GHOSTBUSTERS: STRANGER THINGS EDITION - Reviews & Reaction

[AndyDursin]

Big difference is the cost, which I think was half that of the 2016 movie, so the lower bar might clear future sequels regardless. Plus they'll save even more not having to pay any of the original cast to film 5-10 minute cameos lol

I'm sure I'll feel the same as you but I know this was mostly aimed at Theo and his fellow 2nd graders more than me at this point.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm sure I'll feel the same as you but I know this was mostly aimed at Theo and his fellow 2nd graders more than me at this point.

To be fair, the handful of ten-year-olds in the row in front of me giggled a lot and seemed to be enjoying themselves, and, hey...I'm not churlish enough to deny them that. I just don't see those ten-year-olds deifying Afterlife to the same level as the original in 2056.

[AndyDursin]

Yeah, no, lol, I agree. But it's weird how the REAL GHOSTBUSTERS cartoon -- which Theo loves watching -- really generated this fanbase amongst kids that was a whole different one than the massive audience the 1984 film had. Between that, the video games, etc., that demographic -- whether it's current kids or kids who were younger than us growing up in the '80s -- looks at the franchise differently than the 1984 movie. This movie, as transparently formulaic as you've said (and I'm sure I'll agree with you, this sounds like something you can review without even seeing it), completely tried to tix those boxes whereas the 2016 movie (which I didn't hate, I just didn't think was funny) was much more limited, and was trying to be this big, expensive blockbuster comedy a la the '84 movie (even more than GHOSTBUSTERS II, though even in the latter you can sense the "edge" from the '84 movie being watered down).

Sony obviously tried to turn GB here into a family franchise like JUMANJI and didn't spend much money on this -- shooting in rural Canada, limiting the original cast to cameos, etc. -- so it may turn out well for them regardless of it being a WTF type of modern revival. Like GB KIDZ: THE FORCE AWAKENS or something.

[AndyDursin]

How do you make a virtual retread of the 1984 movie and leave out the funniest, most iconic moment ("he slimed me")? I mean...what the hell.

[AndyDursin]

6/10

Hollywood’s latest corporate IP revival also tries to tap into the nostalgia for the 1984 “Ghostbusters” that Columbia’s female-cast 2016 “not a remake/sequel” mostly missed. Hiring original director Ivan Reitman’s son, Jason, as director/co-writer starts off the goodwill that this belated sequel tries to keep going by way of a story that revolves around the late Egon Spengler, Harold Ramis’ character, and how he left the big city for rural flyover country – all the better to keep the spirits at bay.

The latter include Gozer and other returning beasties who appear to haunt his family – including estranged daughter Carrie Coon and her kids Finn Wolfhard (the charisma-free lead from “Stranger Things”) and the quite excellent Mckenna Grace, who inherit Egon’s weirdo farm and try to piece together what to do with all the old Ghostbusters equipment and why the original group fell out with one another in the process.

“Afterlife”’s script may have read OK on paper but the final result manages to be two things: first, it’s a passable “family movie” for those of us with kids, but secondly – and for everyone else – it’s a bizarre reworking of its 1984 predecessor that’s shockingly bereft of humor and energy. The younger Reitman may have had his heart in the right place – stocking the film with the same dramatic beats as the original, Elmer Bernstein’s themes from the ’84 movie, and expected last-minute cameos – but his streak of busted, post-”Juno” movies continues with a picture that seems to be so preoccupied with its characters and their respective stories that it forgets to be thrilling, scary, or magical. There’s the science-crazy Grace, trying to connect with Egon himself; the older brother trying to impress a girl at his new drive-in job; their mother, whom Egon never knew, hoping to make a fresh start; the town science teacher (Paul Rudd), who wants to woo her; Grace’s new pal Podcast, who the movie tries to fashion as a diminutive Dan Aykroyd; the town sheriff (Wokeem Woodbine), who disappears after a single scene; plus late appearances by villainous Gozer and Ivo Shandor (J.K. Simmons), the original ‘Busters, and a CGI recreation of Egon himself that’s on-screen so much that it verges on bad taste (or perhaps crosses that line, depending on your point of view).

With all of this happening, Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan attempt to adhere to the main dramatic structure of the 1984 movie, but there’s one problem: the failure of the 2016 movie led Sony to cut this film’s budget to roughly half that of its predecessor. That resulted in rural Canadian shooting locales and a notable reduction in special effects – a major problem because there’s just not enough ghosts or bustin’ going on here. The gang meets a Slimer-like creature named Muncher, but one set-piece involving the apparition aside, the picture is just curiously light on the supernatural build-up to the drama, preferring instead to go along with the family’s story…and playing ultimately like something Reitman, whose own work has been playing to diminishing returns for years, was more interested in than making a comic fantasy.

Subsequently, “Afterlife” misses a sense of playfulness and humor – the kind the elder Reitman was so expert at cultivating during his heyday. Only Rudd brings an infusion of comedic energy to his part with the actor’s typical aplomb, with much of this movie lacking wit and levity – even a typical episode of “Stranger Things” has far more laughs than this film. And how in the world with an audience favoring the younger set did Reitman and Kenan not repurpose the iconic “he slimed me!” sequence from the 1984 movie?

“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” still isn’t the worst reycling Hollywood has given us of late, if only because the people who made it did, at least, seem to care. Unfortunately, they’re not as capable in terms of being creative talents as their predecessors, leaving us with another curiously flat remake whose best moments we’ve all seen before.

[Monterey Jack]

Subsequently, “Afterlife” misses a sense of playfulness and humor – the kind the elder Reitman was so expert at cultivating during his heyday. Only Rudd brings an infusion of comedic energy to his part with the actor’s typical aplomb, with much of this movie lacking wit and levity – even a typical episode of “Stranger Things” has far more laughs than this film.

This is what struck me as well. For a film ostensibly aimed at kids, there's an astounding lack of mirth on display. Stranger Things is a show filled with big laughs in almost every episode, and even something like J.J. Abrams' Super 8 knew the benefits of adding humor even in the midst of tense sequences. Yeah, yeah, Afterlife has "heart", but totally at the expense of delivering The Funny. Take any random ten-minute stretch of the 1984 original, and you're bound to find at least three or four laugh-out-loud lines or situations, and even the milder ones still generate hearty chuckles and smiles. The movie is so murky, underlit and suffused with melancholy, I'm surprised that the kids at my screening were constantly chuckling. At what...? It's not until the original cast shows up for their wan cameos at the end that the movie has any quips whatsoever, and they're fairly pedestrian and leaden, from a cast of elderly SNL alumni who clearly wanted to be anywhere but there, squeezed into those jumpsuits so many decades later.

[AndyDursin]

I passed by some talk show last week that had Murray, Aykroyd and Hudson on there together, and frankly, it looked like someone was holding a gun to Murray's backside. For all the years he held out on making a third movie -- and you can't blame him because I'd imagine all the scripts were bad -- it must've been painful that they cajoled him into putting in a cameo HERE. He looked so uncomfortable sitting there as Aykroyd was talking up the movie. Thank god they didn't give Murray the "I'm sorry" line to him when they're standing next to Ghost Ramis -- after their falling out on GROUNDHOG DAY it would've been even weirder than it was with the CGI recreation of him up on-screen.

Like you said MJ, I just was surprised how "blah" it was. There's no magical set-up, no fun with ghosts, nothing kind of spooky they get themselves into -- why is it missing those moments? Why wasn't it playful and energetic? The movie just awkwardly plunders its way into the story line, which is far too convoluted than it should've been, and misses all kinds of chances to be FUN. And exactly, STRANGER THINGS *is* fun, and funny -- the interplay between the kids on the series is fresh and amusingly written, the dialogue is usually smart. This movie has none of those things going for it, and I blame Jason Reitman for that. He'd probably prefer making ORDINARY PEOPLE at this point but nobody goes to see his movies or cares so he's been coerced here into resurrecting his dad's brand. The issue really is his direction, pacing, inability to understand the kind of film he's making. That, plus there's nothing really funny happening -- and why is Finn Wolfhard even in this movie? What's even the point of his character? There's no payoff there at all.

I don't even blame Sony for making this kind of movie, reconfiguring it for families because, from a box-office standpoint, it'll work out for them -- it's just that it's not very good. Even the first of these JUMANJI remakes was far better.

And for me, the only real Ghostbusters III is the video game from a few years ago!

[Monterey Jack]

Like you said MJ, I just was surprised how "blah" it was. There's no magical set-up, no fun with ghosts, nothing kind of spooky they get themselves into -- why is it missing those moments? Why wasn't it playful and energetic?

Remember, when the containment unit was breached in the original movie, how much fun that the elder Reitman -- and his F/X team -- had in coming up with baroquely humorous ideas for the ghosts to wreak havoc in New York? Even Ghostbusters II, for all its faults, got this right. Here, we're in a curiously underpopulated mining town in the middle of Nowhere, and thus the obligatory montage of supernatural shenanigans ran for...what, 30 seconds?

The scene in the Walmart with Paul Rudd is a perfect example...could Reitman not afford ANY extras for this scene?



Imagine all of the Gremlins-style fun that could have resulted with the Terror Dog and the L'il Puffs getting up to shenanigans with terrified customers and employees. Instead we have Rudd -- one of the most likable and gifted comic actors working -- given nothing to play. He has been given no funny quips, no funny bits of physical business, all he's been given to do it gawp at the special effects, which aren't especially special. Compare to Rick Moranis' turn in the original, as he flees the Terror Dog and gets cornered outside of the swank restaurant:



It's not only funny ("Nice doggy...cute l'il pooch...maybe I have a milk bone..."), but legitimately creepy, especially if you watched it for the first time at the age of ten. Name one moment in Afterlife that mixes lite scares with genuine comedy like this. The movie keeps setting up ideas, and having no genuine payoffs, like Finn Wolfhard's crush on his co-worker, or the Ivo Shandor stuff (why hire J.K. SImmons for that NOTHING of a cameo?!), or Muncher, a lame, literally colorless Slimer rip-off who is given nothing to do?

[AndyDursin]

or the Ivo Shandor stuff (why hire J.K. SImmons for that NOTHING of a cameo?!),

For a movie that was very obviously cash-strapped I couldn't understand why he was there -- or why Olivia Wilde showed up at the end either. They both must have gotten paid something!

I also found it weird Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson were listed on the main credits of this movie in most trailers (as if they were actual supporting players) yet they're not on-screen here any more than the rest of the old cast -- you wonder if parts of this were reshot or reworked during the extended time it sat on the shelf during COVID.

There's also credits for Additional Music and Additional Music Recording (by Sean Murphy) too. Speaking of that, I found it hilarious Elmer's credit is thrown at the end next to background songs. Most of this score is his -- there's little "Rob Simonsen" or whatever his name is, it's very close to being a Ken Thorne type of SUPERMAN II situation. Reminded me of how Brian Tyler got credit for his RAMBO score where all the good parts were Goldsmith, verbatim, lifted off the 1982 movie!

[Monterey Jack]

Speaking of that, I found it hilarious Elmer's credit is thrown at the end next to background songs. Most of this score is his -- there's little "Rob Simonsen" or whatever his name is, it's very close to being a Ken Thorne type of SUPERMAN II situation. Reminded me of how Brian Tyler got credit for his RAMBO score where all the good parts were Goldsmith, verbatim, lifted off the 1982 movie!

It was the same for the 2010 Predators...99% of that was lifted directly from Alan Silvestri's soundtrack from the original, and yet he only received a "theme by" notification in the end titles! What did John Debney do on that film, exactly?

That said, I did enjoy the new soundtrack, which was basically the Ghostbusters II score we never got from Elmer back in the day (Randy Edelman's mediocre score for that film does it no favors). It was just nice to hear a thematic film score for a modern movie that wasn't buried in the sound mix for a change, even if it was just a rote adaptation job.

[AndyDursin]

You wonder if it's a money thing. They acknowledge so much of the score belongs to a composer they aren't paying -- and list the name up front -- then perhaps they get into some issues there.

I liked hearing the music but I still thought it was crazy how he basically lifted the ENTIRE score. Outside of "Dana's Theme" it's all there, with cues repeated verbatim, and Cynthia Millar along for the ride too!

[Monterey Jack]

I liked hearing the music but I still thought it was crazy how he basically lifted the ENTIRE score. Outside of "Dana's Theme" it's all there, with cues repeated verbatim, and Cynthia Millar along for the ride too!

Hey, what would you prefer in 2021...a cut & paste job of a great 80s score, or one of Hans' buddies giving us the chugga-chugga?

[AndyDursin]

Hey Hans hasn't been horrible of late with Bond and WW1984 -- but in general I agree. I just found it a little distracting at times because Elmer's cues were often repeated verbatim, for scenes they weren't composed for. Took me out of the story a little bit and made me realize how deficient this movie was in the process!

[Monterey Jack]

Hey Hans hasn't been horrible of late with Bond and WW1984

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Paul MacLean]

...could Reitman not afford ANY extras for this scene?

Compare to Rick Moranis' turn in the original, as he flees the Terror Dog and gets cornered outside of the swank restaurant:

It was the extras that really made that scene in the original film. To this say I still crack-up when the old woman opens her door -- and then immediately slams it shut after seeing the demon. Likewise the self-absorbed restaurant diners, who casually go back to eating and chatting after Moranis is overcome.