Ghost-bust or not? (Ghostbusters movie reviews 1984 AND 2016)

 

Ghostbusters (1984 & 2016)

Let me set the mood with this fun remix of the Ghostbusters theme!

These two movies were a really fun way to go out of this term, but probably not for the reasons you think. I got to show my fiancé Ghostbusters (1984) for the first time, and while he said he would rather watch a newer movie like Insidious, he did enjoy the comedy. Then, I convinced a friend of mine who has never seen that original Ghostbusters to watch the newer 2016 movie without context of the original. It was a blast to hear her commentary not knowing anything about the previous one other than they ‘hunt ghosts’.

It’s hard to evaluate these movies without comparing them, so I’m not going to avoid it. It’s clear why the 2016 version was considered a box office flop. It lost a lot of money, and even though it was received well by critics, audiences and avid Ghostbusters fans didn’t care for it. But why, or more specifically, why do I agree?

Let’s talk about 1984 (the movie, not that book by Orwell that was terrible and unrelated to this). This movie was a change of pace for our class on hauntings. Most media we interacted with this term was meant to be horror, to scare or make you uncomfortable, whereas this movie was mixed genre of paranormal fantasy and sci-fi that was a comedy. It was a lovely change of pace honestly. I’ve always adored this movie ever since I first saw it with my dad one day I was home sick from middle school. Let me tell you, chicken soup came out my nose. As an adult, I can see some flaws, like some of the ‘manly’ humor that would be considered more harassment nowadays, but that doesn’t ruin the movie for me, only dates it.

But then we have the 2016 movie, an all woman cast. Here’s my two cents from the get go: in comparison, it falls flat, but as a standalone film, it was interesting. To elaborate on that, we get nice special effects and female representation and empowerment in this movie. There’s a similar type of humor to the original movie along with several nice call-backs to the first film in references to previous ghosts and special appearances by previous cast members. But that makes the movie okay if it was a ghost movie. But it’s a Ghostbusters movie, supposedly a remake. Yet, the plot is very different, and honestly worse. There are well-known actors cast in the movie just for the sake of the stars' names on the movie cover (I’m talking about the unneeded receptionist Thor). My friend who watched it without context said it was funny, but too confusing and fast paced because she didn’t know the references.

Overall: I’m glad I can form my own opinion and not just trust the masses on the quality of a film, but the new Ghostbusters did not stand up to the hype. You can’t beat the classic.

P.s. There's a remastered ghostbusters game my friend recently played that looked fun if that's up your alley!

The Lead Up To An Exorcism (The Exorcist book review)

 

The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty

This book is brought to you by the letter ‘w’, as in ‘weird’ and ‘what the hell’.

I would’ve pegged this book initially as a thriller or suspense or mystery after reading the beginning. There’s turmoil for the main character between juggling her job, her friends, her employees, and a daughter. The story is compelling and immediately pulled me in. Then, from left field, the daughter is urinating on the floor. Return to motherly concern and educated doctors, then suddenly her kid is swearing and masturbating. A detective, employee backstories, a priest’s life, and then daughter fucking herself with a crucifix. This book going from 0 to 100 gave me whiplash. That being said, I had no question on the genre once I got to these later scenes with Regan.

Note: I actually was streaming listening to this with some friends, and one of them joined right before the masturbation scene and later remarked, ‘Why do I always come in when the cursed shit happens?’ Poor unsuspecting boy.

Now, I knew vaguely of the premise of The Exorcist, but I have not seen the movie and don’t know anything about the case it’s based on. (Yes, Alexis, I do live under a log aka pine trees.) This let me go into the book with blind eyes, which I think honestly was a good thing. I didn’t have any expectation to see a ton of Pazuzu, so the lead in of seeing only glimpses through Regan was good build up.

Honestly, much like The Exorcism of Emily Rose, the story wasn’t really about the exorcism. We get the demonic symptoms and back and forth between contemplating mental illness or not. But only when we reach Part III do we finally get confirmation of the priest looking for evidence to get approval for an exorcism (not even the exorcism itself). I thought the book was much more like Emily Rose in its focus on mental illness versus paranormal/religious influence as seen through the point-of-view of the mother and the priest. Let it be noted that when Karras did the trick with saying he had holy water and it was just from the tap, I not only called that would happen, but I adored that it happened. But Karl was my favorite character. Honestly, the side characters were much more interesting to me than the demons and Regan.

Honestly, pacing and vulgarity were my only criticisms in this book, and the vulgarity was a personal preference that I think did exactly what the author intended in writing in the horror genre. It made me uncomfortable. It got an emotional reaction out of me. So good on Blatty. That aside, I did enjoy this book. It was certainly a weird one, something I normally wouldn’t pick up on my own, but it did linger in my mind after finishing it.

Overall: It was an interesting book and I’m definitely going to give the movie a watch to compare the two.