Sunday, August 31, 2014

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.


  1. Adam B.5:02 PM

    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.

  2. I 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.

  3. THANK 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.)

  4. Tosy and Cosh10:08 AM

    Seeing it on cable last month, I was surprised by the bawdiness. I had forgotten that it contained an oral sex gag, for instance.

  5. Adam B.11:19 AM

    Potentially two, depending on whether Spengler was actually fixing Janine's computer.

  6. Tosy and Cosh5:14 PM

    Forgot 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.

  7. Adam B.11:58 AM

    That's a single entendre.

  8. J. Bowman5:48 PM

    "I'm reading the new Perlstein now..."

    Print is dead.