramis makes it funny). But part of this is just plain smart filmmaking. Look. No one will ever accuse Ivan Reitman of being a great director. (Especially not nowadays, ha.) But he always knew how to get the best out of his actors, and he made sure "Ghostbusters" did not collapse under its own weight; how many special-effects comedies have suffered? He made the set a safe place for improvisation and kept his most impressive directing-with-a-capital-D to where it would not disturb anything else. I often think of his comedies with the Governator and think, you know, not many filmmakers could actually GET such a funny film out of, well, Ahnold. And yet said Ahnold comes off with real charm; indeed, I think he's better in the comedies than the action movies. But back to the lesser-trumpeted attributes of "Ghostbusters". What about the romance? Oh, certainly it's not the focus of the piece, but damned if there isn't something to the pairing of Murray and Weaver. To think that in a lesser film we would bemoan the tacked-on love interest for the hero; in "Ghostbusters", it comes with such easygoing wit and charm and grace that even as kids, who normally would close their eyes and retch at the ewwww-kissing scene, we are along for the ride. But I will at last address the comedy. Ever notice how the actors just throw lines away? No one stands around acting like they're funny. Even Murray the jokester is just portrayed as a naturally funny guy trying to amuse his friends rather than the joke machine awaiting your approval. In "Ghostbusters", the big overplayed jokes are saved for sight gags and wacky physical actions, and the dialogue and snappy one-liners play as smooth as nightclub jazz. My very favorite line in the film is "Sorry Venkman, I'm terrified beyond the capacity of rational thought"; that is a line spoken by a writer/actor who knew his character and had the confidence that it would be funny without any hoopla. Never before has understatement been so key to the perfection of a film ending with a giant monster exploding. I do think GB2 is underrated. Yes, the magic is gone to a certain extent, and yes, you can tell that this time there were studio demands and other such victimizations that come with success. But there's some very funny bits. It is an AVERAGE movie, to be certain, but an ENJOYABLE one. I agree that Ghostbusters II is tepidly shot (how did Michael Chapman go from shooting "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" to just giving up on life?!), but the real tragedy is in the music. Elmer Bernstein's score for GB1 will never get the attention it deserves because it got overshadowed by the theme song, but he gave it a swingin' feel of New York, of fun and danger, here an epic sweep and there a playful touch of a Woody Allenish Manhattan. Randy Edelman (ugh!) delivered a score for GB2 that is mawkish and tonally off. Listen to his love theme or his tunes for tender moments and you'd think he was scoring a family television series or maybe a movie-of-the-week about a woman coming to terms with cancer. What I would LOVE to see is this cast re-united... but NOT in a Ghostbusters movie. I hope "Ghostbusters III" never gets made. But I'd LOVE to see something of the Fish Called Wanda / Fierce Creatures dynamic, where they just bring back the PEOPLE and make something completely different. A final note about Ghostbusters, though. A coupla months ago I saw Harold Ramis speak at the Times Center here in New York. There were a cluster of folk outside after it was over, programs in hand, waiting for autographs. Every single person waiting for him was about my age (mid-twenties), and every single person wearing a t-shirt or clutching a photo from a specific film was... you guessed it. Never before have I been around so many grown men in Ghostbusters t-shirts. Hilariously, we were all each wearing a DIFFERENT Ghostbusters t-shirt. quote:Even the music video is absurd and brilliant. MILDLY FUN TRIVIA: Did you know that "Ghostbusters" was the film that made it popular and important for Big Blockbuster Movies to have a hit song and a music video? Yes sir, whether it's the Dashboard Confessional song from Spider-Man 2 or "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" from Armageddon, you can trace their existence right back to "Ghostbusters", the locomotive on the 'let's commission a pop hit and put it on MTV' train. Icon-Cat fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:55
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:So much so it's meta...because if memory serves the black character keeps refering to the fact that Black people get poo poo on in these kinds of movies. But to be honest, I don't remember much of Evolution. This is the thought process behind every decision in making Evolution: "Ghostbusters had a kooky ambulance! Well, we're gonna have a kooky fire truck! Everyone loved Venkman's dry wise-cracking! Well, this time everybody on the team's going to be dry and wise-cracking!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:I agree that Ghostbusters II is tepidly shot (how did Michael Chapman go from shooting "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" to just giving up on life?!) I've never looked up the crew for GB2 and this is a total surprise to me - I'm absolutely bowled over by that. quote:Elmer Bernstein's score for GB1 will never get the attention it deserves because it got overshadowed by the theme song, but he gave it a swingin' feel of New York, of fun and danger, here an epic sweep and there a playful touch of a Woody Allenish Manhattan. It is a great score. My favourite parts are the car at night on the bridge, that moody, laid back sexy/spooky thing going on. Actually your descriptions of it are perfect. The score goes especially well with that kind of dirty sexy thing the possessed Dana had goin' on. Even the pop songs of choice are pretty much faultless. Anyway, I want you all to look at this photo. This is a great photo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 04:06
|
|