Ghost (1990 movie)

Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by nelsonmuntz, Mar 22, 2018.

  1. nelsonmuntz

    nelsonmuntz Point Center

    Aug 27, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Watched Ghost with the wife for the first time in a long time. The movie has a lot more good than bad. The premise that ghosts are holding onto this life has some logical inconsistencies, but I can live with them. My feeling about fantasy, science fiction and supernatural, is that it doesn't have to be realistic to the modern world, but it does have to be internally consistent to the world of the movie or book.

    The special effects limitations of 1990 are funny, such as sometimes Patrick Swayze goes through a wall, and other times he goes through open doors.

    Swayze is such an easy actor to like that I had forgotten how much he chews the scenery.

    Demi Moore was a "stand up double" of an actress in every movie she was in during that period. Not a great actress, but always delivered and had OK range. She got nominated for a Golden Globe for Ghost, which was warranted.

    Whoopi Goldberg plays her standard slightly dodgy middle aged woman. She mugs for the camera a lot but she was decent in this movie.

    Tony Goldwyn is one of the more underrated "that guy" character actors. He was excellent as the villain Carl Bruner.

    My only major issue with this movie is the last 20 minutes. Sam (Swayze) pulls off this heist that is guaranteed to get the villain killed. Losing $4 million of 1990 dollars that belongs to mobsters is likely to shorten one's lifespan, and Carl knowns it. So why does Sam rub Carl's face in it? Why not just take the win? By rubbing Carl's face in it, Sam leads Carl back to both Odemay (Goldberg) and Molly (Moore). The movie also doesn't cover the reality that the mobsters have now also been led to Molly and Odemay, so those two will never be safe. If the mobsters were going to kill Carl for losing the money, they would certainly kill Molly and Odemay for stealing it.

    The movie would have been better without the chase up the fire escape, but movies, especially back then, often had needless chase scenes. The ending should have been a picture of Carl running for it or getting killed, and then Sam saying goodbye to Molly somehow.

    August_West likes this.
  2. Mano


    Jan 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Yea but did you get laid after?
    G0UCONN and CL82 like this.
  3. storrsroars

    storrsroars Exiled in Pittsburgh

    Mar 23, 2012
    Likes Received:
    No, but he made a nice vase.
    August_West, ZooCougar, Dove and 2 others like this.
  4. CL82

    CL82 Everyday, on every play, in every way

    Aug 24, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Agree. So long as the movie is internally consistent, you can stay in the world that it defined. I hate when a movie establishes it's rules and then violates them.
    It's been a while since I've seen it but they have a line in the movie to the effect that doors are easier.

    Mmm, maybe he's pissed that his best friend (inadvertently) had him killed?

    Again it's been a while but only Carl knew where the money was so with his death Molly and Oda Mae are safe.

    It is a good movie, internally consistent, like you said. I like the notion that ghosts are really just victims of their own inability/unwillingness to move on. I like the notion of being greeted by family and friends (although we don't know who is greeting him.) I also the "you get to take the love with you" concept.