Someone asked me if I watched those "ghost hunter" shows, and I said that's no and elaborated by saying that element of the movie (the 1984 original) was not what I watched it for. I cited the friendly and upbeat atmosphere of the film as reasons for watching it, even though that probably isn't the top reason I have enjoyed the movie all these years. What I like about the film is the crackling of "barbequed dog hair" toward the end, the rustling of the paper in the opening scenes, the high pitched cello-ish sounding instrument heard throughout much of the movie, the rumbling of foodsteps before Gozer chooses its form for The Traveller, and the concise and expressive way Gozer says "THE TRAVALLER! HAS COME", there's so much to relish in that film after all these things were experienced by me as a 2 year old who had never seen or heard such things before.
The 2016 remake had the comradery, it had the nice interlude shots of NYC (the character, not the prop used for it, which would be Boston -- no need to be an idiot, please), it had the crescendo ending, but the comradery was written into the script, not an authentic byproduct of the cast's chemistry. Yes, the cast got along. So what? It's not unheard of for 4 people to get along with one another. The shots of NYC and the crescendo ending were mixed in with long drawn out scenes that gave the impression that the story being told was worth a 2 hour running time. It wasn't. It isn't. Ghostbusters lasted 1 hr 45 minutes because they had that much to offer. Neither film had a great story. Both films made little to no sense if you consider them for their stories. However, the ebb and flow of GB'84, the visuals and the sounds, the humor and the enthusiasm that the cast exuded from the screen, made the story somewhat easy to fall into, and be spellbound for that length of time. I was bored by GB:ATC within 30 minutes. The only time in GB'84 do I ever get a little impatient (not exactly bored) is when Bill Murray's character is beating around the bush in Sigourney Weaver's abode and doing not much of anything except pointing this gadget around. That's only because I've seen the movie like 800,000 times and I know darn well there's a much more exciting scene following it up. It's the same kind of antsyness that causes me to turn off most movies by the 20 minute mark even if I am enjoying it/them. But I shut GB:ATC off within 30 minutes and never wanted to go back. I had seen it in theaters and I knew there was nothing of substance beyond where I turned it off (and by substance I don't mean "slime", I mean worthy of attention.......ugh).
What confuses me is Dan Aykroyd says he liked the film. I can see someone not posting 8 different blog posts that regurgitate the same sentiments in different ways, but, I Mean, is this the film Dan Aykroyd was really hoping for after champinoning a sequel/reboot all these years? They wanted to make a GB3 in 1994 or somewhere aound there. They were going to do it back in 1999/2000, and almost 1.5 decades later, 25+ years in total, plus the 3/4 of a year they spent filming it and that same time length being shelved with a summer release come hell or high water, they finally have it accomplished. I can't believe Dan Aykroyd is fully satisfied with the film. I can see being happy it got made, but being happy with the finished product seems like a bit of an overstatement. Maybe it's just too much buildup of testosterone, idk. I did get the sense that the film was geared more toward a female audience. I don't know how many females were ever really all that gung ho about GHOSTBUSTERS, in concept or in practice, or what about the original film women liked. All the things I cited above are the very things that movies on The Hallmark Channel and the Lifetime Movie Network are lacking. And who is the primary demographic for that programming? Men? I'm pretty sure not...maybe I'm mistaken.......Rgh.
No comments:
Post a Comment