[gold333]

This is the most in depth GB review I've ever seen. It picks up on a whole bunch of things I never realized.

"Really that good" Review

[gold333]

No one with me?

I've seen GB maybe 300 times and this review is full of concepts I apparently missed every time.

[pferreira1983]

Some of what he says I agree with but sometimes he loses me because he overanalyzes a bit too much, looking for stuff that's not there or wasn't intended.

[JurorNo.2]

How do I know Ghostbusters is really that good? Because right at the :27 second mark of this review, I stopped listening to the narration because I too busy enjoying Ray's adorably befuddled reaction to praise, lol.

Which is why I'm going to slightly disagree with the notion that Ray has no arc in the film. His friendship with Peter has an arc. He is the one to continually remind Peter that he's never taken his status as a scientist seriously (for instance, "You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there," and "You never studied"). Even when they become Ghostbusters, Peter's only really interested in the money they could get, not furthering scientific exploration. But towards the end of the film, when Peter holds up Ray as "the heart of the Ghostbusters" to the crowd, it shows that Peter is finally taking the team seriously and acknowledging Ray's expertise, instead of mocking it. And Ray takes note of this, that's why it means so much later when he says, "Nice working with you, Doctor Venkman." He's treating Peter as a peer, instead of his goof off friend who never studied.

That said, I agree with the reviewer about the screenplay's tight, economic storytelling . You don't need a ton of set up to establish the characters' relationships and history. We can infer so much right away based on how the guys behave around each other. Like the reviewer says, it's something a lot of these modern franchise blockbusters could learn from. I do prefer movies that throw you right into the action with the characters in their prime, rather than wasting so much of a movie on a spoon fed origin story.

[JurorNo.2]

I will also say, I think the main theme of the movie is these ordinary guys going up against mainstream science (Dean Yeager, Walter Peck), that is men who refuse to see what's in front of them because they don't want to let go of their power over the masses. That to me is the major conflict in the film, not science vs religion. I don't know if Aykroyd intended this, but as a believer in the paranormal, it makes sense that he'd view the mainstream establishment of science that way.

[*NormalGamer*]

How do I know Ghostbusters is really that good? Because right at the :27 second mark of this review, I stopped listening to the narration because I too busy enjoying Ray's adorably befuddled reaction to praise, lol.

Which is why I'm going to slightly disagree with the notion that Ray has no arc in the film. His friendship with Peter has an arc. He is the one to continually remind Peter that he's never taken his status as a scientist seriously (for instance, "You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there," and "You never studied"). Even when they become Ghostbusters, Peter's only really interested in the money they could get, not furthering scientific exploration. But towards the end of the film, when Peter holds up Ray as "the heart of the Ghostbusters" to the crowd, it shows that Peter is finally taking the team seriously and acknowledging Ray's expertise, instead of mocking it. And Ray takes note of this, that's why it means so much later when he says, "Nice working with you, Doctor Venkman." He's treating Peter as a peer, instead of his goof off friend who never studied.

That said, I agree with the reviewer about the screenplay's tight, economic storytelling . You don't need a ton of set up to establish the characters' relationships and history. We can infer so much right away based on how the guys behave around each other. Like the reviewer says, it's something a lot of these modern franchise blockbusters could learn from. I do prefer movies that throw you right into the action with the characters in their prime, rather than wasting so much of a movie on a spoon fed origin story.

@ *referring to bold*

Or wasting so much on amatonormative minor romantic subplots for that matter; although I have nothing against romance in movies. The thrill of of getting into the action and how the characters relate to each other within those events is what makes movie plots so much fun. ^_^

[BatDan]

I agreed with most but not all. I don't buy the whole 'science vs religion' angle, perhaps a slight reference to it here and there, but not the basis of the theme. I think he really wanted to drive home that theme for the movie, but i really don't see it. In a film that deals with spiritual dimensions/portals and demonic possession, there has to be at least a few religious references thrown in the mix to give it legs to walk on.

Totally glad he mentioned the incorporations of post-exorcist horror, HP lovecraft, and occult mythology are all very relevant, ive always thought this for years and always thought these elements added a lot of cultural substance to the film.

I've always viewed Ghostbusters as a sort of 'anti-establishment' film, as mentioned above poster said "their sceince against mainstream science" . We have three guys who are constantly bombarded with people trying to disclaim them and bring them down , but stick to their own will and ideals to the end. Which is why i didnt agree with his "eye rolling' definition for Walter Peck.

Peck to me, represented corporate interference with an otherwise low-budget, independent business. "the man" so to speak, trying to control the unestablished. He gives the movie realism in an otherwise very over the top premise.

The Ghostbusters represented the outcasts of society, with iconography that sticks out in crowds; a shiny white ambulance, a firehouse with a dangling cartoony symbol, etc., even their first customers look them up and down.

This is why i think the movie connects well with "nerds" and 'geeks', because the Ghostbusters are essentially eccentric scientists who stick to their morals and mind power to overcome their foes and obstacles.

Also what Ghostbusters did to give itself its own ground to stand on, was that it was really the first of its kind. a high concept comedy, with a great story and memorable characters. Comedies of the past, were very up on the 'yuk yuk' factor rather than a mythology-based story. Through out the 70s, We had Mel Brooks parodies like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, Woody Allen romantic comedies like Annie Hall and Manhatten, and cute fluffy family comedies like Oh God and Goodbye Girl, even Reitman/Ramis' early efforts were very shenanigan based ( Animal House, Meatballs, etc.) but Ghostbusters comes along mixing together light slapstick with witty dialogue and sci-fi/fantasy elements.

[EctoPrimer]

I agreed with most but not all. I don't buy the whole 'science vs religion' angle, perhaps a slight reference to it here and there, but not the basis of the theme. I think he really wanted to drive home that theme for the movie, but i really don't see it. In a film that deals with spiritual dimensions/portals and demonic possession, there has to be at least a few religious references thrown in the mix to give it legs to walk on.

I don't think it's science vrs religion in that sense. I think it's more of religion, or more broadly superstitions trying to have a power over man kind. That man s challenging it with science to control his own destiny.