Ghostbusters

It was interesting hearing the conceptual beginnings from Dan Aykroyd and how it was brought to life by the director and writers. The behind the scene footage was fun to see and the interviewees were close to the movie and added real insight. The documentary style could be toned down a bit, with the over the top sound effects and repetition.

Let me explain the extremely annoying aspects of this entire series, which is basically hour-long documentaries on movies that... well... made us...

First off, you cannot have one single fact spouted by a very goofy-voiced narrator without about fifty pop-culture pop-ups showing what the person said, or what they meant to say, followed by some kind of zany reactionary expression from the person answering the first thing that was said, by people interviewed separately from each other in the first place...

If that doesn't make sense, well, the overboard, YouTube generation style of these slapdash documentaries do absolutely no direct service to the awesome, classic movies they seem to be trying to outdo, somehow, with overboard zaniness instead of simply allowing the cast and crew to speak... Instead of the horse's mouth we get a bunch of gadflies...

There, I said it. Those are the bad things...

The good things kind of happen parenthetically with the straight-out information about how projects not only pan out but how they got off the ground and even history before lift-off i.e. Through all the annoying, YouTube-style, Pop-Up-Video inserts, you do learn a little about these movies, like a documentary should.

If you like the movie, you'll like the documentary. Interesting glimpse behind the scenes.

Two drawbacks. First, it's too short. Second, I could have done without any of the Ernie Hudson interview. He pretty much just whines about how his part got cut. Have you seen the movie, Ernie? Do you really think they should have cut the scenes of any of the other characters to give you more screen time?