Eighties nostalgia is, undoubtedly, dominating much of mainstream cinema right now. Since 2015, we’ve had an endless string of reboots and revivals of classic movie franchises to the point of overbearing cynicism. In 2016 we were given a fresh reboot on the beloved eighties franchise, “Ghostbusters” that was met with absolute vitriol from almost everyone. I was somewhat in the minority of that reception, but it was becoming apparent how frequent these nostalgia-dependent ventures were becoming with this very film. Getting another revival from the franchise in only five years had me groaning an indistinct compilation of exhausted grunts that really puts into perspective how consistent these types of films have become. I have a lot of love for the original two Ghostbusters movies. I was raised on eighties schlock and only appreciated them more in my adult years, recognizing just how quintessential the original cast was to making these movies near-perfect (more so the first.) Like everyone else, I pondered what a third movies would entail. The 2016 version was a…different take on the formula, but it didn’t really continue the story. This next entry ignores the aforementioned reboot and instead brings us back to the universe we fell in love with. Does it stand on its own, or even as a loving tribute to the original? With the son of the previous director taking the helm, surely we could find a wonderful blend of the two. Regardless, this is Jason Reitman’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
Taking place over thirty years after the events of Ghostbusters II, the focus is placed on single mother, Callie (Carrie Coon) who, along with her children, Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) and Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), is told of her negligent father’s passing. The three travel to a remote town where they remain in the house he had left behind. Trevor finds a job at a fast food restaurant where he becomes infatuated with his co-worker, Lucky (Celeste O’Connor), while the socially awkward and emotionally inept Phoebe tries to adjust to a new school, making friends with a spiritual enthusiast named Podcast (Logan Kim.) As normal as everything seems, Phoebe eventually notices strange paranormal activity going on in the house, eventually uncovering a basement full of ghostly research and equipment. It suddenly dawns on Phoebe that she is the granddaughter of previous Ghostbuster, Egon. With the help of Podcast and her “Buster” fanatic teacher, Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd), she manages to uncover the thing that Egon was trying to prevent: the resurrection of classic villain, Gozer.
The biggest issue with these countless eighties/nineties film reboots is the lack of finding their own foot to stand on. Nostalgia can certainly be a very nice and comfortable feeling, but it can’t be the sole element that crafts an entire film. Afterlife is stuck in its roots, barely ever lifting off the ground from its infamous origins. The film, initially, goes for something more sentimental and almost indie. Aside from the opening, which serves to establish Egon’s death, the rest of the film feels like one of those “what if we did this dumb comedy from the past and treated it seriously” approaches. I was able to see much of the potential in this. I liked the small moments of intrigue and the moments of Egon’s ghost leading his granddaughter on an almost whimsical journey to becoming a new ghostbuster, but this becomes overly bogged down by the incessant callbacks and reliance on the original film. The film is, honestly, at its worst when it’s trying to trigger your nostalgia. It reminds you of how different the tones of these two films are, and rather than giving you a nice moment of childhood memories, it just makes you want to watch the original film instead. The final act is especially bad at this; it’s pretty much a one to one recreation of the final act in the original. I felt so deflated when Gozer was announced as the villain in the promotional material. The feature of the terror dogs and the mini Stay Pufts just reeked of unoriginal intent. Just when I find myself hooked on the new stuff, especially the scene where the kids are chasing down a ghost through the town in the Ecto-1, we are force-fed direct references to the original movie with the subtlety of a giant marshmallow man decimating a New York building.
There’s a lot of time spent exploring the three family members. I like this idea of Callie feeling neglected and taking much of that depressed frustration out on everyone, but it becomes overplayed to the point of being her entire character. What is supposed to be a “likable asshole” character ends up coming across as a very exhausted and unpleasant character that reminded me of Reitman’s previous characters, something I never resonated with. In fact, this is a problem with almost in the movie, everyone is so overly stand-offish that it feels far more mean-spirited than the original movie, as if every character was trying to be Venkman. Having kids take the lead is an interesting concept, and I really enjoyed Grace’s character being this Egon-esque social outcast, but Wolfhard’s character has absolutely nothing to his character outside of a desperate libido. Paul Rudd simply plays himself, as he does in most films, but doesn’t have much weight outside of being the typical audience avatar, just there to point and shout at all the shameless nostalgia baiting. Podcast feels like an attempt to garner in a newer generation of Ghostbusters fans, but has nothing in terms of a defining personality. Compared to the original cast, there is a noticeable lack of uniqueness. I am fine with them not trying to replicate the original characters, you can’t possibly capture that lightning twice, but none of them, aside from Phoebe, are remotely memorable.
There is something of a regret over my obvious cynicism with this latest nostalgia ride. There is so much potential in telling a story that is both passionately paying tribute to the source material while also taking everything in earnest. I was especially quite emotional over how they handled the tribute to Harold Raimis. It may enrage a lot of people and feels rather schmaltzy for a Ghostbusters film, but it did manage to give me the one genuine moment of feeling transported back to my childhood, aside from the reinvented score. The moments where I felt most engaged was with the more unique tone in the first two acts. I love the original film for its complete self-awareness in the hokey set-up. It’s something so outlandish that doesn’t work on paper, but is strengthened by its stellar cast. I admire the attempt at showing this in a realistic and natural light, but Reitman can’t seem to stick to that, unapologetically ramming us with moments of “remember these super-iconic moments from that film you loved as a kid” to the point where it completely takes over. Say what you will about the universally hated 2016 reboot, but it did at least try to both pay tribute to the original films, while also experimenting with unique ideas. This could garner me some flack, but I feel that the 2016 version fits more in the original universe than this tonally inconsistent continuation.
In the grand scheme of this relentless onslaught of uninspired and soulless nostalgia cash-grabs, it’s not the worst thing, but it’s far from memorable. I struggled to remember much of the plot that wasn’t so heavily borrowed from the first film, and that says a lot about how people will see this film in only ten years time. I liked the main character and the concept of a new generation of ghostbusters. I think the special effects are excellent, and there’s a nice blend of CGI and practical effects that caught me off guard. But this film will never stand on its own. As a film that’s trying to appeal to a new generation, it’s too reliant on the source material. As a tribute to the original fans, it’s basic and soulless barely anything to offer that the original can’t. The word that best describes this is simply forgettable.
Written review by C. Johnson.