Ghostbusters Afterlife (2021)

[baumer]

Tell us about it

[filmlover]

For about the first hour or so, I was actually thinking this was an enjoyable reboot/sequel to the original movies. Jason Reitman does a good job setting everything up and establishing the characters, and while the overall tone may recall Stranger Things a little too much (a comparison increased by the presence of Finn Wolfhard), it works.

 

And then...splat! Whatever goodwill the first half generates quickly goes out the window as the whole thing reveals itself to be little more than an empty exercise in worshipping at the feet of the original movie that has nothing new to offer the audience in response to the wildly over-the-top and largely unjustified backlash to the 2016 reboot. Say what you will about that effort, but at least it tried to rework the formula of the original to establish its own identity. This would be a perfect match with The Rise of Skywalker for a "here ya go nerds, are you happy now?" double feature. And also to see a talented filmmaker spend two hours proving that he isn't nearly as good at tackling the same kind of material as his father was in his heyday.

 

The cast is pretty good with what they're given, though the nostalgia nearly ends up consuming them. Mckenna Grace continues to be a charming presence and proves herself more than capable taking the lead here. Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd (the gag that his teacher character puts on horror movies from the 80s on VHS to entertain the kids in his classroom is easily the funniest thing in the whole movie) have a fun chemistry and are always welcome in anything. I've liked Wolfhard in other projects but found him to be a nonfactor here, while the other two kids barely register (not a whole lot of chemistry between this team but that's more on the script for devoting more time to callbacks and cameos than introducing a new generation of Ghostbusters). And then there's the disaster of a climax. While it's initially a joy to see the originals show up, it doesn't work, mainly due to the way the script sets it up but also because of a poor technological decision that's supposed to be touching but just comes off more as creepy and exploitative (which I'm sure wasn't their intention at all but still). At least one uncredited cameo as an iconic villain delights.

 

It might be time to put away the proton packs and the ghost traps for good.

 

C

[Webslinger]

Between decades of rumors about a threequel, a 2016 reboot that proved divisive (to say the very least), and now Ghostbusters: Afterlife, it is abundantly clear that the powers that be in Hollywood clearly want revive the popularity that the original Ghostbusters enjoyed in the ‘80s. Unfortunately, Afterlife misses the mark. I suppose some viewers – like a fair few in the audience I saw the film with – will be taken with the film’s Stranger Things-like vibes and loving nods to the original film sprinkled throughout the two-hour running time. For me, though, this film constantly felt like a misguided reboot that does not display much grasp of why the original film worked so well in the first place. (Say what you will about the effectiveness of the 2016 film, but at least it seemed to get what made the original successful and tried really hard to emulate it.) Though it may seem like something of a feel-good story that Jason Reitman – son of Ivan Reitman, director of the original film – is at the helm, his involvement actually does not feel like a fit for the material. His best films are small, character-driven dramedies, and his sensibilities prove to be a poor fit for a big, effects-driven blockbuster. The script does not really develop its characters in any interesting ways, which leaves the meager attempts at comedy and the action beats feeling much less entertaining than they ideally should. Reitman tries to find something in his characters and give his actors space to figure them out, but the script does not leave them with much to work with, and much of the film feels like it spins its wheels up to a busy third act that – while occasionally fun – is not as clever as it seems to think it is. Though it is tempting to give the filmmakers for trying something different and having their hearts in the right place in trying to revive this brand, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is ultimately a bland, forgettable affair that does not merit much more than a shrug.

 

C

[Webslinger]

29 minutes ago, filmlover said:

And then there's the disaster of a climax. While it's initially a joy to see the originals show up, it doesn't work, mainly due to the way the script sets it up but also because of a poor technological decision that's supposed to be touching but just comes off more as creepy and exploitative (which I'm sure wasn't their intention at all but still).

 

OMG YES to all of this. I absolutely hated the decision to bring in a CGI ghost of Harold Ramis. At least Rise of Skywalker had the excuse that they integrated unused footage of Carrie Fisher and Leia had been intended to be a big player in the final third of that trilogy prior to Fisher's death, but Ramis died more than two years before the previous reboot. What a horrendously misguided decision.