Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

OwaynOTT

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118191722#Comment_118191722

After the credits I meant. I left before the credits rolled

answered above.

doney84

There is a second post credit scene at the very end with Janine & Winston.

Need a Username

Absolutely brilliant from start to finish.

Richard tea

Seen it today. Really enjoyed it. Kids loved it.

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118189621#Comment_118189621

I was wondering what the fan opinion was.

what age were you when you saw the original?

there was a couple with a very small child at the screening I went to - way too young for the original even - but there wasn’t a peep out of her.

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118197739#Comment_118197739

Had your kids seen the original two films?

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118191241#Comment_118191241

I thought the same thing when seeing Weaver’s name - a moment of wondering how I could have missed something like that.

Need a Username

I’m surprised Olivia Wilde was uncredited.

ThePott

The screening I went to had a lot of kids at it, one even came with his dad and they were both dressed up with proton packs. One kid, a little girl who I'd say was less than 8 was sitting in the same row as me was excitedly pointing out the characters on screen from the original and asking whether Muncher was Slimer. Even heard her ask if Carrie Coon's character was meant to be Holtzmann from Ghostbuster 2016 which was sweet. There was a few moments she found a bit scary or intense though. Heard more than one person now say there were plenty of kids going to see it with their families.

It's very interesting to see and think they've struck a good balance here in a way.

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118044007#Comment_118044007

I saw the headline of a review on Google calling the film “ethnically dubious” - I moved on. I will not give that website the click.

Richard tea

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198475#Comment_118198475

Not from start to finish but they are well aware of the characters and theme etc. When they were younger they would scoff at 80's special effects. It's only now ( eldest is 14) that they can appreciate the older films.

El Gato De Negocios

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198443#Comment_118198443

When did it screen here, 84/85? So I would have been 5 or 6.

Childrens / family movies from the 80s are far removed from what's acceptable nowadays. I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark recently and its very violent (relatively speaking), as is Temple of Doom. Likewise things like the Goonies, quite dark in parts.

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198565#Comment_118198565

Yes it is easy to forget that Indy, Goonies, etc. are like that.

there are a few times in Afterlife though where some nasty scenes of 80s horror films are showing on a TV.

Need a Username

The whole cast was great - I expected Wolfhard to be the clichéd pissed off teen desperate to get back to his friends but they didn’t do with him and he is actually quite likeable, a lot more so than Mike Wheeler ;p

However McKenna Grace was beyond question the star here.

Really hope this does great box office and we get more.

Need a Username

I have a question - Is this a spoiler free thread?

Not related to this movie - been a long long time since I’ve seen either of the originals. Is Ghostbusters 2 ambiguous about whether Venkman is the father of Dana’s baby or is he definitely not the father?

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198503#Comment_118198503

That is two very cool little stories about those kids.

Two things I always wanted in life - a hover board and a proton pack.

that little girl is being raised right :)

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118137585#Comment_118137585

I can’t believe they put that but in a trailer .

I was expecting Ackroyd to be in it in some fashion - although Annie Potts’ early appearance did make me think that she was going to be the only one of the original - and after the way the call with Pheobe ended I knew he would show up in person to help near the end but I certainly wasn’t expecting a reunion.

very glad I didn’t know it was coming.

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198674#Comment_118198674

Her enthusiasm was infectious, really helped my own enjoyment of the film. Personally, I was born in 92, so I never had a new Ghostbusters film my whole life and one of my earliest memories was watching the first film on TV and have loved them since. She was definitely my spirit animal haha.

A lot of people were coming up after the screening to try the proton packs on and flick the switches on them. Was very cool.

Counterpoint, I just remembered. When they screened the original in the cinema in 2019, I went to see it. There was a mom there with two kids and the kids didn't seem that taken with it. Asked a lot of questions and seemed a little bored :(

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198838#Comment_118198838

were the proton packs home made or bought?

ThePott

I honestly didn't ask but I would have assumed bought. If they were home made this guy was a pro. Had all the correct sounds, working lights. Think I heard them playing the theme music as well. They had ghost traps too. They were very legit looking haha

neirbloom

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

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eav6Crj4nRg&t=396s

Marks another one who's still up in arms over the treatment the 2016 reboot got that he's allowed his judgement over this new one to cloud his review of Afterlife, I mean come on to say the 2016 version was doing something fresh while critizieing Afterlife as nostalgia bait is a bit rich.

peteeeed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118193044#Comment_118193044

oh man , the first credit sting is pure comedy gold riff on the first movie and the second is a set up

ThePott

I agree I normally find Kermode to be a good critic but he was off with this one in my opinion. When he said the 2016 one turned things on it's head he completely lost me.

pixelburp

To give Kermode his due, 2016 was, ultimately, nowhere near the crime and travesty the controversy and rage deserved. And let's not undersell it, there was proper, misdirected rage. The 2016 film was a bit wet fart and colossal mistake - but it was far from the polemic some claimed it to be. It had potential but Feig was the wrong director; the cast were good (bar Kate McKinnon, who was on her own planet), but needed a stronger script and better director who could keep the tone straight. The comedy was all over the place, going from improv to farce, to observational within single scenes.

That's all to say, it was a deeply mediocre, unadventurous film. Maybe there's a touch of revisionism with some people, but after the embarrassing war declared over the film, I can get why some have tried to parse it in a more neutral light; with the dust settled and the rage-oholics having moved on to Bond, or Star Wars or whatnot.

doney84

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118198652#Comment_118198652

Venkman wasn't the father. He asks Dana in GB2 "whatever happened to Mr right?" She says that they were having problems and he got a job offer from an orchestra in London so he took it and left.

doney84

So glad that in general movie goer reviews seem positive as I think the franchise has so much potential. Granted I'm very biased as I've been a big fan for most of my life.

My 8 year old daughter loved it and she is going to see it today for a second time !

I liked it, it's not perfect but feel it's a very well put together movie that you can share with your family. It was never going to be the GB3 the kid in me wanted. Far to much time has passed for that to be the case and the passing of Harold Ramis meant it definitely couldn't happen.

I wasn't really keen on the scene with the phone call between Phoebe & Ray. I know it's supposed to explain what happened to the team & why Egon ended up where he did but it seems a stretch to me that Ray didn't believe Egon's fears. You look at the original movies and it's Ray who is the biggest believer in the paranormal. Also felt the original teams appearance at the end with them all suited & booted was shoehorned in. A scene with Ray maybe trying to contact Peter & Winston concerned about the phonecall he received from a girl claiming to be Egon's granddaughter and claiming Egon was right, wouldn't have gone amiss.

Phoebe and Podcast (don't like the name) were great though. Good on screen chemistry and some nice humour. I read some reviews about Paul Rudd phoning it in but I thought he was good in it. I'd really be interested in seeing this new team tackle new adventures which can now be done without revisiting previous material (Gozer).

ThePott

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118200279#Comment_118200279

That's true, the controversy was ridiculous and totally unwarranted. Having rewatched it for the first time recently, it's not terrible. Honestly enjoyed it more than Ghostbusters 2 on a rewatch. It's not good but it definitely didn't deserve all the screaming and shouting. It is totally misguided but totally unoriginal as well. That was my problem with Kermode's critique. Saying that the 2016 one turned things on it's head is an incredibly shallow observation. The only way it turned things on it's head was swapping the gender of the characters, aside from that it's got the same structure and beats and has as much fan service (if not more) than the new one. I do think Afterlife has plenty of the same criticism (especially in the second half) but treating the 2016 film like it tried something new is disingenuous.

Then again in the review he says he doesn't care much for the original film either. Maybe he's frustrated that many people are seeing this film as 'toxic fandom' winning but I do think that when you're reviewing a film you should be objective and remove the context outside of the film it said when giving an opinion. I like the Last Jedi though so what do I know.

ErnestBorgnine

Lots of spoilers being posted in here

johnny_ultimate

A film that earnestly and repeatedly asks the question: 'do you remember Ghostbusters?'. To which I can only reply: 'of course I bloody do, I can watch it on 4k in Netflix whenever I want'.

The negative reviews were dead on IMO. This is a really putrid husk of a movie, but is all the worse because it's a couple of bad films blended into one. It is for much of its runtime just another weak 80s nostalgia trip, albeit with Jason Reitman continuing to be unable to put convincingly human characters on the screen. For a film where the only real running gag is about a character delivering awkward, sweaty jokes, the film itself is the sweatiest thing I've seen on a big screen in ages. Everything comes across as so contrived (a feckin' 1950s diner is a main set for some reason?), with little interest in internal consistency or logic. It's somehow a film set in a world where the events of the original films actually took place, and yet nobody is bothered remembering them - despite the fact it's all readily documented on YouTube.

McKenna Grace and Carrie Coon and some of the supporting cast are clearly talented actors, but by god I feel sorry for them having to add some life to the bizarre, turgid dialogue. Jason Reitman has made some real stinkers in recent years, and sadly there's a lot of 'bad Jason Reitman family drama' in here.

It might have just been a mediocre, derivative throwback if it wasn't for the third act. Hoo-boy. What a miserable parade of fan service it is. Just imagery, characters and iconography from the original film regurgitated with no wit, imagination or even logic. It reminded me of those terrible parody films that think simply pointing out a popular thing exists constitutes a joke. It's the kind of film where the director will say 'don't spoil the surprises!' But the thing is there are no surprises to spoil - everything here is wholly predictable and perfunctory, and when familiar faces do show up it's so lifeless and uneventful I was actually taken aback (if you like seeing iconic characters standing in one spot and throwing out some terrible jokes, this is for you!). The main antagonist is just the same one from the first film - the film is just unspeakably lazy in so many regards.

(The following is spoiler tagged reluctantly, but lest I be accused of spoiling anything...)

Spoiler Warning

And it even commits, at absolutely excruciating length, the gravest of modern Hollywood sins - the ghoulish CG resurrection of dead actors for cheap nostalgia. The 'For Harold' title was perfectly fine on its own - we didn't need the garish, bizarre extended posthumous cameo.

This is a film that treats Ghostbusters - a perfectly enjoyable 80s studio comedy - as the most sacred of texts imaginable, and yet quite amazingly it doesn't even remotely understand, let alone capture, what made the first film tick. It has all the iconography alright, but it has none of the spirit of the thing. That film was a wry, cynical and playful thing - this is a dour, self-serious mess. There's 'jokes' here for sure, but none of them land. Ghostbusters 2016 will never be mistaken for a great film, but it is at least a film that understood the first one and tried to do its own limited thing within the basic formula. It was, if not a whole lot else, clearly a Ghostbusters movie. This, for all its aggressive fan service and callbacks, is just flavourless mush. It purports to give fans exactly what they wanted - and shows what a creatively bankrupt dead-end that approach is.

Need a Username

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118199771#Comment_118199771

Also the 2016 movie was never a part of the “canon” of the Reitman movies.