SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS

GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

THROWBACK THURSDAY REVIEW

Greetings, loyal fans! And welcome to another Throwback Thursday review. In celebration of the new Ghostbusters film hitting U.S. theaters tomorrow, I have decided to dedicate my TT review to the original 1984 classic that started it all!

First things first: premise (as if you guys don’t already know). Three New York-based parapsychologists Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) encounter a genuine ghost at the New York Public Library. After getting fired from their jobs at Columbia University, they are inspired to start up their own ghost-hunting business out of an abandoned firehouse. They adopt the mantle of “Ghostbusters” and become an international sensation, eventually hiring a fourth member, Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) to keep up with demand. But the Ghostbusters face their biggest challenge yet when a client (Sigourney Weaver) is haunted by a demon demigod called Zuul, who is a servant of Gozer the Gozerian, a god of destruction. It’s up to the Ghostbusters to stop Gozer and save the world from destruction of biblical proportions, death, and worst of all….dogs and cats living together! GASP!!!!

Oh, boy. What can I say about this film that hasn’t been said before? I think something I should mention is my evolving thoughts on this movie. When I first saw it, I was a little let down that it wasn’t “slap-your-knees” hilarious. But then, I realized something: the movie isn’t really TRYING to be funny. It just sort of…is. Unlike a lot of comedies that come out today, the film’s comedy isn’t reliant on over-the-top deliveries or gross-out scenarios, but rather the interaction of the characters. And that’s why Ghostbusters works so well; the characters are great.

Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler are probably some of the funniest characters in a film that I’ve seen in a while. What sets them apart, even today, is the fact that they’re all nerds. It’s not like one is a hunk, the other is a complete loser, and the third is just mediocre. They’re all sort of social outcasts, but they each vary in their characteristics. Venkman is a total sexual predator (to the point where it almost got a little uncomfortable), Stantz is very excited about his work, and Spengler is…the nerdiest of them all. And Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis all do a great job of portraying these guys.

I haven’t talked much about Ernie Hudson’s character, Winston, because he doesn’t really feature in the film until about fifteen minutes in. But, after a bit of thought, his character is a lot deeper than I realized. First off, he’s more of the straight man in the group, and straight men in comedies usually serve as audience surrogates because they mirror our reactions to these wacky scenarios. The second thing about him is that he’s just a normal guy; he’s not the token, smooth-talking, loud-screaming black guy that a lot of comedy filmmakers use. He’s just a normal guy. And for 1984, that was actually a fairly progressive move.

Even the side characters in this film are memorable. Rick Moranis is great as the nerdy little accountant who’s trying to compete with Bill Murray over Sigourney Weaver’s affections. The hotel manager played by Michael Ensign is the right amount of over-the-top proper, Annie Potts is funny as the no-nonsense receptionist, and the list goes on. But my favorite out of all these side characters is Walter Peck, the EPA lawyer. I am a big fan of jerks in comedies who can have the piss taken out of them by the main characters. And William Atherton does a great job at portraying this slimy, unlikable character.

Something else I want to talk about is the music. And I’m not just talking about that catchy theme song (though, that’s pretty awesome, too). I’m talking about the orchestral score by Elmer Bernstein. The film’s score made great use of a French instrument known as the “ondes Martenot”, which is basically a keyboard version of the Theremin (which was used by the Beach Boys for their song “Good Vibrations”).  The use of this instrument goes a long way in helping to create the film’s eerie atmosphere. But the score is also not entirely electronic; it also has cues of traditional orchestral music as well, which also help to create the atmosphere.

As for drawbacks, I honestly cannot think of anything that is severely wrong with this film. The only thing I can really think of is Sigourney Weaver’s character, who really only serves to be the girl that Venkman tries to get and the body which Zuul possesses. However, I’m sure if I watched the film more and thought over it, I’d probably find more depth to her character.  Either way, the original Ghostbusters is as good as everyone says it is. It’s funny, it’s entertaining, almost every line of dialogue is quotable, and the effects aren’t even half bad. I would recommend that you watch it, but judging by its popularity, you probably already have watched it. So, just go watch it again. I know I will!

And that is my opinion on the original 1984 classic. Will the new one rise to the challenge or pale in comparison? Find out on Saturday when I post my review for the new Ghostbusters film!