The classic comedy celebrated its 30th anniversary in theaters this weekend. However, this was my first time seeing it.

What’s It About? Three friends team up to start a business as paranormal exterminators, but find themselves in over their heads when dangerous ancient spirits come to town.

STRAIGHT UP: Charming and original, but rough around the edges. 8/10

What I Liked

Effortlessly funny – While there are a few scenes that go for slapstick laughs, most of the best jokes and most quotable lines slip out during otherwise ordinary dialogue. This approach makes the comedy – and the characters – seem more authentic and enjoyable.

Good comic pacing – The jokes are spread out through the film’s entire run time, and there are lots more hits than misses among them. There was hardly a stretch where I wasn’t laughing at something.

Ghost hunting is serious business – I was pleasantly surprised with the direction the plot took in this movie. I thought the Ghostbusters would either turn out to be hacks, or spend the whole time trying to prove that they weren’t hacks. Instead, it turns out that ghosts are real, everyone takes Venkman and co. seriously, and the Ghostbusters find fame and fortune in short order in spite of themselves. This is a clever, confident bit of world-building that takes the film in more interesting, less predictable directions.

The Mr. Stay-Puft scene – Ingenious. Rightly one of the most memorable movie scenes of all time.

The theme song – Everyone knows the Ghostbusters song. By rights, I have to praise it here.

What I Disliked

Peter Venkman – The screenplay doesn’t seem to know what to do with this character. He’s introduced as a slimeball womanizer and con artist; look no further than his “consultation” at Dana’s apartment for evidence. (It’s unbelievable that she falls for him after that.) Later on, though, he seems to be a real, knowledgeable profession with genuine concern for Dana and others. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to have a dynamic character, but there’s no buildup or justification for this change.

Not really an ensemble comedy – Aside from Venkman (Bill Murray), the characters in this movie don’t find much to do. Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) gets to have the Mr. Stay-Puft scene, and Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) has an important line here or there, but otherwise the two of them are superfluous to the events onscreen. The awkward chemistry between Spengler (Harold Ramis) and Janine could have been exploited for more laughs, too.

Too short – I understand that Ghostbusters was an expensive project in its day, which explains why the film feels abbreviated at points. I think the characters and the world of the film are potentially very interesting, though, and I would have liked another 20-30 minutes of screen time to more fully develop them.

CLOSING THOUGHT: On some level, this feels like the most controversial review I’ve ever written. To score a classic film anything less than a perfect 10 feels kind of wrong, even to me. That said, I have to keep to my standards – as a screenplay, Ghostbusters has too many technical flaws for me to call it a masterpiece, no matter how funny it is. I’m not sure that anything so clinical as “technical execution” has much to do with the enduring popularity of Ghostbusters, though. Rather, despite all of that, it’s an inherently memorable movie, with lots of quotable lines and a core concept that’s completely unique. That’s something I have to respect, and it’s reason enough to celebrate this film 30 years after its debut. At the end of the day, I’m glad I saw it.