Ghostbusters: Afterlife

The Doctor’s Diagnosis: D

               The original Ghostbusters is the first movie that I can ever remember seeing and it started my love of movies. I was obsessed with it and I know it by heart. Ghostbusters 2 was (I think) the second movie that I ever saw in a theater. The Ghostbusters cartoon was my favorite tv show as a kid. Right now, one of my walls is decorated with a Ghostbusters poster, an autographed picture of Dan Aykroyd from the first movie and an original animation cell from the cartoon. You might say that I’m a fan of the franchise. Ghostbusters: Afterlife is my most anticipated movie of the year and one of the most soul-crushing moviegoing experiences that I’ve ever had.

               I’m going to quote myself from my review of Halloween Kills because 1. I tend to agree with myself and 2. I think that this is even more relevant here: “I’ve often wondered what movies people will be nostalgic about in 30 years. With the modern obsession with remakes and reboots, the current generation doesn’t have much to call their own. When today’s teenagers are approaching 40, will they be nostalgic for the nostalgic reboots of movies from the 70s, 80s and 90s? That will create a creatively bankrupt cycle, where each generation is nostalgic for a slightly different version of the same thing. That’s depressing.”

               Damn right, it’s depressing. Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a sad, painfully derivative retread of the original film that is solely banking on nostalgia to cover up the shameless lack of originality on display. The film is clearly inspired by Stranger Things, which I haven’t watched but I’ve been told about it by literally every person that I have ever met. And that brings me to a larger point: Stop telling me that I need to watch Stranger Things because I like stuff from the 80s. That’s not what I want. I don’t want something to just say “hey, remember when things were better?” I want something that is actually good without depending on nostalgia. I don’t want someone to literally make the next Ghostbusters or Gremlins or Robocop. I want someone to come up with their fucking own idea and create something new that is as good as Ghostbusters or Gremlins or Robocop. I want kids today to have their own things that will inspire them to love movies just as those 80s movies did for me. I don’t want the same shit over and over and over again.

               That distinction was completely lost on director Jason Reitman, son of the great Ivan Reitman that directed the original two Ghostbusters movies (and, if we’re being honest, the second one was just a retread of the original, but had enough talent to somewhat mask that problem). Ghostbusters: Afterlife posits that the original Ghostbusters broke up after Egon went nuts and moved to a secluded farm to prevent the coming apocalypse. Decades later, his daughter and two grandchildren inherit the farm after Egon’s death and the two kids (very) gradually discover their grandfather’s identity and that there are signs that his predictions of impending doom weren’t crazy. So, they (along with two other local kids) take up the mantle of the Ghostbusters to stop the incoming threat.

               That plot summary actually doesn’t sound bad. Despite the needlessly slow buildup and the baffling notion that these kids didn’t know who their grandfather was or what happened in the first two movies (I know that kids tend to ignore the fact that the world existed pre-internet, but a Sumerian god invading New York City seems like a notable event), there were some moments when I felt like this was working. The kids have decent enough chemistry together and it seemed like a good way to reboot the franchise without disregarding the past.

               Then the last act happened and Ghostbusters: Afterlife becomes a soulless point-for-point redo of the original film. The threat is Gozer again (which is pretty obvious from the trailers, so I don’t think it’s a spoiler) and the film does it’s damdest to make Gozer identical to the original. Instead of green Slimer as the first ghost, we have blue Muncher. We have the Key Master and the Gatekeeper and they turn into the dog minions. We have the same lines being crammed into the movie with groan-inducing levels of subtlety (you bet your ass we hear “Who Ya Gonna Call?” and “There is no Dana, only Zuul”). We even have exact shots and poses to recreate the first movie. I really, really didn’t need Paul Rudd posing on a rock to copy Sigourney Weaver posing on the rooftop. The Stay Puft Marshmallow Men are the only items in a grocery store that come to life and are only there because, well, it was something in the first movie, so I guess we need it again even if it makes zero sense in the context of the story. The last 45 minutes of this movie are just a checklist of elements from the first movie, with the producers checking off boxes because nostalgia is easier than doing something new. As a huge fan of the franchise, this was supposed to be endearing to me. Instead, its fucking insulting.

               You might be wondering why I haven’t mentioned the original cast. Well, it’s because they are barely in the fucking movie. I don’t care if this is a spoiler because this is some of the most bullshit false advertising I’ve ever seen. Annie Potts is in two scenes and one of them is the post-credits scene. Sigourney Weaver’s appearance is the most irritating because she is in one fucking scene and it’s the goddamn mid-credits scene that has fucking nothing to do with anything except for allowing the producers to say that she is in the movie. And then there are the actual Ghostbusters, a reunion that I have been waiting to see since I was five years old. The three surviving Ghostbusters (Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Bill Murrary) appear at the very end of the movie to fight Gozer. We don’t get to see them getting back together or finding out that Gozer has returned or anything. They just come back, say damn near the same lines as in the first movie, cross the streams just like in the first movie and wink at the camera about a hundred times. I don’t even know when I first had sex because of how much I used to drink (thanks to whoever it was, though), and yet I still consider this the most anticlimactic moment of my life. I can’t even put into words the crushing disappointment that this moment turned out to be nothing but a lame, self-aware skit version of the original movie.

               The other point that seems to be lost on everyone (which is surprising considering the people involved) is that the original Ghostbusters isn’t an outright comedy. It has funny lines and great comedians in it, but it is serious when it needs to be. There are moments in it that are actually scary. It isn’t a movie designed for kids. Ghostbusters: Afterlife has no such balance. There is no genuine menace and no attempts to make the scary moments actually scary. All of the sexual material and innuendo of the original is gone (no ghost blowjobs here, folks). This isn’t an adult movie that kids will also enjoy; it’s just a movie for kids that hopes that adults will like it because of nostalgia.

               I’ve thus far avoided mention of the 2016 Ghostbusters, largely because I (along with the rest of society) like to pretend that that movie doesn’t exist. However, it does give me valuable perspective here. The 2016 movie made me angry, while Afterlife made me sad. I guess that’s an improvement? For that reason, I am giving this movie a barely passing grade. If the 2016 movie is an F-grade, then this is slightly better. So congratulations, Girlbusters, you finally served a purpose by making another shitty movie seem slightly tolerable. Huzzah.

Image By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters%3A_Afterlife#/media/File:Ghostbusters_-_Afterlife_official_theatrical_poster.jpg