Skip to main content

Is the atomic weight of cobalt 58.9?

Ghostbusters II
(1989)

(SPOILERS) Columbia doubtless saw a Ghostbusters sequel as a licence to print money. Well, they did after David Puttnam, who disdained the overt commercialism of blockbusters – as you might guess, he didn’t last very long – was replaced as chairman by Dawn Steel (Puttnam lasted just over a year). Troubled waters were smoothed over – he’d effectively insulted Bill Murray, as well as claiming a sequel was going ahead; Ivan Reitman’s office responded that it was “The first we’ve heard of it” – and development put into high gear, but the studio ended up with a box office also-ran, thoroughly eclipsed by the summer of the Bat (Tim Burton’s movie opened the following week) and grossing less than half the original’s tally. Ivan Reitman put it down to a change in tastes towards darker fare, while Murray opined that the special effects guys took over; both would have been better simply to admit that Ghostbusters II sucked.

I’m not the biggest fan of the original movie – it’s agreeable enough, but writers/stars Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis haven’t mustered a plot that can stand on its own two feet, which means it needs laughs, which are in short supply whenever Murray isn’t on screen. Even that wouldn’t matter so much, but director Reitman is no master of spectacle orof scares, so Ghostbusters is shot through with a kind of “That’ll do” shrug. Which works fine – great even – for slouchy Murray’s smart talk, but it might have been so much more helmed by someone with an affinity for the genre (say, John Landis). Still, with Murray at peak popularity, and a raft of iconic elements – the theme, the logo, the car, the outfits, Slimer, Mr Stay Puft – its popularity was (and is) easy to understand.

The sequel seemingly arrived with Ramis and Aykroyd eager to please. Hence toning down the “adult” content to appeal to the younger fanbase of the interim The Real Ghostbusters cartoon series – all of whom would doubtless go to that “adult” content of the original as their first port of call – and redesigns to fit in with the show (Slimer).

The most obvious consequence is that Ghostbusters II is fairly toothless. Yeah, Bill Murray can deliver yucks even encumbered by a baby, but that doesn’t make this his best foot forward. Mostly, Aykroyd – and I’ll assume it’s him, as the screenwriter of the duo with a passion for the unexplained – has entirely failed to come up with a decent hook. The plot is a plod. There’s a river of slime reacting to New Yorker’s negativity (“Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is any New Yorker’s God-given right!”) And, not directly related, which is clumsy, the spirit of a sixteenth century Carpathian wishes to possess the body of Sigourney’s son.

There are zero laughs or tension in either of these elements. And fatally, neither idea grabs you. The slime/negativity thing is the kind of wishy-washy crap that got us Superman IV: The Quest for Peace two years earlier (there’s a reason Aykroyd’s Ghostbusters III concepts never got very far, quite beside Murray’s understandable reluctance to return to something that seemed dead in the water). The team go into the sewers, the city tries to shut Ghostbusters down (again), and has them committed (a sure sign the writers don’t have a good idea of where to take their movie), and there’s another large animated inanimate object on the loose (the Statue of Liberty this time).

In particular, the last things a Ghostbusters movie needs are protracted scenes involving a nipper (although, Ghostbusters 2020 sounds like it may be providing exactly that, for those with a hankering). Perhaps Aykroyd and Ramis were vaguely thinking The Exorcist/The Omen (not that there are any frightening elements involving Oscar), but I’d hazard that, in a box office environment where Three Men and a Baby had just been the biggest hit of its year, cashing in on cute kids seemed like a no brainer (and, as it turned out, for another 1989 movie, Look Who’s Talking, it was).

It’s actually quite difficult to critique a movie like Ghostbusters II, because it’s one of those you watch, and rewatch, and still none of it really goes in. It’s so lacking in energy, pace and charm, it leaves you too enfeebled to even respond. Peter MacNicol purportedly came up with the idea of villain Vigo being Carpathian, but he’s unable to bring any humour to the possessed little guy, schtick that worked so well for Rick Moranis last time. Who is entirely redundant here. Still, he got the last laugh; Honey, I Shrunk the Kids was an unexpected summer smash.

Sigourney Weaver hopefully got well paid, because like Moranis, without being possessed she’s left with nothing to do other than look mildly amused at Murray’s quips. Ramis gets a few solid deadpan lines (“Let’s see what happens when we take away the puppy”; “You had a violent prolonged transformative psychic episode”), while Aykroyd’s content to drift along being relentlessly upbeat. Ernie Hudson still has the problem that he’s an actor in a line-up of comedians. Annie Potts probably comes out of this the best; despite having as small a role as Moranis, she digs into her slim pickings with verve. Generally, though, this was weak swill, with even the remix theme and a lacklustre (but popular) Bobby Brown track serving to emphasise how underwhelming the whole reheated soufflé was.

I started out by saying Ghostbusters II was a bit of a dud financially, which isn’t quite fair. It was one of a number of ‘80s sequels that benefited from an intervening uptick in international exposure following the original, even as their home audience wasn’t wholly persuaded. So Ghostbusters II ended up only $15m shy of the original (unadjusted). The same year’s Back to the Future Part II was similarly blessed, also taking half the original’s tally at home, but coming in at 87% of its worldwide (Beverly Hills Cop II was another example). But Columbia surely expected to capitalise on a sure thing, not hit a holding pattern (the same summer, Lethal Weapon 2 managed to double the original’s take, both at home and abroad).

The studio, then owned by Coca Cola, hadn’t had an easy decade, its mega hits (if we include Tri-Star) amounting to a handful of titles: Stir Crazy, Tootsie, Rambo II, Ghostbusters and The Karate Kid. The same summer as Ghostbusters II, The Karate Kid Part III also proved a disappointment, while the previous year, Rambo III became a famously costly fizzle (again, however, the global story was less severe). Columbia just hadn’t been able to pick them consistently enough, which had made Coke nervous (as had the presence of Puttnam). Ishtar and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen were expensive bombs, and in 1987 and 1988 the studio couldn’t even muster a Top Ten movie for the year. If 1989 gave them When Harry Met Sally… and Steel Magnolias, it also yielded Family Business, Lock Up and Casualties of War. So the sale to Sony, three months after Ghostbusters II’s release, made a lot of sense. Less so the manner in which the company opted to throw money away by installing Peter Guber and Jon Peters as studio heads (they’d produced Batman, ergo...)

Not on their roster was a Ghostbusters III. Regarding which, Aykroyd’s enthusiasm was matched only by Murray’s indifference, although his idea – a next gen type affair, owing to Bill not caring, and revolving around Hell being overcrowded – was mooted again by Ramis about a decade back. It now seems to have come full circle, although Aykroyd’s name doesn’t seem to be attached to the story. I’m no fan of the 2016 reboot, but I will say that, as fundamentally misconceived as it was, at least it isn’t as stodgily inert as Ghostbusters II.

I’m not remotely convinced 2020 “official” third instalment sounds like a good idea either, since it seems to be riding less on inspiration than on Sony, desperate to resuscitate a franchise they’ve already given a good kicking, looking at Stranger Things and thick-headedly deciding “We’ll have some of that”. Plus, Jason Reitman directing an effects comedy? His writing partner Gil Kenan would surely have been a better bet.

I still think the best chance for saving the permanently faltering franchise was Lord and Miller taking the reins half a decade ago, but that was not to be. The key to the original was Murray’s irreverence in the face of the supernatural, and if that – or someone who can instil a similar tension – is absent, I suspect III will be another washout. In Ghostbusters II, Murray was largely neutered (his putting the baby down gag is about the best thing there). Still, Pauline Kael was happy. She must have been taking some good meds that summer, as she rated both Batman and this, with its “nice, lazy unforced rhythm”, preferring it to the original and suggesting “You can’t remember what you’re laughing at, but you feel great”. If only.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…