trappedslider
Legend
Getting back to Ghostbusters, there are two post-credit scenes.
New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer
Imaculata
Hero
Well, I've finally seen it. I didn't want to see it in the theater during a deadly epidemic, so I waited for a home media release. I've got a lot of thoughts about it, but let me start with a none-spoiler list of what I liked and disliked. Please let me know what you thought of the movie as well. Some minor spoilers beware.
What I liked:
Miles better than that other reboot (not a high bar, I admit)
They decided to not make this a comedy, which was a wise choice.
It nails the feeling of Ghostbusters.
The Ghostbusting equipment is as cool as I remember it from my childhood.
The practical effects and visual effects are both really good.
The sets and props look great.
It is shot and edited well.
Mckenna Grace is really good.
A great soundtrack.
A really solid first act.
What I disliked:
The trailer pretty much spoils the entire movie in chronological order.
A cringy amount of fan service.
Pacing issues.
Constant callbacks and quoting the original movie.
Often using the same soundtrack as the original movie, to the point of annoyance.
Copying the entire last act of the original movie.
Several characters do not have a whole lot to do.
A terrible exposition scene which pretty much implodes the movie.
The kids seem too knowledgable. Both technically, and about Ghostbusting. As if they saw the movies too.
The movie seems to not only ignore the other reboot, but also Ghostbusters II, which is weird.
The plot has a few problems.
There is an odd final showdown that seems like it needed more rewrites.
Awful cameos from the original cast. Most of them did not age well, and don't act well.
One unsettling cameo which raises all manner of ethical questions about movie making.
Below, I will go into a bit more detail. Big spoilers ahead!
What I liked:
Miles better than that other reboot (not a high bar, I admit)
They decided to not make this a comedy, which was a wise choice.
It nails the feeling of Ghostbusters.
The Ghostbusting equipment is as cool as I remember it from my childhood.
The practical effects and visual effects are both really good.
The sets and props look great.
It is shot and edited well.
Mckenna Grace is really good.
A great soundtrack.
A really solid first act.
What I disliked:
The trailer pretty much spoils the entire movie in chronological order.
A cringy amount of fan service.
Pacing issues.
Constant callbacks and quoting the original movie.
Often using the same soundtrack as the original movie, to the point of annoyance.
Copying the entire last act of the original movie.
Several characters do not have a whole lot to do.
A terrible exposition scene which pretty much implodes the movie.
The kids seem too knowledgable. Both technically, and about Ghostbusting. As if they saw the movies too.
The movie seems to not only ignore the other reboot, but also Ghostbusters II, which is weird.
The plot has a few problems.
There is an odd final showdown that seems like it needed more rewrites.
Awful cameos from the original cast. Most of them did not age well, and don't act well.
One unsettling cameo which raises all manner of ethical questions about movie making.
Below, I will go into a bit more detail. Big spoilers ahead!
The movie starts off really strong. The characters are all likeable, and both the setting and mood are a welcome change from the original movies. The movie focuses a lot on the Ghostbusting tech, giving us long closeups of the props. It is perhaps a bit overindulgent in this respect, but I appreciate it, because I love the tech so much. The original soundtrack (of GB1) is used a bit too much, which is jarring at times. The full soundtrack however, has delightful riffs on the original soundtrack. I also noticed reusing sound effects from GB1, for more than just the tech. Since I have a very strong memory for sound effects, this was jarring to me.
But it all kind of collapses in on itself as soon as Dan Aykroyd makes a cameo as Ray Stance. The exposition is terrible here, and the acting by Aykroyd is not great. When done well, an exposition scene can fly by unnoticed. But when it is done poorly, the dialog does not flow naturally, and it takes you out of the movie. The plot also raises some red flags here. Apparently we are lead to believe that Egon split from the rest of the Ghostbusters, because they didn't believe his ideas of the approaching end of the world.... you know, despite them all living through two such world ending events. This does not seem believable. I'm fine with the idea of the Ghostbusters having a falling out, but this was just poorly written.
From this point it starts feeling like the movie is just rushing over a lot of things. The kids some how are all technical geniuses, and seem to understand Ghostbusting a bit too quickly, to the point where they even start classifying ghosts like Ray does in the original movies.
The pacing is a bit uneven. The first act moves slowly, which is good. Seeing the kids slowly discover the old Ghostbusting tech is the best part of the film. But once the movie starts moving towards it's final act, things move a bit too hastily, which ultimately makes the ending feel a bit unsatisfying. I get that they wanted to bring Gozer and his/her terror dogs back. They are iconic. And since Gozer wasn't actually defeated in the first movie, it makes sense that Shandor and his cult had prepared other means for bringing the Destructor back. All that I don't have a problem with. But did it have to be the exact same temple? Did they need to recreate the exact same scene with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper transforming into terror dogs, as in the original film? And apparently Shandor is still alive, or undead? His cameo seemed a bit random, like an unfleshed out concept that some how stuck around in the script despite numerous rewrites.
But despite the movie having a great final location in the mine, the final showdown takes place in front of the porch of the old farmhouse. This felt really weird to me. What a bizarre and underwhelming location for a final showdown with Gozer. I did appreciate the updated look for Gozer. She looks much creepier, and is no longer wearing a cheap fluffy costume. The terror dogs also look great as animatronics. And Bill Murray seemed to actually care about giving a decent performance, despite his cameo being really brief. But how bizarre to build up the kids as the new Ghostbusters, only to have the original cast come in for the final show down. It felt very out of place.
Of course, we have to talk about CGI Harold Ramis. To be fair, the CGI here was really good. This is one of the stronger looking recreations of a dead celebrity in a movie so far. But it also raises some ethical concerns. I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Sure, the movie is dedicated to Harold, but he didn't give permission for his likeness to be used in this movie. I think they could have gotten away with not actually showing him, and just making him a ball of light or something. But having this clearly dead actor, who did not give permission to be in this movie, act in front of the rest of the elderly cast... yikes. I don't like it.
There's two after credits scenes, with one being B-roll footage of Harold Ramis which got cut from from the original film. It is jarring, because you can feel why it was cut. It 'feels' like a deleted scene, and not in a good way. I did love the final scene between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver, even if it feels very unconnected to the rest of the film. And Winston is apparently cleaning up the old Firehouse?
I noticed that they are still using the Ghost Corp logo for this, so clearly Sony Pictures is determined to make this the new GB franchise (after the other reboot imploded). I want to see more GB movies, but honestly I hope they let go of all the cameos and call backs, and just commit to doing something new.
But it all kind of collapses in on itself as soon as Dan Aykroyd makes a cameo as Ray Stance. The exposition is terrible here, and the acting by Aykroyd is not great. When done well, an exposition scene can fly by unnoticed. But when it is done poorly, the dialog does not flow naturally, and it takes you out of the movie. The plot also raises some red flags here. Apparently we are lead to believe that Egon split from the rest of the Ghostbusters, because they didn't believe his ideas of the approaching end of the world.... you know, despite them all living through two such world ending events. This does not seem believable. I'm fine with the idea of the Ghostbusters having a falling out, but this was just poorly written.
From this point it starts feeling like the movie is just rushing over a lot of things. The kids some how are all technical geniuses, and seem to understand Ghostbusting a bit too quickly, to the point where they even start classifying ghosts like Ray does in the original movies.
The pacing is a bit uneven. The first act moves slowly, which is good. Seeing the kids slowly discover the old Ghostbusting tech is the best part of the film. But once the movie starts moving towards it's final act, things move a bit too hastily, which ultimately makes the ending feel a bit unsatisfying. I get that they wanted to bring Gozer and his/her terror dogs back. They are iconic. And since Gozer wasn't actually defeated in the first movie, it makes sense that Shandor and his cult had prepared other means for bringing the Destructor back. All that I don't have a problem with. But did it have to be the exact same temple? Did they need to recreate the exact same scene with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper transforming into terror dogs, as in the original film? And apparently Shandor is still alive, or undead? His cameo seemed a bit random, like an unfleshed out concept that some how stuck around in the script despite numerous rewrites.
But despite the movie having a great final location in the mine, the final showdown takes place in front of the porch of the old farmhouse. This felt really weird to me. What a bizarre and underwhelming location for a final showdown with Gozer. I did appreciate the updated look for Gozer. She looks much creepier, and is no longer wearing a cheap fluffy costume. The terror dogs also look great as animatronics. And Bill Murray seemed to actually care about giving a decent performance, despite his cameo being really brief. But how bizarre to build up the kids as the new Ghostbusters, only to have the original cast come in for the final show down. It felt very out of place.
Of course, we have to talk about CGI Harold Ramis. To be fair, the CGI here was really good. This is one of the stronger looking recreations of a dead celebrity in a movie so far. But it also raises some ethical concerns. I felt very uncomfortable watching it. Sure, the movie is dedicated to Harold, but he didn't give permission for his likeness to be used in this movie. I think they could have gotten away with not actually showing him, and just making him a ball of light or something. But having this clearly dead actor, who did not give permission to be in this movie, act in front of the rest of the elderly cast... yikes. I don't like it.
There's two after credits scenes, with one being B-roll footage of Harold Ramis which got cut from from the original film. It is jarring, because you can feel why it was cut. It 'feels' like a deleted scene, and not in a good way. I did love the final scene between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver, even if it feels very unconnected to the rest of the film. And Winston is apparently cleaning up the old Firehouse?
I noticed that they are still using the Ghost Corp logo for this, so clearly Sony Pictures is determined to make this the new GB franchise (after the other reboot imploded). I want to see more GB movies, but honestly I hope they let go of all the cameos and call backs, and just commit to doing something new.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This seems contradictory.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit'
that provides the emotional hook for audiences.The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy
Last edited:
Imaculata
Hero
It may seem that way, but in order for a Ghostbusters movie to feel like a Ghostbusters movie, it doesn't need to be a comedy.
And in fact, considering how good a comedy the original was... You're kind of setting yourself up for failure if you try to repeat it. So the bold choice to focus on adventure, rather than comedy, really works for GB Afterlife.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I’ve a hard time believing that a movie that isn’t especially humorous can have the same feel as the outright hilariously comical Ghostbusters.its not contradictory, the original Ghostbusters is a classic because it is more than just a comedy - it combines horror, adventure and comedy but at its heart it has a unique defining 'spirit'
The new movie was able to latch on to the nostalgia of that emotional hook and carry the legacy via a family drama that is feel good but has very little comedy
I suspect that what it captured was folks’ nostalgia and reverence for the franchise and the place it has in the halls of their memories.
Zardnaar
Legend
Na it was just a good fun film. Plenty of reboots fail because they just throw in nostalgia bait in thee absence of a compelling story, likeable characters etc.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don’t doubt it’s good. I doubt that it has the same feel as the original. Nor should it. It’s a new movie that directly follows on from the older story.
Zardnaar
Legend
It had quite a few funny moments. Different vibe just on the location if nothing else.
Convinced the wife to see it after all the positive word of mouth online and it opened late here.
Similar Threads
