Analyze This (1999)

Director: Harold Ramis

Cast: Robert de Niro, Billy Crystal, Lisa Kudrow, Chazz Palmentieri

Have I Seen It Before: Oh sure. It was one of those R-rated movies that my parents let me see in those scant few years before I could just bypass their authority altogether.

Did I Like It: Back in those days when watching the movie was a special treat, I thought it was tremendous, causing me to put the movie in the same class as Ramis' work on Ghostbusters (1984) and especially Groundhog Day (1993). I kinda wanted to be Harold Ramis, if I'm being honest. A purveyor of funny comedies whose scripts actually work plot-wise. This was before his eventual petering out with duds like Bedazzled (2000) and Year One (2009), and certainly before subsequent Ghostbusters movies became occasions to memorialized him.

As a critic, one doesn't want to let the variables of one's own mood or environment, but I'm going to say that it was probably a bad idea to watch this film immediately after watching The Godfather (1972). But it’s also not a great idea that the film wants to invite all of those comparisons. Sobol’s (Crystal) dream sequence where he is Marlon Brando and Vitti (De Niro) is John Cazale during the assassination attempt in the earlier film not only smacks of self-reference via identification only and forgetting to bring some sort of commentary to the proceedings. It also highlights that Coppola and his cinematography Gordon Willis can be frequently mimicked, but rarely captured*.

The rest of the film leans to heavily on the personalities of its two stars to really ever succeed on its own terms. De Niro leans into the monosyllabic and Crystal spills forth with schtick that I want to remind them both that they’re not suffering through a talk show appearance or hosting the Oscars.

For all the good it might do them.

*Boy, that one scene in Barbie (2023) really had my number, didn’t it?

Multiplictiy (1996)

Director: Harold Ramis

Cast: Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton

Have I Seen it Before: “We’re going to go eat a dolphin, Steve” was a common refrain in my house growing up.

Did I Like It: Math dictates it is terrific. Allow me to elaborate.

The text of this review appeared previously in a blog post entitled “How Could No One Else Like These Movies? Part Two, But With No Electric Boogaloo.” published 04/30/2017.

Speaking of 1996 films featuring multiple roles played by the stars of Batman (1989), this movie is pretty great, too. Directed by the late, great Harold Ramis, Michael Keaton plays a man slowly realizing he doesn’t have enough hours in the day to meet all his obligations. After taking a contracting job with a lab working on experimental cloning procedures, he finds the perfect solution. With two of him around to work and take care of the kids, everything should be fine. It isn’t enough, and another clone is needed to pick up the slack. Then the clones feel like they’re overworked, and they start cloning themselves. Hilarity ensues. Actually, as the 90s nostalgia industrial complex is now in full swing, a more horror-based remake of the same concept might actually work.

Some might claim that everyone involved has done better work—Ramis probably put the high-concept comedy genre to bed with the one-two punch of Ghostbusters (1984) and Groundhog Day (1993) but do not let this take diminish from the film’s accomplishments. The special effects—while not overwhelming—still hold up. Often when one actor has to interact him or herself, the eye-lines never quite line up. It’s clear that the scene was shot at two different times, and the film has been processed to within an inch of its life. Just watch any episode Star Trek: The Next Generation wherein Data’s evil twin brother, Lore, shows up for great examples. In Multiplicity, it really feels like Keaton is sharing the frame with himself.

Which brings me to my real argument for why this film is loved far less than it ought to be. Now, I’ve had a theory going for a number of years that the presence of Michael Keaton in a motion picture automatically adds 15% quality to the final product. Now, this movie has 4x Keaton. Rotten Tomatoes currently has the film at a dim 42%. Therefore, with four Keatons running around, the movie actually deserves a 102% rating. If you are not interested in the only movie that garnered a 102% on the tomatometer, then I don’t know what to do with you anymore.

Groundhog Day (1993)

Director: Harold Ramis

Cast: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, Chris Elliott, Stephen Tobolowsky

Have I Seen it Before: I’m well-versed in Peak Murray™ 

Did I Like It: This movie really should have everything running against it, and yet it is a career best for all parties involved. It boggles the mind.

The film is nearly perfect, and in fact the only aspect that ages poorly is the song “Weatherman,” wedged into the opening and credits like a lazy, hoary square peg forced into a perfectly round hole. It reeks of a studio note that came to life and terrorized the countryside, but after an IMDB search, I’m horrified to realize it was written by the film’s composer, George Fenton, and director Harold Ramis. RIP, but Harold? If you can hear me, you were Egon, for Christ’s sake. Use your head.

And for every other part, he did. The film is a master’s course in comedy plotting, with not a wasted moment in the film proper. Each moment works on its own, and in turn either sets something up for later on, or pays something else off from before (in some cases, it accomplishes both). It’s theme is pure to the point of crystallization. It engrosses, despite a third act that in less adept hands would be a weirdly soft landing for such a manic tale. While Ghostbusters (1984) will always have a special place in this child of the 80s and 90s, Groundhog Day is the best thing with which Murray or Ramis has ever been associated. It’s often imitated—including, ahem, by me—but here they were working without the net of what had come before.

And there’s no reason—on paper—why any of this should have come to pass. I’m not 100% certain, but I am as sure as I can be that this film was shot out of order. The identical framing and blocking of scenes as Phil Connors (Murray) barrels through a time loop of unknown origins makes me think that the only practical way to shoot would be to get all of the Ned The Head scenes at the same time, the Gobbler’s Knob reports at the same time, or all of the scenes in the B and B at the same time, etc. That each scene has with it a certain amount of sameness, but requires of Murray completely different levels of performance with each iteration. It’s a masterful performance from him, made all the more strangely miraculous when one realizes that Murray and Ramis were not speaking to each other (and indeed, were estranged for most of the rest of Ramis’ life) for the duration of production. The reasons have only been alluded to*, but that the needle-thin precision work needed for this film to avoid being a complete train wreck makes the film all the more of a marvel to behold.

* Maybe Murray hated “Weatherman” as much as I do.

Ghostbusters II (1989)

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Peter MacNicol

Have I Seen it Before: Let’s just assume I’ve seen every movie released in the summer of 1989 about a thousand times.

Did I Like It: It has all the same ingredients as the original, and is still a satisfying meal, but in the end there is nothing like the first taste.

Comedy sequels are rough. Quick, name a good one. You probably didn’t mention Caddyshack 2 (1988). Or Analyze That (2002). Or The Whole Ten Yards (2004). Or Fletch Lives (1989). Smokey and The Bandit II (1980)? Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983)? What’s left that can rise above the absolute laughless masses? The Austin Powers movies? Was the original even that funny after the hazy binge that was the 90s ended? Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)? Watchable, yes. Funny, sure. But not the same as the original.

So it is too with Ghostbusters II. Many—including much of the cast—have poured cold water over the second film, and I get it. The plot needlessly contrives putting the busters back to square one. There’s too much of Slimer and other elements and choices elevated by the only occasionally good Real Ghostbusters cartoon series. The notion of a Jaeger Statue of Liberty is sort of disappointing in a world that has Kaiju Marshmallow Men.

Although I admit that my soft spot for the movie may be a byproduct of people irrationally loving movies they first saw when they were five years old, but this movie is still Peak Murray, and thus cannot be dismissed entirely. I enjoy it every time I watch it, even if it is not as joy inducing as the original, or even if it is not quite as fresh as the 2016 remake. Watch it, and realize that while it isn’t perfect, it could have been truly embarrassing. That it isn’t in that low pantheon of comedy sequels is certainly worth something.

Ghostbusters (1984)

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver

Have I Seen it Before: Do you want me to perform it for you?

Did I Like It: Top five, likely. Top ten, definitely.

Ghostbusters fandom is a divided place now, it seems. If you like the original films, the 2016 remake is akin to sacrilege, inciting a series of dumb opinions, many of which coming from people who have never seen the new film. Similarly, to those who really found something to attach themselves to in the new film, the original is less thrilling.

To wit, the question I come to as I start writing this review: Is it possible to like both the original and brand new Ghostbusters? I enjoyed the new film, and never once felt threatened by its existence. This may be one of the prime pieces of evidence supporting the notion that I’m not an entitled man baby, and just like funny movies about people catching ghosts. And yet, the original film is one of my all-time favorites. I hope it isn’t perceived as sexist to prefer the original, because I’m of the mind that ghostbusting must know no borders of race, creed, or gender.

Now that we have that out of the way, I will restrict my comments to the original film.

There’s something special about Bill Murray. With many comic actors—indeed, many of those appear in this film—there is a period where they are at their funniest. Not so with Murray, as while he changes as the years go by, each version of Murray is equally watchable. That being said, the Murray enjoyed by filmgoers in the 80s through the mid-90s is peak Murray. He’s aspirational. Some people my age might have wanted to be James Bond or Michael Jordan, but the kind of people I would most get along with wanted to be like any Bill Murray character, even if they couldn’t quite admit. Laid back, but charismatic. Funny, but no one’s fool. Loved—even if begrudgingly so—by the best of people, and detested by the worst. For someone trying to get by on his wits, Bill Murray is the peak of manliness, and no more so than in this movie.

There’s an interesting extension to the above thought that I realized during this viewing. Any role during this same period that Bill Murray played, Chevy Chase could have played as well, and vice versa. However, when Murray plays the role, he is the heroic scamp, where if Chase portrayed the character, he’d be an irredeemable asshole. If Murray had been in Fletch (1985), it would have been an even better film, and if Chase had played Dr. Peter Venkman, the movie would have suffered within this alternate universe.

While the movie lives and dies by Murray’s presence, the rest of the cast helps elevate the movie to a true classic worthy of eventual remake. In my deep Ghostbuster fandom, I once had occasion to read the original screenplay by Aykroyd and Ramis. The script is fine, but the movie as we have all come to enjoy it is not on the page, it is in the performances. This film is a brilliant low-key comedy wrapped up in the trappings of a summer blockbuster. The blockbuster elements will fade (and in the case of the special effects, already have), but the film will live forever, owing to the bizarre, ineffable alchemy that is the true fun of the movie.