Now Showing - DalekbusterScreen5's reviews

Ghostbusters (1984)



The reason why I included the movie's theme song above is because it's the one thing that perfectly describes the film Ghostbusters. The song accurately captures the feel-good vibe present throughout the entire movie and to me the feel good factor is the reason why the 1984 Ghostbusters is so great: it feels like you're having fun with the four Ghostbusters rather than just watching four friends have fun. Or as the song puts it: Ghostbustin' makes you feel good.

So what is the film about?

Do I really have to ask that?

Who doesn't know the story of ghostbusters? Three scientists - Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) and Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) - lose their jobs at Columbia University and decide to set up a paranormal investigation business known as 'Ghostbusters'. Along the way they hire Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) and together the team of four hunt down and trap ghosts using their Proton Packs. A lawyer representing the Environmental Protection Agency Walter Peck (William Atherton) orders their containment unit to be shut down and the ghosts they have captured are released into New York city. They are also contacted by cellist Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), who is being haunted by demigod and servant to God of Destruction Gozer ( Slavitza Jovan) Zuul. Together, the Ghostbusters must combat the ghost invasion and save New York from Gozer.

Ghostbusters may be a comedy first and foremost but it succeeds as one because of the way it deals with the ghost invasion. The characters don't treat it as one big joke but they take the threat seriously and the humour comes from the situation rather than from parodying supernatural horror. Of course, you do get some cartoonish ghosts (Slimer for one) but you never get the feeling that the movie is one big in-joke and the four main characters are in on it. It feels a lot like how a real group of friends would interact in a situation where they are hunting down ghosts and happen to share a great sense of humour.

Of course, that would be nothing without the chemistry and Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Harold Ramis are like lightening in a bottle. They are absolutely perfect and share a phenomenal amount of chemistry onscreen. It is disappointing how Ernie Hudson was shortchanged with his role despite how the character initially had a bigger part in early drafts of the screenplay but when he is onscreen he is as funny as the other three. His joke 'If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say' is so funny and true to real life that it feels like Harold Ramis took a direct quote when writing the script from a real person rather than fabricating it. That's the sign of a good writer: someone who manages to capture the voice of everyday people and create dialogue that feels true and authentic.

The best of out of the 1984 Ghostbusters is definitely Bill Murray however. Bill Murray steals the show and has killer lines like 'Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!'. Ghostbusters would have been nothing without him; he is the one actor out of the team of four who brings the magic to the film. There are certain types of roles actors are just born to play and for Bill Murray that's the lazy, laid-back slacker who can be found in films like Ghostbusters and the recent Jungle Book. Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd clearly realised this when casting him for the part and one of the greatest comedies of all time was born.

From what I have heard the 2016 Ghostbusters features some social commentary on gender imbalance. Some may complain that this doesn't belong in Ghostbusters but they would be ignoring the original, which may not feature gender commentary but does feature a form of social commentary. Ghostbusters in my view is partly a satire of pest exterminators. The Ghostbusters are essentially supernatural exterminators who come into homes and rid them of 'vermin' (IE ghosts). The difference however is that the Ghostbusters get rid of the 'vermin' in a humane way rather than killing them off (although whether you can actually 'kill' a ghost anyway is debatable given they are already dead). Ghostbusters could be seen as a film that therefore challenges the notion of just taking the lives of creatures that invite themselves into our homes rather than finding a more sympathetic method of dealing with them. The reason why we root for the four Ghostbusters is not just because they dispose of the ghosts but also largely how they dispose of them. The ghosts are stopped in a way that still grants them (after)life but at the same time sufficiently punishes them for their crimes against the living.

Nobody is ever going to claim Ghostbusters is Citizen Kane but what it is is immense amounts of fun. The chaotic visual style of the Proton streams add a lot to the film's lively tone. Most importantly they look like something that would come out of a piece of scientific equipment designed for catching ghosts so there is no suspension of disbelief required. To achieve the proton streams with the 1984 original they filmed some explosions on-stage at the Entertainment Effects Group then used a technique called 'pin-blocking' to rephotograph it (taking a repeat photo/video of something with a time-lag of the two images). It is clever how they achieved this and the other effects in Ghostbusters without the need of CGI; Ghostbusters: The Ultimate Visual History makes for an interesting read. Did you know, for example, that Slimer in the 1984 Ghostbusters is a puppet and the hot dogs were over-sized props?

Overall, the 1984 Ghostbusters is not to the quality of an Alfred Hitchcock film but it is most certainly one of the greatest comedies of all time. It's an immensely fun and entertaining movie with natural chemistry between the four leads and instantly quotable lines such as the 'steady paycheck'. In the age before CGI, the effects still stand up today. The SIimer puppet is an extraordinary piece of puppetry and the fact that it is a puppet is barely noticeable in the film. Ghostbusters, rather than being a parody of horror, is a film that works because the situations are taken seriously in order to provide the comedy. It also has some brilliant social satire on pest exterminators and features a standout performance by Bill Murray. If you haven't seen the 1984 Ghostbusters by now then there's something strange in your neighborhood and you need to call...into your local shop that sells DVDs/Blurays straight away to buy yourself a copy.

Moveforums.com exclusive teaser - Tuesday 12th July review

(Not) Valentine's Day. Bummer.

Now can't you see that all we need to be a go-getter
Gotta make your own decisions, you gotta go for what ya know
It comes a time in our lives, you wanna be bigger
Gotta keep, keep on pushing, you gotta learn to take control, yeah

What the hell is going on? It's pandemonium out there!

Ghostbusters 2

Making a sequel to a movie is always hard for the cast and crew involved, especially when that film is highly regarded as one of the greatest comedies of all time. The three main players in the Ghostbusters franchise Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd had one hell of a problem ahead of them. The film not only had to be funny but it also had to appeal to both its newly gained fanbase and casual viewers who may not have seen the first Ghostbusters at the same time. Whilst this is also the case for many other sequels, like the Back to the Future series this is made harder when the genre is comedy - something that is very subjective to begin with - mixed with elements of science fiction (a genre that opens itself up to people tearing the plot apart to point out plot holes due to its very complexity). So did they succeed?

Well, yes and no. Ghostbusters 2 isn't the worst sequel of all time but neither is it the greatest. The film sees the Ghostbusters out of business after they were sued for damaging property and banned from investigating the supernatural following the events of the first movie. Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are working as children's party entertainers (their theme song having become nothing more than silly party music), Egon is experimenting on human emotions at a laboratory at Columbia University and Peter Venkman is the presenter of the chat show World of the Psychic. Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) now works as an art restorer at the Manhattan Museum of Art and working on a painting of a sixteenth century tyrant called Vigo the Carpathian. Soon it becomes clear that the spirit of Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg) is living in the painting when Dana's workmate Doctor Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol) is instructed by Vigo to find a child for him to possess so he can return to the living in the New Year. The Ghostbusters are drawn into illegally pursuing the paranormal when Dana asks them for help after something possesses the pram containing her baby Oscar (William T. Deutschendorf). They obtain a sample of pink slime in an abandoned underground tunnel, however their breaking of the law is discovered when Ray accidentally creates a New York blackout by kicking a pipe that breaks and causes an electric cable to short out. They are arrested and found guilty in court but when they manage to capture the ghosts of two murderers who appear in the courtroom, the charges are dropped and they are granted permission to reopen their Ghostbusting business in order to investigate Dana's case further.

The concept of mood slime (slime that reacts to positive and negative emotional states and can negatively influence the behaviour of those who encounter it) is an interesting one as it brings a lot of fun ideas. I like how slime has a purpose in the second film compared to the first movie where it was basically a one-note joke in the form of the line 'He slimed me' and it's nice how the Ghostbusters themselves are exposed to the negative emotions having direct contact with the slime can cause. It also features one of the rare scenes that's almost as good as the humour in the first film when Peter asks Ray if he sleeps with the slime. Ray's silence invoking that he does is a hilarious reaction and one of the only memorable pieces of comedy compared to the first film.

That's not to say I rarely laughed during Ghostbusters 2; I just didn't laugh as much as during the first movie. The first Ghostbusters has numerous quotable lines that you would be hard-pressed not to remember. Ghostbusters 2 on the other hand is the kind of comedy you giggle at during the first viewing then forget majority of the jokes shortly after. The most memorable scene is probably World of the Psychic, when in response to a guest called Elaine (Chloe Webb) informing Peter Venkman that the world will end on Valentine's Day, to which Peter replies with 'Valentine's Day. Bummer,'. The Valentine's Day line is pretty much the only one from Ghostbusters 2 I see people quote on the internet or in memes. It is impactful mainly because of Bill Murray's excellent delivery but also because like the 'Steady Paycheck' line from the first movie it's another case of Harold Ramis providing a line that feels true and the most authentic thing a real person would say if they were told the world was to end on Valentine's Day.

My main problem with Ghostbusters 2 is that at times the film really drags. The sewer and courtroom scenes in particular feel like they could have been heavily cut down. Editors Donn Cambern and Sheldon Kahn haven't done the best job at compositing together a movie as engaging as the first one and the film would have worked better with a faster pace. When you watch a film like Ghostbusters, you don't want to see long courtroom scenes: you want to see them busting ghosts. That could also be a plot problem. Yeah, it is probably realistic that the government would shut them down and fine them for property damage but being realistic doesn't necessarily make for the best film. Why couldn't they have been rewarded for saving New York anyway? After all, the first one ends with them as celebrities.

Thankfully Ghostbusters 2 is elevated up from being a poor sequel by the strength of its ensemble. The four Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson and Winston Zeddemore still have the chemistry from the first film and thankfully Ernie Hudson has a bigger part compared to the first movie. All four of them really bounce off each other and help a mediocre script become something a bit more special. Ghostbusters 2 is worth watching just to see the unique friendship these four Ghostbusters share. The comedy may not be as good but the ensemble cast is still fun to watch and it is better than a lot of other comedy movies out there (I'm looking at you, Little Fockers).

Slimer returning as the Ghostbusters' pet is a fun transition for the character. Whilst he had a more antagonistic role in the first Ghostbusters, it would have felt like too much of a rehash to feature him in a villainous part so soon after the first movie. I didn't have a problem with Slimer's role in Ghostbusters: The Videogame and I doubt I will with the Reboot but they are both twenty five years and thirty two years after Ghostbusters (1984) respectively. There's a big enough gap to make Slimer fulfilling the same role feel fresh as opposed to repetitive. You wouldn't be able to get away with the Librarian Ghost as a pet but with Slimer being more a mischievous type of ghost rather than an overly threatening one there's a certain amount of logic to it. It makes sense and it therefore isn't too much of a stretch to believe it.

One element that doesn't quite work is this film's version of Stay Puft. The Statue of Liberty stomping across New York is a cool visual but ultimately compared to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man it is a bit flat. It is a neat idea that the Ghostbusters control it with an NES controller though; I could imagine kids among the cinema audience would have found the notion of being able to use a game controller to move something the size of the Statue of Liberty magical. And maybe that's the problem many have with Ghostbusters 2? Maybe it's the fact that it panders too much to children rather than maintaining the more young adult demographic of the first movie? Did they try too hard to impress children? Maybe if they had approached Ghostbusters 2 in the same way as the first Ghostbusters it would have resulted in a better movie?

Overall, Ghostbusters 2 isn't a terrible sequel but neither is it one of the best. The comedy isn't as strong as the first movie and some of the scenes tend to drag as a result of bad editing and poor narrative decisions but there is still a lot of fun to be had by watching the film. The chemistry between the four Ghostbusters is still evident and the Mood Slime is a nice concept. It also attempts something new by making Slimer a pet of the Ghostbusters rather than an antagonist, which surprisingly does work given that he was never one of the more threatening ghosts anyway. The Statue of Liberty climax is nowhere near as strong as Stay Puft Marshmallow Man however and sometimes you get the impression this sequel tried too hard to pander to kids rather than the Young Adult demographic of the first film (since 1984 the first Ghostbusters has been rated 12 by the BBFC compared to Ghostbusters 2's PG rating). Ghostbusters 2 is certainly worth watching over lackluster sequels like Men In Black 2 or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen but at the same time the Ghostbustin' isn't going to make you feel as good as it did in the first movie.

Why is no-one quoting: "Sometimes **** happens, someone has to deal with it and 'who you gonna call?'"

But you could just as easily say why did they need to get kicked out of the college in the first one? The beauty of these films was that they had a firm grip on reality and real – often mundane – situations, so that when the weirdness turned up it was convincing.

What was it you were saying about a proofreader !?

It's funny, I never thought of it like that but I suppose it's true – they perhaps felt they needed something similar but made it a heroic thing instead of a threat.

I wonder if The Real Ghostbusters was on by then? Because he was a pet in that.

One thing that surprised me recently was finding out Max von Sydow was the voice of Vigo – it should have been obvious the way he says "Begone you pitiful half-men!".

I've seen it quoted about twice elsewhere on the internet. Personally for me it doesn't stand out compared to 'We came, we saw, we kicked its ass' or 'That's a big twinkie'.



I think that scene is vital though because it gives them the motivation to group together and set up the business, whereas with the legal complications and court scene could be removed without affecting the movie too much.

If you took away them getting kicked out of Columbia University you would have to come up with a whole new reason for them to start Ghostbusting and explain things like how they have the time to do it alongside their university jobs where they will inevitably be working long hours. Alternatively you could make them unemployed but then that could make Winston too similar to the Ghostbusters when he needs to be the person joining because he just needs a job.

Of course, you'd still have Peter, Ray and Egon with the scientific knowledge Winston doesn't have but to me it would still undermine the latter's reason for joining if the other three were unemployed.

And what else could you do?

Have them give up boring jobs? But then if they have such scientific knowledge then what are they doing in mundane jobs to begin with?

[QUOTE[The beauty of these films was that they had a firm grip on reality and real – often mundane – situations, so that when the weirdness turned up it was convincing.[/quote]
I'd agree with that. I think the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 with the Ghostbusters taking on other jobs such as party entertainers is good but I would rather the Ghostbusting business had just gone bust due to a lack of supernatural hauntings since the first Ghostbusters rather than bringing legal stuff into it. That to me would have been a greater social commentary.



I'm becoming like the notorious Doctor Who: The Complete History authors, who keep making typos in the books!


That raises an interesting point actually - it is commendable how Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis take risks by reversing what would have been threats in the first movie in Slimer and the Statue of Liberty. Even if it doesn't quite work in my view, it's certainly not a safe sequel like (as much as I love it) Jurassic World.


The Real Ghostbusters aired between 1986-1991 and Ghostbusters 2 was released in 1989 so it had definitely been on television. I'm not sure if they would have made the decision based on the cartoon but it is certainly possible if Slimer as a pet was popular with viewers. I have heard of The Real Ghostbusters but I wasn't alive when it aired so I don't know what the reaction was to cartoon pet Slimer.

Yeah, that is interesting. It's a good voice for Vigo, sort of how you would imagine somebody from the sixteenth century would speak. All theatrical and boastful.

Difficult to say that when it's Bill Murray, though. Everything's gold in his hands .

I mentioned them getting kicked out because it's a similar 'disgrace' to being in court in the second film. Really, I just see it as a helpful dose of the ordinary, and it makes it more real.

I think it's all perfect – the idea that the authorities turn on the city's saviours in this way and try to discredit them.

You literally hadn't lived! It was great; I remember it well. Check out the episode that pastiches Citizen Kane, it's a belter .

I'd heard about it ages ago but I've always been put off by how it isn't the cast from the film voicing their characters in cartoon form. Might check it out one day though.

So you weren't put off by the characters looking nothing like the actors ? – 'cause I was, even at that age .

What's interesting is that Lorenzo Music, who voiced Peter Venkman originally in the series used to do the voice for Garfield. It was funny that Bill Murray returned the favour by voicing Garfield in the live action film.

That too. It's ironic how thirty years on Egon looks more like the Reboot's Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) than Egon Spengler.

Yeah, I thought that. She looks like she actually might be quite funny.

Ghostbusters (2016)

For months on end, Paul Feig's Ghostbusters has been hit with criticism - both from sexists and those just generally opposed to the idea of the original Ghostbusters not returning - but this review isn't about that. I may feel sympathy for Paul Feig and the cast because of the amount of unnecessary abuse they have faced from those who cannot accept that there are funny female comedians out there but I would never take it into account when reviewing a movie. I review films on here or on my Dalekbuster Screen 5 blog site based on their own merit and not on the hate campaigns that may or may not surround them.

The Ghostbusters reboot follows Columbia University professor Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), who is approached to investigate the haunted Eldridge Mansion by historian Ed Mulgrave (Ed Begley Jnr) after reading her book Ghosts of our Past: Both Literally and Figuratively. Erin is initially confused as she didn't publish the book however before long she realises her co-author Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) must be to blame and sets off to confront her. There she meets nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) and after Erin tells them about Ed's request to investigate the mansion they set off to confront the ghost of Gertrude Eldridge (Bess Rous), who was locked in the cellar after murdering a bunch of people in the building. Their encounter is recorded and uploaded to YouTube. Erin is fired by her boss Harold Filmore (Charles Dance) as they don't consider the study of paranormal proper science. Abby and Jillian hope their boss Dean (Steve Higgins) will be more lenient due to their workplace being a less prestigious university but they are soon shown the door. Together Jillian, Abby and Erin decide to start a Ghostbusting business and set up shop at a Zhu's chinese restaurant after finding their first choice - a rather familiar firehouse - too expensive. They hire Australian Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) as their receptionist and before long are visited by their first client, Patty (Leslie Jones), who saw a ghost in the subway where she works. Through their investigations they find a guy called Rowan (Neil Casey) has been building devices to magnify paranormal presence and they set off to trap the ghosts he is releasing.

I hadn't seen any Paul Feig films before but after watching this movie it isn't hard to see why he has earned such a reputation as a highly-regarded comedy director. The Ghostbusters Reboot may not be as good as the 1984 original but it is a much more deserving follow-up than the 1989 sequel Ghostbusters 2. Whereas the sequel lacked the memorable lines of the original, the Reboot features many pieces of dialogue which I feel over time may gain an iconic status. One of my favourite lines was 'Rowan, pick up your virginity from the lost and found!', spoken by Abby during the confrontation with Rowan's Ghost. This is a line that I feel could become the new generation's 'This man has no dick!' as it has the same wit and charm of the quoted line from the original.

The directing of this film shows a clear understanding of what made the 1984 Ghostbusters work so well. Paul Feig has completely grasped that the comedy from Ghostbusters comes from the scary situations the characters are thrown into rather than it being a parody of the horror genre. The events of the film feel genuine for the characters who interact in it and this is reflected in the score by Theodore Shapiro, which feels more like a soundtrack for a horror movie than a comedy. There's no silly 'wah wahs' (despite the noise Jillian Holtzmann makes at the failed proton stream during the subway sequence) or music that cries 'THIS IS FUNNY'; instead the soundtrack consists of music that could easily have been taken from The Shining or The Blair Witch Project. You get the sense that the reboot could have taken a darker, more serious edge and it puts into context what Paul Feig had said in an early interview about taking inspiration from The Walking Dead. Talking about influences, I am sure he must have been inspired by a certain other show too.

The show I am referring to is Doctor Who. There is a scene in the film where Patty is chased by a plastic dummy that reminds me a lot of the Autons from the show. I am not certain if it is a deliberate reference but it does feel as though it could be an in-joke from the director. Indeed, the movie's approach is very similar to that of Doctor Who - particularly the 2005 revival. Like the popular BBC1 show, the Ghostbusters Reboot uses the notion of 'hiding behind the sofa' (or in this case, 'hiding behind the cinema seat') in that amid the more light-hearted elements it deliberately sets out to scare you. There are a few jump scares scattered through the film and it helps to establish how serious the ghost threat is. The film also ingeniously follows the way Doctor Who's 2005 Revival introduced its brand to a new audience: just like the episode Rose saw the debut of a new Doctor, Ghostbusters (2016) doesn't bring back the original team but instead showcases a new one in order to familiarise a new generation with the concept of Proton Packs and PKE Meters. This is a wise decision as it doesn't alienate those who are new to the Ghostbusters brand. There is no reason why the old team cannot be brought back later on anyway, especially when there are already plans to establish a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe. Whose to say Ghostbusters (2016) can't be a parallel universe from Ghostbusters (1984)? Personally I would rather see a new audience introduced to Ghostbusters with the 1984 Ghostbusters returning later on than Peter, Ray and Winston to be brought back in a third movie that alienates those unfamiliar with the brand and ultimately becomes a flop.

Of course it is possible that the Reboot could be a flop anyway but on the strength of the cast I hope otherwise. The four leading ladies have a huge amount of chemistry together and as with the original four it feels like lightning in a bottle. Kristen Wiig is much funnier than the trailers give her credit for. Many of her best moments are left out of the trailers and suffice to say she makes for a better lead than I had expected. Melissa McCarthy is more entertaining than her trailer appearances also, although the standouts of the Ghostbusters are unsurprisingly Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones. Kate McKinnon is wonderfully quirky as Jillian Holtzmann; one scene sees her eating Pringles whilst Erin confronts the ghost of Gertrude. Leslie Jones certainly is not the racist stereotype the reboot haters like to claim; she may not be a scientist but she proves to be extremely knowledgable about the history of New York and is therefore no less intelligent than the other Ghostbusters. Patty feels like a progressive step forward for acting roles within the black community and I hope to see more black actors given the opportunity to play characters like her.

The star of the reboot is rather ironically one of the male cast members. Chris Hemsworth is a revelation as Kevin; he is brilliantly endearing as the bumbling idiot and for someone who is known more as a dramatic actor provides some of the film's biggest laughs. The scene where Kevin displays some of the logos he has created for the Ghostbusting business including a female ghost with big boobs and an 'invisible ghost holding a hot dog' is comedy gold. If this sounds sexist towards the male gender, I can assure you it isn't. Everybody who isn't a Ghostbuster be it male or female is portrayed as an idiot, which to be fair is pretty accurate to the present time given that we're living in a world where Boris Johnson is foreign secretary of the United Kingdom and Donald Trump is running for president of the United States.

Another complaint I have heard is that the cameos and references to the 1984 original take you out of the film. This wasn't the case for me. Whilst many of the cameos didn't add much to the movie they didn't ruin the cinema experience for me either. They were just there, with the exception of Bill Murray, who has a slightly bigger and more important role as skeptic Martin Heiss. Bill Murray is definitely the most meaningful of the cameos; whilst his character is significantly different to Peter Venkman it is fun to see him play the complete opposite of Peter. Martin Heiss is probably the closest to this movie's Walter Peck, although there is no direct copy of the character. Whilst Walter was acting under authority, Martin's motivations come more from his disbelief of the paranormal. This nicely ties in with Erin's character arc of wanting others to trust that she has seen ghosts, which date back to when she experienced her first ghostly encounter as a child and nobody believed her.

My biggest gripe with this film is the way it relegates what should be an important scene to the end credits. During the credits, a possessed Kevin is shown leading soldiers in a dance sequence. This was removed from an earlier point of the film and explains why the same soldiers are placed into such odd positions by Kevin when they are under his possession. With no context, any members of the audience who decide to leave during the end credits will wonder what the sequence in the film with Kevin and the soldiers was about as it makes little sense until the credits play. The dance is a fun moment that could have worked nicely during the ghost battle in New York and the way it is relegated to the credits feels like an attempt by the studio to convince cinema-goers to stay until the end of the film. I am guessing they were worried viewers would miss the numerous mid-credits scenes and decided to include it to give them a reason to stay in the auditorium. There is still a problem that some may leave before the end credits however and miss the last tantalising scene; perhaps they should have announced in the press that there would be scenes during the credits instead?

Overall, Ghostbusters (2016) is a fun reboot of the 1984 original and feels like a more natural follow-up for the first film than Ghostbusters 2. Paul Feig seems to have a perfect understanding of what made the original Ghostbusters work so well; the comedy comes from the scary situations the characters are placed into rather than a parody of the horror genre. Like Ghostbusters (1984), Ghostbusters (2016)'s cast have a natural chemistry together and provide many laughs; they are the perfect ensemble and I doubt Sony would be able to find any actors more suitable for the franchise going forward than Melissa McCarthy and company. It seems like a lot of inspiration has been taken from Doctor Who (especially in the opening tour guide scene) and the way it sets out to scare its audience whilst offering a comforting blanket in the form of its heroes, as well as the strategy taken by the 2005 Revival to introduce an existing brand to a new audience. Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth are the star performances; both offer the movie's most hilarious moments be it eating Pringles in the face of danger or coming up with terrible logo designs. The only major problem is the way a major sequence becomes little more than a scene played during the credits. Kevin's dance sequence really should have been a part of the movie's story as its exclusion leaves a small hole in the narrative that doesn't really make sense.

If you decide to see this film, make sure you see it in 3D; the 3D effects are spectacular - proton streams, slime and ghostly hands all come out of the screen - and the film would likely feel flat without them. Ghostbusters (2016) seems to have been made with the 3D effects in mind much in the same way as James Cameron intended Avatar to be seen in the format.

Simply put: this is one film you don't want to miss in 3D. The power of Sean compels you!

Non-sexists have also been critical. That's like saying George Takei is anti-gay just because he's been appalled at the idea of them changing Sulu's character.

Again, I find that a sweeping statement.

That's interesting to know – I've heard the same about Dredd.

The Doctor Who comparisons are interesting because I've always thought Ghostbusters was the closest thing the Americans have to our show.

True - but mainly by people who haven't seen the film.

I haven't seen Dredd but the 3D is comparable to that in Journey To The Center of the Earth, which had incredible 3D effects.

Well apart from the trailer, nobody had . I don't know what they're saying now it's out other than that it's getting positive reviews.

I've seen Dredd in 2D and that was stunning enough, so the 3D version probably does enhance it even more.

Unfortunately that doesn't follow. It largely depends on how the director and studio treat 3D. If they see it as a throwaway gimmick then they just put it through the cheapest 3D conversion (Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) however if they see the storytelling potential the effect can have, you find a lot more thought is put into the way it helps enhance the narrative (Jurassic World).

Terror of the Autons

Jon Pertwee's era of Doctor Who took a lot of inspiration from the spy genre, so it is hardly surprising that producer Barry Letts decided to add a Bond-style villain in the form of the Master. What is surprising is how long it took them to do it. The Master wasn't introduced into Jon Pertwee's second season in the role in 1971's Terror of the Autons. As we all know, the character became a big hit with audiences and has gained the status of one of the Doctor's most iconic enemies.

When the Master (Roger Degaldo) arrives on Earth in his TARDIS, he steals a Nestene meteorite and hooks it up to a radio telescope in order to boost a frequency wave that will bring to life the plastic of Earth. Meanwhile, the Brigadier (Nicholas Courtney) introduces the Doctor (Jon Pertwee) to his new assistant Jo Grant (Katy Manning). At first, they don't get on due to Jo's clumsiness and lack of scientific knowledge however over the course of the story they become firm friends and the Doctor starts to accept her as his companion. Together they must stop the Master from summoning the Nestene and destroying humanity with an army of Autons.

Whilst the first story to feature the Autons - Spearhead From Space - focused entirely on shop window dummies, here other forms of plastic are explored as potential threats to the Doctor and his companion and it is nice to see the concept expanded upon. The Autons become a much more terrifying threat when not only are shop window dummies deadly but you cannot trust phone cords and plastic daffodils either. There is even a deadly chair that in perhaps one of the show's most gruesome moments swallows Farrell Plastics' head of production George McDermott (Harry Towb) whole. It is not surprising that this serial was criticised by many at the time for being too scary for kids - the special effects may not be the best the classic series has to offer but many of the scenes like many of Doctor Who's greatest stories wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie. Other examples of this include the Dalek sucker coming towards Barbara in The Daleks and Zygon Harry attacking Sarah with a pitchfork in Terror of the Zygons.

Jo Grant is immediately endearing as the Doctor's new companion also. Katy Manning plays the part brilliantly, oozing a certain charm and likeability as the bumbling assistant. Whilst some may question the Brigadier's decision to replace Liz Shaw with her despite her lack of qualifications as the Doctor does in the serial, by the end of the serial you really don't care. Katy Manning sells the character right from the beginning and I have a feeling she will always be considered one of the show's most beloved companions. It is a shame that her debut also happens to be the debut of the Master as she is unfortunately over-shadowed but the production crew at the time weren't to know that the Master would go on to become one of the show's most iconic characters.

It's certainly not hard to see why he has become such an iconic character either. The Master is a brilliant adversary for the Doctor; essentially he is a direct reflection of the Doctor. Whilst the Doctor fights for the good of the universe, the Master fights for chaos and destruction. He is essentially the Moriarty to the Doctor's Sherlock or the Loki to the Doctor's Thor. Compared to, say, John Simm's Master, here he is treated as more of a behind the scenes presence and for the most part it works better when he is not the front and centre of the plot. The drawback is that it results in a plot resolution that comes out of nowhere. The Doctor manages to persuade the Master round but we are not shown enough of the Doctor and the Master's 'frenemy' relationship to make it convincing that he would be so easily persuaded. I would rather the Doctor had managed to out-wit the Master in his plan rather than talk him round.

Roger Degaldo is brilliant as the Master though and will always be to many the definitive version of the character. He has a certain sinister charm as the Doctor's Time Lord nemesis and doesn't need to act insane in order to have a big presence onscreen. Whilst I like John Simm's later portrayal of the character, I would have rather seen him play the part like Roger Degaldo as opposed to bearing more similarities to The Joker. Michelle Gomez as Missy will likely always be my favourite take on the character but if it were not for the legacy left by Roger Degaldo it is highly doubtful that her version of the Master would exist. Roger Degaldo's performance is the reason why the Master has become such an iconic part of Doctor Who mythology; the part was very clearly written for him as he has a wonderful sense of gravitas in the role. Roger Degaldo quite simply WAS the Master.

One of the things I think is a shame is that the Master no longer has the hypnotic powers he displays here. I like the idea of the Master hypnotising people; it helps to show how different he is to the Doctor despite being of the same race and it bears similarities to brain-washing techniques seen in real life ruthless dictators such as Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Putin. The notion that somebody could mess your mind and, for example, persuade you to set off a bomb is a scary one and something that is actually quite true to current society with the way terrorists have twisted people into exacting their plans of terror. A brilliant decision by writer Robert Holmes to have Jo Grant placed under the Master's hypnotic powers also as it leaves the viewer feeling uneasy to see one of the Doctor's friends turn against him. I would like the new series to show Missy hypnotise the companion for an entire series as I think the uneasiness that comes from somebody close to the Doctor being placed under the spell would make for an interesting angle to be explored in more depth.

Overall, Terror of the Autons takes the concept of the Autons and offers a deeper exploration of how they can be a threat to our planet. Not only can they possess shop window dummies now but telephone coils, chairs and plastic daffodils can also be brought to life - giving the terrifying impression that nothing made of plastic material is safe from the clutches of the Nestene. The story serves as a great introduction for Katy Manning's Jo Grant - one of the show's most charming companions - however it is over-shadowed by the debut of Roger Degaldo as the Master. It is easy to see why the Master has developed such a legacy within Doctor Who after watching Roger Degaldo's performance in the role; he is amazing and a true highlight of the Autons' return, even if the character's tendency to act behind the scenes rather than at the forefront of the episode results in a rushed conclusion that comes out of nowhere. It's a shame that the new series has opted to ignore the Master's hypnotic powers as they are a great way to emphasise the difference between the Doctor and the Master, as well as offering a nice sense of uneasiness to the plot when the Doctor's new companion Jo Grant is placed under his hypnosis. I hope for Series 10 that Missy places the twelfth Doctor's new companion Bill under his (or rather her) hypnotic powers but somehow I doubt it is going to happen.

In this case I don't think it was seen that way. What they do visually in the film is so brilliant I can only imagine that 3D would make it even better.

The idea came from Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty – which also made the Brigadier the Watson to the Doctor's Holmes. It's funny how Tom Baker called Pertwee's Doctor Holmesian as he reminds me a lot of Basil Rathbone's version of Holmes.

…in a barn on top of haystacks. Barns are scary — anyone see Chimera in the Nineties?

I remember Delgado's Master more as someone who wanted control over the universe, rather than wanting to destroy it or disrupt it. What is it the Doctor says to him in Colony in Space? "I want to see the universe, not rule it".

Another close reference would be that he's the Magneto to the Doctor's Professor X.

Yeah, that was a bit too easy.

Disappoint us better, I say . I'm sure people said the same about Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger and yet Jared Leto looks like he might take the crown off both of them. I think Delgado was fantastic, though. I can't see anyone topping him.

Me too – although as well as the hypnotism angle the title "Master" was also conceived as being a qualification to chime with "Doctor".

Nope, I haven't seen it. Admittedly there are a few films I have yet to see.

I can see that argument. I was using chaos and destruction in more of a broader sense really, taking into account future Masters as well as Roger Degaldo.

I might use that scene as an example to anyone who says Rowan in the new Ghostbusters is defeated too easily. You haven't seen an easy defeat until you watch Terror of the Autons' conclusion!


He is essentially the Tom Baker of the Master. I think he is the incarnation many think of first when discussing the character.

That's an interesting point - and, of course, 'Master' and 'Doctor' both have opposite connotations. That brings it back to your earlier point - 'Master' suggests a 'ruler' of something whereas a 'Doctor' is of course a healer.

Yeah, I'll admit to that too .

Yeah, I think they go more for the chaos and destruction stuff in the Eighties and later. I liked him best at the beginning.

I suppose so – it'd be great to know which one he is for definite. I think 12 myself.

Thing is, these were supposed to be 'renegade' titles they'd assumed when they escaped from Gallifrey. The Master wasn't always called that – I know in the books his original name was Koschei after the evil magician in The Firebird.

Given the original conception for the Master I see the name meaning 'the best at' first and then all the other stuff.