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.

Dave.

Review #1503: Dave.

Cast:
Kevin Kline (Dave Kovic/President Bill Mitchell), Sigourney Weaver (Ellen Mitchell), Frank Langella (Bob Alexander), Kevin Dunn (Alan Reed), Ving Rhames (Duane Stevensen), Ben Kingsley (Vice President Gary Nance), Charles Grodin (Murray Blum), Faith Prince (Alice), and Laura Linney (Randi) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, #487 - Twins, and #1278 - Legal Eagles)

Review: 

"Your job is not to make things funny. Your job is to tell the truth on a daily basis."

When the right director and stars are at hand, one could do something really interesting. Ivan Reitman had already cultivated a career for himself in directing/producing since the 1970s (after attending McMaster University for music while making short films and being hired and fired from CITY-TV in Toronto). He started directing features with Foxy Lady (1971) while also serving as producer for film such as Shivers (1975), but his first true successes came through the hands of soon-to-be comedian stars: Animal House (1978), featuring a variety of stars (which Reitman co-produced with Matty Simmons) was a major hit, while Meatballs (1979), featuring Bill Murray in the first of four collaborations with Reitman, proved to be one of the most successful films ever done in Canada. Reitman has directed seventeen films while continuing to serve as producer for a variety of films (such as serving as co-producer for this film with Lauren Shuler Donner who liked the concept provided by campaign worker-turned-screenwriter Gary Ross), and he became interested in doing this film through Warren Beatty, who was first thought for the lead role before eventually bowing out. The choice for stage and film star Kevin Kline as the star nearly fell through as well because Kline thought that Reitman wanted a performance similar to his acclaimed performance from A Fish Called Wanda (1988), although he soon grew to like the idea of the film as a "very delicate sort of romantic comedy."

The film certainly has a feeling of familiarity, such as Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) in its tone, or perhaps The Magnificent Fraud (1939) and Moon over Parador (1988), which both dealt with a look-alike becoming president of a country. It certainly helps in a film that is fairly light on its feet in trying to make a charming little film work piece by piece in clever amusement for a serious subject, a guy pretending to be President of the United States, the most prominent person in this great country. With different hands or a different set of actors not as talented as these prove to be, one could have had just a silly film and nothing else, but with Retiman, Kline, Weaver, and Langella at their places on and behind the camera, one can't go wrong here. Kline proves a wise leading man in balance, capable of stepping into any moment required of him without any kind of hesitation in timing or composition, sifting through scenes as an impersonator-in-chief with honesty that resonates in all the right ways needed, and his brief double act is fairly amusing to view. Weaver follows along with respective timing and grace that makes for a fine pairing with Kline (such as an improvised song on the street, for example). Langella proves a worthy foil to Kline, one that nibbles on the scenery with careful amusement in polished arrogance that fits within the confines needed in cynicism. Dunn and Rhames prove efficient support, while Kingsley and Grodin are neat in small moments (the sequence with the latter involving looking over the budget is a good indicator of that), and the cameos involving a mix of television and politicians lend a small hand to helping the film breeze through 110 minutes well. On the whole, there is a good sense of everyman warmth through its direction and script that hits most of its marks in a careful subtle way that make it a reliable comedy for its time that still works out now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Legal Eagles.

Review #1278: Legal Eagles.

Cast: 
Robert Redford (Tom Logan), Debra Winger (Laura Kelly), Daryl Hannah (Chelsea Deardon), Brian Dennehy (Cavanaugh/Joe Brock), Terence Stamp (Victor Taft), Steven Hill (Bower), Christine Baranski (Carol Freeman), Roscoe Lee Browne (Judge Dawkins), David Clennon (Blanchard), John McMartin (Forrester), Robert Curtis Brown (Roger), Grant Heslov (Usher), Sara Botsford (Barbara), and Jennifer Dundas (Jennifer Logan) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, #243 - Stripes, and #487 - Twins)

Review: 
It doesn't take too much time to think that this film could seem interesting. The original idea was to make a buddy film involving Bill Murray and Dustin Hoffman, but when those plans fell apart, Redford expressed interest in doing a romantic comedy, which inspired changes to a dynamic reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy films. The screenplay and story were done by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr, with Reitman contributing to the latter. In a sense, this film is a romance. Of course it also happens to have a sense of comedy, thriller, and courtroom drama packed into its two hour duration, which turns out to be a most unwieldy combination. It certainly seems too packed in to really make the impact it wants to make, which results in a thoroughly average film. It complicates itself too much without really getting a feel for the simple things that can make a film tick: just having fun. One instead sees something that is bound to certain excesses (namely its budget of $40 million) and not working as great whenever it tries shifting gears between rom-com and thriller. There either seems to be too many characters or not enough that actually seems worthy enough to invest in. At least the performances are fine to watch, with Redford and Winder coming out the best, since they at least seem like they are having some sort of chemistry together, whether when trapped in buddy scenarios like an exploding warehouse or some other odd scenario, like Redford and his character that likes to tap dance when unable to sleep (gee, where do you think they'll go with that quirk). Hannah and her performance artist-turned-accused robber/murderer does okay, giving off a laugh or two, but she seems stretched pretty thin in actually making her presence really count, odd but harmless. When she actually does try to romance Redford and his character, I'm just twiddling my thumbs more than anything. Dennehy does just fine, snide yet worth seeing. The other members of the cast don't have as much to really do, seemingly there just to fill time and plot, which is a shame. How does one make a buddy movie with lawyers seem so awkward? One cannot help but wonder if this film needed more or less re-working to really hit its mark (it most certainly needed a trimming down). Actually, there exists an alternate version in which Hannah's character is found to be guilty of one of the murders. I guess that could've proved interesting, though I wonder if that version had more focus. The film just comes and goes, whether in the courtroom or somewhere else. At least one might get some sort of enjoyment over spectacle for the film, what with a climax involving a burning building and all, but its setup doesn't really leave much to give investment over. Their fates never seem to be hanging too much in the balance, and guessing who the real culprit is gets to be pretty easy when the others start dying off. It just seems like a movie too safe to either be really funny or usefully dramatic, trying to get its hand in many genre jars and getting only crumbs in return. It's a bland movie, but at least one could probably come out of it without groaning too much for two hours. I can't call it a winner, but it could probably work as a lark if faced with nothing else to do.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Twins.

Review #487: Twins.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Julius Benedict), Danny DeVito (Vincent Benedict), Kelly Preston (Marnie Mason), Chloe Webb (Linda Mason), Bonnie Bartlett (Mary Ann Benedict), David Caruso (Al Greco), Trey Wilson (Beetroot McKinley), Marvin J. McIntyre (McKinley's man), Marshall Bell (Mr. Webster), and Tony Jay (Professor Werner) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters, #031 - Ghostbusters II, and #243 - Stripes)

Review
I'm sure this idea seemed great at the writers' room, but the film itself is only okay at best. Schwarzenegger is effectively, even if he is playing a naive twin...who can certainly pull one, if not two punches. Danny DeVito is alright, and while the two doesn't always pair off each other particularly well, they at least make an effort. The film sometimes is funny, but other times it feels like just a film without a purpose, first it wants to be a drama about genetics, then it wants to be a comedy, this film cant decide on what it wants to be any more then a kid on what sport to play, so it's a mismatch of ideas. At least Kelly Preston is good, and has good chemistry with Schwarzenegger, more then Webb and DeVito, but that's just me. There's this other part involving delivering a car part or something, which almost comes out of left field, but other then that, Reitman either couldn't make the idea really funny, or he just gave up. But hey, it's not like they're trying to make a sequel 25 years later or something...Oh, right, they are. It is about as likely as the chance of Ghostbusters 3 ever coming in my lifetime, but oh well.

Overall, I give it 6 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.