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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

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…