WHO YA GONNA CALL? Ghostbusters is back in theaters this week, and yes, it remains a charmer, even if many of the effects have not aged well at all. Two thoughts from my viewing of it yesterday:
- I'd forgotten how much smoking there is in the film--Stantz pretty much constantly has a cigarette dangling from his lip, and it's kind of shocking to see.
- Perhaps because Ghostbusters II was such a staple of afternoon cable growing up (which 'ships Janine/Louis), I'd forgotten about not only how much the first film 'ships Janine/Egon, but how explicit it can be about that.
Just got back from watching it with the girls. It is not that good of a movie. It's just kinda there, and everyone's charming, but there are no real stakes, and nothing *that* hysterical in it.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the film lacks a strong antagonist. Gozer doesn't really appear until the final act, and the EPA guy isn't much of a villain (and doesn't show up till over halfway through the movie). And it may be because I'm reading the new Perlstein now, but I also found the politics of the movie interesting.
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU. I've been saying that for years, since I saw it on TV about 10 years ago. I loved it when I was a kid... but as an adult I just found it painful to watch. (Just like Temple of Doom, which was initially released that same summer.)
ReplyDeleteSeeing it on cable last month, I was surprised by the bawdiness. I had forgotten that it contained an oral sex gag, for instance.
ReplyDeletePotentially two, depending on whether Spengler was actually fixing Janine's computer.
ReplyDeleteForgot that one! There is also the "I want you inside me" double entendre. Although that flies over a kid's head. Ray getting serviced is more explicit.
ReplyDeleteThat's a single entendre.
ReplyDelete"I'm reading the new Perlstein now..."
ReplyDeletePrint is dead.