In Defense of: ‘Ghostbusters Ⅱ’

Original Release Date: June 16, 1989

Directed by Ivan Reitman
Written by Harold Ramis & Dan Aykroyd
Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Peter MacNicol, Harris Yulin, David Margulies, Kurt Fuller, Janet Margolin, Wilhelm von Homburg, Mary Ellen Trainor, Jason Reitman, Aaron Lustig, Richard Foronjy, George P. Wilbur, Walter Flanagan, Bobby Brown, Christopher Neame, Cheech Marin, Brian Doyle-Murray, Ben Stein, Philip Baker Hall, Kevin Dunn, Max von Sydow, Chloe Webb
Soundtrack: Randy Edelman

As I look at my calendar, I see that if not for corona we’d have another Ghost Busters movie to see this weekend.

Will it be good? Will it be another crushing disappointment? Who knows?

But, since we won’t know either way for quite some time, I figure now would be an appropriate time to revisit the original sequel to 1984’s Ghost Busters, that of course being 1989’s Ghostbusters II.

I will concede right off the bat that the biggest weakness of this movie is the biggest weakness of many a sequel: the plot is awfully similar to the first one. The chess board is the same, the moves are the same, it’s just some of the pieces that are a little different.

However, there is plenty to appreciate in its own right.

The first act in particular is a lot of fun, in no small part because we get to spend time with the characters in different and uniquely entertaining ways than the previous movie, since they’re not really Ghost Busters anymore. After the courtroom scene though, things start to get stale, because we’ve kind of seen it all before.

However, even in the highly reminiscent busting montage, there are some cool bits, like the dark grey suits (that I wish we saw more of), the Central Park jogger ghost, and whatever the heck is happening in that china shop.

It may be an obvious, if not lazy choice, but I appreciate that the movie remains deeply entrenched in New York. No doubt the interiors were shot in Los Angeles, like the previous one, but I love the little touches like Ray’s book shop on St. Mark’s Place, and the literal deep cut of featuring the pneumaic transit system in the main plot.

Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the absolute best new addition: Dr. Janosz Poha.

He may serve the same story function as Rick Moranis’s Louis Tully in the previous movie (just more knowingly nefarious), but the way Peter MacNichol throws himself into the role is downright admirable. It’s one of the best performances in either of the films.

Also, I know it’s nowhere near the genius level of Elmer Bernstein’s score from the first movie, but I actually enjoy what Randy Edelman brings to the table. Ghostbusters II has a slightly different tone than its predecessor and I think his music reflects that.

Lastly, I’d like to address an oft-repeated criticism of this film.

I frequently hear people say in reference to Ghostbusters II that “Bill Murray phoned in his performance.”

Now, I don’t know the man, so I don’t know for sure, but I hypothesize that this belief is borne out of thirty years of seeing this movie on television, because when I saw it on the big screen I didn’t get the impression that he was checked out. I think his character is attempting to mature from his frat boy ways, and his performance falls in line.

In short, Ghostbusters II may not elevate the material a la Empire Strikes Back or be nearly as quotable as its predecessor (although I think it might technically be the better looking one of the two), but in a world of terrible sequels, remakes, etc., it manages to be entertaining enough on its own.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)


P.S.
In ordinary times, I go by the firehouse fairly often.

Quick Thoughts – November Round-Up, Part 1

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)

It seems like every major holiday gets plenty of love from the motion picture industry, except Thanksgiving.

I mean, other than Blood Rage (aka Nightmare at Shadow Woods), that fake [TOTALLY NSFW] trailer from Grindhouse, and Prisoners, I can’t think of a single other movie that takes place around the true American holiday.  And that’s not to say that this movie even is a Thanksgiving movie, because it’s really more about one man’s quest to get home for the holiday (and the traveling partner he happens to get stuck with).

I’m going to guess that Planes, Trains & Automobiles doesn’t hold up for everyone, but it still works for me, and if you’ve ever had a nightmare travelling experience, I’m guessing it’ll work for you, too.  Somewhere, perhaps rotting away in a vault, is a two hour cut of this film that I’d love to see (you can tell because the trailer has a ton of stuff that’s not in the final cut), but the version we have available is a nice, tight ninety-minute comedy that never overstays its welcome, no matter how much our two leads get on each others’ nerves.

I know it’s cliche because I overuse it myself, but they don’t make movies like this much anymore.  The comedy genre, not unlike horror, has been largely relegated to the discount bin, only being made if the studio can do it on the cheap.  In contrast, this movie has scope, and a budget to back it up.  After all, no airline, railroad, or rental car company would lend their likeness only to be depicted as incompetent, so the production had to essentially create their own.

But, hey, comedy comes down to comedy, right?  Fortunately, John Candy and Steve Martin are at peak performance with their respective shticks (an over-talker for Candy and a curmudgeon for Martin), but they’re also both adept at keeping things real when the moment calls for it.

This is a very good comedy film (particularly one that doesn’t involve science fiction or supernatural elements) from a decade that’s chock full of good to great ones.  It may leave you with more questions than answers (like, who is Del Griffith, really?), but I suppose it’s more about the journey than the destination.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

I remember watching this on Netflix a while back and thinking it was just okay, but upon further review (perhaps having my expectations more properly calibrated), Assault on Precinct 13 is a pretty good little movie.

Taking huge inspiration from the Howard Hawks-directed, John Wayne-starring siege westerns (Rio Bravo, El Dorado, and Rio Lobo) and upgrading the setting to modern day (as of 1976) Los Angeles, 13 is the tale of a ragtag group consisting of a CHP lieutenant, a pair of secretaries, and a few prisoners, trapped inside a nearly-closed police station and fighting for survival against a seemingly endless storm of gang members bent on revenge.

It’s not a perfect movie, but I give it ample credit for squeezing as much out of its low budget as it possibly could have (especially that wonderful synth score), and there’s one scene in particular, love it or hate it, that few would dare to even try these days.

The action might be a bit clunky (although there is That One wonderful shot), but the tension is expertly built, and the characters are interesting enough to get you through.  Even without much star power at work, I give Assault on Precinct 13 a solid recommendation (you know, just don’t expect Commando).

Rating: ★★★½

All the President’s Men (1976)

People will probably try to discredit me for saying this, but All the President’s Men doesn’t hold up that well.

Yes, it’s an important story in American history, and, yes, it demonstrates the value of a free and unfettered press, but, if you weren’t alive and conscious at the time of Watergate, there’s a lot you might miss.

I’m going to compare this movie to a similar one made nearly four decades later, that being Spotlight.  Now, I admit, I may be generationally biased here, but, the way I see it, Spotlight assumes you don’t know anything about the story, so, as it plays out, things that are significant feel significant because the movie has explained why they are significant.  All the President’s Men doesn’t necessarily play out like this, so, if you don’t know certain names, places, or abbreviations, things could fly right over your head without you even knowing.

However, the film does boast an impressive cast, Robert Redford in particular is wonderfully subtle, and, like Spotlight, the cinematography is probably underrated (lots of split diopter shots, which I’m always a fan of).

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Misery (1990)

Like All the President’s Men, Misery is a William Goldman screenplay adapted from an existing book.

Unlike All the President’s Men, nothing in Misery ever happened (that we know of).

I’ve said this before in relation to Coming to America, but everybody involved with Misery was firing on all cylinders.  Rob Reiner was coming off of directing When Harry Met Sally, William Goldman’s previous screenplay was The Princess Bride (also directed by Reiner), James Caan gives a magnificent performance in something of a comeback role, and Kathy Bates skyrocketed into the public eye with her Oscar-winning portrayal of Annie Wilkes; not to mention Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen doing top-notch character work.  Also, this was cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld’s last movie as a director of photography before moving to the big director’s chair, and it’s some of his finest work; mostly claustrophobic (it’s of little surprise that Misery was recently adapted for the stage, given the mostly limited setting), but also panoramic when called for.

Many great thrillers are dark comedies at heart (Hitchcock knew this well, and the Coens are still doing it), and this one is no exception.  As horrifying as things become, there’s usually a spoonful of sugar mixed in to keep things from veering into complete, well, misery territory.

Given the hit-or-miss nature of Stephen King film adaptations, Misery is clearly among the best (and Reiner hit paydirt twice, also directing Stand By Me).

It’s a work of art, plain and simple.

Rating: ★★★★½

The Paper (1994)

Ron Howard has made so many movies and worked with so many people that you probably don’t even know (or realize) half the stuff he’s directed.

The Paper likely falls into that category.

Howard’s filmography is largely dominated by Tom Hanks, but before they made their big Splash together (Oh, no.  Am I turning into Gene Shalit?), there was another comedic actor who helped put “Ron Howard: Director” on the map, that being Michael Keaton (in another little movie you might not know called Night Shift).

I’m going to call The Paper a “Kitchen Sink Dramedy” because, while the movie clearly has a sense of humor, there are so many dramatic elements thrown in that I couldn’t possibly list them all here (just to name a few: job interview, cancer, wrongful arrest).  And, if all that wasn’t enough, everything takes place in a 24-hour period (like After Hours but with an actual point, I think).

And it’s not just the script that’s fully loaded, as the cast list is long and distinguished (including Jason Robards as a newspaper executive…sounds familiar), with a heavy mix of established stars, “that guy” actors, and now notable people in before-they-were famous roles (not to mention one shot that’s literally just a wall of cameos).  An ensemble if there ever was one.

The Paper is far from a perfect film, and I imagine it would be a bit too cornball for some to handle (frankly, the movie is achingly Nineties), but I recommend it, especially for those curious about the business of newspapers (it has a reputation among journalists of being true to life despite its over-the-top nature).

Rating: ★★★½