Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005411#Comment_118005411

Hmmmm... No bias at all there

Reviews have not been great but this one seems like the reviewer took it personal

Consider the casual cowardice of a script that uses its own mythology to subtly erase 2016’s all-gals reboot from the canon, giving the rage-choked trolls carpet-bombing IMDb with zero-star ratings the vindication they’ve always craved.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005835#Comment_118005835

Well to be fair, the 2016 movie wasn't part of canon, so it can't be erased from canon.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005878#Comment_118005878

This is true, they were at pains to separate themselves from the previous films (while still trying to market as a sequel). Christ but everything about that film was a train wreck

pixelburp

Some middle-of-the-road reviews were fairly complimentary of the first half the movie, and its Stranger Things vibe (however mismatched it might be seen against the series); but yeah, apparently the movie really leans into the nostaglia and iconography of the series.

I can sorta see the saltiness of that Guardian review. These convention screening have to be seen to be believed. Cheering, whooping audiences in states of sycophantic adulation; almost like a reverse of the 2 Minute Hate. It can be very jarring to those not invested in pop culture to the degree modern geekdom has indulged.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118006351#Comment_118006351

This more so than other movies out around now, is a movie I'll reserve judgement until I see it. I think you maybe have to be a Ghostbusters fan to properly "get it". GB 2 was really quite a poor film, and some people believe it should have been a one film franchise. I would watch it (2) were it on, but given the choice between the two, I think most people would pick the original every time. That said, after the success of the first movie, and once the marketting execs got to see it, they saw a massive cash cow. GB as a whole is extremely marketable, from, toys, t-shirts, spin-off cartoon(s), more toys, a sequel was inevitable. Did any GB fan not have a GB t-shirt in the 80's? I've got the Lego Ecto-1 on my mantlepiece(though admittedly, it's a relatively recent purchase).

santana75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005411#Comment_118005411

To be fair I don't think you can take this review in any way seriously. About half way down the page the critics true intentions are revealed. He lays into those who weren't onboard with the all female reboot a few years back. I mean the film may turn out to be a bad one but I'm wary of overly gushing reviews and also reviews that are petty and vindictive.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118006750#Comment_118006750

Reading that review now. I'd describe his attitude towards the film as being thinly-veiled contempt. The veil being about .1 of a micron thick. Clearly no fan of the original.

silverharp

Im still not sure about this film for an older audience, if you grew up with the first one then this just seems to different, sorta looks like a kids film and certainly not one I'd be interested bringing my teenage kids to and its unlikely to be any way memorable like The Lost Boys or similar. The only thing it has going for it is it lad a low budget so could breakeven it if has any kind of traction

Dades

I'll be taking my kids.

GB (& GB2) are much loved in our house. We also have a Lego Ecto 1!

Oafley Jones

So, is this actually a comedy?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118009807#Comment_118009807

Well Paul Rudd is no stranger to comedic roles. Ant-Man wasn't a comedy per se but had plenty of laugh out loud moments. Ive seen GB so many times I'm struggling to say whether you would describe it as a comedy in itself.

Oafley Jones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118009845#Comment_118009845

It’s a comedy.

conorhal

I'll let Egon explain very directly (to Bobby Brown) why I ain't interested in Ghostbusters Jr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utNdNonaGtg

peteeeed

the guardian review .....OUCH

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/11/ghostbusters-afterlife-jason-reitman-paul-rudd-review

first really bad one ive seen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118011541#Comment_118011541

See my comment above.

johnny_ultimate

Whatever about this film, the last line of the review is an apt and suitably scathing of Hollywood’s cynical nostalgia-peddling as you’ll find:

“Here, we can find a damning summary of modern Hollywood’s default mode – a nostalgia object, drained of personality and fitted into a dully palatable mold, custom-made for a fandom that worships everything and respects nothing.”

BlitzKrieg

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118011541#Comment_118011541

a.v club gave a similar but less ruthless review. You can tell by the guardian review that there is one specific element that really rubbed the reviewer the wrong way and I know its an issue thats rubbed a lot of people the wrong way the previous few times it's been used so I can kinda get why his is a bit damning.

I'm gonna spoiler the segment in question though I am going to say it's only an educated guess based on what the reviewer says that this happens

Spoiler Warning

"but the howling obviousness of the third act’s surprise appearances may enable talking around its specifics. To speak in broad terms, a crucial ethical line is crossed whenever computer technology starts marching around the ghostly form of a dead person, doubly so when that person was famous for their smirking irreverence and their digitally reanimated corpse instead arrives just in time for a movie’s most nauseating cornball moment."

Sounds like we get a cameo from Harold Ramis being cgi'd back to life for one last appearance as Egon for the film's third act, which is...Yeah thats a hot topic that's been popping off a lot in films, we had a similar headscratch moment with them doing the same for Rogue One. (removed segment as I got confused over who's son was directing etc)

Kinda annoyed its been spoiled in a review but at the same time, if you asked me if the studio would do such a thing, I'll admit it crossed my mind but I disregarded it because his own son was directing and I couldnt see a son doing that to their own father unless it was very very tactful. So colour me surprised that its happening

As for my feeling about how this film is gonna go, I have mild Rise of Skywalker vibes coming off a lot of the reviews, just without the incredibly short production time so not as much of a mess structure wise. But it does sound it's hitting nostalgia on all levels and playing firm keep away from the controversial 2016 entry.

Also if it's primarily diverged into a thriller that's primarily referential, it doesn't really sound like something I'm bothered seeing.

Tony EH

I was meh about this before. I doubly so now.

loyatemu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118012107#Comment_118012107

just on this - it's directed by the son of the original director, not Harold Ramis who played Egon and co-wrote the earlier movies.

BlitzKrieg

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118012878#Comment_118012878

ahh apologies you are correct I got some mixed wires there. that changes things a bit.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118012107#Comment_118012107

Spoiler Warning

Id have thought Harold Ramis would have been thrilled to know he was going to get a cameo in a film franchise he co-created.

BlitzKrieg

Spoiler Warning

Like I said it's a hot topic issue. Clearly there are audience members (and reviewers) that feel digital necromancy is a step too far even with the approval of the actor's estate, there's been a few articles written about the backlash to Peter Cushing being revived for Rogue One and a film that was planned to bring back James Dean etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118013492#Comment_118013492

Sounds like pre-empted outrage to me.

pixelburp

I don't know that it's pre-empted outrage, it is a fair issue

Spoiler Warning

that does become more relevant as FX become more advanced; while it's only going to become more relevant, especially outside Hollywood, once we have that big controversy with a Deep Fake.

Either way, there is something especially surreal at how Ghostbusters has become a battleground across pop-culture. I wonder if perhaps we're just seeing the last throws of this Nostalgia Cycle we had been going through; or at the very least, we're in some Late Stage. That this Ghostbusters reboot is cribbing from Stranger Things - itself blatantly copying pop-culture iconography from the 1980s. But at least ST tried to deviate and subvert the tropes a little (at least in Season 1), whereas with Ghostbsters it reads / sounds like they're just diving head first into Comfort Blanket mode.

Pop culture really starts to making new things again.

Ironman76

The review stinks of snobbery and wankery. Tosser that uses a lot of fancy words.

Actually looking forward to seeing the movie now.

loyatemu

Reviewers have a watch a lot of movies, I can understand why they get annoyed at lazy ideas and clichés. The first 2 movies were fairly broad comedies with some imaginative ideas in them, this seems to be something different, leaning very heavily on nostalgia.

Fans of the original will still eat it up, even if it's largely a box ticking exercise.

silverharp

was it the Guardian one where the bias was showing complaining about the 2016 being erased as not being part of canon, lol the guy must have been mad writing that one. By definition it couldnt have been part of canon . I know writing reviews inst a profession but you would think they would police their own writing a bit if at a minimum not to make as ass of themselves and be screen captured for internet eternity.

faceman

Lets be honest folks. Most of the people are the NY screening were fanboys so their reviews must be taken with a pinch of salt. Also this film hasn’t been made for an SNL audience like the first movie was. This film is made for a Stranger Things audience. Nostalgia for older peeps and excitement with characters they can relate to for younger folk.

The critic with the Guardian did a great job at clickbaiting readers with that review.

I know someone who worked on the film and gave me some spoilers already. Some of the surprise cameos toward the end has me scratching my head at why they’d keep it under wraps in the first place given the audience

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH6u_033YBA

new trailer