Halloween Countdown: 7 - Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)

For the Halloween film reviews I wanted to look at different types of films that are worth watching for this growing annual pagan holiday. “Killer Klowns from Outer Space” (KKFOS) is an homage to the horror and sci-fi films of the 50’s and 60’s, as well as the teen comedies of the 80’s. 

The film was written and directed by the Chiodo brothers, who have a background in special effects (Team America, Critters and Elf). This was one of the first films they made and they set out to make a film that they could have fun making but also show off some of their skills. Lets be honest from the start, they are not overly talented writers or directors. The dialogue is clunky and only well handled by some of the more experienced actors (we will get on to John Vernon in a minute). The direction is also very pedestrian with no flare. However, neither of these affects the quality of the film and in fact adds to the cheesy B-movie nature of the film.

In addition to this some of the special effects are very cheap and dated; this can be expected though based on the films budget ($2M) but the thing that standards out for me are the Klowns themselves. There are 4 or 5 main Klowns and they look great, a little rubbery but the movements in the faces are smooth and they look good enough for me to accept them as a threat in this very silly film. This is aided by the fact that the Klown designs themselves are great, they are all different shapes, sizes and make-up combinations, making them each easily identifiable. In addition to the Klowns there are a few other things that standout for me in design and effect, which I will call out as I go.

Getting into the film itself, from the outset it is clear that this is not a film that is going to scare anyone, the title sounds like the result of a drunken conversation. It also opens with the most amazingly ridiculous 80’s synth-rock title song performed by The Dickies. The expectations are set, this film has a sense of humor and we are right in the heart of comedy-horror.

We are introduced to the main players straight away, with the idiot brothers selling ice-cream out of their clown ice-cream truck out side Big Top Burgers, this film isn’t subtle. Then we get the main male and female leads Mike and Debbie at “make out point”, which are very cookie cutter late teens being played by actors in their mid-twenties. Knowing that neither of these actors went on to do much more will give you an idea of the quality of the acting that is on display here. However Mike is leagues ahead of Debbie, who has particular trouble getting through some of the clunky dialogue. They are sufficient for what the film needs.

Soon after we also get the films good cop / bad cop combo; Dave the good cop is very bland and by the numbers but the bad cop is great fun. John Vernon as Officer Mooney is brilliant as the teenager hating paranoid aging cop. He gets stuck into this role and chews the hell out of it. He is a panto villain that the audience want to see killed. The fact that the film plays it totally straight when he intends to beat two teenagers for walking through park after dark drinking is brilliant. By playing it so straight it is over the top but makes the rest of the film even more outlandish.

Then we get the introduction of the titular Klowns. They fall to earth and Mike and Debbie decide to go investigate but in the mean time we get to see the ship in which they have arrived, a huge glowing circus big top, and a glimpse of Klown when they kill a local old timer. Within minutes we are in the ship with Mike and Debbie and they are being chased by the Klowns. There really isn’t any messing around in this film the pace is great, it starts and you are off to the races. I may criticise the writing but I can’t fault them for getting stuck in as soon as possible. They know that this isn’t about building tension or drama, lets see some craziness.

So what craziness do we get? How about a pop corn gun or the Klowns using a balloon animal dog on a leash as a bloodhound. The sniffer dog is a particular favourite of mine, stupid and simple but makes me laugh each time. At this point we also get the most exposition we are going to get in this film when Debbie asks about the Klowns guns “Pop corn, why pop corn?”, Mike’s response “They’re Klowns, that’s why.” fair enough I can buy that and there is no need for any other questions, this is all the explanation I want and need from this film.

The second act is a 20 minute montage of the Klowns invading the town to kill and collect it’s citizens. I won’t go into all the moments but I will highlight two standouts for me. The first is the shortest Klown cycling up to a biker gang. The inevitable happens and his little clown bike is broken and I love the expression of sadness on the klowns face. The puppet work is so good, his ears droop, he frowns and for a second I feel sorry for him. However, he gets his revenge when he offers to take on a member of the gang one on one and literally knocks the guys head off. In keeping with the general tone of the film this is daft and fun.

The second is a queue of people waiting for a bus being entertained by a Klown making shadow shapes on the wall, which eventually becomes a dinosaur and eats them all. I love this because of the complexity of the shadow designs and the fact that no one in the queue questions whether this is possible. I especially love the old man who salutes when a shadow of a soldier and waving flag is presented. Again, this has dated but I am so enjoying the tone and essence of this film that I can see past the iffy spots.

I should mention that during this act we also find out why they are here in the first place. They are here to wrap us in space cotton candy cocoons and drink our blood. Obviously as with most things in the film this raises a load of questions that there is no point or need in asking because the simple answer is, “They’re Klowns, that’s why”.

The third act starts with the first payoff of the film when Mooney is killed by one of the Klowns and turned into a ventriloquist’s dummy. We also find out how the Klowns can be defeated, how else than blowing up their big red comedy noses, why? They’re Klowns, that’s why.

The third act is driven by the fact that Debbie is one of the people that have been captured and Mike and good cop Dave have to go and rescue her. During this section we get a glimpse of other budget restraints of the film and poor direction Such as the Klowns invading one street and it looking like a party with streamers, then a shot from another direction shows the rest of the street is fine and we even get to see two cars driving past normally in the background. A mis-step but only a quick shot that doesn’t distract from the madness.

I should also point out that at this stage that I am beginning to think that good cop Dave has a darker side. The two leads are supposed to be late teens in college and he a Officer that has been on the force for a couple of years. Yet he dated Debbie at some point in the past, it’s not made clear when and the age difference between the two is never made clear but it’s another part of the script that feels forced. There had to be some relationship tension so they threw in a love triangle. It doesn’t work for me but it is also so inconsequential to the film that you can ignore it.

So off they go back to the Big Top space ship to save Debbie and stop the Klowns. Unfortunately this final act is where the lack of budget really shows. While the scenes on the space ship at the beginning were in small corridors and looked pretty good, the final act tries to take things to a larger scale and while one or two sections are good overall the inside of the ship is made up of big black spaces and some random brightly coloured shapes. It looks cheap and well, rubbish.

The finale is also a bit of a mess. There is a super Killer Klown in the empty black space back lot that is space ship which does have a fun little fight with an ice-cream van. The super Klown is defeated and the main characters escape. This is a bit of a flat ending for such a fun film but I am not sure how much money there was left or if they could have done something larger.

In summary this is a cheap and clunky scripted comedy horror that tickles that silly immature funny bone. It never takes itself seriously and despite some missteps has some great moments that will stick with you, as well as some great design work, puppetry effects and title song. And who can resist a film that has pop-corn attack a woman in the shower? Why, pop-corn? They’re Klowns, that’s why

I highly recommend this 88 mins of joyous nonsense, which is best enjoyed with a few friends and a few drinks.  

HALLOWEEN COUNT DOWN: 8 - DRACULA (1931)

Some things are so good that they become ingrained in pop culture and are copied and parodied to the extent that the original is almost forgotten and lost. This is the case with the 1931 Dracula starring the great Bela Lugosi. This is the film that has formed most of the modern common Dracula look, the suit and cape, the slicked back hair, the charming eloquent mysterious man (however no fangs appear in this film). Every Dracula fancy dress costume that we see today in shops and supermarkets is based on this film but it is it any good? The film is 83 years old and film making has progressed so much in that time but I will say up front, this is a very good film.

It’s hard to spoil a film that’s central story has been told so many times in so many different formats, so I will only skim over the plot and focus on what I really enjoyed about this film. I should say, I only watched this film for the first time last week and I watched the remastered Blu ray.  If you do watch this film and I strongly recommend you do, this is the best format to watch this film on. The remastered version is beautiful, the picture is fantastic and the contrast of the black and white image is great. I can honestly say that this film has probably never looked better.

This is a rather short film, running at 74 minutes. One of the reasons for this is that the screenplay was a direct use of the stage play version. A lot of the original novel has been dropped or contracted but this is a real benefit to the film. It would not have been possible to create some of the expansive scenes and locations on stage or for the film at the time it was made. So the film focuses in on the central characters and the key story points. This is excellent concise storytelling, supported by some iconic performances.

Before I get to Bela Lugosi there are a couple of other performances that I want to highlight, first off, Dwight Frye who plays Renfield. A character from the Stoker novel but expanded for this version to be the person that visits Dracula and helps him travel to London. It is this interaction that drives him insane in this version of the story.

While he replaces Jonathan Harker for this part of this story it actually does make reference to a Stoker short story “Dracula’s guest”. This was originally part of the novel (Dracula) as an introductory section but was removed by the publisher. It was later published in a collection of Stoker’s short stories. “Dracula’s guest” tells the story of another English lawyer being chased down in the woods of Transylvania. It is disputed whether this is an earlier start to Harker’s story or the story of Renfield’s interactions with Dracula. Either way, in the film we get a character that is a very reserved and goes crazy.

Frye is superb in this role. When he is introduced he is clean cut and almost naïve and reacts as you would expect to the strangeness he encounters on his way to and at Dracula’s mansion. His facial expressions are great as he interacts with Dracula, he is nervous and a little lost but keeps doing his job. The scene between Frye and Lugosi near the start of the film is a stand out for me. He is also brilliant as the insane Renfield when they get home; he is excessive crazy without being over the top. He has some of the best lines in the film and a great monologue about being promised hundreds, thousands of rats on which he can feed when he has done the work of his “master”.

Frye was a stage comedian for a lot of early career and this comes through in his timing and delivery. If this guy was working today I would expect him to be someone like Jim Carrey or Robin Williams, a comedian who takes on and succeeds at more dramatic and creepy roles.

The second character I want to bring up is Van Helsing play by Edward Van Sloan. This Van Helsing is portrayed as a man of science and superstition and happens to be right all the time. It is not really explained how he got this knowledge and to be honest it doesn’t matter. Sloan is like a force of nature in the film, despite being an older gentleman he orders people around with confidence that everything he is doing is right and I was bought into it.

There is a scene where he stands toe to toe with Dracula and lets him know that he knows what he is and what he is doing. Dracula attempts to use his hypnotic stare to bring him close enough for the kill but Van Helsing resists. Not only is Dracula impressed, so am I. it quickly shows that these two are a match and I want to see them face off at the end of the film.

Bela Lugosi had played Dracula on stage for a period and was so keen to get his performance on screen that he took a huge pay drop to make the film. It is a stage performance that he gives but it is so engaging. There are moments of stillness, where he just watches someone and or his is animated and charming as the exotic count. Either way he commends the screen and owns the character.

Forget all the over acted parodies and the ridiculous accents, this performance contains real menace and the accent is legit and perfect for the performance. The one line that I loved and has become so famous “Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make.” It can be read as corny and over the top but Lugosi delivers it with such sincerity you believe that he does take comfort from the sound.

Lugosi’s performance is taken from great to iconic by really effective lighting and direction. In 1931 this film was made to make Dracula a serious villain and it achieved it. I would suggest that a modern comparison is the way Hannibal Lector is presented in the TV show Hannibal. The audience is well aware that this suave charming person is a danger but the cast don’t see it. In fact I would suggest that Mads Mikkelsen would make a fantastic Dracula.

The three roles that I have highlighted are male, which for a film made in 1931 isn’t surprising. The female characters in this film, whilst key to the story (as in the novel) are only secondary to the males. The plot revolves around the male characters reactions to what is happening to the women. However, a lot of events regarding the women happen of screen. This is not unusual for the time, however it is one of the flaws of the film and an extra 10 – 15 minutes expanding on the women in the movie would add so much more tension and empathy.

In Summary this is a classic, a film that has set the template for all future Dracula films. Granted this is a film of its time but this only adds to the appeal. Whilst this isn’t scary by today’s standards the portrayal of both Dracula and Renfield is unsettling enough to stay with you, Bela Lugosi is and always will be Dracula. Also, as I mentioned before go and find the remastered version it is a fantastic transfer and makes the film look stunning. 

HALLOWEEN COUNT DOWN: 9 - HELLRAISER (1987)

I think that Hellraiser is one of the most mis-remembered films and would be included in the theory that general understanding not matching the original intent. This is in part due to the lesser sequels (3 onwards) and the way in which Pinhead has been marketed over the years. He is remembered as a horror icon in the same vain as Freddy, Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers but he is very different to all of these and so much more. The three I mentioned are icons, no doubt but they are all slasher killers, killing with a loose motive (revenge or territoriality) but Pinhead and his Cenobites are not slasher killers. In fact I would argue that they are not intended to be the stars of the film at all.

Hellraiser is a pretty accurate translation of Clive Barker’s novella “The Hellbound Heart”, likely because the film was written and directed by Clive Barker himself. Despite not being a very experienced director he has a very distinct vision and tone that permeates every scene. There are few directors that could have made this film and made it match the tone set out on the page. To my mind maybe Guillermo Del Toro, Tim Burton or David Cronenberg could do it well but let’s look at what Clive Barker created.

The film centres on the Cotton family, Kirsty, her father (Larry), his cheating wife (Julia) and her lover (Frank), who is also Kirsty’s uncle. Frank is the black sheep of the family and he has dedicated his life to pursuing pleasures. This leads him to find the Lament Configuration, a black and gold puzzle box that legend states when opened will provide the opener with unlimited physical sensations. It also opens a door for the coenobites, creatures driven to seek out physical sensation – pleasure and pain, and led by the priest, better known as Pinhead.

This brings us to one of the themes of this story, be careful what you wish for. Granted it’s not subtle but it does play out in the rest of the film.  Also this is where a more experienced director may have added some additional layers to the story.

Frank is taken by the Cenobites to experience the extremes of physical sensation for eternity. However he manages to escape and return to the room from which he was taken, a room in a house his brother and family now live. However, he does not come back as a whole man only a bloody skeleton returns screaming. This is a great scene and use of practical effects as the skeletal remains pull themselves from the floor. I love practical effects, yes they can date a film and look bad within a few years but this scene looks great and this is to do with the vision that Barker is bringing as well as the excellent effects by Cliff Wallace.

During the next act of the film we are shown the sordid history between Julia and Frank, as Julia finds him, skinless, bloody and weak in the attic. I have mentioned perfect escalation in films in past reviews (Ghostbusters) but this is an example of a leap of logic that almost breaks the film. Julia finds him and after only a quick conversation she is convinced not only that he is Frank but also that she has to bring him people to feed from to become human again. In the first part of the film it is made pretty clear that Julia is a bitch but it is a big jump from a cheating bitch to a woman willing to kill for a monster locked in the attic. Once again I put this clunky leap in logic down to Barker’s inexperience with film, as this plays out much better in the novella. It is saved however by Clare Higgins, playing Julia. She plays it so well and portrays a board house wife with deep passion and lust that is desperate for some excitement. It just so happens that her obsession has been Frank.

The following couple of kills are the closest the film gets to a slasher film but they are quick and facilitate the growth of Frank, which yet again looks brilliant, gruesome and terrifying using practical prosthetics. It is also during this section of the film that we get the most tension; Barker introduces a claustrophobic feel to the house. As the audience we know that Frank is there lurking in the dark as the family go about their business. The second act culminates in Kirsty finding Frank and escaping with the puzzle box and ending up in Hospital. This is when we also get to meet the Cenobites properly for the first time.

The four Cenobites, The Priest (Pinhead), Chatterer, Butterball and The Woman are visually stunning to look at. Pale skin, clad in leather, hooks and chains with weeping open wounds each unique but following a theme that Barker called “Sadomasochistic Glamour”. They are lit so well, they are hidden in enough shadow to hide the joins in the costumes but illuminated enough so that the audience get a good look at them. Pinhead is the most distinctive and made better by the great voice of Doug Bradley. He is given some dialogue that would sound ridiculous coming from someone else but he gives it a level of gravitas that makes him terrifying. One such line is, “No tears please, it’s a waste of good suffering.”

These are creatures that revel in the pleasure of pain but the film does not attempt to give them an origin or explain what they are, they just are and they always have been. Pinhead actually describes them as “Explorers... in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to others” I love the idea that they have always been out there and they don’t care about good or evil, just physical sensation and looking to try something new. The notion that they have been doing this for eons is heightened by the fact that they comes across as business like. There is no huge acting, they move with purpose and look on the human characters with boredom. They are looking for something new but keep getting the same depraved people seek out an extension of limits of Human experience and they have long passed this level.

It is also demonstrated in this scene that they are arrogant and consider themselves better than human. Kirsty tells them about Frank escaping them and they refuse to believe that anyone can escape them. However, they eventually agree to give her a chance to prove it but before she leave the hospital we also get to see a little more of the “hell” the Cenobites call home. A door is open in the wall and leads down a corridor, which Kirsty just has to walk down.  However, she is chased out by a creature called the engineer hanging from and running along the ceiling. The effects in this scene are really disappointing, while the creature looks pretty good as a practical puppet; the problem is that in several shots the rigging and puppetry for the creature is clearly visible. It is only fleeting but it is so disappointing for a film that has, to this point, done some much with so little.

Eventually Kirsty escapes and returns home to find her Father and Julia playing “happy families”. Her father tells her that he knows what has been going on and everything is sorted, Frank is dead. Running to the attic she finds a bloody skinless body lying in a heap and the Cenobites waiting for her. They inform her that the remains are not of the one she told them escaped and that they will now take her. I am not going to go into detail regarding the final scenes as there are some really good twists and reveals. What I will say is that the finale is almost the pure essence of Clive Barker. There is cruelty, sexual depravity, hellish creatures and a satisfying resolution which means that this can be watched in isolation of the sequels and provide enough answers to be satisfying but leave enough to the imagination that parts of the film can be interpreted in different ways.

In Summary, this is one of few films that have managed to capture the essence of Clive Barker and delivers a really interesting horror film. The designs are iconic and the Cenobites rightfully belong in the pantheon of horror. However, the film has aged poorly in some parts, mainly due to the budget restraints on the effects and Barker’s inexperience at directing. I am in two minds about a lot of the changes that George Lucas made to the original Star Wars films but I understand his intent. I wish that Barker would do something similar with Hellraiser. This film could have a new lease of life with some CGI enhancements to some of the effects and around some of the rougher edges. Until that happens, as long as you can accept a few leaps of logic I highly recommend this truly Clive Barker Horror. I also recommend that you read the novella, at 128 pages it is a quick and tightly packed read. 

Halloween Count Down: 10 - The Frighteners (1996)

Before trekking across Middle Earth Peter Jackson made splatter gore comedies such as Bad Taste (1987) and Brain Dead (1992) (both of which I recommend). He changed direction with Heavenly creatures (1994) receiving critical for doing so. The film was nominated for Best Director and Screenplay Oscars. Following this the studios came knocking. Jackson put forward “The Frightners” a film he had penned with writing partner and wife Fran Walsh; it wasn’t the film the studios were hoping for.

The film follows window and spiritual psychic Frank Bannister (Michael J Fox) who uses his psychic abilities (and two ghost partners) to carry out haunting cons. A Ghost disguised in Death’s robes is also numbering and murdering people in the small town and Frank becomes the prime suspect. Eventually he discovers that the ghostly killer is Johnny Bartlett. Johnny, with his girlfriend Patricia, carried out a massacre 30 years previously and killed Frank’s wife following a car accident.

This film is a mishmash of tone but there are so many good elements I enjoy, the whole experience becomes satisfying. Even without knowing the full behind the scenes story the unevenness smacks of studio interference. Jackson’s core story is incredibly dark, incorporating coping with grief, survivor’s guilt and obsession. This is overlaid with strange comedic scenes of flying babies and ghost sex jokes. The latter have an air of studio “notes” to make it lighter.

The final 20 minutes are mostly spared the comedic injections and benefit from it. It’s a cat and mouse chase through the abandoned hospital where Bartlett’s massacre took place. Bannister is trying to get to the hospital chapel but keeps having flashes back to the massacre. We and Bannister watch helplessly as Bartlett and Patricia kill innocent people left and right. The joy taken in the senseless killing is shocking and while a good piece of film it fits awkwardly with the previous 70 minutes.

The killing of the character Milton Dammers further suggests studio issues. Originally written as an off screen gunshot to the chest. However once the MPAA made it clear the film would get an R instead of the much coveted PG-13 Jackson filmed Dammers’ head being blown apart on screen. Also, the fact this was held back from a 1996 Halloween release for a January 1997 release in the UK strongly suggests that the studio didn’t know what to do with the end result.

Despite the unevenness the script is good. Frank and Patricia are parallel characters. Both trapped in the aftermath of the death of a lover, not able to move on. They are being forced to face their past on a daily basis. Frank in his unfinished dream home he was building for his wife and Patricia from her mother’s unrelenting hatred and fear. This theme of loss and being unable to move on is carried through most of the film. The spirits that remain on earth decay and start to fall apart, it is only if they let go and move to the other side that they become “pure spirits”.

There are several standout performances in the film. The first is Jeffery Coombs as the damaged and deranged FBI agent Milton Dammers. He steals every scene he’s in despite leaning a little too much towards wacky comedy. There’s so much more to the character. His reaction when shouted at by women hints at past trauma. Also the scene in which he recounts how Bannister’s wife died could have been just an exposition dump. By adding in a series ticks and character flourishes it becomes just as much about his character as progressing the plot. I would love to see this character in his own film.

The second is Dee Wallace as Patricia. For the first two acts she is the perfect meek guilt ridden victim. When this mask is torn away she relishes in the wild menace and freedom of being able to be the killer she has always wanted to be. While this twist is sign posted pretty early on her character portrayal makes the reveal so much fun. Another highlight is an amazing cameo by R. Lee Emery as a version of the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.

The decaying ghost make-up affects are really good throughout but the film is let down a little by early CGI affects. They are flat and lack texture which took me out the film in parts. Despite these flaws the film has a look which works for the content.

The Frighteners is an enjoyable horror yarn that has confused moments of horror and comedy but has darkness at its heart that makes it a Halloween must see. 

The Rocketeer 1991 Review

As a companion to my first episode (coming soon) I thought I would provide a review of the underrated pulp hero film, The Rocketeer.

The current deluge of Superhero films isn’t the first time Hollywood has dipped into the cape and tights well. Over the years there have been highs (Superman 1978) and lows (Superman IV 1987). In the middle of this was a small group of films that revisited the pulp heroes of the 1930’s. The best of these is 1991’s The Rocketeer.

The Rocketeer is a great representation of the heroes of the 1930’s, despite not actually being one. The Rocketeer was created in 1982 by Dave Stevens as a homage to the heroes he loved a child. The film maintains this loving homage and sense of adventure.

The film follows Cliff Secord (Billy Campbell), a stunt pilot in 1938 California. A good but unreliable guy trying to get along and impress his beautiful girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly), when the mob drop a rocket pack in his lap. The story is a typical hero origin story. Several groups want the rocket pack and Cliff is planning to use it to make money. By the end the good guys win and Cliff becomes a better person. It’s simple and pretty rote, so why do I enjoy it so much?

Simple, this film makes me smile from ear to ear. The characters, the setting, the action are so much fun. Billy Campbell isn’t a great actor but he has a boyish charm and enthusiasm that makes him watchable. The moment he finds the rocket he wants to strap to his back and give it a try. Cliff considers the rocket a chance to do something awesome and make a buck. Ok, Cliff’s arc isn’t one of personal discovery for the greater good. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have heart. Cliff learns to appreciate that there is someone he will put ahead of everything, the woman he loves.  

The supporting cast are really good. Jennifer Connelly as Cliff’s girlfriend, Jenny Blake, feels of the period without being just a damsel in distress. Plus she is stunning throughout. Alan Arkin is, as always, great as the weary but loyal best friend.  Then there are the Villains.

Timothy Dalton brings a moustache twirling glee to the role of Neville Sinclair. He is a smarmy, arrogant rogue made worse by being revealed as a Nazi. However, while being key to the plot making him a Nazi feels a little lazy. He is joined by a host of stereotypical 30’s gangsters and a Monster henchman, Lothar, in impressive (if immovable) Rondo Hatton make up. They are pantomime baddies, they’re bad but you never feel the Heroes are in any actual danger.

Director Joe Johnston brings comic book charm, heart and adventure to the film. A touch he would later bring to another superhero franchise with Captain America: The first Avenger. Despite being produced by Disney the Rocketeer didn’t have as much money as Cap and it shows. The film is let down by the special effects which, even for the year, are weak and haven’t aged well.

Even with iffy effects I love the two big set pieces of the film. In the first Cliff saves a pilot from an out of control Bi-plane during a stunt show, using the rocket pack for the first time. Seeing Cliff in the full outfit is awesome. The Design is great; a pulp hero has leaped from page to screen. The rescue doesn’t go so well, it’s a success but almost at the cost of Cliff’s life. Our hero is finding his feet in the only way a hero can, a birth of fire.

The second is the big finale, which is amazing in its comic book lunacy. A simple trade off escalates to a fight atop a burning Zeppelin. The turning point comes when Sinclair’s true allegiance is revealed and he is joined by a Nazi army. Not sure how they got there but I am happy to go with it. The reveal puts the gangster goons on the side of the FBI in a shoot out against the Nazi’s. During this Cliff, Sinclair and Lothar are fighting on the blimp which, as to be expected, eventually explodes. It is ridiculous but almost pitch perfect for the film.

I am a big fan of the big modern superhero universes. However, watching this makes me wish for a pulp hero universe. Smaller less god like heroes in a bygone era. I am sure it is being considered but until we get it go and enjoy The Rocketeer.

Ghostbusters 1984 Review

This year we are getting a remake of Ghostbusters. So to celebrate or commiserate, depending on the end result, I thought I would kick off my blog reviews with one of my favorite film of all time, 1984’s Ghostbusters. This was the first film that truly captured my imagination as a child. I may have wanted to be Indiana Jones but it was Ghostbusters that I pestered my Mum to rent repeatedly from the video shop.

I will always try my best to keep my reviews balanced, highlighting the negative as well as the things I enjoy. However with Ghostbusters it’s difficult to find anything negative, to me this is one of the best films ever made. Yeah, I can admit that the special effects have dated in some places but this happens to the majority of films (although Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 still look as great today as they did over 20 years ago). Everything else in this film is brilliant, so where do I start? easy, the Ghostbusters themselves.

Sometimes you capture lightening in a bottle, everything perfectly placed and working at its best. In this case the three leads, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, had known each other for a quite a while by 1984. They had worked on Saturday Night Live and several other films together. They understood each other’s strengths and styles and were able to bounce adlibbed lines off each other with ease. They were young, confident and clearly having a great time making the movie.

The general consensus, with which I agree, is that Murray is leading the charge. He’s a comedy powerhouse in this film as Dr Peter Venkman. Not letting ego stop him from coming across as a bit of an arse from the opening scene in which he happily electrocutes a poor student in order to impress a female student. The characters attitude and charisma remain strong throughout the film and whilst Aykroyd maybe the Heart of the Ghostbusters Murray is the mouth, producing the majority of the best and most quotable lines (too many to start listing them here!).

Dan Aykroyd’s Ray Stanz is an eternal optimist with the excitement of a puppy. It’s impossible to not be charmed by Aykroyd’s joy at the prospect of sleeping over in the dilapidated fire house that becomes the now iconic HQ. Throughout the film he is a joy to watch. He is that friend that keeps you going at the end of the night but will also make sure you get home safe. While Murray creates a character we want to watch, Aykroyd creates a character you want to be your friend.

Harold Ramis was never a superstar, a better writer than actor (he also wrote and directed Groundhog Day – another great Murray film!). By playing it down in this film and being a little wooden he creates a genuinely unique character in Egon Spengler. Looking at it now I would even suggest that Egon could appear on the Autism scale. He is socially awkward, singularly focused needing structure and facts. He is the brains of the team and the straight man to so many great moments set up my Murray.

Last but by no mean least, I have to give some space to Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddmore. The regular Joe in a room of crazy scientists, Hudson does a great job of grounding this film and giving it accessibility. I will get on to perfect escalation in a bit but Winston is a great example of it in this film. You totally buy into his story and the fact he is a regular guy who, by the end of the film, becomes perfectly comfortable taking on a god.

In addition to the main players, this film is filled with amazing supporting characters such as Sigourney Weaver’s Dana Barrett and Rick Moranis’ hapless Louis Tully. In addition to these I always loved of Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz and William Atherton as the dickless Walter Peck. These are all people that can only exist in the Ghostbusters universe and make it more colourful and exciting.

The original concept was created by Aykroyd. He placed it in the future, in which ghostbusting was a service much like the fire service and the film was intended to be around an ongoing escalation of Ghost activity leading the final confrontation with Goza. The central joke would be that these four men would be dealing with this extraordinary situation with a boredom that comes from many years doing the same job. It was the films eventual director, Ivan Reitman, who suggested some changes advising Aykroyd to use Harold Ramis as a co-writer; it was this team that brought us the film that I love to this day.

It is that central concept that I love so much, these are a bunch of guys that set up a business that shouldn’t (and almost doesn’t) work and get into an adventure way over their heads. Also, as I have gotten older I have started to appreciate the way that each section is written. I believe that Aykroyd and Ramis’ previous comedy experience led them to structure the film to contain a series of, what could be, comedy sketches. Such as the opening scene with Venkman and his student volunteers, the trip to the library, their first major job chasing Slimmer at the hotel, or the Louis Tully party and the Devil dog. Each of these is a little standalone story and could be watched as a short sketch, each providing insight into the characters, the situation and with a satisfying payoff.

When this film was released in 1984 the UK British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) gave it a PG rating. It has been released on Blu-ray recently ad has been given a 12. Why? Firstly there wasn’t a 12 in 1984 (this was created a few years later due to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) and secondly there isn’t enough swearing or nudity to warrant a 15, so why the change? Well take a look at the content of this film. From the outset it has some scary (for kids) moments, for example the library ghost, which scared the crap out of me as a child. I loved this film but the moment Aykroyd shouts “Get her!” my hands covered my eyes. The skeletal Taxi driver also freaked me out. Then we have Ray Stanz’s sex dream, yes that’s right, sex dream. In the dream sequence Ray is lying in bed and a ghost unzips his trousers and it then shows his “Happy Face”. As a kid I didn’t know what this was but it made me laugh. This was a hard PG film yet because it was seen as a kid’s comedy, with a cartoon spin off, I don’t think my parents noticed. However, that extra edge is also what made it better. This is like an introduction to scares and adult(ish) humour for kids. This is a very 80’s trend and something that current production companies shy away from.

One of the things that I consider when watching a film is “perfect escalation”, the achievement of making the final act or conflict perfectly in keeping with the films universe and the story that has been told so far. A good example of failing, in my opinion, is “Signs”, an ending that comes out of nowhere and doesn’t really fit. This is not the case with Ghostbusters. The film starts with a single library ghost and escalates to them confronting a god on the top of a building whilst being attacked by a giant marshmallow man and because of how it plays out it all makes sense. How is it that three scientists and a regular Joe end up in this situation and as a viewer I totally accept it? Brilliant writing and drip feeding ideas and concepts as you go along. The scope of the story increases a little bit at a time, not overloading the viewer with information or making too many leaps in logic or credibility. Each of the story developments or exposition scenes builds on the previous ones within the limits of credibility within this universe. So by the end of the film inter-dimensional god Gozer is as acceptable as a library ghost.

In summary, this is a film with a brilliant screenplay, amazing characters being expertly played by guys at the top of their game. It progresses at a perfect pace to an awesome finale. I will always recommend this film to anyone and it would take a lot to knock this film the top spot on my list of favorite films.