Tag: Bill Murray

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.

Pumpkin Shandy – ‘Zombieland’ & ‘Zombieland: Double Tap’ – Everybody Wants Some!

Ordinarily, I might just go see Zombieland: Double Tap, enjoy myself, and not even bother writing a review, but it seems like a lot of people, even big fans of the original movie, aren’t that motivated to see the sequel, and I want to do my part to change that (’cause it’s not like Aquaman where it’ll make a billion dollars no matter what).

I’ll keep this all relatively brief, but, first of all, seeing these two films together was the most fun I’ve had at a double feature since I saw both volumes of Kill Bill on 35mm back in May (which may not seem like a great a length of time, but I go to the movies a lot).

I’m going to go ahead and say that I did not see the original Zombieland in theaters back in the day, because I simply have no memory of going, but I know for a fact that I absolutely ate it up on video (sometimes with proper accompanying snacks for a full taste-o-vision experience), and I’m happy to say that ten years later it still holds up in a big way. Is it the absolute perfection that Shaun of the Dead is? No, but, honestly, despite the fact that they’re both funny and have zombies in them, they’re very different movies, so maybe lay off that comparison, kids.

In re-watching 2009’s Zombieland, what I love most about it is that it’s not so quippy. Like, in another universe there’s a version that’s written and directed by, say, Joss Whedon, where everybody is so clever at every moment, and I would just hate it, but the dialogue in the original is just grounded enough for it to not feel ridiculous.

Secondly, the core four of Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin (at present, all Oscar-nominated and/or winning actors) are a joy to watch in both films, but especially the first one, given that it’s almost exclusively their show for the duration. There’s a real chemistry between them and they all help sell each scene for what it needs to be.

Now, right off the bat, I’ll say that Double Tap goes a little too far in a few places, as sequels are wont to do, but it’s nothing totally unforgivable, and by-and-large the movie is more of the same in a good way (and without relying all that much on blatant callbacks and references).

One factor that immediately distinguishes it from its predecessor is the introduction of more humans (sometimes for good, sometimes not-so-much); but the standout is Zoey Deutch, whose character could easily be extremely irritating if handled just slightly differently, but her performance is so committed that you have to respect it, and, in fact, pound-for-pound she might just garner the most laughs out of anybody.

Really though, what I appreciate most about both Zombielands is that they use the apocalyptic undead to make something entertaining. I don’t care if it’s frightful or funny or both, zombies should be used for entertainment first and foremost. Not for boredom.

So yeah, if you haven’t seen Zombieland in a while (or ever), give it a re-watch, and then go see Double Tap at your local movie house.

I promise you’ll have a good time (even if you didn’t care for Ruben Fleischer’s last movie).

Ratings:
Zombieland: ★★★★½
Zombieland: Double Tap: ★★★★☆


P.S.
Bill Murray stingers. That is all.

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say?  I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed.  Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

 

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath.  What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with.  I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style.  You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does.  It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts.  Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem.  The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering).  Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Classic Movie Review – ‘Ghost Busters’ – I Believe It’s Magic

Original Release Date: June 8, 1984
Directed by Ivan Reitman
Written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis
Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, Ernie Hudson, David Margulies, Michael Ensign, Steven Tash (bit part), Timothy Carhart (bit part), Reginald VelJohnson (bit part)
Soundtrack: Elmer Bernstein

So, we’ve got a bit of a terminology problem here, don’t we?

Thanks to yet another needless remake, in the tradition of ‘Clash of the Titans‘ and ‘RoboCop‘, we now have to clarify which movie we’re talking about when we say ‘Ghostbusters’.

This appears to be an indefinite issue in terms of spoken language, but I think I’ve found a decent work-around for the written form, and that is to revert to the original title of ‘Ghost Busters’ when referring to the 1984 classic.  Don’t believe me?  Go watch it again; the title card clearly displays two words.

Now that that’s cleared up, let’s talk about one of the best films of all time (because we likely won’t ever be talking about the new one, so there).

 

“Most movies have problems unless you’re ‘Ghost Busters’ or ‘The Rocketeer’.”

This quote from Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media, though somewhat facetious, speaks directly to my heart and my mind, because it’s a true statement.

Of all the lightning ever caught in any bottles, perhaps no film in history (other than one) caught more lightning in one bottle than ‘Ghost Busters’.  The amount of zeitgeist it generated at the time and still generates to this day leads me to describe it as the ‘Star Wars‘ of comedy.  Where one wrong element could have scuttled it, everything went right for ‘Ghost Busters’: the script (after some major overhauls), the cast and their performances, the visual effects, the production design, the props, the editing, the pacing, and the music all work together in perfect harmony.

Unlike ‘Star Wars’, however, none of the major players on ‘Ghost Busters’ exactly came out of nowhere.  Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray (and Elmer Bernstein) all had a hit with ‘Stripes‘ a few years earlier; Dan Aykroyd was well-established from his SNL days, in addition to successful turns in ‘The Blues Brothers‘ and ‘Trading Places‘; and Sigourney Weaver was firmly planted in the public consciousness as “Ripley” from ‘Alien‘.  All that said, I’m not sure there was any evidence before 1984 to suggest that any of these folks could pull of something this massive, but they did.

One primary reason why ‘Ghost Busters’ works so well is that the movie is largely played straight, with the humor being dry and usually situational.  Really, the only character within the world of the film who’s saying and doing things to be funny is Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) and everyone else, even a “silly” character like Louis Tully (Rick Moranis), is meant to be serious.  This is, of course, enhanced by the fact that outside of the main cast, almost every other performer in the movie is just a regular working New York or L.A. actor; there aren’t dozens of recognizable comedians making cameos at every turn.

Another incredibly strong thread in the ‘Ghost Busters’ fabric is the world-building and the establishment of its own mythology.  The movie begins as a classic going-into-business story: our heroes start out at Columbia University, get thrown out, find money to go into business (by mortgaging one of their family homes), purchase a building and a car, hire a secretary, and put an advertisement on local television.  From there, so many wonderful details come into play to make the insanity that follows at least somewhat believable: Spates Catalog, Tobin’s Spirit Guide, “Don’t cross the streams,” Zuul, Gozer, Vinz Clortho, Ivo Shandor, Stay Puft Marshmallows, Camp Waconda; all of these are mentioned as casually as Coca-Cola or McDonalds.  The point is, they’re all real to the characters, so, in turn, they feel real for the audience.

Now, let’s get into the really fun stuff.  I suspect that even if ‘Ghost Busters’ was just average as a movie, it still would have had a fairly significant cultural impact, because proton packs, ECTO-1, ghost traps, flight suits, utility belts, Ecto Goggles, radios, and P.K.E. meters are all ridiculously awesome, and make every kid want to be a Ghostbuster.  Whoever came up with the designs for all of the costumes and props must have been some kind of genius.  I know I still wish I could be a Ghostbuster; who wouldn’t want to run around catching ghosts with an unlicensed nuclear accelerator strapped to your back?  Of course, the proton packs, along with the ghosts, are made even more amazing by the accompanying sound design and totally non-CGI visual effects (led by Richard Edlund, who worked on the original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy and ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, among other big hits).

Lastly, what helps to make ‘Ghost Busters’ both a great movie and a pop culture icon is the music.  Yes, I mean the Ray Parker, Jr. theme song, but I’m also referring to the other licensed songs (“Cleanin’ Up the Town“, “Savin’ the Day“, “Magic“) and I’m especially referring to the underappreciated Elmer Bernstein score.  Every single last musical cue in the movie is perfect in setting the tone for the scene at hand, whether light-hearted and funny, or dark and scary, or righteously triumphant.

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I think what ultimately makes ‘Ghost Busters’ so wonderful is that there was a genuine effort from those involved to make the best movie they possibly could, and all of the elements fell into place naturally, as opposed to the film being a work of corporate cynicism, trying to shove in as many items as possible to appeal to kids and sell t-shirts.  Not that there wasn’t merchandising, of course there was merchandising, but that came about because the movie was worthy of it.  ‘Ghost Busters’ is a rare film that was clearly made for adults to enjoy, but also perfectly fit into the imagination of children; off the top of my head, I can’t think of too many other examples where that’s the case, certainly not to this degree.

Anyway, I’ve gushed for long enough.  If for some reason you’ve never seen ‘Ghost Busters’ in your life, I don’t know what you’re waiting for.  Get on it!

Rating: ★★★★★