01/24/10 - Ghost Busters

Ghost Busters (1984, 104 min)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/

I follow up my "drug trilogy" of movies with a change of pace in comedy. Ghost Busters is one of those movies that I'd always seen parts of but couldn't actually recall ever seeing the entire thing in one sitting. I was also surprised to learn the official IMDb title is Ghost Busters and not Ghostbusters. The more you know.

Ghost Busters follows a group of doctors who form a ghost catching business. The trio are originally: Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman, Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Raymond Stantz, and Harold Ramis as Dr. Egon Spendler. In their adventures they meet the lovely Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) who eventually becomes possessed along with her neighbor Louis Tully (Rick Moranis). The ghost busters also add a fourth member about halfway through the movie in Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson).

The acting here is okay. I mean, everyone performs as is expected for a comedy, not much more. Bill Murray is the headliner here and probably has the most lines and all that but he's not all that exceptional. But I'll get to why I feel this way later. Aykroyd is bland in his character but Ramis is pretty funny in his. The possessed Weaver and Moranis are good in their roles, particularly Moranis.

The problem with this movie is that it seems like it started off as something else and then eventually became the movie I saw on screen. None of the ghost busters really are developed characters except for Dr. Venkman and a little for Dr. Spengler. Dr. Stantz is all but ignored for most of the movie and fourth member of Zeddmore just seems thrown in randomly. I read that this was supposed to go to a big name actor too, but they couldn't get one to agree so they shortened the role and used it this way. It really shows, sadly. I mean, overall, I never really felt like I knew any of the characters at all. In a somewhat similar vein, the comedy is really hit or miss and felt forced to me. Some of the lines are genuinely funny (particularly those deadpanned by Murray, something he's a master at) but a large portion are just kind of "there" and don't add much.

I'm unsure how much the special effects for this movie were respected at the time but overall they hold up pretty well. Now, obviously there's some bad points here and there from being back in 1984 (notably the evil dogs) but it's all good. It's presented in such a way so that everything still works out for the best. I was actually surprised by this as I find that lots of 1980s movies are particularly dated in this regard. That's not to say the movie isn't dated though. Sadly, I don't think Ghost Busters has held up that well to the test of time. Now, the theme song (by Ray Parker, Jr.) obviously has stood the test of time, being featured on everything and one that tons of people know. And it is a good and fun theme song. But the overall movie itself doesn't really hold up like some other 1980s movie like Back to the Future maybe. This doesn't mean Ghost Busters is necessarily a bad movie - it's overall pretty good - it's just that it's beginning to show it's age sixteen years later.

Overall, I gave this film 6/10. Ghost Busters seems thrown together on many fronts and the acting is average all around. However, it is a classic for a reason. Overall, it's just fun to watch. I know I said it shows its age up there, and while it does, that doesn't mean it can't still be a fun movie. Can it be rewatched and still be good? Yeah, it sure can.

[Note: Due to a voting update, I have changed the rating of Ghost Busters to a 5/10.]