Ghostbusters

Year: 1984 (Original), 1989 (Sequel), 2016 (Remake)
Running time: 105 minutes (Original), 108 minutes (Sequel), 116 minutes (Remake)
Certificate: PG (Original, Sequel), 12 (Remake)
Language: English
Screenplay: Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis (Original, Sequel), Katie Dippold, Paul Feig (Remake)
Director: Ivan Reitman (Original, Sequel), Paul Feig (Remake)
Starring: Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, David Margulies, Slavitza Jovan, Peter MacNicol, Kurt Fuller, Wilhelm von Homburg, Will Deutschendorf, Hank Deutschendorf, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Neil Casey

I can’t remember exactly how old I was when I first saw Ghostbusters, but I know I was young. Embarrassingly, it scared the bejesus out of me, so I was quite a bit older when next I saw it and was able to see it for was it was – a supernatural comedy bordering on genius. Ray Stantz (Dan Ackroyd) and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are studying parapsychology at Columbia University. Also 'studying', although, perhaps simply tagging along, is Peter Venkman (Bill Murray). The three of them are trying to collect evidence of the existence of ghosts, and in an opening scene as memorable and famous as Raiders of the Lost Ark, they find just that in a New York library. Thrown out of the University, the three of them pool their (mostly Ray's) resources and go in to business as 'Ghostbusters'. After a shaky start, business begins to boom in the wake of a visit to a hotel to meet and catch a 'class 5 full roaming vapor', better known to us as Slimer.

First ghost busted, Venkman and Spengler make up the bill on the fly.

The increase in supernatural activity heralds the coming of Sumerian god of destruction Gozer (Slavitza Jovan). Gozer happens to be dropping in on the penthouse apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Dana has been in touch with the Ghostbusters to report unusual goings-on in her kitchen, with Dana eventually being possessed by Zuul, one of Gozer's minions and demi-god in her own right. The three scientists have an easy chemistry together that makes the movie great fun to watch over and over. When Ernie Hudson joins them as Winston Zeddmore (the character names are just brilliantly implausible), he adds a touch of everyman to the three super-geniuses (ok, maybe two super-geniuses and Venkman) that makes for a great comedic mix. Each of them have their moments, as do put-upon secretary Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) and Lewis Tully (Rick Moranis - a truly gifted and under-rated physical comedian), an accountant also living in Dana's building in supporting roles.

The show-stealer here is, as you might expect, Bill Murray in what is still one of his signature roles. His scenes with Sigourney Weaver are a joy to watch - they're one of those onscreen couples that have that chemistry, that spark that is a perfect fit for romantic comedy. Most of his lines are eminently quotable – the exchange with meddling EPA officer Walter Peck (William Atherton) ending with "Yes it's true; this man has no dick" being one of the first to spring to mind.

It is the 1980s, so as you’d expect the effects and the music are slightly dated, but due to the quality of the writing and the obvious care with which it’s been made, these problems are easily overcome. The writing, the quality and chemistry of the cast and the spot-on mix of comedy and supernatural adventure come together in a film that I genuinely don't think I could ever get tired of.

Experiments in mood slime.

The sequel arrived 5 years later, and while it is undeniably an attempt to pretty much rerun the original with a couple of cosmetic differences, I find it to be every bit as well written, funny and enjoyable as the original. It's unavoidable I suppose that it gets maligned by many fans due to its too-obvious similarities, but, like Gremlins 2, I'm just having too much fun to give it a hard time (the courtroom set piece after they get arrested for digging up the sidewalk is a particular highlight). All the original cast return to take on Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg) a bloodthirsty tyrannical sorcerer from the 16th Century, whose malevolent spirit resides in a painting, preparing to be reborn by possessing Dana's baby son Oscar (twins Will and Hank Deutschendorf) just in time for New Year.

It seems old Vigo is feeding off the negative energy of New York, so our heroes need to harness whatever positive energy is left to take him on. And yes, that is every bit as cheesy as it sounds, but as with the first film, there is enough talent to pull it off. So despite the critical drubbing Ghostbusters 2 got, for me they are both pretty evenly matched.

And then there is the remake. Rather than assume my childhood is ruined and take to the Internet to declare it a terrible idea, like so many other penis-having fans did ("Ain't no bitches gonna bust no ghosts" declared one online moron, a line which was actually used in the film), I waited to watch it first before forming an opinion. Although, whenever someone tries to remake a film with a place in the history of popular culture such as Ghostbusters, there always tends to be a question of 'Why?', gender politics notwithstanding - for another example, see Gus Van Sant's lamentable Psycho remake.

The talent was certainly there - Paul Feig has a decent track record, and Melissa McCarthy is undoubtedly funny. in addition, Kristen Wiig is pretty much one of the finest comedians working in film today. There are differences, but the plot generally follows a similar outline of the first two, only with new characters. All of the original cast show up in cameos at some point, save Rick Moranis and the sadly deceased Harold Ramis, which is a nice way to show the makers had the support of the people behind the first two.

2016 Ghostbusters, bustin' ghosts.

Yes, the genders of all the characters are reversed, and no, it does not make one iota of difference. I think it works having the Ghostbusters all the same gender (or at least incompatible sexual preferences), because then there is no attempt to shoehorn some unnecessary romantic subplot in, and the group can bond as a group of good friends instead. The hostile reaction to the film was way out of proportion, with Leslie Jones even getting slated for not being attractive enough for the mouth-breathing masses - I wonder if Ernie Hudson had the same problems in 1984?

So putting all that aside and considering the film on its own merits, trying not to be influenced by the franchise's beloved status, what's it like? It's ok, I suppose. It's quite funny in parts, all the cast do well in slightly underwritten parts, the standout being Kate McKinnon as the slightly wired nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and there is plenty of supernatural adventure sprinkled with jokes. But it's not great, not by a long shot. Set up to fail by a rabid mostly-male fanbase it might have been, but even were that not the case, it's hard to see this being good enough to launch an extended Ghostbusters franchise, as was the intention.

A stone-cold classic original, an under-rated, almost as good sequel, and a 'meh' remake.

Score:
Ghostbusters (1984): 9/10
Ghostbusters 2: 8/10
Ghostbusters (2016): 5/10

Going back to 1984 shows a surprisingly mixed bag of reviews for Ghostbusters, as shown by this review by Arthur at The Hollywood Reporter and this less than impressed one by Janet at The New York Times. This article by Seb at Den of Geek makes a fine case for reappraising the sequel, citing as I've done the courtroom scene, but also pointing out Harold Ramis' superb deadpan delivery. Finally, while I'm pleased the remake is reviewed better than I'd feared, I think this review by Matt at Wired is wildly over-effusive in its praise.