A Ken Doll Situation: Ghostbuster's 2016 & 1984 Review

Note: I preferred the 2016 version. I’ll try not to be biased. I promise.

In a way to compare the two films is almost an injustice to a degree. Certain aspects of the 1984 film were expanded upon like how the devices worked. One thing I loved about the 2016 version was the lack of skirt chasing, or pant chasing? Anyway, the heart of the original was there: the quirkiness of the characters from the original was there and even that was original.

The humor in this 2016 version was more my style. Sure, the 1984 version had its moments, however, I found the humor much more appealing, likely due to its relevance to the situation, like the Ken doll situation. One more thing about the humor in this film was the self-awareness the 2016 version had: I don’t know if it’s a race this or a lady thing, but I’m mad as hell (Patty). We must save the pretty receptionist! I simply love how the director or writer poked fun at dumb blonde jokes, but putting an attractive dumb blonde male in there as the receptionist as opposed to the snippy receptionist.

I loved the cameo’s! More on those in a bit.

Anyway, the 1984 version, to me at least, had drier humor than the 2016 version. The humor seemed more active, but this may just be the generation gap rearing is ghostly head. Bill Murray’s deadpan delivery of the one-liners is certainly brilliant and all he needed to do was tilt his head a certain way and that body language was all he needed to bring the joke home. Abby’s joke, “Your virginity is at the lost and found for you to pick up.” That certainly gave me a chuckle.

I can’t help but want to separate the two films. In a way, they are twins some 30 years apart, but they are unique and wholly their own in many ways. Aside from the casting and parallels, the 2016 version function like a parody of its predecessor and some parts of the predecessor show up, which I found added a great touch and I could rant on about Murray’s role as a renowned skeptic in the 2016 version. The cameo was akin to poking fun and paying homage to the original. That Ozzy cameo was a hit with me.

The ladies held their own, despite the sexist comments by some viewers. I’m of the opinion this film 

was designed and written to be a bite of the thumb to the sexist, misogynists specters floating around pestering those who do something with their lives. Moving on.

I simply adored the ladies for their acting. If I had anything to gripe about, which was said in the film: Patty seemed more like a stereotype than an actual character. I found her funny as hell, but there was just something about how she was portrayed that poked me in the back of my head. Virgo was such an odd duck from a strange pond—I loved her. The contrast between Abby and Erin were visible, almost tangible. They both loved what they did, but Erin had so much to learn from Abby and vice versa. This film did its original material justice. 

I think my bias showed just a bit. 

Poltergeist Review

This may be the generation gap or my disillusionment about the horror genre speaking, but I found this film, to put it in a word: meh. Granted this film set a solid foundation for haunted house films. I see films like this as a foreign film: I can’t seem to connect. The setting was certainly one I as a viewer don’t recognize. Or I am overthinking the entire setting. Maybe my joy of the horror genre has been maimed by mainstream horror?

Anyway, if there is one thing that I took away from this film is how the supernatural interacted with the physical. Granted the portal in the closet was a bit comical, in my view. However, after Carol Anne was taken into a different dimension, the creepiness factors spiked. She was there, but not really. At that point, I felt for her parents. No so much her brother—I was rooting for the tree to eat him. Ha, rooting! Anyways, the issue I had with the supernatural was two-fold. I found it lighthearted and absurd in a negative way. The supernatural seemed a mix of light and dark. In hindsight, the supernatural seemed to be there and the family just happened to move there, it just so happens that Carol Anne was sensitive to the aspect of her new home.

There’s usually a common theme or character in these haunting stories: a sensitive, or a living conduit. With that in mind, this gave the film a creepiness to it, I didn’t notice until after I watched it. The supernatural elements in the film used her sensitivity to break the barrier between the two worlds. This harkens to Lovecraft for me: the key and the gate as one.

If I could make another complain about the story it would have to be character. The family seemed stereotypical and there didn’t seem to be much development beyond the reaction to Carol Anne being taken to another dimension. This film didn’t frighten me as much as other films from the period. If anything, this film forgoes the violent, demonic haunting, and this film could have easily gone that way. However, the source of the haunting is certainly more tragic. When the video of the different spirits was shown, I got the feeling the tragedy was there, but swept under the rug in a way.

Overall, Poltergeist stands alone. The comical aspects of it were likely spawned from my own personal aesthetic when it comes to hauntings. I am more familiar with the dark, violent hauntings, and even drawn to them. The haunting in Poltergeist wasn’t necessarily frightening, however it did follow the structure and plot that do make for creepy ghost films. To compare (or contrast) The Other’s, the supernatural was always present, it was just not seen until the two sides touched. In the case of Poltergeist, Carol Anne was that thing that connected the two sides. I like to think of The Other’s as Poltergeists dead twin in some respects.

No Docile Piglet: The Exorcism of Emily Rose Review

I would be lying if I didn’t say I kept comparing and contrasting this film with the film adaptation of The Exorcist. However, with due thought, this film stood out on its own, and given the fact it was a retelling of a documented case of a failed exorcism, adds a layer more of depth and introspection into the secular world and the religious world.

           

 I didn’t know what to think of this film during the first 30 minutes of it. Initially, I found the overall film to be riddled with cliché’s and imagery that would scare the hell out of any other viewer. However, deep down, there was heart to this tale. I found myself sympathizing with Erin Bruner and her plight. She wasn’t a strong believer, I would even say she lied about her spiritual leanings (which she got called out for). Bruner struggle with her career and the supernatural did cause her to slip into her cups at several points, which is understandable when she realized she was being awoken at 3AM regularly. Father Moore’s character was certainly frustrating at times, namely when he insisted he testify. I found that he had some subtle intensity about him. He understood the ramifications and possibilities of the trial, but he was prepared to accept the reality. However, he does have his preachy moments.

         

   If I could gripe about one thing it was how the supernatural was presented in this film. The image of the bleeding stained glass didn’t do it for me. Sure, there was scary moments, but they were overshadowed by cliché. It felt cheap seeing those sacred images desecrated by unseen forces. I could have done without the Shakespeare reference to storms. I found the actual exorcism scene to be bland. The set up was there, the execution was something to be desired. True the supernatural was not the focus, I would have liked to understand more about it with an agnostic perspective. And perhaps that’s where the fear factor of this movie comes into play. The supernatural is in the background and perhaps even breaks down the walls between the material and spiritual realms in certain spots. Bruner’s and Cartwright’s initial reluctance to acknowledge that aspect of life adds to that fear factor.

             

There were of course several positive aspects. The plot didn’t feel like it was two hours and I didn’t feel cheated with my time. The major positive aspect of this film was the emotional impact of it. Each character was given their fair share of time and credit. Fr. Moore was particularly easy to read but powerful in his simplicity. His character was handled very well. This film stands apart from in predecessor and yet pays homage to it, with the use of old tongues. One way this stood out was its setting: taking place after the death of Emily Rose, the modern mentality set in and was changed. Being set some 40 years after its predecessor, this film differentiates itself by putting forth a philosophical aspect, which is a major drawing point to the film. This film went a bit beyond good versus evil, it touched upon differing beliefs and what we do with the gift of life.

             

The Exorcism of Emily Rose hit on several points without turning into a documentary or some other film. There was a balance and realism to this film I can’t seem to ignore. How would I react if someone I knew showed the signs of possession?  I don’t know. I will likely have mixed feelings about this film for quite some time. Perhaps another screening of it will solidify my opinion.