Groundhog Day (1993)

 "Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today."

This film is probably the chief reason we Brits know what a groundhog is- it's the first time I've had cause to see one on screen that I've noticed. And, of course, it's probably the only reason most of ushave heard of the institution of Groundhog Day. Actually, I'm curious... do you chaps do St Swithin's Day, the summer equivalent...? 

This film, though, is surprisingly excellent and surprisingly deep. It's a comedy, I suppose, shot and co-written by the late Harold Ramis, and it certainly has a great many witty lines. And yet it's more than that, and only superficially reprresents that Hollywood comedy cliche that flawed comic protaginists need to redeem themselves in a heartwarming way. This film is far too good to be reduced to that tired old cliche.

So yes: Phil is a total git of a weatherman, arrogant entitled, snobbish, simultaneously thinking that country people are "hicks" and that education for culture's sake, such as the poetry of Baudelaire, is a"waste" compared to humdrum vocational dullness. And only reliving one day again and again, enough times to learn French, the piano, ice sculpting and the art of seducing one Rita- does he gradually go through phases of apathy, deep depression, and eventual catharsis, realising that a life well lived is one of altruism.

It sounds trite. But it isn't. The film wrestles with some deep philosophical questions- ethics, existentialism, all sorts- yet is not didactic, and insists on no one philosphical lens, which shows admirable restraint.

Fundamentally, though, this film has a brilliant script, the two stars are superb and it works both as comedy and as a concept. A true classic.

Ghostbusters II (1989)

 "Being miserable, and treating other people like dirt, is every New Yorker's God given right!"

I hadn't seen this film since its original theatrical release in 1989, when I saw it at the old Cannon cinema in the towncentre. So, yes, it's been a while. Surprisingly, I did remember a few things.

This film, of course, was famously a flop, after which there wouldn't be any more Ghostbusters for a very long time. But... I can't really see why? This seems to me to be every bit as good as the original. This cast was always going to be superb. The script is great, with some very witty lines- I love the moment when a ghostly Titanic finally arrives in New York City and the man at the port says, deadpan, "Better late than never..."

The film is even about something- the threat is, essentially, a metaphor for the negative emotions stirred up in a big city and uses that concept to riff on the stereotypes and reputation of New Yorkers, as embodied by the quote above. It's a film absolutely about New York City, so of course we get a walking Statue of Liberty. It's a pity that Americans of today seem to have abandoned those nobler and old-fashioned values of, you know, welcoming the tired huddled masses and giving fascists the finger instead of voting for them.

So, yeah, the critics are just wrong here. This film is great. Yes, even the sex scene with Janine and Lewis.

Ghostbusters (1984)

"Do you have any hobbies?"

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

It's quite an instructive experience seeing a film you saw at the old Cannon Cinema in Hinckley back in '84, watched tens of times while still in primary school, but haven't actually seen since Thatcher was prime minister. You remember very little until you see it happens, and then the memories flood back. You even find yourself unexpectedly remembering dialogue from the next scene. It's quite surreal.

This is the first time I've seen the film as an adult, and so finally realise what Hittites, Sumerians and Babylonians are, and what a cad and a charlatan Peter Venkman is, and what a creep he is with Dana. But I can also appreciate what may not be laugh-out-loud funny but is a justifiably popular fun classic with a top notch cast. In hindsight it's clear how much this film owes to the then-recent Poltergeist, with lots of that kind of ghost activity, but it never attempts to be a scary film and keeps the tone light and fun.

Rick Moranis s great as the possessed Louis, but William Atherton deserves special praise for his Walter Peck, the perfect pantomime villain. But the whole damn thing justly deserves its status as a true classic.