Skip to main content

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

(SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

The casting of Finn Wolfram and Hart may have been an early tell that Sony was attempting to swathe over the backlash against the Femmebusters with a similar void of inspiration, that of a pint-sized next next generation. Afterlife is very much in Stranger Things’ tonal vein, albeit not nearly as much fun. Its homage is largely a slog, spending an interminable time on the setup and, with the odd exception, failing to embrace any of the anarchic impulses of a bunch of comedians set loose on the supernatural.

I’m far from Ghostbusters’ number one fan. I found Ivan Reitman a predominately flabby, shapeless comedy director. Dan Aykroyd, meanwhile, was much too in love with his subject matter to be truly irreverent towards it. This meant there was a lot of noodling time between a Bill Murray quip or a slimy splatter of effects. Nevertheless, I readily understood its appeal. I don’t know who Jason Reitman thinks Afterlife is for, except maybe those who wish to transpose themselves with the young protagonists, presumably corresponding to the ages they were when they first saw the original.

Reitman, who co-wrote the screenplay with the once full-of-potential Gil Keenan, even spouted the following insufferably woke garbage (paying tribute to Paul Feig entirely misjudging the fanbase): “[I want to] express gratitude to you for kicking down the door on what a Ghostbuster and who a Ghostbuster can be. … You were the first person through the door, and you were the person who allowed me, and [will] allow other people, to then make Ghostbusters movies about people of every race, every gender, for people around the world. There are all kinds of Ghostbusters movies that I want to see. Thank you for making that possible”. He duly came up with a plotline all about family, because this is really the Fast and Furious franchise, and sequestered Aykroyd for his usually whoring of positive soundbites (“a beautiful, heartfelt script that takes the real DNA from the first two movies and transfers that directly to the third, the next generation”).

Ironically, for all those embracing Ghostbusters: Afterlife, it’s every bit as much a celebration of a female usurping a male domain as the 2016 movie was, with Phoebe Spengler (Mckenna Grace) the real hero focus, rather than Wolfhard’s older brother Trevor. As the aspergic-du-jour science kid, she comes packaged with gender-fluid visual coding, makes really bad jokes that are supposed to be winning, and eventually takes on Gozer when the surviving old guard fail. Of which, as wizened and decrepit as the trio are, Reitman doesn’t even try to turn their arrival into a “hero” moment, or one meriting a ripple of applause.

Yes, Phoebe has a little help from a CGI Ramis – or is it Spielberg? The rendering is so vague, it’s hard to be certain – whose appropriation is faintly grotesque and somewhat creepy (and let’s be brutally frank here; Spengler was never the life and soul of the gang, and only wins points at all because he’s more memorable than Winston).

The cumulative effect is rather depressing; the gathered old men are tired and washed up, so dressing them up in their old gear is as unseemly as an eighty-year-old Ford in his pressed and starched Indy duds (there’s a mid-credits scene between Murray and Sigourney Weaver that’s amusing, but it rather emphasises, with its placement, that Afterlife isn’t that movie. Instead, our first encounter with Stantz has him unconvincingly advising us that Egon Spengler can rot in hell).

Added to which, the slavishness to Ghostbusters’ designs and concepts represents the worst kind of slavish, sequel-trilogy nostalgia baiting. Bring back a Slimer (variant), Staypuft and Gozer. Fetishise the designs, vehicles and paraphernalia. The score too is very ’80s, riffing on Bernstein (which would be fair if the movie itself was tonally consistent with the first two).

None of the main performers are exactly a bust, although Carrie Coon has a particularly thankless mom role, barring a brief opportunity to act possessed and “woo” Paul Rudd’s also-possessed Gary Grooberson. However, the material they’re given is nutritionally empty. Rudd’s the only one mustering even a scintilla of the originals’ impudence as a slovenly summer school teacher (a character straight out of an ’80s movie). Settling the class down to watch Cujo (“Imagine Beethoven if he contracted rabies and just started mauling children”) and then Child’s Play raises a smile. Olivia Wilde is definitely no Slavitza Jovan, and I’m unsure why JK Simmons was wasted like this. Credit to the supermarket mini-Staypufts sequence, though, brief as it is; it’s a capsule form of what could have been, a great, twisted Joe Dante-esque revel in sado-masochistic self-immolation.

Grooberson: Yeah, I know the Manhattan ghost stories.

While it seems churlish to mutter about these things, I will, since the movie is putting an emphasis on a “realistic” world, rather than the cartoon one of I and II (and 2016, for that matter), and in thrall to the universe’s continuity. Through the Spengler family, the picture is boosting science (Phoebe refers to humans as “meat puppets” – delightful – and attests “I don’t believe in ghosts”), yet Grooberson (“Science is reckless!”), a geologist, is avowing there was a major shift in the official paradigm: “New York in the ’80s. It was like The Walking Dead”. Yet somehow, with no ghost sighting in thirty years, everything has been forgotten? Everyone has moved on? This would be like the MCU pretending NY didn’t happen. And while I’m griping, why is the Slimer variant able to eat iron bars, other than as a means to its breakout?

Jason Reitman managed to carve out kudos with his first wave of movies (from Thank You for Smoking to Young Adult), but subsequently took a pronounced critical and commercial tumble. In particular, Labor Day found him straining to be recognised for depth and nuance he fundamentally lacked. There’s no danger of that with Ghostbusters: Afterlife, but he’s also entirely unsuited to the continuation of what really does look like a one-and-done concept, despite its seeming endless possibilities. Yeah, I’ll say it. Ghostbusters 2016 was a better movie than this. A generous:

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We could be mauled to death by an interstellar monster!

Star Trek Beyond (2016) (SPOILERS) The odd/even Star Trek failure/success rule seemed to have been cancelled out with the first reboot movie, and then trodden into ground with Into Darkness (which, yes, I quite enjoyed, for all its scandalous deficiencies). Star Trek Beyond gets us back onto more familiar ground, as it’s very identifiably a “lesser” Trek , irrespective of the big bucks and directorial nous thrown at it. This is a Star Trek movie that can happily stand shoulder to shoulder with The Search for Spock and Insurrection , content in the knowledge they make it look good.

He's not in my pyjamas, is he?

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969) (SPOILERS) By rights, Paul Mazursky’s swinging, post-flower-power-gen partner-swap movie ought to have aged terribly. So much of the era’s scene-specific fare has, particularly so when attempting to reflect its reverberations with any degree of serious intent. Perhaps it’s because Mazursky and co-writer Larry Tucker (also of The Monkees , Alex in Wonderland and I Love You, Alice B. Toklas! ) maintain a wry distance from their characters’ endeavours, much more on the wavelength of Elliott Gould’s Ted than Robert Culp’s Bob; we know any pretensions towards uninhibited expression can’t end well, but we also know Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice have to learn the hard way.

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998) An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar. Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins , and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch , in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whet

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

There is a war raging, and unless you pull your head out of the sand, you and I and about five billion other people are going to go the way of the dinosaur.

The X-Files 5.14: The Red and the Black The most noteworthy aspect of this two parter is that it almost – but not quite – causes me to reassess my previous position that the best arc episodes are those that avoid tackling the greater narrative head-on, attempting to advance the resistant behemoth. It may be less than scintillating as far as concepts go, but the alien resistance plot is set out quite clearly here, as are the responses to it from the main players.