New Episode of THE DARK FANTASTIC PODCAST Now Live

Listen to "Episode 12: Ghostbusters and The Beauty of Nostalgia. Guest: Writer Erik Burnham" on Spreaker.

 In this episode:

- Interview with writer Erik Burnham, a prolific and multi-talented artist and writer. He has done work for IDW Publishing, including his critically acclaimed work on the GHOSTBUSTERS line of comic books. He joins host A. K. to talk about Ghostbusters, meeting a legend, his ear for dialogue, and the importance of being a voracious reader.

- A short discussion about the concept of nostalgia, why it's under attack, and how it can be a force for positive change.

- A clip from SCARED STIFF (1945), a little known classic comedy starring the great Jack Haley, better known as The Scarecrow from the MGM adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. It’s a delightful movie for all ages, and it’s available online, for free, on many streaming sites.

© The Dark Fantastic Network. 2022.

Book Review: GHOSTBUSTERS (1984): The Novelization: By Richard Mueller

Fun, energetic novelization of the comedy classic, with lots of extra tidbits for fans, including some fascinating background info on some of the main characters, especially Venkman (Bill Murray) and Stantz (Dan Aykroyd). It is also interesting to note the myriad difference between this version of the story and the final shooting script, as many of the jokes featured in the film are funnier and more polished. The writing feels a little rushed towards the end, but overall this is guaranteed to provide hours of entertainment for “Ghostheads”.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2016.

Review: GHOSTBUSTERS (2016)

As a die-hard fan of the original Ghostbusters (1984), I started watching this movie with a lot on my mind: Is it going to ruin the original for me? Is it going to suck? Was it even necessary to reboot the whole franchise?

A few minutes into it, I began to loosen up and have fun. And fun is the operative word here. The chemistry between the leads is infectious, the jokes are more hit than miss, and the effects are impressive without being too overwhelming. This is a movie that is designed to give you a good time, and it does.

But that's not the whole story. Ghostbusters (2016) is also a film that works less than it should, considering the talent involved (director Paul Feig, Melissa McCarthy, and a number of SNL stalwarts), with everybody either trying too hard or not hard enough. The script, while having some truly hilarious moments, is weak on plot, with a cartoonish, forgettable villain.

But the film's biggest fault is simply this: the filmmakers behind Ghostbusters (2016) can't seem to make up their minds whether the movie is supposed to be a bold reboot with its own identity, or a timid homage to a timeless comedy classic, with the cameos, which are for the most part uninspired, not helping matters. Add to that the lack of any serious involvement from Dan Aykroyd, the quirky genius behind the whole franchise and the man who gave the original most of its ideas, and you have a movie that it isn't as quirky or atmospheric as the original.

Which leaves us with a movie that is fun, diverting, and has its moments, but, on the whole, unremarkable. And for fans like myself who have been waiting for a new Ghotsbusters movie for almost thirty years, it isn't exactly what we were hoping for. But we will take it.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2016.

Flashback Review: GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) and GHOSTBUSTERS 2 (1989)

Once a thing becomes a crucial part of global pop culture, it's easy to dismiss it as a fun, silly, harmless piece of entertainment that we take for granted. But Ghostbusters (1984) deserves more credit than that. To my mind, it is still one of the riskiest, strangest, most original blockbusters ever made, with a story that is beyond categorizing, and a mood that is impossible to replicate. Basically the brainchild of Dan Aykroyd, one of the most eccentric comedians of the past century, Ghostbusters is part horror film, part comedy, and part special-effects extravaganza, which doesn't miss a beat. It has, surprisingly, aged very well. Yes, the effects are primitive by today's standards, but the jokes and the scares still work, while the undeniable chemistry between the entire cast is still magic on screen.

It is interesting to note that Ghostbusters was a film that was considered a huge risk by Columbia Pictures, since its mixture of horror and comedy had never been done that way before, and the producers worried that a cast of actors mostly known for their TV work (the cast is made up almost entirely of Saturday Night Live and Second City cast members), wouldn't prove to be box-office gold.

A sequel and hundreds of millions of dollars later, all doubters were proven wrong.

***

It was inevitable that, after the mega success of the original, a sequel was going to be made. Reportedly, all involved were reluctant to make a sequel, feeling that they wouldn't be able to top what they achieved with the original. But pressure from the studio and barrels of money thrown at them changed their minds, resulting in what many consider to be a disappointment.

Almost twenty years after it was made, and upon watching it for the first time in more than a decade, I found Ghostbusters II to be less of a disappointment than I remembered, but it still is a disappointment. It lacks the energy and the incomparable zaniness of the original, and Bill Murray seems a bit on auto-pilot this time around. But writers Aykroyd and Ramis still have many tricks up their sleeves, with the film having some terrifically inventive ideas and gags. The effects here are also better than in the original. Overall, Ghostbusters II holds up much better than I remembered, and is a worthy if flawed successor to the the groundbreaking original.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2016.