“Ghost-busters!!!!”
*cue catchy theme song*
Despite hearing a lot about the franchise over the years, it took me a long time to get around to seeing any of it. This lasted up until around several years ago, when the 2016 reboot was on the horizon. In preparation for this, I rented the original two films from my local library and watched them at home.
Ironically, once the reboot did arrive, I didn’t end up seeing it. I definitely heard a lot of things about that one too, some of them good, and many of them bad. While I have always been a firm believer in the idea that people shouldn’t buy too much into media and fan hype, and that they should just go and make up their own minds about whether is something is good or bad, at the same time I think I was somewhat put off by all the buzz and controversy, and so I opted to pass on the reboot. Or at the very least, I filed it under, “Maybe I’ll get around to it someday, some other time.”
And that was it for me and Ghostbusters for a while. Up until I just happened to see the trailer for the then-upcoming Ghostbusters: Afterlife, when it hit me very suddenly that it would in fact be fun to watch through the whole series. So again I set out to watch all the movies. I rented the first two from my local library to see them again and refresh them in my memory, and likewise rented the 2016 film too, and then soon after I saw Afterlife once it arrived in theaters. Let’s dive in!
[Side note: I labeled this post as a ‘First impression review’, but that only applies to the 2016 film (and to Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which I’ll be reviewing separately), as the first two films I’ve seen twice now.]
Ghostbusters
Released: 1984
When I went into this for the first time, I recognized a few of the actors; Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, and William Atherton. The rest of the cast, meanwhile, was completely new to me. But regardless, the film is immediately charming and engaging. I can see why it was as popular as it was, and why it was successful enough to kickstart a franchise.
There’s lots of great humour, but the horror is effective too. There’s enough frightening moments that it wouldn’t have been hard to rewrite this into a straight-up horror movie, although ultimately it works well with a comfortable blend of horror and comedy. It’s an accessible movie too; it’s easy to get into and appreciate, and it’s something both kids and adults could enjoy.
The Ghostbusters themselves – Peter, Ray, Egon, Winston – are an entertaining and quirky group. But my favourite character might actually be Louis, the nerdy guy who has a crush on Dana. He’s awkward, yet endearing too, and you feel kind of sorry for him.
Then there’s Walter Peck. He’s a total jerk, but he’s a fun jerk. One of the most memorable scenes is when he (over)confidently storms into the Ghostbusters headquarters with a police officer and an electrician in tow and demands that the ominous-looking machinery in the basement be powered down; an example of the movie’s great and witty writing:
Walter (to the electrician): “Shut it off!”
Peter: “Don’t shut it off! I’m warning you.”
Electrician: “Um… I-I’ve never seen anything like this before. I don’t know…”
Walter: “I’m not interested in your opinion. Just shut it off.”
(Peter steps in the electrician’s way)
Peter: “My friend, don’t be a jerk.”
Officer (to Peter): “Step aside!”
Walter: “If he does that again, you can shoot him.”
Officer: “You do your job, pencilneck! Don’t tell me how to do mine!”
Peter: “Thank you, officer.”
Walter: “Shut it off!!!”
And then, unsurprisingly, Walter inadvertently causes all the ghosts to be released, unleashing terror and mayhem all across New York City, which of course he still blames the Ghostbusters for. Which likewise makes it all the more satisfying at the end when he gets splattered with a bunch of hot marshmallow goop.
Also love when Louis is getting chased by the demonic dog. “I’m gonna bring this up at the next tenants’ meeting; there’s not supposed to be any pets in the building.” And then when he’s cornered: “Nice doggie! Cute little pooch! Maybe I got a Milk-Bone!”
Perhaps my only complaint is that the villain, Gozer, is underdeveloped (which, sadly, would be a bit of an issue with the next two films as well). Gozer definitely has a cool and intimidating design, and is interesting based on what we do see, but it still left me wanting to know more about them. I also wish Winston had been introduced sooner. Since he only joins the team partway in, he doesn’t get as much focus as the rest of the Ghostbusters.
But overall, it’s a run ride and a good time.
Rating: 8/10
Ghostbusters II
Released: 1989
This was quite a divisive sequel back in the day, but has been re-evaluated more favourably in recent years. No doubt it helps that it has the distinction of being the last film where we had all of the original Ghostbusters team still together, a distinction it didn’t have back in the day when people didn’t know if it would in fact be our last time with the original crew, as there was a lot of talk about a potential upcoming third movie.
Despite the more positive impressions people have had in retrospect, I’m in agreement with some of the mixed/negative opinions. I didn’t really like this movie. My first complaint comes right at the beginning, where we find out that the Ghostbusters have inexplicably been discredited and are down on their luck, despite having previously saved New York City and countless lives with it. There was no reason the movie needed to begin like this. Wouldn’t it have been more enjoyable if we got to see the team still managing their now-successful business? It also would’ve meant that the real plot with Vigo could’ve started sooner, as we wouldn’t have needed to see the Ghostbusters back at square one and having to rebuild themselves.
Ghostbusters II has a very similar vibe to the first movie. And yet, for some reason, it just isn’t as funny or charming or energetic as the first movie. The jokes just aren’t as good. Which is strange considering that both movies had the same creative hands behind them. But the second is missing that little something extra that the first had. In particular, the scenes between Peter and Dana were charming in the first, but in the second their dynamic grows tedious.
And on that note, Janosz Poha, the museum curator, is really annoying.
Those grievances aside, I appreciate how this film brings back the same main cast as the first. Walter Peck is the only notable omission. I would’ve enjoyed seeing him again. Although we are introduced to a new character here, Jack Hardemeyer, who plays a similar role.
As for the rest of the crew, Peter may have gotten on my nerves a couple times, but Dana and the other Ghostbusters are still great. Louis becoming a Ghostbuster himself at the climax is also a great moment (even if, sadly, nothing further comes from it since we never see him again after this). Also during the climax, the team taking control of the Statue of Liberty to fight Vigo is a fun moment too.
It’s by no means a terrible or disastrous movie. There are some memorable highlights. Mainly all the spooky supernatural stuff, such as Vigo’s creepy painting, and the mood slime is a cool concept. And especially when the Ghostbusters are navigating through the dark, abandoned, haunted subway; probably my favourite part of the whole movie. I noted for the first movie that the horror moments are effective, and that is one aspect which thankfully does carry over into the sequel.
I still recommend the movie, as it does have a lot of defenders. And, again, I’ve always been a strong believer of “go see it yourself and make up your own mind.” It just didn’t land for me personally.
Rating: 4/10
Ghostbusters
(aka. Ghostbusters: Answer the Call)
Released: 2016
I have mixed feelings regarding the creation of this film. I do like the idea of having an all-female team. The original team was all-male after all, so it seems only fair to have a team of gals too. Also how the formerly-female secretary is now a dude, which is just funny to me for some reason.
What I am not such a fan of was the decision to do this as a reboot. And yet… at the same time, I can see why they rebooted it. When you break it down, the reboot decision is in fact quite understandable. For one thing, there was Bill Murray’s long-standing reluctance to do a third movie, and a general inability to get a third movie off the ground for so many years. There was also the sad occasion of Harold Ramis passing away, making it impossible to do another movie with the full original team still intact. The at-the-time lukewarm reception to Ghostbusters II may also have dampened some of the excitement for a proper third movie.
So all of that combined, and I do get their reasoning for wanting to reboot the franchise. I don’t agree with the reasoning, but I can understand it. I am generally not a huge fan of reboots as it is. Sometimes they are justified, but more often than not, I prefer it when a series or franchise maintains continuity with past installments instead of hitting the reset button. In this case, I simply don’t feel that this needed to be a reboot. It just didn’t feel necessary to me. Even if Bill Murray didn’t want to do a proper sequel, and Harold Ramis was no longer with us, surely they could’ve still gotten all or most of the other characters back? And it was clear that, even if it took an absurdly long time, they still wanted to make another Ghostbusters movie anyway, so why not make it as a distant sequel to the first two films while still introducing the new team? Albeit that is exactly what they ended up doing for Ghostbusters: Afterlife, so in the long run it wasn’t a huge loss that they didn’t do that here.
But anyway, all of that aside, how did I feel about the film in itself?
Well, I enjoyed it more than Ghostbusters II. This one had more zing and energy to it, and in this one I actually did laugh at several moments. My biggest complaint is that the majority of the supporting cast consists of a bunch of jerks and/or idiots.
Perhaps it was the intent to make the supporting cast so antagonistic, so as to make you root for the Ghostbusters team that much more and to make their eventual victory that much more triumphant. And you do root for them. The Busters are all likeable and entertaining, and they play off each other well. I’d even go so far as to say that they’re as enjoyable as the original Ghostbusters team. But sadly, they’re probably the only likeable characters in the movie. Even Kevin the secretary; Chris Hemsworth does a bang-up job playing him, but the character himself is annoying. Why did they have to make him, well, such an idiot?
Granted, the first two movies had antagonistic characters too, such as Walter Peck and Jack Hardemeyer, but overall there was much more of a balance. I still cared about some of the non-Ghostbuster characters, such as Dana and Louis and Janine. But here in the 2016 film, I only liked the Ghostbusters themselves, while the entire world around them seemed either grossly incompetent, or out to belittle and antagonize them for no reason. It gave parts of the film a strangely mean-spirited vibe despite it otherwise being a fun comedy.
The parts with Bill Murray’s character in particular had a venomous quality to them. And then he… gets abruptly killed… which felt so weird and unnecessary. A cameo from Bill Murray, especially here, should’ve been fun! Instead I felt more irritated than anything after watching that part.
And speaking of that, several of the cast members from the first two films have cameos here. On paper this was a fine idea. It just wasn’t executed that well. While it is fun to spot all the familiar faces whenever they pop up, it only reinforces my sentiment that the film should have maintained some continuity with the first two. It felt odd to bring back several of the old cast, only to have them play completely new characters. Why not bring them back and have them cameo as their original characters?
I did enjoy the movie in spite of that. It did not deserve the sheer level of hatred it received at the time of its release. I just think they should’ve made the supporting characters more likeable, kept it in continuity with the previous films, and maybe some other tweaks to the script, and this could’ve been a really solid movie. It’s thankfully not a boring movie either. It just doesn’t have the same refined charm of the original.
One last thing I wanted to mention is the post-credits scene. I didn’t even know ahead of time that there was a post-credits scene, nor would I have expected one in a Ghostbusters movie, but I guess it’s a common enough trend now after Marvel made it popular. It’s a brief but intriguing sequel hook tease where “Zuul” is mentioned. Ironically despite my complaints above about this being a reboot, suddenly it made me kinda wish we’d gotten a follow-up to this movie after all, as I would’ve been curious to see their reimagining of Zuul. I am happy they went with Afterlife instead, but still, the Zuul sequel tease did pique my interest.
Rating: 6/10
See here for my Ghostbusters: Afterlife review.