{"id":7487,"date":"2021-11-20T10:00:36","date_gmt":"2021-11-20T09:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiotimes.com\/?p=1512801"},"modified":"2021-11-20T10:24:09","modified_gmt":"2021-11-20T09:24:09","slug":"ghostbusters-afterlife-is-ghoulish-in-all-the-wrong-ways","status":"publish","type":"rss_feed","link":"https:\/\/c01.purpledshub.com\/radiotimes\/rss_feed\/ghostbusters-afterlife-is-ghoulish-in-all-the-wrong-ways\/","title":{"rendered":"Ghostbusters: Afterlife is ghoulish in all the wrong ways"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>

By Huw Fullerton\n \t\t<\/p>

Published: Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 12:00 am<\/p>

\n\n

Look, I\u2019ll say it \u2013 I don\u2019t think the 2016 Ghostbusters is that bad. Sure, it\u2019s not a classic on par with the 1984 original, and rebooting the whole universe rather than making it a sequel was an odd creative choice, but it was fairly entertaining and had a few funny moments. Director Paul Feig and his cast did an OK, not stellar job.<\/p>\n

But to look at some of the reactions from certain fans, you\u2019d think they\u2019d desecrated a temple. The level of bile and hate directed at the film (much of it misogynistic and racist, and directed at star Leslie Jones) was genuinely head-spinning, and the film ended up debuting on a sour note.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the lessons Sony learned from this debacle were all the wrong ones \u2013 at least based on their next attempt to break the franchise into modern cinemas. From the off, the newly-released Ghostbusters: Afterlife<\/a> feels like a desperate, kneejerk sop to the sort of fans who hated the 2016 Ghostbusters, cravenly assuring them that yes, they were right \u2013 your experience watching that first film was<\/em> special, and was<\/em> important. They\u2019re assuring us that Ghostbusters matters<\/em> \u2013 and every character in this film believes that too.<\/p>

Director Jason Reitman (son of the original\u2019s Ivan Reitman) even said that this film would \u201chand the movie back to the fans,\u201d a dig at Paul Feig\u2019s movie which he later had to retract, even as his film (and all its press) essentially pretends the 2016 film never happened.<\/p>\n

And the result? While it has some funny and entertaining moments (Paul Rudd is a highlight), Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a fan-baiting, mawkish production that (in my mind) fundamentally misunderstands what made the original Ghostbusters good in the first place. And be warned, we\u2019ll be going into spoilers<\/strong> here.<\/p>\n

The easiest way to describe Ghostbusters: Afterlife is that it\u2019s The Force Awakens. Its first trailer has the same haunting, plink-plonk soundtrack as Star Wars Episode VII\u2019s earlier teasers, it follows the next generation of heroes picking up the torch from some returning original cast and more or less repeats the beats of a classic film with some minor changes.<\/p>\n

As a method for rebooting an old franchise, it makes sense. Unfortunately, for some reason the makers of this film also decided to ape The Force Awakens\u2019 reverent tone, which is where Afterlife begins to run into problems.<\/p>\n

\""Paul\"<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>
Paul Rudd in Ghostbusters: Afterlife<\/span><\/figcaption> Sony Pictures<\/i><\/span><\/div>\n

That problem is, Ghostbusters is not Star Wars \u2013 it\u2019s a wry comedy with sci-fi elements. A man is fellated by a ghost! That first film never takes itself that seriously, and that\u2019s one of the reasons it\u2019s such a classic. By contrast, Star Wars was always supposed to be a kind of sweeping, romantic space opera that had a sense of self-importance.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s bizarre to see Ghostbusters: Afterlife treat the earlier film as a kind of sacred text, imbuing the whole reboot with a wide-eyed, awestruck earnestness that makes it far more of a departure from the franchise\u2019s origins than anything Paul Feig did. People speak in hushed, reverent tones of the original Ghostbusters and what they did, ascribing them the status of legendary, mythic warriors (basically, like Jedi).<\/p>\n

\u201cYou do realise, this means your grandfather\u2026was a Ghostbuster?\u201d one awestruck kid tells McKenna Grace\u2019s Phoebe. I cringed.<\/p>\n

This awkward effect only gets worse when Afterlife includes footage from the original film throughout, which juxtaposes terribly with the new version of the story. The quick-witted, baggy back-and-forth of the OG Ghostbusters clashes horribly with the Stranger Things-lite modern version of the story, and just shows up the flaws of this new approach.<\/p>\n

(Notice also the arrival of the merch-friendly mini Stay-Puft Marshmallow men, whose appearance in the film makes no sense within the logic of the series or Afterlife\u2019s story, but provide that little buzz of nostalgia).<\/p>\n

\""Original\"<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>
Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Bill Murray in Ghostbusters (Sony)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only people in the film who do seem to know what makes Ghostbusters work are the Ghostbusters themselves. When Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Bill Murray turn up it\u2019s like their characters never left, and they play their roles for laughs with great success (because Ghostbusters is a comedy! It\u2019s not an action-adventure!).<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this is soon undercut by the film\u2019s worst and most baffling decision, whereby the late Harold Ramis (who played Dr Egon Spengler in the original films and passed away in 2014) is added to the film as an affectionate CGI ghost.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s clear why this was done \u2013 to have a full reunion of characters, and a scene where all four Ghostbusters cross the streams once more (this time, via Egon guiding his granddaughter). But in practice it\u2019s pretty uncomfortable, and leaves a bad taste in the mouth as a silent Ramis gives hugs, smiles beatifically and silently flies off into the sky.<\/p>\n

\""McKenna\"<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>
McKenna Grace in Ghostbusters: Afterlife<\/span><\/figcaption> Sony Pictures\/YouTube<\/i><\/span><\/div>\n

The scene is ghoulish in the one way Ghostbusters shouldn\u2019t be, and made me feel genuinely uncomfortable in the cinema in a way other posthumous cameos haven\u2019t. Egon\u2019s back as a Force Ghost, and it feels exploitative and desperate.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not claiming that the 2016 Ghostbusters was some great triumph for cinema, or even came close to approaching the original\u2019s brilliance (though to be fair, neither did Ghostbusters 2). But I think on balance, it had a better idea of what this franchise should be \u2013 a comedy with sci-fi stylings \u2013 even if its execution wasn\u2019t quite right.<\/p>\n

Just saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Wow, what a ride! From the scene where they showed the prop I remembered to the part where the characters I love were now old, sad, and dead, it simply never stopped validating my exaggerated emotional connection to this intellectual property.<\/p>\u2014 Sean O’Neal (@seanoneal) November 16, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote>