home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=89TT1686>
- <title>
- June 26, 1989: Time For The Ants To Revolt?
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
- June 26, 1989 Kevin Costner:The New American Hero
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- CINEMA, Page 89
- Time for the Ants to Revolt?
- </hdr><body>
- <p>Two big, dull sequels hint at a drizzly summer
- </p>
- <p>By Richard Schickel
- </p>
- <p> The best kind of bright early summer's day spoiled by the worst
- kind of dark imaginings: Is it possible that in this season,
- otherwise so full of innocent promise, Hollywood executives banish
- all thought of us as audience -- discerning, judicious, culturally
- literate? Does the solstice induce in them some Kafkaesque mental
- process by which we are converted, for purposes of contemptuous
- calculation, into some lower life-form? Do moviegoers suddenly seem
- to them to be, say, a vast colony of ants mindlessly munching
- through forests of Roman numerals, unconcerned about the taste,
- good or bad, of anything placed in our path? (Yum -- Indiana Jones
- III; slurp -- Star Trek V: The Final Frontier; burp -- Ghostbusters
- II.)
- </p>
- <p> This grim fantasy is engendered by exposure, in rapid
- succession, to the films underlying those last two presold titles
- and by the prospect of The Karate Kid III, Lethal Weapon II,
- Nightmare on Elm Street V and, heaven forfend, Friday the 13th
- VIII. Not to mention James Bond umpty-ump. The basic criticism of
- sequels is as familiar as it is correct: they represent the triumph
- of commercial caution over creative daring.
- </p>
- <p> Take Ghostbusters II, for example. Once again the
- psychomagnotheric slime is flowing in Manhattan. Once again spooks
- are aloft among the other pollutants in its atmosphere. Once again
- paranormal phenomena (this time in the service of Vigo, a sometime
- Carpathian tyrant, whose spirit inhabits an antique portrait) have
- singled out Dana (Sigourney Weaver) for special attention. Once
- again the old team of exorcists -- wisecracking Venkman (Bill
- Murray), absentminded Egon (Harold Ramis), earnest Ray (Dan
- Aykroyd) and stouthearted Winston (Ernie Hudson) -- is ready to
- deploy its pseudo science in the service of exorcism.
- </p>
- <p> But that pileup of "onceagains" finally undoes this sequel. For
- if writers Ramis and Aykroyd have slightly altered the
- circumstances of their central figures, they have not bothered to
- develop their characters any further. Dana, for example, has a baby
- and a tangle-tongued boss -- marvelously played by Peter MacNicol
- -- who is madly in love with her. The ghostbusters themselves are
- suffering, to good comic effect, from celebrity burnout and
- municipal ire over their failure to clean up the mess that they
- made the last time they saved the city.
- </p>
- <p> But the movie and everyone in it remain, under Ivan Reitman's
- determinedly casual direction, very loosely organized. They amble
- agreeably, but not necessarily hilariously, from one
- special-effects sequence to the next. These are not better, worse
- or even different from the original's trick work, and their lack
- of punctuating surprise is the film's largest problem, especially
- at the shamelessly repetitive climax.
- </p>
- <p> Still, it has moments of wayward life, especially in contrast
- to the smug torpor of Star Trek V, which William Shatner directed
- from a script by David Loughery. That "final frontier" mentioned
- in its title is nothing more than your standard black hole, through
- which the starship Enterprise is commanded to navigate by a not
- very menacing religious fanatic named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill).
- He imagines he will find God lurking back of this particular
- beyond. What he finds instead is, of course, a false deity
- manifested in the form of an unpersuasive special effect.
- </p>
- <p> This story is treated pretty much as an obligation, a formal
- requisite of big-budget sci-fi. What really interests the creators
- of this movie is the middle-aging process as it affects Captain
- Kirk, Mr. Spock and "Bones" McCoy (respectively, need we say,
- Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley). Good of them, on the
- one hand, to acknowledge that the boys aren't getting any younger.
- Bad of them, on the other, not to acknowledge the possibility that
- after being cooped up on a spaceship for almost a quarter-century,
- they might be a trifle tired of one another's company. A little
- scratchy, say, over Spock's unending reasonableness, Kirk's
- sententious habit of summing up the moral of every adventure. But
- no, the atmosphere on this voyage is a lot like a late night at an
- Elks' smoker, all bleary sentimentality and nostalgia for the past.
- Maybe we will never find God, Kirk suggests at the end, but, by
- golly, male bonding is a swell substitute.
- </p>
- <p> This is a thought only a Trekkie could love. But it does get
- one to wondering what these boring guys see in one another. And,
- even more subversively, what did we ever see in them? It is, one
- suspects, a notion that may recur as we glumly chomp our way across
- the bleak summer-movie landscape. Anybody up for a consumer revolt?
- Come on, folks. What are we, men or . . . ants?
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-