moriarty@tc.fluke.com (Jeff Meyer) (06/24/89)
GHOSTBUSTERS II
A film review by Jeff Meyer
Copyright 1989 Jeff Meyer
Summing up tag for GHOSTBUSTERS II: "A kinder, gentler Ghostbusters." And
to borrow from PR rhetoric, I mean that in the best sense of the term. I found
GHOSTBUSTERS II to be an enjoyable, humorous and ultimately entertaining film.
It does have a different emphasis than its predecessor, and that seems to be
garnering it a good deal of criticism, but I thought that GHOSTBUSTERS II's new
outlook worked very well for it, particularly as a sequel.
Let me back up a bit: I've always looked at GHOSTBUSTERS as another
production model on the Bill Murray (star)/Harold Ramis (writer)/Ivan Reitman
(director) assembly line, a combination of talents who've mixed up some
particularly funny films. (STRIPES and GHOSTBUSTERS are the prominent
examples.) With GHOSTBUSTERS, they hit a chord from the best of the Marx
Brothers movies: characters who were absolutely wacko, but who you were
cheering for at the same time. The opera scene at the end of A NIGHT AT THE
OPERA; The Boys vs. Zuhl. You're laughing at them, and with them, and at the
same time, you're going "rah-rah" with the rabbis and priests and NYC residents
outside. (Well, I was...)
GHOSTBUSTERS II concentrates a dollop more on the characters it introduced
in the first film, not a bad thing for a sequel; its lower intensity results
in a lower major-guffaw hit ratio than its predecessor, but it's a trade that I
was willing to accept. The Boys have a comfortable feel around them this time
out; if they don't build the story up for as many full-tilt laughs as before,
it's because they're getting laughs through the intricacies and foibles of
their characters. Ray's cheery optimism (and his enjoyment of Peter's
schemes), Igon's cold amusement and his little experiments, and Venkeman's Game
Show Host personality are all played around with more -- less amplitude, but
more fine-tuning. And they all parody their mock-heroic image throughout.
("Suck up your guts, boys; The Ghostbusters are here.") Peter's character
(Bill Murray) has probably the most work done to it: he's actually coming
around to the idea of a relationship with Dana Barret (Sigourney Weaver), and
her son. Murray's played this type of character through many films (and even
more SNL sketches), and it's pleasant to see it developed along the lines it is
here. And finally, the Ghostbusters are up against someone rotten enough (and
defending someone good enough) that you want to cheer a bit for them. That's
perhaps the biggest difference between the two films: GHOSTBUSTERS is more of a
"laugh blow-out" movie, while GHOSTBUSTERS II had me leaving the theater
feeling good. Amused, too -- there were a lot of jokes I was laughing at
during the screening I went to that the audience didn't seem to be reacting too
-- but mostly a blanket smile.
Murray and Weaver are particularly good; Murray's scenes with the baby
were better than the entire length of THREE MEN AND A BABY. They all react
well together. Ramis was fine, Aykroyd a bit muted; Ernie Hudson looked about
5 years younger. I was never crazy about Rick Moranis's character, and I
thought it didn't change much from the previous film. And I was a bit
disappointed that Annie Potts's character wasn't still hooked up with Igon; I
thought they played off one another well. The fellow playing the art director
was OK -- I think Billy Crystal's Fernando was really demanded for that part.
Finally, Cheech Martin has a tiny role, but he has one of the best lines in the
film.
Recommendation: If you don't mind the satiric edge of GHOSTBUSTERS
slightly dulled by more attention to the characters, then see it. Not a
Totally Excellent film, but quite good and fully entertaining.
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty