Ghostbusters (2016 / second-pass / 3D / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 116 mins / Dir. Paul Feig / Trailer
Okay, after watching the 2016 iteration of Ghostbusters again, I find I don't have that much to add to my first review. It's certainly not that I enjoyed the movie any less the second time around but for obvious reasons, familiarity with the story and the script takes the shine off the majority of one-liners and witticisms which made the film so pleasantly surprising on the opening night.
And if I'm being honest, re-watching the film only serves to underline a couple of gripes. While I'd remarked that the screenplay takes a while to click into gear, it turns out that precise moment is when Patty officially joins 'the gang' and the four characters start working seamlessly together, instead of slightly-unconvincingly edging around each other. The film instantly goes from not bad to great at that point, and with performers this comfortable in each other's space, that's got to come down to the writing.
And the film's bad guy, Rowan. Has he really been able to manufacture a bunch of psychic-amplifier bombs to tear a hole in reality after reading a single textbook on the paranormal (which, given its age in the movie, won't have anywhere near the level of technical or theoretical detail that the actual Ghostbusters are later using) and still harbouring an unresolved complex over being bullied when he was younger? Because that'd be bland as a plot-device alone, never mind the entire setup for the film's antagonist. Almost as insulting as the climax of the movie being resolved by the portable nuclear-reactor, Ecto-1, being driven into a dimensional-portal in order to seal it, but by Slimer, rather than any of the actual heroes, and accidentally as the heroes didn't really engineer it. Still, at least the subsequentally-destroyed Times Square is magically restored to its former state for reasons which aren't even hinted at, never mind exposited.
Seriously though, never mind all that. The film's great.
Oh, and how come Abby and Erin's hair turns white, but their eyebrows don't?
I'm just going to come out and say it: Men in Black and RIPD.
Neither are particularly great movies, but if you enjoyed them, you'll loveGhostbusters.
You should.
It does. Not always as effortlessly as it'd like, but it does.
Quite possibly
Probably not.
Didn't hear one, no.
Level 2: Well, Ed Begley Jr's in this movie, and he appeared in a couple of episodes of the TV series Outlaw along with Jimmy 'Bail Organa' Smits.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, thanks to the sterling work of Sony's marketing department, the opening-night showing of the first new Ghostbusters cinematic content in twenty seven years (for which the tickets went on sale about a month ago) was less than half full. The audience in attendance didn't seem too phased by this, but the awkward shuffling of the three fully-suited cosplayers invited by the cinema to meet-and-greet at the front of the auditorium during the pre-trailer ads spoke volumes.
Yes, we finally get to see Paul Feig's XX-chromosomed interpretation of Ghostbusters; 60% reboot, 40% flat-remake. Leaving aside the aforementioned lacklustre publicity and the ferocious number of online misogynists entitled fanboys it's attracted, the film has its work cut out long before the BBFC card. Because if you can't top everybody's favourite movie, should you even try?
Well, Ghostbusters takes about half an hour before it feels comfortable doing its own thing, and even after that it's constantly referencing beats and tropes from the 1984 original. The plot-mechanics around the increased paranormal occurrences and the central villain are sketchy at best, feeble at worst; Cameos from the legacy-cast are shoehorned in to the point where they're practically spot-lit; the pop-soundtrack is intrusive and repetitive in the number of cover-versions and remixes of the song we all know; there's a McCarthy-sized gap between some of the scripted dialogue and the improvised lines; the sequel-alarm goes off far earlier than it should, and there's a point shortly before the climax where writers Paul Feig and Katie Dippold clearly didn't know how to wrap up the neon carnage they'd created in Times Square...
Also, the film's magnificent. Quite, quite magnificent. Because everything listed above doesn't matter when you're having this much fun. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones gel perfectly, and while the screenplay is anxious to get things moving at a brisk pace, they each have a lot to bring to the party (McKinnon and Jones pretty much steal the show, in fact. As they're relatively unknown to UK audiences, it's easier to buy into their characters*1). Chris Hemsworth's good fun as the dumb-blonde receptionist, but just as it feels like that joke's wearing thin, Feig finds a way to develop his character, too (well, a little).
Even in 2D the film is visually intense and it's deafening as soon as the action starts. As noted, there's very little in the way of downtime, but the pacing is fairly constant for all that. Is it a vehicle for SNL performers to riff off each other and indulge in puerile slapstick? Absolutely, as was the 1984 flick. While the methodology is suitably different, Feig captures the tone of the first movie and builds on it with the best of his own style.
And be warned: it's a 12A in the UK so if your kids are under ten, they may get a little freaked out. Although not as freaked out as I was by the library-ghost back in the day.
That's good though, right?
Will Ghostbusters 2016 be as iconic as its 1984 counterpart? No.
Does Ghostbusters 2016need to be as iconic? Not at all.
The lightning-in-a-bottle of the original couldn't be recaptured by the same writers, director and cast five years later, so why would anyone expect a completely new gang to pull off the impossible more than quarter of a century after that?
But I'm happy to say that the new Ghostbusters is funny, exciting, gloriously self-indulgent and had everyone leaving the cinema grinning. And when it comes to a Summer-movie, I can't ask for more than that...
Depends on how/why, but I'll be happy to discuss it at length with you over a pint.
Didn't hear one, but most of the action sequences are pretty much white-noise, to be fair.
Level 2: There could well be some direct links with voice-work in various SW projects (and there are certainly a few in behind the scenes departments), but let's go for Leslie Jones who plays Patty in this, and also appeared in 1998's Wrongfully Accused, as did Michael 'Nuvo Vindi' York.
Yes, I just reminded you that Nuvo Vindi is canon, didn't I?
#NotEvenSorry
#YeaYeaYeaYeaYEAYEAYEAYEAH!
*1 Wiig and McCarthy pretty much play the versions of themselves you've seen before, and while it works for this film, you also can't help but remember all the other times they've done that.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Ghostbusters (30th Anniversary Screening)
Cert: 12A / 100 mins / Dir. Ivan Reitman
Well, it's difficult to know what to really say about Ghostbusters. My last review (ie cinema vewing) of the film was only back in 2011, and I wrote (albeit briefly) about why the film is still great a couple of weeks ago. What can I tell you? I love Ghostbusters
I love Ghostbusters even though the '4K remastered' version still goes incredibly grainy in some of the shots. I love Ghostbusters even though the claymation looks like claymation, and in an early establishing shot of the stone-Zuul looking down on the New York street, you can see the yellow lines running through his 'opaque' fang (and again later on, when the spirit-orbs are escaping from the containment facility and swooping behind buildings). I love Ghostbusters even though poor old Winston Zeddemore seems to serve little purpose other than being introduced with sparse fanfare in the second act to add (a little) diversity to the colour-palette and to be the voice of pragmatism in the company of three eccentric scientists. I love Ghostbusters even though the mini-earthquake outside the apartment building is so unfounded and non-committal in its existence that it seems like a padding device before the screenplay begrudgingly propels its heroes to the climax which, riding on the coat-tails of the awesome Mr Stay Puft, is actually just a cop-out of 'fire the guns at the portal utilising the callback we set up in the ballroom scene earlier, and then the bad guy will just disappear'.
What? I love Ghostbusters.
As a trailer for selling the film, not really. As a device for getting people back to the cinema, just maybe.
I did. Again.
Every time.
Cinema as and when you can, but this is a movie made to be watched at home with friends and drinks.
Just a touch.
I will. Again.
Y'know what? I didn't hear one.
Is it just me that still doesn't quite get the geography of Dana's flat, what with the secret door and then the exterior shot once the walls have been blown off?
It is, isn't it?
Just me.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
And so we find ourselves in the fourth-quarter of 2014. Not withstanding the feeling that time seems to be running at an alarmingly accelerated pace, another thought has been rattling around my film-obsessed brain, recently. What will be the enduring, mainstream-breakout movie of the year? What will be 2014's Timeless Classic™?
I only ask because this is quite an extraordinary year of cinematic anniversaries. Ghostbusters celebrates its 30th birthday in 2014, Pulp Fiction turns 20, and Shaun Of The Dead is the beaming 10yr old in the room. Each of these movies came seemingly out of nowhere, gained a legion of fans and instantly cemented its place as an all-time favourite. Looking further back, this canon should rightfully include 1974's The Godfather Part II, a film which also features in many, many 'Best Of' lists. But since Coppola's gem is not only based (a bit) on a novel but also a sequel to his 1972 original, its success wasn't quite as unprecedented as its stablemates, here...
I first saw Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters at Low Fell's Classic Cinema in 1984. My dad obligingly accompanied me (alright, took me) to see the film at the centre of a marketing storm, with each tie-in book, cereal box and pencil case bearing the iconic logo which has become more recognisable than even Darth Vader's glowering visage. Other than being slightly terrified by the ghost in the library, I adored every frame of the film (even if much of the dry humour went over my head at the time). With Star Wars living in stasis at that point, Ghostbusters effortlessly filled the gap for schoolyard chatter and exercise-book doodling (although the lack of action figures at the time seems odd, which only came later with merchandising for The Real Ghostbusters animated series).
Not that this was really a 'kids' film. The outlandish narrative captures the imagination of the youngsters, but for everyone else there's a very sharp comedy and action/adventure movie to enjoy.
Oh, and Sigourney Weaver. My word.
By the time Ghostbusters hit video-rental (which wasn't the three month gap it is nowadays, you young whippersnapper), it was instantly awarded the mantle of Go-to Movie for school holiday days slouching around the house, and not too much has changed. A sequel nobly tried to recapture the magic five years later (and it's a much better film than you remember), but the standalone awesomeness of the original is its greatest strength and continues to be to this day.
I'll be seeing Ghostbusters later this month at its anniversary screening.
Having not watched the already-notorious Reservoir Dogs at the time, 1994's Pulp Fiction was my introduction to Quentin Tarantino at Canterbury's ABC cinema, and is arguably his finest work. Probably the first 'film'-film I'd really appreciated, the scattershot timeline kept my brain fully active as it was bombarded with more quotable lines that I could hope to remember in one screening. Indeed, the re-watch value of Pulp Fiction is nothing short of phenomenal, and is the reason it stands head and shoulders above its countless imitators.
The kind of achingly hipster but undeniably likeable film that could only come from the mind of Tarantino, this was a breakout hit; a genre-flick that burst into the mainstream, and a 'cult' movie with a larger fanbase than many blockbusters. After three viewings during its theatrical run, this was a movie I bought the day is was released on VHS then subsequently wore out the tape and bought again (and since on DVD and BluRay, obviously).
Other than the clunkiness of the film's cellphones, Pulp Fiction is utterly timeless (especially as the phones are the only thing tying the story to any particular decade). The film came out of the blue, decided to hang around, and is still entertaining audiences twenty years later. I saw the anniversary screening of Pulp Fictionin May, and was pleased to notice that some members of the audience wouldn't even have been born in its initial outing. How's that for timeless?.
Ah Shaun, Shaun, Shaun. Coming off the back of semi-surreal TV sitcom Spaced and achieving far more than any pseudo-spinoff should be able to, Shaun Of The Dead was the surprise hit of 2004. I persuaded Mrs Blackout to come and see the film at Oxford Odeon (George Street) with the logic that while she's not a fan of horror movies, she loved Spaced and it'd be predominantly a comedy. To this day she hasn't let me forget that she spend the majority of the film hiding her face behind her hands (she really doesn't like horror).
While it's more of a cult movie than the others in this entry, Shaun's Britcom cast and exposure still meant it easily became the mainstream figurehead of the modern zombie movement (and the film is responsible for a lot of sub-standard imitators), and I have friends who love SotD that enjoy neither Spaced nor zombie flicks. Go figure.
This is another movie I bought on its day of release, and that I'm never not in the mood for watching (a feeling which ITV2 seems to have picked up on, if their scheduling is anything to go by. Although the frequency and quantity of their adverts means I always skip past it when I'm channel-hopping).
With a decade under its belt and little signs of ageing, this is a bonafide classic I'm going to be enjoying for years to come.
So, while it hasn't been by any particular design, that's the pattern. Will 2014 produce an all-time great? Has it already produced one? There have been films I've loved this year, certainly, but none which seem to fit the standard yet irregular-template of the movies listed above.
For example, I can envision me watching Guardians Of The Galaxy if/when it makes a return to cinemas, but with the Marvel machine behind it, Guardians was more of a finely-honed tactical-strike rather than a genuine surprise hit. June's Edge Of Tomorrow was the most fun I've had in the cinema for a long time, but, won't stand up to frequent repeated viewing (perhaps ironically) in the years to come.
What's needed is a flick which works on more than one level; a title that you can switch-off to when you've had a busy week, bring you up when you're down, and interest you when you're bored. A film unlike any other, which you'll happily to pay to see again in five, ten, twenty or even thirty years, despite you already owning it on two (or more) formats. And with the best will in the world, I don't think I've seen that yet in 2014.
What's made an impression on you in this year? Big or small, what's been the one movie which you couldn't have predicted, but that's already taken a special place in your memory?
If you could pre-book tickets to 2024's anniversary screening, what film would it be?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Last year it was Back To The Future, this year Jurassic Park and Ghostbusters. If I can convince Cineworld to show Weird Science and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, their education of The Kids of Today will be complete...
So yeah; Ghostbusters! At the pictures! Awesome!
It's fantastic to see this in digital projection, and for the most part, the film's been cleaned up a treat. The puppets still look fantastic, and the stop-animation still looks really clunky in places (particularly when it's intercut with the puppets, like Vinz Clortho* at Louis Tully's party), but that only really adds to the charm, for me.
There are little details you don't really see on DVD, like the Stay Puft marshmallows on the kitchen worktop when the eggs start frying themselves, and the Stay Puft billboard on the side of the building later (it really is a horrendous product placement). Also worth mentioning that Bill Murray's performance somehow comes over differently in a cinema. It's somehow much more his film when you're seeing it that big, and a lot of his deadpan lines that passed me by during home viewings are prominently on display. The downside of this, of course, is that his performance then seems whackily over-acted for the remainder of the film.
It's also bizarre to see a film where the heroes are constantly walking around smoking, apparently without a trace of irony.
ANYWAY, no matter what observations I might make, old or new, this is one of the greatest films of all time.
Oh, and Weaver's pretty damn hot in this, isn't she? O_o
*How come Vinz Clortho gets a surname, but Zuul is just 'Zuul'?
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Yeah, them Yanks are schooling us in how to engage our children in celebrating a festival of darkness, but who's to say we can't give it a bit of bulldog spirit, eh?
^^ Click for bigger (1000x1414px, 298kb)
Happy Hallowe'en, y'all!
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I first saw Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters at Low Fell's Classic Cinema in 1984. My dad obligingly accompanied me (alright, took me) to see the film at the centre of a marketing storm, with each tie-in book, cereal box and pencil case bearing the iconic logo which has become more recognisable than even Darth Vader's glowering visage. Other than being slightly terrified by the ghost in the library, I adored every frame of the film (even if much of the dry humour went over my head at the time). With Star Wars living in stasis at that point, Ghostbusters effortlessly filled the gap for schoolyard chatter and exercise-book doodling (although the lack of action figures at the time seems odd, which only came later with merchandising for The Real Ghostbusters animated series).
Having not watched the already-notorious Reservoir Dogs at the time, 1994's Pulp Fiction was my introduction to Quentin Tarantino at Canterbury's ABC cinema, and is arguably his finest work. Probably the first 'film'-film I'd really appreciated, the scattershot timeline kept my brain fully active as it was bombarded with more quotable lines that I could hope to remember in one screening. Indeed, the re-watch value of Pulp Fiction is nothing short of phenomenal, and is the reason it stands head and shoulders above its countless imitators.
Ah Shaun, Shaun, Shaun. Coming off the back of semi-surreal TV sitcom Spaced and achieving far more than any pseudo-spinoff should be able to, Shaun Of The Dead was the surprise hit of 2004. I persuaded 
