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.

The Ice Harvest.

Review #1616: The Ice Harvest.

Cast: 

John Cusack (Charlie Arglist), Billy Bob Thornton (Vic Cavanaugh), Connie Nielsen (Renata Crest), Randy Quaid (Bill Guerrard), Oliver Platt (Pete Van Heuten), Mike Starr (Roy Gelles), Ned Bellamy (Sidney), T.J. Jagodowski (Officer Tyler), and David Pasquesi (Councilman Williams) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled (2000), #208 - Caddyshack, #342 - Groundhog Day, and #804 - National Lampoon's Vacation)

Review: 

"This movie is about people who've lost any sense of meaning in their lives."

One wonders where the time goes when it comes to films that can be defined by one word: "should". But why don't we do a few pleasantries first, since this does fall somewhat into the yuletide spirit (a sort of alternative to the alternative of films set on Christmas Eve), and it can be said that there are some promising names involved. This was the tenth of eleven films directed by Harold Ramis, although it is one of four that he did not also write the script for, with writers Richard Russo (a fellow novelist in his own right) and Robert Benton responsible for the script (they had worked together previously on Twilight seven years prior, since Benton directed that film alongside adapting one of Russo's books into a film). They wrote the film as an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Scott Philips, which was written in 2000 as his first work (incidentally, the Wichita native had done a brief spell as a screenwriter), which he thought was unfilmable (he ended up liking the adaptation, so that is one relief). A book review from the New York Times had attracted Benton and Russo to doing a script, and Ramis eventually was brought in to do a film made with cheaper budgeting than usual for director and stars for Focus Features (who greenlighted it after six weeks for $14 million). There were a few differences made from novel to screen, such as the time (originally 1979) and the dynamic between Cusack and Platt's character (which went from brother-in-laws to friends who each were married to the same person).

So yes, there is that magic word that goes for this film. It should be better, honestly. Namely, it should be funnier, but if that option seems a bit locked out, then one should hope for a darker movie instead. This was the only film Ramis did that resembled a film noir, and it sure is a shame to see those results play out here. Simply put, it is a shaggy dog noir that seems to parade itself for 89 minutes with pacing equivalent to a fish in a tiny glass bowl. Dissapointment has never tasted so cold, particularly because one should know better when it comes to making an interesting experience with a cast like this. The performances are here and there, fleeting in those moments of actual, meaningful, useful, time to highlight. Cusack does fine in digging through the molasses, one who mixes smarm with dogged hope in the face of seedier folks around him. In other words, he comes off fine being the most likable one of the group. Thornton comes and goes with a lead heart towards scuzziness that seems to merit more interest, as if somehow he seems more interesting to see in the seen/unseen aspects of below-the-belt demeanor. Nielsen is okay, but one doesn't really seem grabbed by her as any sort of fatale presence, where one feels that they are instead waiting for the train to come in instead, as if vacancy is the one thing needed in a quasi-noir. Platt turns out to have the most presence in the film (obvious when playing a drunk), but while he is amusing in parts, one tunes him out gradually in the same way they might do if having to see an intoxicated fellow around them for nearly an hour. Of course there is Quaid, who in theory could have an interesting performance in booming presence....he doesn't show up until the last twenty minutes, and one wishes for something more from seeing him in one room and just that. Starr and Bellamy do fine in those small parts of amusement (with the former relegated to mostly voice duty, such as a bit when trapped in a box), so there is that for a positive, in the sense that mediocrity doesn't strike in every aspect of the movie. As a whole, it is an okay movie that should know better, one that seems vacant in either comic or dark aspirations, a movie that will come and go for 89 minutes with the bare minimum in shaggy dog ambition that is more bland than bleak to really be interesting to talk about beyond just the simple word of "should" to describe it. In other words, it should be more interesting, it should have a better pace, it should be anything else than it ultimately turns out to be, and it should be recommended for those who have an average streak with talented folks that should do better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

National Lampoon's Vacation.

Review #804: National Lampoon's Vacation.

Cast
Chevy Chase (Clark Griswold), Beverly D'Angelo (Ellen Griswold), Imogene Coca (Aunt Edna), Anthony Michael Hall (Russell "Rusty" Griswold), Dana Barron (Audrey Griswold), Randy Quaid (Cousin Eddie), Christie Brinkley (Girl in Red Ferrari), John Candy (Russ Lasky), Eddie Bracken (Roy Walley), Brian Doyle-Murray (Kamp Komfort Clerk), Miriam Flynn (Cousin Catherine), James Keach (Motorcycle Cop), and Eugene Levy (Ed) Directed by Harold Ramis (#138 - Bedazzled, #208 - Caddyshack, and #342 - Groundhog Day)

Review
[Skip to the second paragraph if you don't want to read a recollection of the past]
It has been a while since the last Lampoon film I watched (#771 - National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation), so I figured that this would fit with summer coming right up. From personal experience, I remember when me and my dad decided to drive all the way to Oregon years back (and vice versa). I was 14, but even with the problems that occurred (spark plugs problems, having to drive right straight through California* because we drove too far to the left in Arizona), it was still fun, if not with a few hurdles.

With this movie, I can relate to the frustrations of trying to have some fun on a vacation, but I also can have some laughs, which is what helps the movie, alongside a wonderful cast. Chase and D'Angelo have great chemistry along with good timing, coming off as natural, if not beleaguered. Chase does a great job selling this character, who clearly wants to have fun with his family, and it is fun (if not odd) to watch him gradually get more and more frustrated. It's an episodic kind of movie, expressed through their stops to different towns from St. Louis to Coolidge to (somewhere in) Arizona, all with a Wagon Queen Family Truckster, which is a great ugly car, complete with four headlights and wood paneling that would make a lumberjack blush. The music selection (Holiday Road, Blitzkrieg Bop) are also pretty good, fitting the movie well. Hall and Barron are also pretty good, making perfect examples of kids on a road trip, a weird road trip at least. The rest of the cast are also pretty memorable, such as Quaid and his bumpkin of a character that certainly endears to people who get to deal with at least one quirky relative every so often. There's a certain charm this movie has in that one can relate to (and giggle) with the experience in the movie, such as when they finally reach their destination, Walley World. Not to spoil much, but let's just say that it serves as a fine climax, complete with John Candy being added to the fray. For anybody looking for a vacation movie with all the stops of fun (and misery), I'd check this one out.

*Note: Nothing against California, which actually was pretty decent, if not a big state to go through. My highlight? Getting to drink Mr. Pibb for the first time. Hey, I was 14, give me a break.

Overall, I give it 9 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: 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: Bedazzled (2000)

Review #138: Bedazzled.

Cast
Brendan Fraser (Elliot Richards / Jefe / "Mary" / Abraham Lincoln), Elizabeth Hurley (The Devil), Frances O'Connor (Alison Gardner / Nicole Delarusso), Orlando Jones (Daniel / Dan / Danny / Esteban / Beach Jock / Lamar Garrett / Dr. Ngegitigegitibaba), Paul Adelstein (Bob / Roberto / Beach Jock / Bob Bob), Toby Huss (Jerry / Alejandro / Beach Jock / Jerry Turner / Lance), Miriam Shor (Carol / Penthouse Hostess), Gabriel Casseus (Elliot's Cellmate), and Brian Doyle-Murray (Priest) Directed by Harold Ramis.

Review
I think this is the first time I've reviewed a remake of a film directly after I just reviewed the original film. Anyway, they both share the same title, but are they the same in quality? In a word, no. This film's flaw is that it relies on its jokes often and feels smug with them, like it automatically thinks it is funny. With the original, it made you think (A rarity in comedies) This doesn't. It tries to be good, but it just doesn't work. The acting's fine, but if I had to choose who's better with acting, the original wins. Cook is the better Devil because he's just so dang fun as the Devil while doing all these things. Hurley while being fun and evil as well just doesn't feel the same. Fraser is decent, doing what he does. Overall, this is a film that doesn't really feel like a remake. It just feels typical all in all.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.