See, it has everything. You have Harold Ramis, Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray at their comedic zeniths. These were the men who were spinning gold at the cinemas and this was their master piece. You had Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis and Annie Potts all providing solid supporting rolls (and in their brief moments - such as the altercation between Venkman and Janine about the poor quality of the work environment - actually outshining the leads).
The music, while dated - has stuck with me since first seeing the film as a small child. The eeriness of the atmosphere when the ghosts were freed from the reactor, the oft-repeated motif with the piano throughout the film - all of it. Gold. When I was in kindergarten and we went to the skating rink, Ray Parker's theme song ALWAYS got everyone on the floor - in the first grade, our music teacher would play it on his keyboard for our class and we would shower him with applause!
When the credits roll, one sits back content in knowing that they've viewed a film that is fully encompassed within its own 100 minute run time.
1989 had an answer for that. 1989 had an answer for alot of things - on one front you had Sonic Youth and Nirvana preparing to make pariahs out of Bret Michaels and his ilk of poncy Aquanet dependent troops. On another front, Tim Burton's seminal Batman was released into the cinemas to much acclaim - HERE was an answer to all of the detractors who envisioned Bats as a guy doing the Batusi while high on hallucinogens and flower power. Millions flocked to see and enjoy it...
...but did those millions enjoy Ghostbusters II?
GB II had the advantage - enjoying the largest three day opening for a film up until that point - a balloon that was popped by Bats one week later. When pairing the film next to its predecessor however, you see a myriad of differences. GB had all of the vitality and energy of a 4 year old child - except, the child had somehow been born with a high level of genius and reflected this in snappy words and clever thought. GB II was that child as a 9 year old lying in the gutter with a bottle of Stefanoff and a collection of bad life choices. To apply a more minimalist assessment of Ghost Busters II, it was flat, dull and uninspired. It felt like a cash in and it came off crass. But why? The original ensemble of actors was there, the director was there, yet it the final product was so insipid.
Since then, it would appear that key members of the cast as well as very forgiving audiences and fans - no doubt still dizzy from how great the original film was - have been lobbying for a third and final installment to complete the franchise. Akroyd and Ramis, both having done a few notable things in the last two decades, but not too much - have been the main proponents. Bill Murray, the final piece in the original triumvirate, now knee deep in a resurgence due to his roles in a number of great films such as Lost In Translation, The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums has taken a more level headed stance in that he would only be in support of a sequel if the script is above par. According to Akroyd, the film would be a spring board for a new generation of ghoul hunters - including Eliza Dushku of Buffy and Dollhouse fame.
While I'm not personally all that crazy about a third installment, I'll still be one of the mindless hopefuls who buys a ticket on opening night anyway on the off chance that it would have some redeeming value. Perhaps I am one of those denizens who is still dizzy from the brilliance of the original film - it's so easy to forgive slip ups when the first attempt was so solid. As it stands, Ghostbusters III is looking at a 2012 release date - in my own opinion, the film will probably languish in development hell for a few more years before a key player kicks the bucket (none of them are getting any younger) or is finally put to bed in the vault of cinematic broken dreams.
I'm only pulling for it because honestly, I think Eliza Dushku with a proton pack WOULD be pretty rad...
No comments:
Post a Comment