Entertainment
The Funniest Movie Ever Made Was Created By Accident
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
The ‘80s were filled with plenty of killer comedies, including iconic films like Spaceballs, Goonies, and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. For my money, though, the funniest film of the decade was Ghostbusters, a sci-fi blockbuster with more quotable lines than New York City has spooky spirits.
Later movies tried and failed to bite this earlier film’s style, including future Ghostbusters installments. Ghostbusters II was a decidedly sophomoric sequel that came nowhere close to the original Ghostbusters’ brilliance. Ghostbusters (2016) tried to go all-in on comedic improv, and it became the worst remake in movie history. Meanwhile, Ghostbusters: Afterlife tried to reinvent the franchise as a Spielbergian nostalgia fest rather than a cynical comedy.
Why, though, has it been so impossible for any other film to capture the spirit (so to speak) of what made the first Ghostbusters so awesome? Simple: the chief creators of this movie all had wildly different goals.
Dan Akyroyd wanted to make a more serious horror film, Bill Murray wanted to make a snarky comedy, and director Ivan Reitman wanted to create a high-concept blockbuster. The result is a lightning-in-a-bottle movie whose magic has never and will never be captured onscreen, ever again.
It Started As A Horror Movie
Ghostbusters is arguably the funniest comedy ever made. It didn’t start out that way, though. Dan Akyroyd, who is a big believer in ghosts and the paranormal, wrote an early draft of the movie (then called Ghost Smashers) that was designed as a relatively serious sci-fi piece where our heroes busted ghosts across various planets. In Making Ghostbusters, director Ivan Reitman revealed that this draft didn’t exactly bring the laughs. “Although I could detect a comic attitude, the whole thing was written rather seriously.” On top of that, the movie was designed as a horror movie far more likely to make you scream than smile.
What happened? Reitman wisely encouraged Akyroyd to rewrite the film as a comedy about screwball scientists going into business for themselves, and he brought in Harold Ramis to help with the new draft. The two proved to be quite the team, as Akyroyd was better at coming up with off-the-wall concepts (he insisted on the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man over Reitman’s objections), while Ramis was better at crafting funny dialogue. Meanwhile, Bill Murray had been brought in to replace the late John Belushi. Murray barely looked at the script, but, in a fun twist, technically ended up writing most of the film.
Embracing The Comedy Apocalypse
In 2020, Josh Gad got several original Ghostbusters stars (including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, and Annie Potts) together on a Zoom call, and they revealed some startling secrets about the film. According to Akyroyd, 80 percent of what we see onscreen was a result of improv, and he credits that to one cast member in particular. “When you bring a master comedian and charismatic leading man like Bill Murray into a project, you know there’s gonna be contributions on the writing side.”
In the final film, you can see the obvious tug of war between Akyroyd and Murray’s very different visions for Ghostbusters. Most of the movie is, of course, filled with Murray’s unique brand of snarky, quotable humor. But many of the more serious scenes echo Akyroyd’s desire to create a genuinely scary movie. The librarian’s ghostly jumpscare and Dana Barrett being kidnapped by a monster inside her couch is the stuff of childhood nightmares. To scare the older audience members, the film also includes a somber scene where Ray and Winston speculate that the ever-increasing number of ghosts is a portent of the biblical apocalypse.
Time Tables And Slime Tables
The final ingredient in Ghostbusters’ success was, of course, Ivan Reitman. In addition to directing the film, he helped with writing duties and also bluffed his way through studio negotiations. While pitching, he made up a budget (somewhere between $25-$30 million), choosing a number that was about three times what it cost to make Stripes, his previous comedy starring Bill Murray and Harold Ramis. Columbia Pictures exec Frank Price agreed, but on one condition: no matter what, this film would come out in June, 1984.
Reitman agreed, only realizing while walking out of Price’s office what a seemingly impossible task he had given himself. He had no idea if his arbitrary budget would be enough to bring Ghostbusters to life; he previously estimated that Akyroyd’s original script would have cost over $200 million to make. Furthermore, he had only 13 months to create a film that had no effects studio, no start date, and (most importantly) no finished script. Fortunately, he personally helped finish the script, keeping Akyroyd and Ramis on task by ensuring that the story had clearly defined goals, a memorable villain, and even mechanical explanations for why ghosts were suddenly haunting New York City.
Three Men, Three Visions
The rest is Hollywood history. Reitman met his deadline, and Ghostbusters became a blockbuster success, earning over $370 million at the box office. This success is even more impressive when you consider how everything about filming was rushed, that most of the dialogue was improvised, and that the final story (per Akyroyd and Murray’s competing visions) was a blend of silly and serious. On paper, these are all reasons why Ghostbusters should have been a disaster, but the opposite happened. With several creators trying to craft a completely different film (Akyroyd wanted serious horror, Murray wanted schlubby comedy, and Reitman wanted a high-concept blockbuster), they created a perfect movie.
Incredibly, they did so completely by accident. This is why there has never been a worthy follow-up to Ghostbusters: every subsequent movie has been trying to make a Ghostbusters film, but what made that first film special can’t be easily understood, much less copied. The people who made Ghostbusters were all trying to make different movies, resulting in a strange creative brew that can never truly be replicated. This is why Jason Reitman didn’t even try to recreate the magic of the original film and almost eschewed comedy entirely to transform Ghostbusters: Afterlife into Spielbergian schlock aimed squarely at nostalgic millennials.
While Afterlife has its charms, nothing beats the unflappable cool of the original Ghostbusters. If you’re ready to take a walk (Stay-Puft style) down memory lane, that ‘80s comedy classic is now streaming on Netflix. If you were disappointed by the Stranger Things final season, this is your chance to channel some nerdy nostalgia that actually delivers a satisfying third act. Just don’t try to watch them both at once; you never know what will happen to our dimension if you cross the streams!
Entertainment
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model Cosplays As Ugly Misfit In Raunchy 80s Sci-Fi Adventure
By Robert Scucci
| Updated
Back in the 80s, being ugly on screen basically meant throwing a pair of glasses and some baggy clothes on a smokin’ hot babe. The most blatant case of this, at least to my knowledge, is 1988’s Alien from L.A., starring Kathy Ireland, who not only appeared in 13 consecutive Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues, but also landed on the cover three times.
In the movie, which plays like a strange combination of The Wizard of Oz and Journey to the Center of the Earth, our hero sets out to find the lost city of Atlantis, rescue her missing father, overcome her alleged homeliness, and show her surface-dwelling ex-boyfriend what he’s missing out on, all before riding off into the sunset on her new dude’s motorcycle.
Ironically, Alien from L.A., a direct-to-VHS outing, was followed by its straight-to-video sequel, Journey to the Center of the Earth (1989). After watching this one, I don’t think I’ll be watching that one. But it exists, and both titles are streaming on Tubi, so you can do whatever you want with that information.
These Glasses Are Holding Me Back!
Alien from L.A. is insulting to your intelligence in just about every way. We’re introduced to Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland), a woman who clearly hits the gym nine days a week, has long, flowing hair, and legs for days. If only it weren’t for those pesky glasses that are supposed to convince the viewer she’s a dud, as if no mortal man has ever fantasized about a sexy librarian. She also speaks in an incredibly squeaky voice that becomes a running joke.
Anyhow, her boyfriend Robbie (Don Michael Paul) dumps her for not being adventurous, whatever that means, and this sends our covert hottie on a soul-searching excursion to Zamboanga, North Africa, in search of her long-lost father, Professor Arnold Saknussemm (Richard Haines). As the legend goes, Arnold disappeared while searching for the lost city of Atlantis, claiming the city is of alien origin.
While digging through her father’s belongings, Wanda falls into a seemingly bottomless pit and eventually ends up in a strange underground society inhabited by miners who have never breached the surface. Though these inhabitants look just like humans, they refer to Wanda as an alien. Soon enough, she learns what’s truly at stake, but only after a bounty is placed on her head for invading their community.
What follows is a series of events involving a miner named Gus (William R. Moses), a shadowy government conspiracy led by General Rykov (Janie Du Plessis) tied to her imprisoned father, a steady stream of jokes about Wanda’s squeaky voice (it’s an affectation, she can stop talking like this whenever she wants), and a hunky rogue agent named Charmin’ (Thom Mathews).
Truly Terrible, But Also Kind Of Fun
After sitting through Alien from L.A., I’m still not sure what to make of it. It’s contrived, overtly campy, and the hero’s journey never fully clicks. When the film finally wraps, Robbie sees Wanda in a bikini and suddenly realizes he was dating a stone cold fox the entire time. Of course, this happens after Wanda wakes up from her “dream” and, in a clear callback to The Wizard of Oz, says as much.
If the movie has anything going for it, it’s the set design, which is actually pretty neat in that kitschy, low-budget way. Think foam rock formations with dry ice pumping behind them, along with some surprisingly fun city shots that give everything a cartoony vibe. Throw in Deep Roy’s Mambino character with the comically long eyelashes that are never explained, and you’ve got a bizarre viewing experience that won’t teach you anything new and might actually make you a little dumber in the process.
As of this writing, you can stream Alien from L.A. and its sequel, Journey to the Center of the Earth, for free on Tubi.
Entertainment
This $100 Microsoft Office 2024 deal won’t bill you next month
TL;DR: Microsoft Office 2024 Home and Business includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and OneNote with a one-time license, now $99.97 (reg. $249.99).
$89.97
$249.99
Save $160.02
There’s a good chance you use Microsoft Office more often than you realize — possibly more than some of your go-to apps. There’s also a good chance you’ve been paying for it just as consistently. This Microsoft Office 2024 Home and Business lifetime license offers a one-time alternative, now on sale for $99.97 (reg. $249.99).
For a set of apps you open this frequently, paying month after month can start to feel a bit unnecessary — especially when a one-time license is an option. This version includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and OneNote, which covers most of what people actually use on a day-to-day basis. It doesn’t come with Teams, but it does integrate with it, so you can still jump into chats, share files, and sit through meetings as needed.
Mashable Deals
Office 2024 doesn’t offer drastic differences, but instead builds on what’s already familiar with some useful upgrades along the way. Performance has been improved, particularly in Excel, where handling large datasets and multiple workbooks feels smoother. PowerPoint now supports recording presentations with voice narration and video, including live camera input, which can be useful for remote work or presentations.
Word also gets a few AI-assisted features, like suggestions for completing sentences and generating content based on context. Across the suite, AI tools can help with formatting, summarizing text, translating content, and pulling out key information.
All in all, this bundle offers the same set of tools most people are familiar with, just with a few updates that make everyday tasks a bit easier.
Mashable Deals
Originally $249.99, you can get Microsoft Office 2024 Home and Business for Mac or PC for $99.97 for a limited time.
StackSocial prices subject to change.
Entertainment
New Resident Evil Movie's Trailer Looks Like Generic Horror And Feels Nothing Like Resident Evil
By Jennifer Asencio
| Published
Fans of the Resident Evil franchise have had a slew of video games and several movies to satisfy their craving. The iconic Alice, played by Milla Jovovich, appeared in five movies between 2002 and 2016, and a sixth movie was a prequel that explored the origins of the mansion in which she woke up in the first movie. Now, there’s a new movie in the franchise, and it looks nothing like the others.
The movie is simply titled Resident Evil and will probably cause both itself and the first movie to henceforth be referred to with their years of release included in their titles. According to IMDb, it is about a young courier named Bryan (Austin Abrams) whose cargo is on its way to a mysterious, remote, and deserted location. The teaser trailer was released on May 1, 2026, and promised both action and horror as Bryan’s world suddenly becomes radically different and more dangerous overnight.
The trailer is a short movie of its own, framed around a phone call from Bryan to a nameless girlfriend with whom he had a fight, but is now trying to tell one last time that he loves her. 911 is busy, which is already ominous. Everything is dark, the house is abandoned, and he has had a problem on the road.
All alone, he searches the house for supplies as he finds himself pursued by zombie-like mutants. Forced to get back to the city (is it Raccoon City? The trailer doesn’t say) while surviving a variety of creepy, distorted monsters that perhaps were once human but are no longer, he trudges through the snow, explores cavernous tunnels, and flees from these frightening pursuers down desolate roads until he reaches the urban center. Viewers only get to see one street in the city, but it is raining mutants and zombies as Bryan frantically tries to escape.
There is a lot of criticism of the trailer being “not Resident Evil,” and there is merit to this complaint. The other Resident Evil films were action-horror, while this one looks like straight horror. There are no familiar characters like Alice, Leon Kennedy, Jill Valentine, Chris Redfield, or the STARS team. Even many of the monsters are different from those in the other movies and the games. There is no sign of the licentious Umbrella Corporation.
What IS “Resident Evil” about it is the survival horror aspect. Fans of survival horror movies and games will recognize the foraging and exploring Bryan has to do in the house to collect the items he needs to defend himself and survive. These items include things like car keys, random firearms with handy ammo just lying around, and “healing items” like Band-aids or food. Survival horror fans will thrill over Bryan’s adventures, but the trailer that has been released does not make an obvious connection to the source material, a fact that has annoyed quite a few fans. And they’re not complaining that it’s not a good-looking movie, just that it is not a movie from the famous franchise.
However, the movie has a mark of horror prestige in the form of Zach Cregger, coming freshly from the success of the acclaimed movie Barbarian and the Oscar-winning Weapons. Cregger wrote both those movies in addition to directing them, and, while he has help from writer Shay Hatten, he has definitely proven his own mettle as a great horror director. Hatten’s presence should assuage fans who are worried about it not being an action film, too, since he is the mind behind the last three John Wick sequels, the Wick-adjacent Ballerina, and the Zack Snyder Army of the Dead movies.
So, to people worried that this film doesn’t have the feel of the Resident Evil franchise, I can only say: just wait. Remember that a franchise isn’t just about existing fans; it’s also about drawing in new fans, and to do that, franchises must constantly reinvent themselves, or they become dry and predictable, like the MCU. This is only the first trailer and only represents about two minutes of movie time. Resident Evil is a horror franchise at its core, and I am positive that Zach Cregger is not going to kill his strong momentum by delivering a film that alienates fans, no matter how different this early trailer might seem from the source material.
Resident Evil will be in theaters on September 18, 2026. Catch it before the infection spreads.
Caitlin Clark not on injury report for Fever's preseason finale
Magic can't sulk over Game 6 as Game 7 approaches with Pistons
