You may recall that late last year, I started this series where I get my fellow movie-lovers to check out some 80’s and 90’s pop culture touchstones that they might have missed to see how they hold up to a fresh pair of eyes.

So far, the entries in this series – THE BREAKFAST CLUB, BACK TO THE FUTURE, and FERRIS BEULLER’S DAY OFF – were films I thought would hold up beautifully. “Not so much” would be a more apt description as my fellow bloggers all seemed to come back with an “It was OK” reaction.

This brings us to a film I dug very much as a kid, but one that I didn’t think would stand up all that well: GHOSTBUSTERS. Take a look beyond the jump to see what Tom, our friend down under thought of the 80’s staple.

RM: Any particular expectations going in?

TC: I think Ghostbusters is generally considered as one of the all time classic comedies. On top of that, I’m a big Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd fan based on their other work. So I’d say my expectations were fairly high.

RM: I’ve grown to learn that high expectations are never a good thing, especially where older films are concerned. So with stakes like those, how well did it fare for you?

TC: I definitely liked it, but it won’t make a list of best comedies in my book. Bill Murray was really entertaining as always, and there were acouple of brilliant lines (“It’s true. This man has no dick”), but overall there weren’t as many laugh out loud moments as I was expecting.

RM:Interesting. I remember laughing out loud at it quite a bit, but that’s more likely because it wasn’t hard to make me laugh at the age of seven. (Come to think of it, it’s still not very hard to make me laugh).

TC: Also, as ridiculous as this may sound, I had trouble a lot of trouble with the films believability. It seemed awfully convenient that all these ghosts were arriving just as the heroes had set up a ghost extermination business.

RM: I didn’t get the impression that these ghosts were just “showing up”…more that there was now someone who could actually do something about it. Like an especially good rat catcher showing up in Manhattan.

TC: That’s definitely true…it’s not that I had trouble believing in the existence of ghosts, because obviously within the world of the movie, they exist. I just guess I wasn’t entirely satisfied with how they built that world. Ghosts were just sort of suddenly there.

RM: Or were they always there and people in this movie just didn’t want to admit it?

TC: There’s that scene early on where Peter Venkman is chastised by the university for carrying out experiments in the field of parapsychology, so it’s established that the supernatural phenomenon aren’t commonplace or widely observed. And yet fifteen minutes later we get a montage showing the Ghostbusters extermination paranormal beings all over the place. It just felt awfully inconsistent and a bit convenient.

RM: You’re trying to apply logic to a film where I have to buy Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray as scientific geniuses. You realize that, right? What about the film’e “eightiesness”, how dated does it seem now?

TC: It’s definitely dated. It’s sort of hard to put your finger on it, but comedies from this time period tend to have a certain feel to them.I’m not sure if I’m used to a more raunchy or more rapid fire style of humour, but eighties comedies often feel a little like they’re trying to be funny…like the characters are delivering jokes rather than just speaking dialogue that feels naturally funny. Aside from that (and the effects, which are obviously dated, but not in a way that really detracts from the film), the other thing that seemed really out of date was the music choices. Decidedly eighties!

RM: I will strike you down for blasphemy if you try to speak ill of that legendary theme song!

TC: The song is still awesome. Obviously even though I only just saw the film, I’d heard the song long before. It’s pretty rare, especially these days, for a film to have such an iconic song, and it was just really cool to finally see it/hear it in the context of the movie

RM: Alright, you dodge an ass-kicking for now. Back to the comedic timing…have you seen films like MEATBALLS or STRIPES that used many of the same people and is likewise seen as a comedic classic? I’m wondering how GHOSTBUSTERS compares to those as the rhythms are very much the same.

TC: Honestly, I have a pretty serious gap in my film knowledge around that era. I do have a few favourites though, including BILL & TED’S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, BACK TO THE FUTURE, BLUES BROTHERS and FERRIS BEULLER, all of which I find far funnier than Ghostbusters. All of those films are ones I first saw between about the ages of about eight and twelve (on DVD or on television), so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m being affected by nostalgia.

I recently rewatched BILL & TED, and I knew in my heart of hears that a lot of the humour was pretty weak and enormously dated. I’d say that might be the same for fans of GHOSTBUSTERS. I think we all have movies from our youth we view through rose coloured glasses.

RM: I agree – which is why I started this series. I actually wanted to assail some of these films I mistakenly believe are bad-ass.

Was there anything in particular that stood out for you as a highpoint? (I remember particularly enjoying the final showdown as a kid.)

TC: I definitely enjoyed the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man. Like the song, I think it was because I knew it was coming, and it was cool to finally see the famous sequence that I’ve seen and heard referenced so many times.

The other moment that immediately springs to mind is the scene where Venkman is rigging the ESP test so he can seduce a girl. I thought that was a really good way of introducing his character.

RM: So there we go, not a complete waste of time, right? On a scale of 1 to 5, we give GHOSTBUSTERS…?

TC: I think it’s a solid 3.5 – Generally funny, but without the nostalgia I don’t think it’s anything particularly special.