Columbia Pictures released Ghostbusters on 8 June 1984.
The film is iconic. But that’s not how I remember it. I saw it when it first came out — maybe on opening night. And I remember it being a big hit. But it wasn’t like Star Wars. And after a month or so, no one talked about it. It was only after a couple of decades that I started hearing people gush about it. And nothing seemed to propel it into iconic status like the release of the female-cast remake for ridiculous reasons I don’t want to discuss.
My initial reaction to the film was lukewarm. I thought it was funny enough. But I considered Dragnet notably better. So I decided to watch it again to see if I might like it more now. I found it a painful experience. Some of the special effects look pretty good — especially for the time. But the lesser effects are very weak.
But it was clear why I didn’t connect with the film: Bill Murray. Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s a fine actor. But I hate his lovable rogue routine. He pretty much destroys Stripes too. But it is worse with Ghostbusters. It is focused on his character. And it isn’t clear what he even does in the group. He knowns nothing. He treats everyone in the group badly. And he’s a sexual predator who is given absolutely no redemption arc.
So I can see why I didn’t connect with the film when I was 20. Today, I’m much more open to stories about horrible people. The problem with Ghostbusters is that it expects me to like him. The film sets up a revenge narrative with no payoff: Here’s a horrible guy! Let’s watch everything go right with him.
There are, of course, many things that I didn’t notice at the time. The reactionary politics went right past me. (I don’t think the writers, Aykroyd and Ramis, were reactionary. I think the politics just come from lazy writing.)
Additionally, I didn’t notice that the plot is a mess. The film sets up lots of threads that never pay off. And it features long stretches without any jokes. And the jokes that are there mostly fail, but I’ll admit they worked better four decades ago.
It’s fine to like the film. I find it odd that it is so iconic when it doesn’t deliver any more than the average films of this gang at that time. And I have a feeling that most people remember the film more positively than they would if they actually watched it again.
With that in mind, have at it!
Other 8 June Anniversaries
Filmmakers
- Ernest B Schoedsack (1893-1979): Co-director and producer of The Most Dangerous Game and King Kong.
- John W Campbell (1910-1971): Science fiction writer known for the novel Who Goes There? It was the basis for The Thing From Another World and The Thing.
- Myron Healey (1923-2005): Actor known for The Unearthly and The Incredible Melting Man.
- Bernie Casey (1939-2017): Actor known for Cleopatra Jones and Dr Black, Mr Hyde.
- Griffin Dunne (1955-): Actor known for After Hours and director known for Practical Magic.
- Keenen Ivory Wayans (1958-): Well known comedic actor who also directed a number of interesting films including I’m Gonna Git You Sucka and Scary Movie.
Films
- Gremlins (1984): Cute creatures turn evil when rules are broken. Another iconic film I find kind of boring.
- Swordfish (2001): Terrorists (who think they are anti-terrorists) make a hacker help them steal money. Notable opportunity to see Halle Berry’s boobs.
- Countess Dracula’s Orgy of Blood (2004): Sexy vampires. This is written and directed by Donald F Glut who wrote two essential books about Frankenstein on film.
- Prometheus (2012): Alien begins.
- Hereditary (2018): Witches need to find a host for a demon king.
Ghostbusters (1984) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
_theatrical_poster.png){kind=link}
80s nostalgia baffles me. (Is Turner & Hooch next?) It’s natural for people to be nostalgic over things they loved as a kid/teen; but most 80s nostalgia buffs were a little too young to experience 80s music/movies as they came out. It’s mostly people in their 40s now.
Maybe part of it is feeling like the 80s must have been more “fun” than the 90s. Instead of depressing Nirvana songs and dark movies like Trainspotting being all the rage, the 80s were Michael Jackson and Ghostbusters and Top Gun. Maybe some 90s teens wish they’d been 80s teens, instead.
Well, I was born in 1972, and lemme tell you, I hated Michael Jackson and Ghostbusters and Top Gun when they were new. I hated how everybody thought they were great, and I was picked on because I wasn’t into them. That stuff felt like pandering to the popular people, the ones who wanted dreck.
For people who were actual teens during the 80s, it was an era where conformity ruled and misfits were hated. It SUCKED. I’m over it now and it doesn’t sting anymore, but the 80s SUCKED.
You’re spot-on with how annoying Murray is in this. And the (possibly accidental) pseudo-libertarian garbage of the plot. (It was just something going around, at the time, it’s possible Ackroyd/Ramis didn’t think about it much.) Also: Ivan Reitman just sucked as a director. A total hack. He would have fit in well in the old studio system days, cranking out three movies a year and taking every memo from Sam Goldwyn or Louis B. Mayer as Holy Writ.
I kinda remember getting a kick out of Peter MacNichol’s goofy accent in the sequel.
And I was really surprised to rewatch The Sugarland Express and see that William Atherton was actually a damn good actor. That’s a very flawed movie, but he’s terrific in it. He’s the guy who plays the insufferable EPA administrator in Ghostbusters and the insufferable reporter in Die Hard. Well, that’s called Acting. In Sugarland, he’s the heart & soul of the movie, and you feel enormously sad about his situation.
A guy who could play really memorable stock baddies AND play a hugely sympathetic desperate character! That’s a talented actor for sure.
I haven’t seen Sugarland but I will now! I feel sorry for film actors. They are so often saddled with criticism for things they have no control over. Having watched a ton of low-budget films, I’ve seen that “bad” acting is usually more just “acting with really bad dialogue.” Frankly, screenwriters don’t get nearly as much shit as they should!
I wonder about the effect of Gamergate on opinions of Ghostbusters. I only learned that the film had become a classic when the woman-only version came out. The army of conservative critics (who came out of Gamergate) pounced on the film the moment the trailer came out. And it was clear that the problem wasn’t the movie itself but the simple fact that it had girls in it. I thought it was quite good — at least for that kind of film. It certainly was funnier than I remembered the original being. And that’s not surprising given the talent of the actors. You can’t say as much for the original cast. Dan Aykroyd is very talented but also very limited. He was perfect for SNL. Dragnet works because he does one very specific bit throughout the film. Harold Ramis is a talented director and sometimes writer. But he should never have been allowed in front of a camera — at least in a comedy. And I’ve already discussed Murray. The rest of the cast is good although what Ernie Hudson does in the film is largely cringe.
But thanks for the rec! I will find it!
Damn, I think you nailed it. Ghostbusters became a sacrosanct classic because a later version had GIRLS! Oofta, this country.
Now I’m gonna have to see the later one, even though my interest in reboots of 1980s craptastic blockbusters approaches my level of eating a pizza covered in chocolate frosting.
Let me know what you think of Sugarland! Here’s my two cents: https://librarydvdlove.substack.com/p/the-sugarland-express