Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&amp;#039;Drama" data-source="post: 345645" data-attributes="member: 23">And the hypocrisy keeps on coming. Last night I attempted to cleanse the oestrogen-infused remake from my mind with the original...
Ghostbusters (1984)

<img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F78%2F82%2Fd6%2F7882d6684037598b2a99475d98450c80.jpg&amp;f=1&amp;nofb=1&amp;ipt=4ce242c5f7757a209de48a98cf863e4f710fdfb9a2829e359b710aaff3fec1a7&amp;ipo=images" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 642px" />This is one of those films that goes a long way on nostalgia. It&#039;s among the first films I remember recording and rewatching heavily, and I just think there&#039;s something particularly special about this era - and this year - on film.It&#039;s a little shocking after all this time to see how vintage the film looks - the grainy picture has a certain retro charm. But New York is photographed beautifully here, the actors are charismatic and watchable (though Rick Moranis is a bit of an irritant). This was the first film in which I saw any of the featured actors, including Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver.And the writing is just scientific&nbsp; enough and with a nice dollop of quirk. I&#039;ve always been fond of the slightly bizarre early scene at Columbia University where it seriously feels as though Ghostbusters is secretly a musical, about to burst into its first showstopper, and the score cheekily plays along with the fake-out:
[MEDIA=youtube]RjzC1Dgh17A[/MEDIA]The first hour or so whizzed by far more quickly than the remake, but I&#039;d forgotten how that last act reeeeeally drags. It feels around twenty minutes too long and I couldn&#039;t wait for it to be over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 345645, member: 23"] And the hypocrisy keeps on coming. Last night I attempted to cleanse the oestrogen-infused remake from my mind with the original... [CENTER] [B][SIZE=6]Ghostbusters[/SIZE][/B] (1984) [IMG width="642px"]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F78%2F82%2Fd6%2F7882d6684037598b2a99475d98450c80.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4ce242c5f7757a209de48a98cf863e4f710fdfb9a2829e359b710aaff3fec1a7&ipo=images[/IMG][/CENTER] This is one of those films that goes a long way on nostalgia. It's among the first films I remember recording and rewatching heavily, and I just think there's something particularly special about this era - and this year - on film. It's a little shocking after all this time to see how vintage the film looks - the grainy picture has a certain retro charm. But New York is photographed beautifully here, the actors are charismatic and watchable (though Rick Moranis is a bit of an irritant). This was the first film in which I saw any of the featured actors, including Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver. And the writing is just scientific enough and with a nice dollop of quirk. I've always been fond of the slightly bizarre early scene at Columbia University where it seriously feels as though [I]Ghostbusters[/I] is secretly a musical, about to burst into its first showstopper, and the score cheekily plays along with the fake-out: [CENTER] [MEDIA=youtube]RjzC1Dgh17A[/MEDIA][/CENTER] The first hour or so whizzed by far more quickly than the remake, but I'd forgotten how that last act reeeeeally drags. It feels around twenty minutes too long and I couldn't wait for it to be over. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =