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

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…