Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Rate the Movie

  • Total voters
    59
DarthSkywalker said:
Being dull and having a different tone aren't the same thing. This movie might be dull. I can totally buy that. But that doesn't mean it had to match the tone of the original. Just do more interesting things with the dull bits.
Click to expand...

I guess when the selling point is based on nostalgia and being a "true" successor film one probably expect it to follow in the footsteps of what it is purposely evoking all that nostalgia, no?

Like to your two examples. Alien is a claustrophobic sci-Fi horror survival film.

Aliens is... a claustrophobic sci-Fi action survival film.

The Terminator is a time travel sci-fi movie with strong horror overtones.

Terminator 2 is a time travel sci-fi movie with big action/thriller set pieces.

The tonal shifts are not quite as big from first to second films as we generally think.

The shift in tones still allows for many of the same elements from the initial film to work and make a connection to their wellspring as it were.

And they are absolutely selling this on its connection to a beloved film but a beloved film that was an out and out comedy and not a feel good four quad deal but one filled with a heavy sarcastic and sometimes even mean edge to it.

To me... Ghostbusters '84 is a supernatural comedy first and foremost. I think most of the audience has that in their mind, so if this leaves that way down on the priority list of the film... I'm not surprised at a tepid reaction.

I think it's great it is taking place outside of NYC and that apparently the loose thread of the Gozer Cult from the original is being utilized and making it a bit of an 80's throwback kids film? Cool.

But if a Ghostbusters movie puts its comedy roots on the back burner, I don't know... Seems that's a bigger leap in tone than going from "Trapped on ship in a fight to survive against an alien creature" to "Trapped on a planet in a fight to survive against hundreds of alien creatures."
 
I'll judge for myself if the movie's supposed slower pace is "dull" or not, but I will just say personally that I've daydreamed about a more emotionally-driven and dramatic Ghostbusters 3, pretty much since Harold Ramis passed away. Not that I ever thought it'd happen, but in my mental fan-fic, the movie would always have a bit more of a somber tone because Egon would have died which puts the movie in a completely different territory than the first two. So the tone I've seen from the trailers have been right up my alley.

Ultimately I never was too excited about the idea of sticking 4 new comedians in jumpsuits and saying, "here's your new Ghostbusters." It's why I never was big on the rumors about the Apatow crew being the new GB, and why I never was too excited about the 2016 reboot.

To me, shifting to a Goonies/Stranger Things type of thing with the kid leads, a sprinkling of Paul Rudd, eventually bringing back the old crew seems like a great balance of old and new.

IMO, you are never going to capture the true tone of the originals if it's not starring the original cast. And that ship has clearly sailed. There's a reason comedy sequels rarely work. I think this is 100% the right move if you're trying to relaunch this franchise nearly 40 years later. We'll see about execution, but I'm already fully bought-in on the concept and tone.
 
Last edited:
KRYPTON INC. said:
I guess when the selling point is based on nostalgia and being a "true" successor film one probably expect it to follow in the footsteps of what it is purposely evoking all that nostalgia, no?

Like to your two examples. Alien is a claustrophobic sci-Fi horror survival film.

Aliens is... a claustrophobic sci-Fi action survival film.

The Terminator is a time travel sci-fi movie with strong horror overtones.

Terminator 2 is a time travel sci-fi movie with big action/thriller set pieces.

The tonal shifts are not quite as big from first to second films as we generally think.

The shift in tones still allows for many of the same elements from the initial film to work and make a connection to their wellspring as it were.

And they are absolutely selling this on its connection to a beloved film but a beloved film that was an out and out comedy and not a feel good four quad deal but one filled with a heavy sarcastic and sometimes even mean edge to it.

To me... Ghostbusters '84 is a supernatural comedy first and foremost. I think most of the audience has that in their mind, so if this leaves that way down on the priority list of the film... I'm not surprised at a tepid reaction.

I think it's great it is taking place outside of NYC and that apparently the loose thread of the Gozer Cult from the original is being utilized and making it a bit of an 80's throwback kids film? Cool.

But if a Ghostbusters movie puts its comedy roots on the back burner, I don't know... Seems that's a bigger leap in tone than going from "Trapped on ship in a fight to survive against an alien creature" to "Trapped on a planet in a fight to survive against hundreds of alien creatures."
Click to expand...
They are. And your assessment here leaves such a large gap that Afterlife most likely falls into. The original was a college buddy supernatural comedy. This sequel is a coming of age supernatural comedy. According to you, that would suffice, no matter the balance.
 
Just got back from this. There's a lot to like if you're a GB fan or just a fan of 80s Adventure/Fantasy/Horror.

I thought overall this made the most sense on how Ghostsbuters should evolve tone wise. Was actually surprised at the sense of danger and mystery in scenes. Definitely had kids in the theatre crying to their parents due to the intensity of a couple moments haha The humor of Ghostbusters is never gonna be properly replicated unless Murray signs to be in the whole film. So I'm glad they didn't go overboard with too many jokes. The balance they have here is close enough while adding drama to elevate the storytelling. Was also great to see the respect for Harold Ramis.

Character wise I thought Phoebe and Podcast were great while Trevor and Lucky could have benefited from some less generic dialogue. They were alright. Just nothing too engaging going on.

I get the complaints of the third act and it was definitely my biggest issue with the film. The amount of scenes and beats they throw back to is far too many. That's not to say it still isn't entertaining. It is with everything going on. The rest of the film just has better rhythm and balance.



8/10
 
Last edited:
I rewatched GBII last night in preparation for tomorrow's Afterlife and yeah, that film still holds up remarkably well. If only the last confrontation with Vigo had been a bit more creative/interesting! Otherwise, there's tons of good stuff of both horror and comedy even though it does feel like a step by step remake of the original.
"Very good, Louis. Short but pointless"
Lots of good lines.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
They are. And your assessment here leaves such a large gap that Afterlife most likely falls into. The original was a college buddy supernatural comedy. This sequel is a coming of age supernatural comedy. According to you, that would suffice, no matter the balance.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean.

Seriously. I don't see your point and I don't see you engaging with what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that while Alien is a sci Fi horror survival film and Aliens is a sci-fi action thriller survival film the gap between those two in tone isn't some huge divide and there is still the science fiction survival in space aspects as a common thread between them. The characters and dialogue are consistent in their presentation of world and characters. We traded Space Truckers for Space Soldiers but that they both are casts that are in films that are deadly serious as to stakes, drama and both a horror film and the gory action movie don't diverge as much as it would appear.

Now... What if James Cameron wasn't hired and for some reason Mel Brooks did Aliens? He makes Aliens a sci-fi space survival comedy. Oh... It's got Ripley. It's got space. It has aliens. The story is still about trying to survive against the aliens... But it's a comedy. I'm sorry... That is a huge shift in tone and is not at all in line with expectations given the previous film.

Both Alien and Aliens are doing claustrophobia, tension, gore, body horror and rounding that all out with a big old helping of an evergreen trenchant commentary on the extent of the soullessness of corporate morality.

You can make that work in a Sci-Fi Space Survival Horror film and it fits and works in a Sci-Fi Space Survival Action Thriller.

Neither horror or action thriller (Which still had a **** ton of gore, scares and tension, tension, tension...) aspects butt up against feeling so widely different from one another. The world and what the stories are about and how it is all presented isn't night and day, it's more "Late Dusk vs Early Dawn".

The essential elements for me is both are science fiction space survival stories done with a lot of texture to draw you into the story and give all the characters a grounded relatability.

For me, the cutting out of humor to a GB film is cutting out something essential, perhaps the most essential aspect I go to a GB film for a Supernatural Comedy. I don't know if "earnest coming of age kids film" is a bridge too far but this just brings me back to my eternal issue with Marvel Studios film but here it may be reversed.

I don't see the majority of super hero stories or super hero characters as comedies. I just don't. I like humor in movies and I don't mind it as an element depending, but the humor is neither absolutely essential nor the selling point. As always... If I wanted to see a comedy I would have went to a comedy. I'm here for a super hero action drama for the most part. (Yes, some character like Deadpool and Spidey have comedy as essential elements... They aren't essential elements in most of the rest of the stable of characters...)

With Ghostbusters... GB is comedy. If I wanted to see an earnest coming of age film... I'd watch My Girl or the like.

I am hoping that they can in some way draw me in to the approach. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, and I am more than open to this working on its own terms while riffing off of the original.
 
KRYPTON INC. said:
I don't understand what you mean.

Seriously. I don't see your point and I don't see you engaging with what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that while Alien is a sci Fi horror survival film and Aliens is a sci-fi action thriller survival film the gap between those two in tone isn't some huge divide and there is still the science fiction survival in space aspects as a common thread between them. The characters and dialogue are consistent in their presentation of world and characters. We traded Space Truckers for Space Soldiers but that they both are casts that are in films that are deadly serious as to stakes, drama and both a horror film and the gory action movie don't diverge as much as it would appear.

Now... What if James Cameron wasn't hired and for some reason Mel Brooks did Aliens? He makes Aliens a sci-fi space survival comedy. Oh... It's got Ripley. It's got space. It has aliens. The story is still about trying to survive against the aliens... But it's a comedy. I'm sorry... That is a huge shift in tone and is not at all in line with expectations given the previous film.

Both Alien and Aliens are doing claustrophobia, tension, gore, body horror and rounding that all out with a big old helping of an evergreen trenchant commentary on the extent of the soullessness of corporate morality.

You can make that work in a Sci-Fi Space Survival Horror film and it fits and works in a Sci-Fi Space Survival Action Thriller.

Neither horror or action thriller (Which still had a **** ton of gore, scares and tension, tension, tension...) aspects butt up against feeling so widely different from one another. The world and what the stories are about and how it is all presented isn't night and day, it's more "Late Dusk vs Early Dawn".

The essential elements for me is both are science fiction space survival stories done with a lot of texture to draw you into the story and give all the characters a grounded relatability.

For me, the cutting out of humor to a GB film is cutting out something essential, perhaps the most essential aspect I go to a GB film for a Supernatural Comedy. I don't know if "earnest coming of age kids film" is a bridge too far but this just brings me back to my eternal issue with Marvel Studios film but here it may be reversed.

I don't see the majority of super hero stories or super hero characters as comedies. I just don't. I like humor in movies and I don't mind it as an element depending, but the humor is neither absolutely essential nor the selling point. As always... If I wanted to see a comedy I would have went to a comedy. I'm here for a super hero action drama for the most part. (Yes, some character like Deadpool and Spidey have comedy as essential elements... They aren't essential elements in most of the rest of the stable of characters...)

With Ghostbusters... GB is comedy. If I wanted to see an earnest coming of age film... I'd watch My Girl or the like.

I am hoping that they can in some way draw me in to the approach. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, and I am more than open to this working on its own terms while riffing off of the original.
Click to expand...

But I think again you equate comedy with spoof. This isn’t The Naked Gun. Ghostbusters may not have been sentimental, but it took its world and ghosts seriously. It wasn’t a joke. This is why Dan Aykroyd’s original script was like 500 pages because he actually went into the detail and science of if this was actually happening. Then you add Bill Murray into the mix and he’s the audience surrogate going, “this is ridiculous!” Until he himself starts taking it seriously. We’re never laughing AT the movie. There’s some genuinely frightening moments and even some tender moments with Venkman and Dana towards the end.

I guess I just don’t think it’s this extreme leap like how you equate Alien becoming a Mel Brooks spoof. I completely understand if this direction isn’t your thing, but I think you’re downplaying the original as just a joke movie.

I think ultimately the problem that became Ghostbusters 2016 is it basically became the spoof you’re talking about where nobody is taking the world seriously. Everybody is Bill Murray within the film where the original has verisimilitude. The difference between the original 1978 Superman and Superman III.

I’d even argue that the original Ghostbusters has more in common with something like The Goonies than something like Three Amigos.
 
Last edited:
DyeLorean said:
I rewatched GBII last night in preparation for tomorrow's Afterlife and yeah, that film still holds up remarkably well. If only the last confrontation with Vigo had been a bit more creative/interesting! Otherwise, there's tons of good stuff of both horror and comedy even though it does feel like a step by step remake of the original.
"Very good, Louis. Short but pointless"
Lots of good lines.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think GB2 is pretty darn good until it got a little cringey with the Statue of Liberty bit and faceoff with Vigo. Also thought it was silly and underdeveloped how the people of NYC cheering up was the key to defeat Vigo. That confrontation in general felt underwhelming at the end.
 
seeing it tomorrow night with my brother his girlfriend and their daughter
 
Prison Mike said:
Wow $30MM is a lot lower than I was expecting. I was thinking maybe $50-60MM
Click to expand...

I mean, Ghostbusters is a classic movie, sure. But I think people really overestimate how much people want to see it as a franchise.

I caught some spoilers.

While not mentioning GBII is one thing, I think for a movie that wants to be reverential, completely tossing out the game is an odd move. Not mentioning it is one thing, but completely eliminating it? I don't know.

Definitely going to be some Star Wars Legends reactions that, I think.
 
DarkKnight88 said:
But I think again you equate comedy with spoof. This isn’t The Naked Gun. Ghostbusters may not have been sentimental, but it took its world and ghosts seriously. It wasn’t a joke. This is why Dan Aykroyd’s original script was like 500 pages because he actually went into the detail and science of if this was actually happening. Then you add Bill Murray into the mix and he’s the audience surrogate going, “this is ridiculous!” Until he himself starts taking it seriously. We’re never laughing AT the movie. There’s some genuinely frightening moments and even some tender moments with Venkman and Dana towards the end.

I guess I just don’t think it’s this extreme leap like how you equate Alien becoming a Mel Brooks spoof. I completely understand if this direction isn’t your thing, but I think you’re downplaying the original as just a joke movie.

I think ultimately the problem that became Ghostbusters 2016 is it basically became the spoof you’re talking about where nobody is taking the world seriously. Everybody is Bill Murray within the film where the original has verisimilitude. The difference between the original 1978 Superman and Superman III.

I’d even argue that the original Ghostbusters has more in common with something like The Goonies than something like Three Amigos.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Took the words out of my mouth. Comedy doesn't equal farce or parody. I think that is the key distinction where there seems to be some disconnect here.
 
I have seen some of the negative reviews say this brings nothing new to the table and that’s why they didn’t like it. Isn’t that the case with a few MCU movies which got good reviews?
 
Sithborg said:
I mean, Ghostbusters is a classic movie, sure. But I think people really overestimate how much people want to see it as a franchise.

I caught some spoilers.

While not mentioning GBII is one thing, I think for a movie that wants to be reverential, completely tossing out the game is an odd move. Not mentioning it is one thing, but completely eliminating it? I don't know.

Definitely going to be some Star Wars Legends reactions that, I think.
Click to expand...
I think that was confirmed a while back on the GB board I lurk on. It’s not that the games story was ground breaking, but it feels a little disingenuous to throw out the last thing Ramis was a major part of in the franchise.
 
Just came back from the cinema.

I went in with zero expectations and absolutely loved this.

Big fan of the original film, but almost no trailer of this Afterlife got me hyped about it.

That being said, the film is a perfect homage to the first one and a nostalgia trip done in the right way - with its own fresh story to move things forward. The way OG characters were incorporated was how it should've been done in The Last Jedi. And what a better way to make a love letter to the first film and put in heart to it - have the son of the original director to do it.

Funny jokes, Mckenna Grace was very good and incredibly like-able as Egon's granddaughter and the visuals/sound design were amazing, especially the modern-looking proton pack effects. Also, Paul Rudd and the Podcast kid.

I also liked how this strayed away from the big setting (New York) and focused on a small town instead.

Stay after the credits - nice surprise there.

8/10
 
Last edited:
MOVIELORD101 said:
Seriously? After all those positive reactions so far? WTF? Did that damn reboot really do THAT much damage to the brand where the general public's not even remotely excited?
Click to expand...

I think the general public stopped caring many years ago after Ghostbusters 2. Ghostbusters 2016 sure as hell didn’t help. So following up 2016 five years later with any film was always going to open this low. Let’s see what word of mouth does if anything.
 
I agree. Unless you grew up in the 80s or early 90s, you don’t have the same fondness for the originals. You may know of them because they are pop culture history, but you don’t have the same attachment.

It also doesn’t help that marketing hasn’t been great. Force Awakens could have a reverential tone because you could still sneak in great action shots in the trailer. The trailers have all been kind of boring. It doesn’t help the action is set in a small town and doesn’t have the scale of NYC as a backdrop.
 
samsnee said:
I agree. Unless you grew up in the 80s or early 90s, you don’t have the same fondness for the originals. You may know of them because they are pop culture history, but you don’t have the same attachment.

It also doesn’t help that marketing hasn’t been great. Force Awakens could have a reverential tone because you could still sneak in great action shots in the trailer. The trailers have all been kind of boring. It doesn’t help the action is set in a small town and doesn’t have the scale of NYC as a backdrop.
Click to expand...

I would add this as a possibility too...

For how many years s have we heard "reboots/remakes suck" as a given among fans in places just like the Hype?

At some point that attitude becomes hardened to the point it is just reflexive.
 
I think more than anything, this has potential to have legs until Christmas. I mean, we'll see word of mouth but other than Spider-Man, there won't be any other films for the whole family in theatres for a while.
 
I enjoyed the heck out it. There were a few bits I wasn’t totally on board with, but it all cane together pretty well. Guess I’m leaning towards an 8/10, might need to see it a couple more times though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Resident Evil: Afterlife - Part 1
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Matt Mortem
Matt Mortem
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
60K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
79K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
38K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Ghostbusters 3 - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
97K
Thread Manager
T

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,517 (members: 21, guests: 2,496)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,268
Messages
22,076,886
Members
45,876
Latest member
Crazygamer3011

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"