![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjlasky7Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Now, down to business...
I've read all the negative reviews on the interwebs, calling the movie an empty exercise in nostalgia, or a complete misunderstanding of what made the original great in the first place.
I think they all miss the point.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife is about dealing with a parent's legacy, and realizing who you are in the process. It's mainly the story of Phoebe, a 12 year old girl whose intelligence and social awkwardness alienates her from her peers, and to a certain extent, her family. Phoebe is, of course, the granddaughter of Egon Spengler (played by the late Harold Ramis), and the movie shows how Phoebe discovers her grandfather's inventions, his dedication to saving humanity (which apparently came at a great price), and his heroism. Phoebe never stops being socially awkward or telling bad jokes, but she figures out her place in the world, heals her family and preserves Egon's legacy.
Yes, there is almost a fetishistic reverence for each piece of Ghostbusters equipment as it's reintroduced: the PKE meter, the proton pack, the ECTO-1, the uniforms, and so on. But rather than throw us all the way back into this world without comment, I thought it was nice to remind us how Ramis and Dan Aykroyd nailed the world building in the original. A lot of people think that Bill Murray's irreverent attitude was the main reason why Ghostbusters was a success; personally, I always enjoyed the combination of New York street smart-ness and the solid science fiction/fantasy universe Aykroyd and Ramis created around it.
In fact, the one part of the movie I didn't enjoy is when Murray's Peter Venkman trotted out his old smart aleck lines on Gozer. It felt out of place because it wasn't that type of movie. Afterlife is more a kid's adventure story with serious overtones, Ghostbusters with some Goonies or Stand By Me DNA spliced in. The rest of the old gang--led by Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts--fit much more comfortably, allowing those melancholic overtones a chance to breathe.
There were good (if unremarkable) supporting turns by Carrie Coon as Phoebe's mom, Paul Rudd as a slightly goofy science teacher, and Finn Wolfhard (from Stranger Things) as Phoebe's brother. But this is McKenna Grace's movie. If Phoebe doesn't work, then the movie collapses; but you're with her every step of the way. You can build a franchise around this girl.
Is Afterlife a little bit TOO beholden to the original? Does it have "The Force Awakens" syndrome? Well, maybe. I did like that the movie expanded upon some vital parts of Ghostbusters mythology, but there were points when I wish they'd gone another way....
But I'm willing to give the filmmakers a pass here. Jason Reitman was a boy on the set of the original, and if anybody has a huge emotional stake in a movie about a parent's legacy, it's Reitman. After all, he directed this movie with his father, Ivan--who directed the original--pretty much looking over his shoulder the entire time.
Still, they have a great set up at the end to go in new directions: Phoebe's crew is the new, main team; Coon and Rudd give parental support; Aykroyd's Ray Stantz can offer exposition and Hudson's Winston Zedemore is the money man. You don't need Murray. You don't need to crib from the movies. The Ghostbusters cartoon proved there's a million ways to hunt the supernatural in the city. I really hope Reitman (or his successors) get a chance to tell those stories.
Now, down to business...
I've read all the negative reviews on the interwebs, calling the movie an empty exercise in nostalgia, or a complete misunderstanding of what made the original great in the first place.
I think they all miss the point.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife is about dealing with a parent's legacy, and realizing who you are in the process. It's mainly the story of Phoebe, a 12 year old girl whose intelligence and social awkwardness alienates her from her peers, and to a certain extent, her family. Phoebe is, of course, the granddaughter of Egon Spengler (played by the late Harold Ramis), and the movie shows how Phoebe discovers her grandfather's inventions, his dedication to saving humanity (which apparently came at a great price), and his heroism. Phoebe never stops being socially awkward or telling bad jokes, but she figures out her place in the world, heals her family and preserves Egon's legacy.
Yes, there is almost a fetishistic reverence for each piece of Ghostbusters equipment as it's reintroduced: the PKE meter, the proton pack, the ECTO-1, the uniforms, and so on. But rather than throw us all the way back into this world without comment, I thought it was nice to remind us how Ramis and Dan Aykroyd nailed the world building in the original. A lot of people think that Bill Murray's irreverent attitude was the main reason why Ghostbusters was a success; personally, I always enjoyed the combination of New York street smart-ness and the solid science fiction/fantasy universe Aykroyd and Ramis created around it.
In fact, the one part of the movie I didn't enjoy is when Murray's Peter Venkman trotted out his old smart aleck lines on Gozer. It felt out of place because it wasn't that type of movie. Afterlife is more a kid's adventure story with serious overtones, Ghostbusters with some Goonies or Stand By Me DNA spliced in. The rest of the old gang--led by Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts--fit much more comfortably, allowing those melancholic overtones a chance to breathe.
There were good (if unremarkable) supporting turns by Carrie Coon as Phoebe's mom, Paul Rudd as a slightly goofy science teacher, and Finn Wolfhard (from Stranger Things) as Phoebe's brother. But this is McKenna Grace's movie. If Phoebe doesn't work, then the movie collapses; but you're with her every step of the way. You can build a franchise around this girl.
Is Afterlife a little bit TOO beholden to the original? Does it have "The Force Awakens" syndrome? Well, maybe. I did like that the movie expanded upon some vital parts of Ghostbusters mythology, but there were points when I wish they'd gone another way....
But I'm willing to give the filmmakers a pass here. Jason Reitman was a boy on the set of the original, and if anybody has a huge emotional stake in a movie about a parent's legacy, it's Reitman. After all, he directed this movie with his father, Ivan--who directed the original--pretty much looking over his shoulder the entire time.
Still, they have a great set up at the end to go in new directions: Phoebe's crew is the new, main team; Coon and Rudd give parental support; Aykroyd's Ray Stantz can offer exposition and Hudson's Winston Zedemore is the money man. You don't need Murray. You don't need to crib from the movies. The Ghostbusters cartoon proved there's a million ways to hunt the supernatural in the city. I really hope Reitman (or his successors) get a chance to tell those stories.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-28 06:57 pm (UTC)It was Harold Ramis that I was thinking of last night - very few people can do straight man comedy like Ramis.
I may rent on On Demand at some point, or wait for it to pop up on a streaming service. It sounds like a good family flick though and really good for kids.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-28 07:34 pm (UTC)(Odd how the incels aren't complaining--this time--that a "gurl" is leading the new generation of Ghostbusters. Is it because virtually everyone associated with the original signed off on this one?)
As a huge fan of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon, I would love to see this multigenerational team tackle one of the big villains of that series, like Samhain or the Boogeyman. Let J. Michael Straczynski (who was the story editor on the cartoon) have a crack at the screenplay. And go BIG!
no subject
Date: 2021-11-28 08:39 pm (UTC)I did like the Real Ghostbuster's Cartoon - actually I think I preferred it to the movies. The characters were more entertaining, and some of the scripts better.