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!
Comments
Post a Comment