TITLE: Archive Review: Ghostbusters (1984) AUTHOR: Joe Johnson DATE: 8:34:00 AM ----- BODY:
Dir: Ivan Reitman

Other than The Blues Brothers and Stuart Saves His Family, the forays into films for Saturday Night Live characters has been rather disappointing. But that is not to say those alumni of America’s most famous sketch comedy are not without abilities. Ghostbusters is evidence that comedy guru Lorne Michaels could unearth deeply penetrating comedians: two of SNL’s premier veterans, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd. (John Belushi was originally picked to play Murray’s role).

Both Murray and Aykroyd shine. Murray perfects his arrogant bravado and Aykroyd shows his uneasy, geeky tenderness that - when joined to dramatic roles in Driving Ms. Daisy or the black comedy of Grosse Point Blank - shows an underrated actor. Harold Ramis is the Mike White of his time: a significant writer and character actor that makes the rest of the cast shine. (Notably, one of Ramis’s most recent character roles was in Mike White’s Orange County).

Reitman proved himself to be a greedy director, unsatisfied with the central trio, he surrounds and supports them with some of the finest character actors possible. Ernie Hudson - in a part that was originally intended for another SNL alum, Eddie Murphy - doesn’t quite ever seem like a full-blown ghostbuster, but he is believable given the story line and his outsider status. Sigourney Weaver is a subtle “straight man” against Murray’s over-the-top Dr. Venkman. But the perfection in casting Weaver is shown in an unforgettable kiss and embrace with Rick Moranis, whom Weaver towers over. Moranis is brilliant. He is the most memorable apartment dweller since Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

The story isn’t bad either. This film could have easily flopped. It’s not that there haven’t been dozens of ghost-chaser comedy vehicles in the past. But none approached the genre with such a determination to rely on intelligence and subtlety rather than slapstick falls and exaggerated looks of horror. Ghostbusters takes all that Abbott and Costello, or Bing and Hope, pioneered and feeds it through the fertile mind of Aykroyd, Ramis and Moranis. The result is a film that is to metaphysics what The Blues Brothers was to music.

Perhaps the film succeeds because it knows when to be original and when to look towards what works. Although the movie always has its own voice and style, it keeps relationships and roles simple. In a sense, Ghostbusters is part Scooby Doo (television) and part Seven Samurai. Aykroyd takes his science seriously and this gives a weight to the film that lazier writers would have neglected. There is a reality to the situation that allows the farce to be entertaining without being meaningless. It’s not great satire nor is atmospheric horror, but it doesn’t really intend to be. Ghostbusters is an enjoyable comedy with a sense of gravity; a clever tale with a - (forgive the pun) - good spirit.

****1/2 of *****

Labels: , ,

--------