- November 19th, 2021, 4:29 pm#4960587There was a lot to like with Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and I want to and need to see it again. The new characters were superb, especially Phoebe, Podcast, and Gary. Personally, I thought they were the highlight of the movie. The movie was funny—the humor fit the franchise quite well. The props were beautifully recreated. I wasn't sure, going off the trailers, that I would like the Ecto-1 in the wheat fields, but it was a fantastic scene! The cinematography was gorgeous. And I love how masterfully Bernstein's score was incorporated. I give the move an 8/10, because Jason really did deliver in so many ways.
With that being said, the story just didn't do it for me. Although I knew this going in, this movie is not Ghostbusters III. I’m not even sure if I want to consider it canon. This movie wasn't Junior Ghostbusters, nor Stranger Things Ghostbusters, which is good. But it is Small Town Ghostbusters—less happens in more time. I think that the movie has two glaring deficits: it lacks a serious antagonist, and everything important has already been solved.
Since Afterlife returns to the Gozer storyline, I find it hard not to compare it to the first movie. In the original there are two antagonists. There is Walter Peck, whose power trip plays right into Gozer’s hands. And there’s Gozer and the terror dogs. Afterlife has no human antagonist. Yes, the pack and trap get confiscated, but the sheriff isn’t an antagonist. I and II were layered movies—Peck and Hardemeyer both needed to be overcome before the Ghostbusters can even try to stop Gozer and Vigo. This heightened the tension. In Afterlife, this layer of tension is gone.
The movie probably could have overcome its lack of a human antagonist had it made Gozer an even more serious antagonist, but even the Gozer storyline had less tension than in the first movie. In I, the Ghostbusters realize that Dana and Louis are possessed, that it could be seriously bad for them to get together, and as such they do their best to keep them apart. But Peck messes this up, accelerating the coming of Gozer. And in II, we see Janosz plot and scheme a way to steal Oscar while still ending up in a relationship with Dana. In Afterlife, Callie and Gary get possessed, and get together. There isn’t even an attempt to thwart them.
And ultimately, Gozer doesn’t really do all that much. In the first movie, she turns into Stay Puft, and the Ghostbusters must risk their lives by crossing the streams to defeat Stay Puft, or risk being killed by Stay Puft. It’s a gamble, and they win. In Afterlife, they wrangle Gozer and trap her in a bunch of different traps. Honestly, I’m not a fan of Gozer being trapped. Her and Vigo are supposed to be the two entities that are too powerful for the usual stuff to work (I realize there are a ton of traps, but still…). As an aside, will the general movie going audience even realize the gravity that crossing the streams in Afterlife? It’s not explained that it’s a life-or-death proposition. And don’t the streams cross every time in the mineshaft? Honestly, I think Gozer’s return undermines the first movie’s ending, and it’s partially why I’m not sure if I want to count Afterlife as canon.
Moving on to my other point, almost everything has been solved before the movie starts. Egon figured out exactly what was happening in Summerville. Phoebe, Podcast, Lucky, and Trevor didn’t have to figure out anything that Egon hadn’t already. The ending is literally employing the Gozer trap that Egon had already tried at the beginning of the movie. The only two inspired moments I can think of are Podcast freeing Muncher to get the holding cell open, and Trevor shooting a proton stream at the towers to jumpstart them. For me, the movie is a love letter to the Ghostbusters aesthetic, and a chance to meet some great new characters. Unfortunately, the groundwork for the entire story has already been laid before we even meet Phoebe and Trevor.
Those are the two main issues that I have with Afterlife. Personally, I believe that I and II blow Afterlife away for those two reasons alone, which is not necessarily a bad thing. They’re such great movies that I would have been surprised if Afterlife had managed to top them. I don't blame Rick Moranis for sitting this one out—it would have been great to see him again, but this is not a movie to come out of retirement for. I'm sorry to rain on everybody's parade, I'm just frustrated because I think Afterlife squandered some of its potential. I liked it a lot, I really did, but I wish it could have been more.
Anyhow, I’ll leave it at that for now. I have some thoughts on the return of Peter, Ray, Winston, Dana, and Janine, but I’ll save those for another time (I will say that my favorite scene may have been the one with Dana and Peter). Part of me would like for things to end with Ghostbusters II, so that I can assume the Ghostbusters lived out their lives happily in New York City. I’ll have to watch it again to really appreciate the short amount of time the Ghostbusters are featured. I also have an overdue essay I need to finish, so I will move on to that, and hopefully share my thoughts on the return of the Ghostbusters on a later day.
Last edited by Sav C on November 19th, 2021, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.