Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[DarkKnight88]

Although I thought

Spoiler

it was very sweet to see that Peter and Dana are still together all these years later.

Yeah that was pretty great. Though I think someone brought up that there might have been more to that scene …

Spoiler

where after Ray speaks with Phoebe, that scene may have taken place originally right after contacting Venkman, but they wanted to keep the reveal of the three more of a surprise

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The climax:

Spoiler

 

[samsnee]

Yeah that was pretty great. Though I think someone brought up that there might have been more to that scene …

Spoiler

where after Ray speaks with Phoebe, that scene may have taken place originally right after contacting Venkman, but they wanted to keep the reveal of the three more of a surprise

That makes more sense.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Sony’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife led Tuesday with an estimated $4.7M, +23% over Monday, taking its five day total to $52.5M.

‘Encanto’ Sings $1.5M, ‘House Of Gucci’ Builds $1M+ In Tuesday Previews – Deadline

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sony’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife led Tuesday with an estimated $4.7M, +23% over Monday, taking its five day total to $52.5M.

‘Encanto’ Sings $1.5M, ‘House Of Gucci’ Builds $1M+ In Tuesday Previews – Deadline

Could be at 90m by the end of Sunday. Which would be very good

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Haven't seen Afterlife. The 1984 original is one of my favourite movies ever. But every review I've read seems to confirm this is nothing but references to things you liked about the first Ghostbusters.

It honestly sounds like a depressing commentary on the culture of late capitalism. We can't produce anything new, so let's strip-mine old franchises for parts! Reliving past glories is a typical feature of civilizations in decline.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Haven't seen Afterlife. The 1984 original is one of my favourite movies ever. But every review I've read seems to confirm this is nothing but references to things you liked about the first Ghostbusters.

It honestly sounds like a depressing commentary on the culture of late capitalism. We can't produce anything new, so let's strip-mine old franchises for parts! Reliving past glories is a typical feature of civilizations in decline.

I just don't agree with that. For me, that's just lazy criticism. This is Phoebe's story, and while similar to Egon, she's her own, tiny, adorable person, with a different story from the guys. There are definitely a lot of references, and I got a big kick out of a lot of them. But the story itself belongs to Phoebe. And it is not the story of the first film. Plot similarities when it comes to the villain not withstanding.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I just don't agree with that. For me, that's just lazy criticism. This is Phoebe's story, and while similar to Egon, she's her own, tiny, adorable person, with a different story from the guys. There are definitely a lot of references, and I got a big kick out of a lot of them. But the story itself belongs to Phoebe. And it is not the story of the first film. Plot similarities when it comes to the villain not withstanding.

OK, but it doesn't sound like a movie that can stand on its own. It sounds more like a footnote to the original Ghostbusters.

I'm sure everyone involved is trying their best. I just think this movie might have been misguided from the beginning. The time to produce more Ghostbusters sequels was in the 1990s. Much of the original magic was from the specific combination of actors and characters. That time has passed. Now it's like producing a version of Lethal Weapon without Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

 

[Mysteryman]

To me, Afterlife has a bit more resonance now that Harold Ramis has passed.
It Truly is a story of Legacy.

 

[Joefixit]

This movie was one of the better sequels that I’ve seen in years! It was a love letter to the original film and avoided the blunders of the last Jedi and Superman returns.

 

[BatLobster]

Much of the original magic was from the specific combination of actors and characters. That time has passed. Now it's like producing a version of Lethal Weapon without Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

Of course, but I also don't think that means we should never be able to see proton packs, Ecto-1 and the concept of ghostbusting again in a movie.

Afterlife was a really smart way of breathing life into the mythology and showing that you can do a a bit of a different style of movie that still feels like it belongs to that universe. It works as a bookend on the originals but also as a bridge to future films.

And the originals do still have a role to play here, and could still be peppered in future films-- at least if Bill is willing. I'm sure Dan is and Ernie is clearly being setup to have an important role for the future.

Edit: 'Ghostbusters' star Ernie Hudson talks 'Afterlife', the 2016 reboot, and future sequels (exclusive)

I am so, so happy that Ernie/Winston are being finally given justice. Especially knowing Ernie's complicated feelings about the role and how it was cut down from what he had signed on for. It's really heartwarming to see it come full circle for him, where maybe he has the biggest role of the original 4 in this new iteration of the franchise.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

ETA: deadline’s prediction for the weekend:

Sony’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife looks to rank second for the holiday stretch, having made an estimated $5.4M on Wednesday, +16% from Tuesday on its way to a $23.6M second weekend, -46%, $34.2M5-day and $86.7M running total by Sunday, which will be about 1% ahead of Paul Feig’s 2016 Ghostbusters through ten days.

 

[DyeLorean]

Spoiler tagged just in case, but what a beautiful photo.

Spoiler

 

[DarkKnight88]

Interesting that Annie Potts was on set (and in costume) that day. Maybe Janine was originally in that scene too.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

OK, but it doesn't sound like a movie that can stand on its own. It sounds more like a footnote to the original Ghostbusters.

I'm sure everyone involved is trying their best. I just think this movie might have been misguided from the beginning. The time to produce more Ghostbusters sequels was in the 1990s. Much of the original magic was from the specific combination of actors and characters. That time has passed. Now it's like producing a version of Lethal Weapon without Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

It's a sequel. It can stand on it's own the way any good sequel can. Well enough, but better when taken with it's predecessor(s). That applies to Afterlife just as much as it applies to The Godfather Part 2, The Empire Strikes Back and The Two Towers.

See, that second point feels like a contradiction to me. Because we did get a Ghostbusters sequel, and it was just the first movie again. I love it, but it was. So if that's the issue, why would making more sequels in the 90s, fix that?

You bring up the combination of actors and characters being what made the original special. I totally get that. I feel the same about Phoebe and Podcast here. Added to the fact, that I am a legit sucker for coming of age tales. I am a bit of a soft touch, but I teared up. And it wasn't because the OGs showed up, though that was awesome. It's because a little scientist, proved her and science's worth. And that's a very different vibe from the originals. And I get if people don't like that, but I also don't think we can then call it "just a remake".

 

[DyeLorean]

OK, but it doesn't sound like a movie that can stand on its own. It sounds more like a footnote to the original Ghostbusters.

I'm sure everyone involved is trying their best. I just think this movie might have been misguided from the beginning. The time to produce more Ghostbusters sequels was in the 1990s. Much of the original magic was from the specific combination of actors and characters. That time has passed. Now it's like producing a version of Lethal Weapon without Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

Watch it and form your own opinion.

 

[Sithborg]

Well, the family picked this movie for the family movie after Thanksgiving dinner.

My first impressions after seeing it is extreme frustration. I am going to have sit on this for a bit.

 

[TheVileOne]

While I did like the movie and what the new cast brought to the table, there were parts about it I found extremely frustrating.

 

[Sithborg]

While I did like the movie and what the new cast brought to the table, there were parts about it I found extremely frustrating.

Yeah, I think part of what I am feeling is that there were a lot of parts that were very, very good, only to be ruined by other stuff. Not sure if I would be feeling quite the same if it had been crappy all the way through.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah, I think part of what I am feeling is that there were a lot of parts that were very, very good, only to be ruined by other stuff. Not sure if I would be feeling quite the same if it had been crappy all the way through.

It's well made from a production value and casting point of view and it is filled with some great ideas on how to do a 21st Century continuation of classic GB without the main cast and dealing with the loss of Ramis.

But in execution...

 

[BatLobster]

This maybe isn't a home run if I'm going to be super critical and analytical about it, but it's at least a double and probably closer to a triple for me. More franchise movies like this, please.

Likeable, quirky characters and character-driven humor? Check.

A simple, emotionally resonant story at the heart of it that tracks all the way through? Check.

Great production value and a nice medium sized scale that doesn't go too overboard with a CGI fest third act (and when it does use CGI it looks great)? Check.

A unique spin on the franchise that infuses some new genres/influences, but also completely feels like it can belong in the same universe? Check.

Putting said new characters at the forefront of the story, with a satisfying send-off for the original characters you loved? Check.

I mean, I'm not saying this is the pinnacle of blockbuster filmmaking, but I see it as such a strong step in the right direction. This is the type of movie I've been missing, it feels timeless and 100% like a movie that could've/would've existed in the 80s/90s, minus the post-credits scene. And that's so freaking refreshing to me that I can easily forgive the fact that the third act feels a bit too breezy.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

So this is my review...


This film doesn't work UNLESS you give greater consideration to fan service above generally any other aspect. It can't really be judged on it's own without all the callbacks to an earlier film, which is part and parcel of any sequel but here it substitutes that for basically anyting else interesting or engaging. And I'm sorry but... Fan service and honoring the lore primarily does not a good film make in my estimation.

But it also doesn't really work on its own terms either. Yes this is a game and talented cast. However the script and characters don't really suck you in and the entertainment value you get from them isn't anything to write home about. Not dramatically and most definitely not comedically. The humor falls flat most every time it's attempted and the drama is undercut by this boring script and characters.

Is Grace a smart cutie? Okay, sure. AND? I can't say they wrote her particularly well or consistently. We are told she's having a hard time socializing or making friends. Then immediately she is shown having zero trouble actually doing either of those things. She is awkward but Rudd and Podcast take to her in two seconds. Also I have to ask, what did they establish about her on an emotional level that made her quest to find about her grandpa meaningful to her in the first place? Was she suffering from some anxiety about her family's past? Finn Wolfhard... Was he even a character? He was just there... Except for those long stretched he wasn't, then suddenly he fixex Ecto One for... reasons, and that's about all he contributes. Seriously, there's no handle on what anyone's relationships are, and nothing is really motivated or obstucted by them anyway so...

Without the nostalgia this film would be completely empty excepting for it's unearned outside of familiarity by a segment of the audience's going back to childhood soft spot for the original schmaltzy tugging at the heartstrings aspect. Which is, no matter how one tries to pitch it, is not what I or many want from a GB film, especially one that is banking so much on nostalgia to fuel it's script and premise. No matter how much one might love the cartoon, no matter how much the Ghost Busters as children may have registered more as a cool sci fi movie or something that was also humorous the facts are Ghostbusters from 1984 is a comedy. For some reason this fact seems to cause some unease or comes off as dissmissive of what Reitman and Co. did back in 1984.

Thing is, Ghostbusters isn't just some small comedy, it is one of the greatest comedies of all time. The very concept of these ghost catching exterminator types is not presented as some band of super heroes despite what the goggles of childhood and merchandising told us growing up. It's a conceit that is all about its inherent humor. The Ghostbusters are not serious heroes. They don't stand for anyting other than making a buck. The untold joke of the film is that after the Gozer mess the city proably got a bill.

Cut to this movie and...

I know we all loved Harold Ramis. So did I. So DO I. This film goes out of its way to make sure we understand just how much respect and admiration the film makers here had for him. His loss was one of both an immense and influential talent but also a good person that most everyone got along with. But lets look at what Ramis' filmography looked like. The unearned schmaltz of this film was by far one of the things Ramis as a writer and director eschewed to the Nth degree. The closest I can think of a film of his with a big helping of sentimentality is without a doubt the masterpiece that is Groundhog day, a COMEDY that yes plumbed some depths but also made that sentimental ending an earned thing. He also made sure that Groundhog Day, despite literally replaying itself over and over was not dull for any long stretches. On those levels, yeah, this film failed as some tribute to Ramis.


Could you have done a GB sequel that leans more into the creepy or serious and make it work? Yeah. this was not film though. It's inert with drab characters that never pop or connect. This film was wrongheaded in it's conception. I'm sorry but to borrow a phrase from a reviewer online, you can't make Field Of Dreams the sequel to Major League and it would be stupid to do so unless reverential fan service like the ghost of Wild Thing Vaughn playing catch with his grown up son could be seen as anything other than head scratching.


As a perfect example in this film we have the implied idea that Grace's character Phoebe is likely "on the spectrum". Also implied is that, hey, maybe this explains Egon's demeanor and character in GB 1984? But that's just an example of how wrong headed this film is. Not only is a GB film probably not the place to have some discussion or commentary on Austism in society the reason why Egon acted like he did is because... Egon is not a serious character. He's joke. He's a caricature of the unhip and slightly askew pop culture version of what society views as scientists. Theorizing that Egon acted as he did based on some application of real world analysis to explain his behavior misses the point. In GB 2 when Egon does the puppy bit, that's not some insight into how Egon doesn't have the same social toolbox because of some inherent factors in his neurology as compared to others, it's a ****ing joke.

Drama about the challenges raising young daughter on the spectrum is just so strange an element to bring into a film that loudly proclaims itself the inheritor of the mantle of a film where a guy got oral sex from a ghost in a dream sequence.


This film simply doesn't work and it's shame given not only the cast and yes, the director but that there is most definitely a way to make the elements in the film work but you can't have a starting point that you are going to make a legit coming of age film out of the Ghostbusters concept and play it and most of what that entails as earnest and straight.

 

[Mysteryman]

This maybe isn't a home run if I'm going to be super critical and analytical about it, but it's at least a double and probably closer to a triple for me. More franchise movies like this, please.

Likeable, quirky characters and character-driven humor? Check.

A simple, emotionally resonant story at the heart of it that tracks all the way through? Check.

Great production value and a nice medium sized scale that doesn't go too overboard with a CGI fest third act (and when it does use CGI it looks great)? Check.

A unique spin on the franchise that infuses some new genres/influences, but also completely feels like it can belong in the same universe? Check.

Putting said new characters at the forefront of the story, with a satisfying send-off for the original characters you loved? Check.

I mean, I'm not saying this is the pinnacle of blockbuster filmmaking, but I see it as such a strong step in the right direction. This is the type of movie I've been missing, it feels timeless and 100% like a movie that could've/would've existed in the 80s/90s, minus the post-credits scene. And that's so freaking refreshing to me that I can easily forgive the fact that the third act feels a bit too breezy.

I like that word, Timeless.
Coincidentally, it's the title of my favorite Voyager episode.

 

[super85]

This maybe isn't a home run if I'm going to be super critical and analytical about it, but it's at least a double and probably closer to a triple for me. More franchise movies like this, please.

Likeable, quirky characters and character-driven humor? Check.

A simple, emotionally resonant story at the heart of it that tracks all the way through? Check.

Great production value and a nice medium sized scale that doesn't go too overboard with a CGI fest third act (and when it does use CGI it looks great)? Check.

A unique spin on the franchise that infuses some new genres/influences, but also completely feels like it can belong in the same universe? Check.

Putting said new characters at the forefront of the story, with a satisfying send-off for the original characters you loved? Check.

I mean, I'm not saying this is the pinnacle of blockbuster filmmaking, but I see it as such a strong step in the right direction. This is the type of movie I've been missing, it feels timeless and 100% like a movie that could've/would've existed in the 80s/90s, minus the post-credits scene. And that's so freaking refreshing to me that I can easily forgive the fact that the third act feels a bit too breezy.

Agreed with what you said. It was a good time at the cinema, and finally a third Ghostbusters film. Or maybe it was just a epilogue kind of to the Ghostbusters films. But again, one of those few times in recent years (even pre pandemic) that something felt actually respectful to the originals and that you felt that the people making it actually liked the source material.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Agreed with what you said. It was a good time at the cinema, and finally a third Ghostbusters film. Or maybe it was just a epilogue kind of to the Ghostbusters films. But again, one of those few times in recent years (even pre pandemic) that something felt actually respectful to the originals and that you felt that the people making it actually liked the source material.

But... Did that automatically make it compelling or even interesting? Does "respect" for you or any fan's sense of the lore history or fan's feelings about a franchise, does any of that actually translae into quality? Or just boilerplate entertainment even?