Redux: Ghostbusters II.

Redux #031: Ghostbusters II.

Cast: 

Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Peter MacNicol (Janosz Poha), Kurt Fuller (Jack Hardemeyer), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), Harris Yulin (Judge Stephen Wexler), with Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo the Carpathian [voiced by Max von Sydow]), and Janet Margolin (the Prosecutor) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters)

Review: 

"I’m really proud of the second movie — I just saw it again and I really liked it. It didn’t get particularly good reviews. It was successful, financially, but less successful than the first one. I pushed it into a much more personal story."

Look, the original Ghostbusters (1984) made oodles of money. Obviously, there was a movement to make a second movie, but timing really is everything when it comes to movies. You had to make a movie that Reitman, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Murray all wanted to do, since they were reluctant to do a second movie to begin with, although Columbia Pictures was pretty much on board. Murray had not acted in a movie for a couple years (in a starring role anyway) after the release of the movie, since he believed that the success of Ghostbusters would forever be his biggest accomplishment. Aykroyd and Ramis return to do the script, although it was the former who wrote the first draft, as was the case with the original. Aykroyd apparently wrote his initial script involving a kidnapping to Scotland with fairy rings and underground civilizations (even he would admit that it was really too far out), but the part about things happening underground was retained. It was Ramis that contributed to the idea of negative human emotions having consequences (i.e. mood slime) alongside an idea he had once had for a horror story involving an infant who suddenly woke up with adult agility and focus. While the movie took five years to finally come out, Ghostbusters did find its way onto television first with The Real Ghostbusters, which ran from 1986 to 1991 (which is why one sees a bit more Slimer, since that character was apparently a big thing on that show). Naturally, there were re-shoots. Reitman noticed when watching the test version that the last 25 minutes apparently seemed like "a horrible death". Test audiences thought that the associated elements of the slime alongside Vigo the Carpathian weren't really connected or that the conflict was, well, a conflict hard enough for the Ghostbusters. Reshoots were done to try and strengthen the climax alongside cutting certain sequences. These added scenes include: a ghost train scene that goes through Winston, a scene with severed heads, and a fire that nearly takes down two of the Ghostbusters after they try to develop photographs of Vigo. The movie was released on June 16, 1989, to moderate but not spectacular audience results; Aykroyd tried to make a script for a third movie (one idea sent them to a hellish version of Manhattan), but Murray was not particularly interested, and multiple scripts came and went before plans to just do a reboot came in 2016.

 

I'll be honest, I have only seen the movie three times (once in 2011, the other one in 2019, and today). There just has to be a reason beyond just saying "it's just not as good as the original" for this. I can't say that the movie has exactly warmed further in my heart when it comes to looking at a movie that was released on June 16, 1989 (Reitman wanted to release it on the 23rd but decided to ask for the week beforehand because a certain movie was being released that same day). You may remember that the original 1984 film was a capable comedy that just happened to have good effects and a solid cast that (pardon the cliche) had heart to its proceedings with a well-developed story. Now, one has a movie that thinks its first best conceit it to throw the Ghostbusters right in the dump and build themselves up again, especially considering the whole "we saved your sorry asses from Gozer and you just decided to sue us like a bunch of losers" that sticks in my mind. Hell, I would have gladly accepted a plot-line that sees the other looming threat to a business besides authorities: competition. Hell, forget "restraining orders" for two seconds, who wouldn't want to try and improve what had been done? But nah, let's just take the skeleton of the original and take out a few parts to reincorporate at will, right down to a scene midway through the movie that takes the jail sequence from the first one and just replaces it with a mental institution. Dennis Muren was tasked to supervise the special effects as Reitman was not particularly happy with the work of Richard Edlund's Boss Film Studios for the first film. It didn't help make the process of doing Vigo faster, since it took them months to find a design likable enough to shoot. The effects do take a bit more of the show, for better or worse. On the one hand, the 108 minutes do pass pretty well in building interest for the aspects of slime and Vigo in the slightest of creeping terror. I did roll my eyes a tad less during the Statue of Liberty sequence and I did at least think the resolution with the crowd helped contrast the fact that one has to see a floating head for the final final shot of Vigo before he hits the dust. On the other hand, it is clearly not as funny as the original in general lines because of the fact that the filmmakers wanted to soften the image of their title characters to seemingly match the cartoon series, which results in a sitcom hodgepodge that a cynic would say has "castrated" the characters; I'm not saying, "screw you, kids", I just think it is a little silly to try and balance the needs of a movie and an animated series designed for kids when just making a balanced movie is a bit less convoluted. True, Murray is still the undoubtable highlight of the movie, one that has some of the same wit and spontaneity from before, even if he finds himself paired with Weaver (and a baby, ha ha ha) just as much as with the main group (the TV show scene is probably the highlight). Weaver does fine with the material provided in warm timing. Ramis is still the same wry guy from before, which goes with the energetic Aykroyd, which generally works out for a few chuckles and exposition that varies in engagement. Hudson, the sentimental favorite in audience surrogates and underrated presences has probably the same number of things to do as compared to from before (marginal), but he carries well among the scenes he usually is part of with Ramis/Aykroyd (this is one of those movies where you only see all four of a group for select moments until the end). I did appreciate MacNicol more than I had remembered, since he plays a stooge worthy of all the chuckles in offbeat quality that makes an interesting pairing with Weaver or for the climax. It should be noted that Von Homburg (a German boxer-turned-actor with a split lip) didn't know his voice was dubbed by von Sydow (who did his stuff in a day) until the premiere of the movie - at least he looks the part in off-putting terror, and von Sydow provides the right voice for it. Fuller may be playing an imitation of William Atherton from the first movie, but he at least makes a go of it in smarmy attribution to pair against the beleaguered and sorely lacking Marguiles (of course, Yulin gets to ham up a judge for a time, so all's even). As a whole, it comes together as a weird prediction of future movie sequels/reboots of the current age that take certain aspects from the original to include references that may or may not do anything particularly new with things (kind of like Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in how each are average).

Reitman blamed the movie not being as successful on the climate of films released around the time of June 1989...such as Batman (1989), released one week after this movie; Reitman described his movie as a "friendly, more personal, sort of character-based Ghostbusters" as one that seemed like a disappointment to audiences toned to something different; of course, his movie features people being so negative that they turn New York City into a cesspool of slime along with a Rasputin pastiche getting a guy to kidnap a baby to get out of a painting and possibly become a great terror. 1989 was an interesting year for sequels: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, you get the idea. As a whole, the movie is fairly average in all the ways you never would have seen coming five years ago from a movie as beloved as the original was, one is carried heavily by effects and a little bit of cast magic that proves it is hard to capture the best essence of moviemaking twice. It is average and a disappointment, but it is far from being a complete waste not worth watching at least once, which means that Reitman and company did at least succeed somewhere down the line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters (1984).

Redux Review #026: Ghostbusters.

Cast:
Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), William Atherton (Walter Peck), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), and Slavitza Jovan (Gozer) [Paddi Edwards as the voice of Gozer] Produced and Directed by Ivan Reitman.

Background:
Review #26, December 28, 2010. Originally, I described it as "this film is a load of fun, pure and simple", while giving it a 10 out of 10 stars. The original review was less than 100 words, so I figure I owe you readers at least some statements about the movie more substantial than the old review.

Review:

"By watching Ghostbusters, there's a sense that you can control this, that you can mitigate it somehow and it doesn't have to be that frightening. It became this movie that parents liked to bring their kids to—they could appreciate it on different levels but still watch it together."

The summer of 1984 was a beautiful time, and Ghostbusters ended up being one of the biggest hits of its time when it was released on June 8, 1984, serving as the second-highest grossing movie of the year behind Beverly Hills Cop. The development of the film from its initial idea to the final result is fascinating to consider. Dan Aykroyd had a long fascination with the supernatural due to his family upbringing that spanned three generations, complete with his father writing a book detailing the history of ghosts. At any rate, Aykroyd had become notable for his writing/feature role on the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live alongside The Blues Brothers (1980), and it was around the 1980s that he had developed a script that he wanted to make into a movie with his good friend John Belushi that had them travelling through time and space fighting ghosts, but Belushi died in 1982. At any rate, Aykroyd wanted to make a movie reminiscent of the ghost movies of the 1930s and 1940s (such as The Ghost Breakers), and he approached Bill Murray (also a SNL alum) to join in with his (half-finished) script and then approached Ivan Reitman, known for Meatballs (1979) and Stripes (1981) to direct. Reitman saw the potential in a sprawling script on levels that would have required a substantially higher budget by 1984 standards (incidentally, the Marshmallow Man was included in the script), and he talked with Aykroyd about grounding the plot down in a way that made the business akin to like pest control rather than an intergalactic ghost police, with Harold Ramis (writer of Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes) being asked to co-write the script; by the time the movie was finished, it had been done on a budget of $25-30 million shot in the span of a year, complete with the help of Richard Edlund and his effects team with Boss Film Studios had to do a wide array of effects from practical to puppets in a span of ten months (it also did work on 2010: The Year We Make Contact at the same time), and some effects shots were done in one take. 

It is the PG-rated comedy that generations grew up with and cherish, what more can really be said? A bit, really. What is it about Ghostbusters that works so easily and so effectively? Is it the quick wit? Is it the way the effects and comedy mesh without overriding each other? Is it the performances? The simple answer is all of the above and more. It is obvious to note the chemistry between Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis, who exchange lines and wit together that permeate into numerous memorable scenes, with lines that are effective and still memorable even after over three decades since its release; neither actor intrudes on each other, with their characters being easily distinctive. Sure, there are other versions of these characters (the cynic, the heart, the brains, the surrogate) in other movies, but nothing makes it work so neatly and so fruitfully as this one. Stating one's favorite scenes or lines could be a marathon with films like this, but the important thing to remember is that the timing and execution is exquisite, one with offbeat charm that keeps interest high without selling anyone short or riding a joke too long in a 105-minute run-time. It goes without saying that this is Reitman's best effort as a director, showing his effectiveness in arranging actors and spectacle in a New York love-letter, and it might be a top-3 highlight for each of its main castmates, top to bottom. Murray is the deadpan highlight, one who glides through the movie with wise-ass charm that he had honed with films like Meatballs, but he does it here with no sense of repetition. Aykroyd had the knack for writing amusing situations in his days back at SNL, and he continues that stroke of energetic effectiveness that seeps into his character to useful results. Ramis and his stoic nature work exactly to perfection, just as seeped into the ghost mumbo-jumbo with conviction. Hudson (introduced 40 minutes in) is the appropriate everyman required with select amusing moments that make him just as important as the others. Weaver has the knack for comedy with charming grace and useful chemistry spent with Murray, while Atherton makes a quality foil, and Potts & Moranis make suitable pieces to end the puzzle. Elmer Bernstein's musical score proves distinctive in balancing interest in comedy alongside the mystical parts, while Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" song proves quite hard to get out of one's head, for good reason (so good that Huey Lewis sued him for plagiarism). The effects for the movie work just enough to lend credibility to what is going on around us without becoming a distraction or the entire package to focus on, since the script glides along with careful timing that develops its story gradually to go along with its gags. In short: it is one of the most entertaining movies of its era.

Of course, the film would inspire a handful of follow-up material, none quite as striking as the original but memorable. There were two animated shows with The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters alongside a direct film sequel with Ghostbusters II (1989), a "reboot" film of the same name in 2016, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021). Honestly, the best follow-up might have been Ghostbusters: The Video Game, a video game released in 2009 that saw the main quartet return to voice their characters in an action game that Aykroyd and Ramis also wrote, with the former calling it "essentially the third movie". At any rate, everyone and their mother have probably watched the film by now, but it is evident now more than ever that Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies of its time, a blockbuster for all time with success in its comedy and effects that ranks as a high mark for all involved in the best way possible.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Meatballs.

Review #1846: Meatballs.

Cast: 

Bill Murray ("Tripper" Harrison), Harvey Atkin (Morty "Mickey" Melnick), Kate Lynch (Roxanne), Russ Banham (Bobby Crockett), Kristine DeBell (A.L.), Sarah Torgov (Candace), Jack Blum ("Spaz"), Keith Knight (Larry "Fink" Finkelstein), Cindy Girling (Wendy), Todd Hoffman ("Wheels"), Margot Pinvidic (Jackie), Matt Craven ("Hardware" Renzetti), Norma Dell’Agnese (Brenda), and Chris Makepeace (Rudy Gerner) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, #487 - Twins, #1278 - Legal Eagles, and #1503 - Dave)

Review: 

Admittedly, it is the recognizable names that give the film more credit more than anything in the world. For one thing, the movie was written by Len Blum, Dan Goldberg, Janis Allen...and Harold Ramis (Blum and Goldberg, like Reitman, had gone to camp as a kid). Ramis, if you remember correctly, was one of the writers for Animal House (1978), the mega-hit gross out comedy that happened to have Ivan Reitman as co-producer (friends of good films will remember that he actually started as a producer with Shivers four years prior) because his attempts at directing were turned down because of his lack of experience. Ramis stated later that he worked on Meatballs for just a month, being recruited as a script doctor by Reitman because he had a good relationship with Bill Murray, who Reitman wanted to star in a project that he raised a million dollars to make. Of course, Murray did not commit to actually showing up on set to film until the day they started shooting. All of these factors would result in a movie that ended up being the first major box office hit from the country of Canada (with distribution by Paramount Pictures), as made by John Dunning's Cinépix (which became Lionsgate Films years later). Reitman, who had directed two previous films with Foxy Lady (1971) and Cannibal Girls (1973), would see his career change forever because of the success of the film, with Reitman, Ramis, and Murray each working with each other on several films over the next couple of years. 

You don't have to beat around the bush here with this movie, it is just an okay experience buoyed by the talent of Bill Murray. Even saying it is the second cousin of Animal House is just window dressing to the fact that it just has a moderate amount of success with basic innuendo with all the stops one expects from a season of summer. Look, I never went to summer camp, but I think one could vicariously enjoy what they see from "movie camp", so there's a point. This is the kind of movie where "It just doesn’t matter if we win or we lose” can be a mantra with wry conviction, where the result doesn't matter because the experience is what counts at the end of the day (i.e. not losing is a win). Of course, Murray is the reason anyone will watch, because this is his spotlight. The Evanston native had been featured on The National Lampoon Radio Hour (1973-74) and Saturday Night Live (1977-80). However, this was his first feature film role that saw him get bigger and better roles (going from Mr. Mike's Mondo Video (1979) to Stripes (1981), for example). His rebellious persona is the spark of life the movie needs to make it work out the right way, because he is the only one that keeps your attention with how energetic he proves in the simple art of bucking the trends of the time; as Harold Ramis once put it, he is "an outcast by choice". His detached confidence is generally paired with Makepeace, who inhabits the usual aspects of the young adult movie with adequate timing. Granted, Atkin is an okay straight man for the rest to pick on, but they just use him for sight gags with him waking up in strange places more than anything, while Lynch just plays causal partner to Murray in the bare minimum of chemistry. The others fall in line with basic descriptions that go from the nerd to the awkward kid, et cetera, et cetera; no one does terrible there, mostly because it isn't hard to play a camper when Murray is right there. As a whole, this is an average movie, filled with predictable aspects that will remind one of refrigerated comfort food: if you're into what it wants, pop it in. Reitman and Murray would cultivate better things together that would use solid craftsmanship from its director and solid rebelliousness from its star for bigger and better things. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Review #1769: Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 

Cast: 

Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Logan Kim (Podcast), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), with Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Dr. Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), and Bokeem Woodbine (Sheriff Domingo) Directed by Jason Reitman.

Review: 

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there never needed to be a follow-up movie to Ghostbusters (1984). I say this as someone who watched the original film countless times as a kid with a DVD player, of course. I am sure you all know the great success that came from that movie as a cultural phenomenon, one that sprung from Dan Aykroyd and his fascination with the paranormal (along with his interest in updating old ghost movies he saw as a kid), with Harold Ramis serving as co-writer (of course, it was really a collaborative effort between them and Bill Murray to go along with director Ivan Reitman), which I'm sure you all know featured Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Ernie Hudson as the main quartet. Ghostbusters II (1989) was made because Columbia Pictures (after a bit of stalling) really wanted to make another one, and I think we all know that it proved to be "okay", although Reitman has defended it as one that just didn't compare well to the film released six days after it in Batman (1989), which he referred to as "kind of the flavour of that year" (no, they just wanted something funny without rolling their eyes at seeing the Statue of Liberty move). The idea of trying to do a sequel to Ghostbusters II came and went for decades, with one idea sending the crew to hell; some aspects of that script would eventually be utilized for the video game that was released in 2009 that featured the main quartet, which Aykroyd has stated was "essentially the third movie". Oh, right, this isn't the first time that someone tried to make a new Ghostbusters movie, since there was a reboot in 2016. Honestly, while the polarizing reactions to the idea of rebooting the series certainly was a bit weird, I just didn't have the spark of interest to really go to that many movies in a theater back in 2016 (which I saw just thirteen new movies, as compared to nineteen the next year). At any rate, that movie also featured appearances by the original cast and had I. Reitman as producer (made on a budget of $144 million, which led to a flop; this film was made for essentially half). Well, that and it also featured at least one Ghostbuster that fit the "everyman" type, but here we are. Truthfully, I don't think it should matter which movie you see, because one is here to watch a movie about folks going around catching ghosts - anybody that likes to prioritize some sort of agenda instead of overall quality for a film should probably seek a therapist (besides, "reboot", "remake" and "re-imagining" are all just words to roll one's eyes). The film was written by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman (son of Ivan Reitman), the latter of which is known for features such as Thank You for Smoking (2005) and Juno (2007).

The funny thing is that it ends up being more interesting as a look upon a family slowly coming together again rather than its ties to Ghostbusters nostalgia. I will re-iterate that I am completely fine with the movie, but there really doesn't need to be an entire franchise of these kind of films, as the "Ghost Corps" logo at the beginning states (which was also present on the previous film). I think this is the case of trying to balance the tightrope of nostalgia: either one ends up making a movie that seems a bit too familiar to the original experience (with or without original cast-mates) or one makes a movie that doesn't quite seem interesting enough to the folks that cared about it to begin with or possibly even other folks. To me, there are probably a few too many attempts to call back to what had been done before, and yet I found the movie successful with making a useful and riveting adventure in the ultimate shape of things. If it is good enough to show the kids, you should be fine with the rest. It might run neck-and-neck with the second film in okay joke delivery, but as long as one doesn't find themselves cringing over its 125 minute run-time, you should be fine here. The tech certainly looks right when it comes to updates (such as a RC trap), so that helps. Sure, Coon and Rudd are meant to be the adult anchors of the cast, but Grace proves to be the overall highlight, one that manages to have charm and fair-enough timing to keep the film rolling in its attempt at layering itself (i.e. not simply throwing kids at the hands of effects and yelling, instead relying on a few bad jokes done on purpose that are up my alley). Wolfhard and O'Connor share a fair rapport with each other, while Kim proves useful levity as the final piece of the make-shift quartet. Coon might not have as much to really do as one might expect, but she does fine with the material, which also applies to Rudd, who brings a bit of energy when it is needed. Well, I suppose there is something to say about how they go about using Harold Ramis in CG. Maybe, but we are not even a decade removed from when Rogue One (2016) did CG to re-create Peter Cushing and use a sound-alike for scenes, so I throw up my hands and say, "interpret for yourself." If I am not thinking "would the family be fine with this?", then it is fine with me. It delivers a sendoff to Ramis without turning maudlin. At any rate, the main cast has a few lines that prove alright for what is needed, in the sense that this isn't too much of a "paycheck role" or "oh dear God, what happened?", one to enjoy seeing old faces at least one more time; sure, Murray is always the main curiosity, but it was definitely just as interesting to see Potts and Hudson again (particularly with the latter, the most underrated actor of those two films). Honestly, I would hope that any future Ghostbusters film of any kind would find time to create a new threat to deal with, if only because two of the four feature films (and the video game!) have now had the same kind of threat for its climax. That isn't to say I did not enjoy the climax as a whole (because, hey, it is worth it), but there surely should be something out there with ghoulish curiosity worth looking into next time pertaining to running a business with un-licensed nuclear accelerators and ever-growing traps. If relying on the familiar is a crime, the film certainly would fall guilty of it, but it at least looks like it is having fun doing so without becoming a shell of what it means to make a useful family adventure worth watching.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Little Shop of Horrors.

Review #1482: Little Shop of Horrors.

Cast:
Rick Moranis (Seymour Krelborn), Ellen Greene (Audrey), Vincent Gardenia (Mr. Mushnik), Steve Martin (Orin Scrivello, DDS), Levi Stubbs (Audrey II), Tichina Arnold, Michelle Weeks, and Tisha Campbell (Crystal, Ronette, and Chiffon), Jim Belushi (Patrick Martin), John Candy (Wink Wilkinson), Christopher Guest (The First Customer), and Bill Murray (Arthur Denton) Directed by Frank Oz (#521 - The Muppets Take Manhattan, #795 - Bowfinger, and #1468 - The Dark Crystal)

Review: 
"I'm not making art, I think that's too highfalutin'. I'm just doing my best. Someone else can tell me whether it's art or not. In the meantime, I just want everyone else to enjoy it."

Most directors usually don't have puppetry to go alongside their talents, but Frank Oz is a good example of both. He started with apprentice work in Oakland, California with the Vagabond Puppets before he soon met Jim Henson that led to a decades-long collaboration on several projects, with plenty to note of his work with the Muppets, such as Sesame Street, where he served as puppeteer and voice for numerous roles such as Bert and Cookie Monster when the show started in 1969, serving on the show for over three decades. While he kept busy with puppeteering and voice work, he gradually shifted focus onto directing (being inspired by Orson Welles' Touch of Evil) where he debuted with co-director Henson in The Dark Crystal (1982).

The film is adapted from the musical of the same name, which was first performed in 1982 with music by Alan Menken and lyrics/book by Howard Ashman that was loosely adapted from The Little Shop of Horrors (1960). If you are making a remake of something, you better make sure it is better than the original material. The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) was made incredibly fast with an interesting killer plant and good dark humor to make a solid little piece in the lineup of Roger Corman. When it comes to a film like this, what we have here is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I do admire the effort it took to create Audrey II as a presence to admire in its craftsmanship and some of the acting really does generate some laughs. On the other hand, the film simply drones in its first half with a pace kneecapped by its staging of songs that are never as catchy as they think they are, a film that thinks it needs a Greek chorus type of trio when what it really needs is to just take a breath and shut up. Feed the plant, feed the dialogue, but please don't feed me another conversation turning into a song: be seen, not heard. Moranis does a fine job with what he has to go with, warm and completely holding a well-lit candle to Jonathan Haze from yesteryear. Greene (reprising the role done on Off-Broadway) doesn't have as much to go on, seeming to grasp too hard to really make me care for her high-pitched and passive character beyond what you see on the surface. Gardenia is nice in brimming coarseness, even with a segmented role. Stubbs, a Motown singer with The Four Tops making his one film voice appearance, is a delight. He reaches the soul of a carnivorous plant with conviction that extends to the one key song highlight, "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space". When it comes to the rest, Martin and Murray really nearly steal the whole show away, even if they are making small appearances, but the sequence at the dentist's office, with a comedic show of a sadistic dentist with glee in Martin and a glutton-for-dental-punishment in the bright Murray. Candy and Guest are fine in one-scene appearances.

Look, there are fifteen musical numbers in this 94 minute film. One might think this might be a silly statement, but jeez is that too many to listen to. On a lark, I looked up a random musical and saw how many number there were in say, Gigi (1958) - that had fourteen, and it didn't feel as ridiculously overdrawn as this seems at times. There exists two versions of the film, differing on the ending. Keep in mind, the musical ended on a downbeat note, so the film ending on something similiar seems fair: we are talking about a plant that actually springs for domination of the whole Earth and eats everybody. How could you not resist that? Preview screening audiences did not see it that way, however, and it led to a re-shot happier ending. Personally, I find it more amusing to have a darker ending, since it wasn't like the original film was that happy anyway, and I admire the idea of subverting the expectation that these two normal loonies will live on to greener pastures after escaping a plant that ate people they knew.. But there's the rub: this just doesn't reach the heights of the earlier film. It has mostly better acting than before and a more developed plant, but it is just an average film with pretty window dressing that sings to you - if you buy into it, all power to you. It is meant to be fun and offbeat, but all I can feel is a loose jangling that only just reaches interesting moments when it is about that massive puppet in Audrey II - the cheesy stuff nearly chokes itself blue in self awareness that modern films would probably bow down to. By goodness, you have to really go for the throat in dark comedy to really make me believe this needed to exist, and all they did was make a passable effort. What is different between this and The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)? At least this isn't so incessant about singing and degenerate actions while working on some way as horror. On the whole, this is an adequate showcase in some of its comedy alongside a showcase for its puppetry that will likely serve itself well to singalongs or some sort of enjoyment - I may not have had as much as I thought I would, but it still wins out anyway.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Monuments Men.

Review #851: The Monuments Men.

Cast:
George Clooney (Lt. Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (Lt. James Granger), Bill Murray (Sgt. Richard Campbell), John Goodman (Sgt. Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (2nd Lt. Jean-Claude Clermont), Bob Balaban (Pvt. Preston Savitz), Hugh Bonneville (2nd Lt. Donald Jeffries), Cate Blanchett (Claire Simone), Serge Hazanavicius (René Armand), Sam Hazeldine (Colonel Langton), and Dimitri Leonidas (Pvt. Sam Epstein) Directed by George Clooney.

Review:
Don't worry, the next review will be something in horror. This one just happened to come up.
It's clear that Clooney (who also wrote and produced the movie along with Grant Heslov) wanted to make a good movie about a real life event (while based on the book "The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History" by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter), with a fairly established cast and a fair budget of $70 million. The end result however comes off as just an average kind of production that really seems lacking in its own kind of personality. The light-hearted barbs throughout the movie are good, but there really isn't much to these characters that you wouldn't see in any other corny kind of work. It's not so much that these characters are uninteresting, it's that the actors (such as Murray) can only stretch it as far as the script wants them to go (with the set up for these characters also being a problem). Clooney is vaguely there as a main character, with only the end scene being noteworthy, in showing some sort of emotion. Damon is only interesting when paired with Blanchett, but it doesn't go anywhere unexpected. Murray and Balaban are fine, but I still wish there was something to the background of even just one of these characters. Even taking into account some of the historical quibbles, it's not really anything that entirely special. The movie is just a bit under two hours, but it feels so long to the point where I was wondering when it actually will get to to some sort of action. It's not that the movie would've been better with more war action, it's that the movie takes its time to actually get to searching for the art. While I admit that I didn't hate the experience of watching it, I kept feeling that reading a book or documentary based on the real life Monuments Men would've been a bit more substantial. The movie does have wonderful scenery, but it is wasted in a movie that really seems to go nowhere other than just through some vague sort of motions. If you're looking for a movie to watch late at night to sleep on or watching it for an Art class (like I did), I suppose it could work on some level for you, but you might be better off researching the subject matter instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lost in Translation.

Review #700: Lost in Translation.

Cast
Bill Murray (Bob Harris), Scarlett Johansson (Charlotte), Giovanni Ribisi (John), Anna Faris (Kelly), Fumihiro Hayashi (Charlie Brown), and François Du Bois (the Pianist) Directed by Sofia Coppola.

Review
Well, what can I say. I had wanted to review this movie ever since I had acquired it a few months ago. I waited for the best time to review a movie such as this, and after nearly five years, it seems that the movie I delve into movies, the more they start to run with each other. But when it comes to this movie, nothing is as it seems. I came into watching the movies without much knowledge on it, and needless to say I like it. A lot. Bill Murray and his way of emotion and just all around portrayal is the main attraction, and he is wonderful to watch, especially when he tries to film a commercial in the beginning of the movie, because you get to see Murray try and look like Humphrey Bogar from Casablanca...while selling you whiskey. But what really makes the movie is the chemistry between Murray and Johansson, whose interactions with each other and how they correspond with the culture around make for an interesting take on meeting someone, anyone, in a new land. It's a movie that has more beneath the surface than just a comedy-drama, it's a movie that is literally lost in translation, and I enjoyed watching it. One might wonder how it ends. It ends with words, just words. What words he says are up to your interpretation.

Thank you for watching over the past five seasons and (now) 700 reviews. I hope you keep reading the movie reviews and I wish you all good luck. See you all soon.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Garfield: The Movie.

Review #689: Garfield: The Movie.

Cast
Bill Murray (Garfield), Breckin Meyer (Jon Arbuckle), Jennifer Love Hewitt (Dr. Liz Wilson), Stephen Tobolowsky (Happy Chapman), Nick Cannon (Louis), and Alan Cumming (Persnikitty) Directed by Peter Hewitt (#022 - Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey and #287 - The Borrowers)

Review
A movie based off a long running comic strip? What could go wrong? And...nothing really goes wrong, but nothing goes right either.  Garfield the comic strip is a best a mild read better suited for a Sunday read when nothing good is on but you're out of books (someone who is out of books to read? What is this, 1995?) Turning it into a movie may not be the best use of resources, and the movie proves just that. The main reason that the movie falls short is that it doesn't have much to offer and manages to be just as breeze worthy like the comic. Murray is not a bad Garfield, but when your main voice actor is only in this because he thought the movie was written by a Coen brother and confused them with Joel Cohen, that's saying something beneath the surface. The rest of the characters are more or less forgettable, with Meyer and Hewitt's characters being more standard "lovey-dovy" cliche than actual full fledged people. Actually, their characterization is more 2-D than 3-D, so props for making them comic-like? And our villain? The only notable thing he does is that he intends to use a shock collar on Odie. I realize that sounds weird to list that, but other than that, he is standard stuff, though at least Tobolowsky tries his best to make him sound interesting. The movie could be better for younger audiences, though it wears itself out after a while. Overall, the movie isn't inherently terrible, it's just not anything special. It can't even qualify as a terrible movie, it just reigns as a middle of the road movie. I'd stick to the comic...or reading the parody web comic Garfield Minus Garfield.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Groundhog Day.

Review #342: Groundhog Day.

Cast
Bill Murray (Phil Connors), Andie MacDowell (Rita), Chris Elliott (Larry), Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson), Brian Doyle-Murray (Buster Green), and Rick Ducommun (Gus) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000) and #208 - Caddyshack)

Review
It figures that Groundhog Day is upon us, a day described by the main character as "A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. What a hype.", so why not review a film with the same title? So how is it? Pretty good. Once again, I'm reviewing something with Bill Murray involved (Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Scrooged, Tootsie, Caddyshack, Stripes, Space Jam), and he once again does a good job, always seeming to have some good wry humor, which helps the film in more ways than one. MacDowell does a fine job, better than the last time I reviewed her (#307 - Hudson Hawk), and the rest of the cast do good, keeping the level of humor high. But its main benefit is its story, which manages to be original and straight forward. It is well made and it is especially telling in how life sometimes seem to resemble a rerun over and over for unknown reasons, kind of like these reviews. On a day where a rat tells us it might be early spring, this film celebrates 20 years, and I celebrate that it manages to stay original after those years. Happy Groundhog Day, everyone.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Stripes.

Review #243: Stripes.

Cast
Bill Murray (Pvt. John Winger), Harold Ramis (Pvt. Russell Ziskey), Warren Oates (Sergeant First Class Hulka), P. J. Soles (MP Stella Hansen), Sean Young (MP Louise Cooper), John Candy (Pvt. Dewey "Ox" Oxberger), John Larroquette (Captain Stillman), John Voldstad (Stillman's Aide), John Diehl (Pvt. Cruiser), Lance LeGault (Colonel Glass), Conrad Dunn (Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Soyer)Judge Reinhold (Pvt. Elmo Blum), andJoe Flaherty (Border Guard) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters and #031 -Ghostbusters II).

Review
This is the third film I've watched of Ivan Reitman, and the first not named Ghostbusters. And the film works out, for the most part. Murray does a good job, along with Ramis and Candy, who steals the show. The film can turn from funny to serious whenever it can, having alright direction. The film has aged alright for 1981, having weirdness, a bit of charm, and some fun all in all. That's the fact, Jack. Countdown to 250: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Space Jam.

Review #235: Space Jam.

Cast
Michael Jordan, Wayne Knight, with Billy West (Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd), Dee Bradley Baker (Daffy Duck and Tasmanian Devil), Danny DeVito (Mister Swackhammer), Bob Bergen (Porky Pig, Tweety and Marvin the Martian), Bill Farmer (Sylvester, Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn), June Foray (Granny), Kath Soucie (Lola Bunny), and Bill Murray. Directed by Joe Pytka.

Review
It has been a long time since I've mentioned Looney Tunes (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action), but here I am. This was the first theatrical Looney Tunes film, released 6 years before Back in Action. In a weird way, this is a surreal experience. Try saying this sentence "Michael Jordan tries to act in a film with Looney Tunes characters" without thinking "What the heck are you talking about?" Needless to say, the film does have its moments and its odd bits, but it is mildly entertaining to say nonetheless. While Jordan isn't exactly acting (He acts more confused and bewildered, though that may have been the point), the film at least tries to do something with its time to assure that this is not just Michael Jordan: Ego Trip. And with that, that's all folks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Caddyshack.

Review #208: Caddyshack.

Cast
Chevy Chase (Ty Webb), Rodney Dangerfield (Al Czervik), Ted Knight (Judge Elihu Smails), Michael O'Keefe (Danny Noonan), Bill Murray (Carl Spackler), Sarah Holcomb (Maggie O'Hooligan), Scott Colomby (Tony D'Annunzio), Cindy Morgan (Lacey Underall), Dan Resin (Dr. Beeper), and Henry Wilcoxon (Bishop Fred Pickering) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled)

Review
Oh gee, an old review that likely needs updating. 2012 me needed a bit more improvement from 2018 me.

Happy...August everyone. Anyway, after 32 years, this film still holds up as a classic. The acting is decent, with Murray stealing the show (who I have covered before: Ghostbusters - #026, Ghostbusters II - #031, Scrooged - #075, Tootsie - #084). The film has some good lines, which are still being repeated to this day. There are some crude gags and there are good gags as well. I hadn't reviewed a golf film until today (could be worse, I could be watching Dorf on Golf). The film is still memorable to this day, gophers and all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Tootsie.

Review #084: Tootsie.

Cast
Dustin Hoffman (Michael Dorsey / Dorothy Michaels / Emily Kimberly / Edward Kimberly), Jessica Lange (Julie Nichols / Nurse Charles), Teri Garr (Sandra "Sandy" Lester), Dabney Coleman (Ron Carlisle, The Soap Opera Director), Bill Murray (Jeff Slater, Michael's Room-Mate), Charles Durning (Leslie "Les" Nichols, Julie's Father), Sydney Pollack (George Fields, Michael's Talent Agent), George Gaynes (John Van-Horn / Dr. Medford Brewster), Geena Davis (April Page), Doris Belack (Rita Marshall), Lynne Thigpen (Jo), and Estelle Getty (The Middle Aged Woman) Directed by Sidney Pollack.

Review
This is one of those classic comedies that always leaves a imprint on you, if not a memory of it. This was my first time watching it, and I feel the film works well. The acting is good, so good for Jessica Lange that she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, actually the whole thing got Oscar Nominations all aroung the board, winning just one. The film is balenced as it is a good film to watch all around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scrooged.

Review #075: Scrooged.

Cast
Bill Murray (Francis Xavier "Frank" Cross), Karen Allen (Claire Phillips), John Forsythe (Lew Hayward), John Glover (Brice Cummings), Alfre Woodard (Grace Cooley), Bobcat Goldthwait (Eliot Loudermilk), David Johansen (the Ghost of Christmas Past), Carol Kane (the Ghost of Christmas Present), Robert Mitchum (Preston Rhinelander), Nicholas Phillips (Calvin Cooley), and Michael J. Pollard (Herman) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
This film is a humorous take on the classic Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. It is a decent flick that makes sure that it doesn't do bad in its job. Murray does a good preformance. This film isn't exactly a good film in the sense that it doesn't really do much other then what it's supposed to do (It decides to pick this theme rather then another), but it at least tried to be entertaining, and while it may not have been as funny as it could've been, it at least tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.