Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everyone. Today I'm going to review Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) that I saw on IMAX early this morning.

Spoiler: My Thoughts On Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Show

This is the fourth movie of the Ghostbusters franchise. Yes, I saw all of the Ghostbusters movies. So anyway this is the sequel of the two original Ghostbusters movies. (The reboot doesn't count) This movie is about a mother of two children who's related to a deceased legendary Ghostbuster member. What I like about this movie is that this movie has a lot of action and wonderful humor. What I dislike about the movie is that most of the scenes were very slow-paced. I enjoy this most so much. It brings back nostalgia. So I'll give this movie 8.5 out of 10 stars.

[Tyndmyr]

This movie's good. Really good.

I bash on prequels/sequels and reboots a lot, but sometimes you get an exception to just about any rule. This is pretty much it. It's got a story that's decent enough on its own without leaning too hard on the nostalgia crutch(which is good for me, as I never fully watched the original, and never touched any sequel). Characters are unique and fun to watch, and they all have solid motivations and reasons for their quirkiness and actions. Excellent pacing, too. Yknow how in many films you spend a fair bit of time knowing exactly what's happening and waiting for the characters to catch up? This generally doesn't do that.

Definitely worth a watch regardless of if you've seen the originals or not.

[Wintermoot]

I loved this movie. Best movie I've seen in a long time. That being said, it is VERY nostalgia heavy. The negative reviews I've seen for it emphasize that heavy handed nostalgia as being what they don't like about the movie. But for me, it works.

Unlike the first two ghost busters, this isn't a comedy first: genre movie second. This is a feel-good genra drama with some comedy beats. It plays with the mythology created by the first two movies (really the first movie, you could assume the second movie doesn't exist for this movie, its inconsequential) and treats that mythology straight whereas the original movies treated it with good natured comedic contempt.

But it really works. The main kid actress is sensational, exhibiting a range and ability you don't usually see in young actors. She's more than capable of carrying this movie on her shoulders.

One the things that really stood out to me is the reverence for the prop design of the original movie. The props created for ghostbusters are SENSATIONAL. the proton packs, the ghost traps, ecto-1: these "throwaway" devices created to facilitate the original movie are so incredibly well designed and thoughtful. Possibly the best physical props in the history of cinema. They look real, feel real and have a weight and "realness" that's hard to define. In this movie, so much time is spent lovingly looking at these props which form so much of the nostalgia beats.

One thing that surprisingly detracted from the movie for me:

Spoiler

Show

Was the return of Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson. While it wasn't surprising when they showed up, it ground the movie to an immediate halt for me. The three of them were still in the comedy first original movie, so they strolled on screen, cracked wise and .... just felt out of place in THIS movie... it immediately shook me out of the narrative and made me realize "yes. this is a movie". And I found myself frustrated and angry because it looked like they were about to take the "win" away from the main character. Luckily, they didn't, but it still shook me out of the movie.

Despite that, this movie hit all the right notes for me. I will be going to see it again and I highly recommend it. Unless you are someone who is allergic to nostalgia. I know some absolutely hate it when movies wallow in history, and if you are someone like that then avoid this movie like the plague.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yes, I agree. This movie is very good with nostalgia.

[Mordar]

This movie's good. Really good.

QFT.

Solid lead, strong support, not too much of the name-brand actors. The kids looked related and related to Igon. Effects had a nice feel. Didn't understand the casket portion of the movie, but other than that, everything seemed to flow reasonably well. Could have done with like 10% less Podcast, but that's better than with the vast majority of comic relief characters.

- M

[Dragonus45]

I ****ing loved it. It was phenomenal. The kid actors in particular caught me by surprise. Not Finn Wolfhard really, we already knew he was great, but the girl they got for the lead role blew my mind. I was expecting a discount Egon Spengler but tiny, but she managed to take the look and mannerisms and completely own them. Podcast was the perfect level of comic relief, I loved his gimmick and he too managed to sell it really well. The Dinner girl kind of failed to make a real impact on me but she was kind of a very minor character for technically being the fourth member of the crew. I feel like that space was taken up by having the mother get frankly not enough space , but movies are just gonna movie. I absolutely loved

Spoiler

Show

when the original crew wandered in like they were from a totally different universe just cracking wise and kicking ass.

I cannot wait for a sequel.

[KillianHawkeye]

I expected this to be fun and nostalgic (which it absolutely was), but I was also really surprised how actually good it was. They did such a good job with the music in particular, I felt like I was back in the late 80s again!

11/10, would wait 30 years again.

[Cen]

So I'll give this movie 8.5 out of 10 stars. [/SPOILER]

So basically You're rating it lower than X-men Dark Phoenix?

[Bartmanhomer]

So basically You're rating it lower than X-men Dark Phoenix?

Huh? What are you talking about?

[Tarmor]

So basically You're rating it lower than X-men Dark Phoenix?

Bartmanhomer rates nearly everything he watches 7-9 out of 10. Since he rated 'X-Men: Dark Phoenix' as 5/5 "the perfect movie", every other movie has to be rated lower!

[Peelee]

BMH, have you thought about not giving movies a numerical rating and just letting your review speak for itself of how much you liked the movie?

[Bartmanhomer]

BMH, have you thought about not giving movies a numerical rating and just letting your review speak for itself of how much you liked the movie?

Sure, Peelee.

[Mordar]

Bartmanhomer rates nearly everything he {Scrubbed} 7-9 out of 10. Since he rated 'X-Men: Dark Phoenix' as 5/5 "the perfect movie", every other movie has to be rated lower!

Edit just to be fair. I suspect I only tell others about movies/books/food/whatever I either love or hate...not the "meh" level fare. That's part, I think, of why scored online reviews of most everything are mostly 5s or 1s with only a smattering of stuff in between.

To be on topic, thought it was great. Phoebe was as good as I could imagine in the role, and reasonably believable. I score it 4.625/5

- M

[Giggling Ghast]

Hey guys, without getting into spoilers, are there a lot of references to Ghostbusters II in Afterlife? I was thinking of going to see it tomorrow and was going to watch the original Ghostbusters tonight, but I’m not crazy about the sequel.

[137beth]

Sure, Peelee.

Is that "you've thought about it" in the sense that it's an option you are considering, or you've thought about it and rejected the idea already.

[Bartmanhomer]

Is that "you've thought about it" in the sense that it's an option you are considering, or you've thought about it and rejected the idea already.

It's a maybe.

[Talakeal]

Hey guys, without getting into spoilers, are there a lot of references to Ghostbusters II in Afterlife? I was thinking of going to see it tomorrow and was going to watch Ghostbusters tonight, but I’m not crazy about the sequel.

Absolutely none.

[Giggling Ghast]

Absolutely none.

Ah, thank you.

[Hawk7915]

Finally saw this this last weekend, and had to take some time to process it:

As some spoiler-free notes:
- There are not one but two post-credit scenes, so make sure to stick around!
- The movie has a lot of references to the very first Ghostbusters, but my wife (who has never seen it) still loved the film. It has next to no references to Ghostbusters II, and Ghostbusters (2016) is in its own separate multiverse.

Only click if you have seen the film - major league spoilers below!

Spoiler

Show

Things I Liked:
- Loved all the young actors. Grace McKenna, in particular, was amazing and I look forward to her career with great interest, but also shout-out to Logan Kim who did a wonderful job with his oddball character while also channeling that Dan Akroyd-as-Ray Stantz enthusiasm for the weird, macabre, and occult.

- I thoroughly enjoyed the first two acts as sincerely funny and creepy stuff.

- In my older adult years, it definitely makes me feel uncomfortable how Peter Venkmen abused his students and perved on everyone, and I also don't love how Winston always felt like an afterthought. So, I adored both end credit scenes for giving Venkmen some much-deserved comeuppance and Winston some much-deserved glory.

Things I felt a bit colder on:
- I didn't love how closely the third act hewed to the first film. It's a similar complaint to The Force Awakens (another nostalgia-baiting flick), and here unlike there I wasn't sure the diversity of the new cast was enough novelty especially since, unlike in The Force Awakens, the original cast ultimately saves the day.

- I'm really struggling with whether or not a digitized ghost of Harold Ramis is honorable and tasteful or, well, ghoulish and wrong. I left the theater upset, but have come around to it after sleeping on it as something that I think stayed on the right side of the line.

- I'm in the minority in that I didn't hate the 2016 flick, and in particular enjoyed their more "poppy" ghost designs. I wish there had been a bit more creativity in our spooks and specters here, rather than an update to Slimer in Mucher and a 2021 coat of special effects paint on the Terrordogs and Gozer (although I will admit Gozer looked sick, especially reforming itself in the final fight).

Overall I liked it, and am interested enough in a sequel, but yeah - some stuff struck me as a bit odd.

[Peelee]

It's a maybe.

The reason I'm recommending this is because your reviews are still pretty much reading identically to each other. You barely say anything original, and each one isn't too far of from being a copy/paste of any other but with the names changed. You say "9 out of 10" or "8.5 out of 10"* but give no reasoning or indication whatsoever for what this is based on. By removing any numerical rating, you are then forced to show in the review itself what you thought of it and convey that to the reader. Giving a simple rating is a summation, it's a tool, and you're using it as a crutch. Without it, most of your reviews would simply read as more or less: "I watched MOVIE. It is about [plot summary]. I liked the THING and did not like the OTHER THING. Here is the number of stars I give it for seemingly no reason."

Youve expressed interest in making your reviews better. Here's is how to make them better. Don't worry about giving a number without any justification and focus more on letting people know how you felt about it in the writing.

If you decide not to, that's perfectly fine. But you're not going to be improving much if you just give a plot summary, only mention one vague and generalized think that you liked and disliked, and then give a number that is seemingly random and comes out of nowhere without any basis in the text itself.

[Tvtyrant]

Reviews really need to explain what they are scoring by to work.

For instance a short review of the Lord of the Rings movies could be:
1. Fidelity/respect to original text.
2. Updating to modern tastes.
3. Visuals.
4. Music
5. Firework Effect (do you get engrossed or not)

Then you could measure each of those 1-5 stars, or 1-5 stars as each one is a check or not.

1. It is respectful but not high fidelity. It has tone issues shifting from a British story to an American one, 4/5 stars.
2. See above, doesn't include many women or minorities and is largely unproblematic about Sauron's minions. 2/5
3. 5/5, gorgeous.
4. 5/5, is one of the bars movies are compared to.
5. 4/5, sometimes the pacing breaks down (especially around Sam/Frodo) but better then the books did there.

Total: 4/5, nearly perfect.

[Bartmanhomer]

The reason I'm recommending this is because your reviews are still pretty much reading identically to each other. You barely say anything original, and each one isn't too far of from being a copy/paste of any other but with the names changed. You say "9 out of 10" or "8.5 out of 10"* but give no reasoning or indication whatsoever for what this is based on. By removing any numerical rating, you are then forced to show in the review itself what you thought of it and convey that to the reader. Giving a simple rating is a summation, it's a tool, and you're using it as a crutch. Without it, most of your reviews would simply read as more or less: "I watched MOVIE. It is about [plot summary]. I liked the THING and did not like the OTHER THING. Here is the number of stars I give it for seemingly no reason."

Youve expressed interest in making your reviews better. Here's is how to make them better. Don't worry about giving a number without any justification and focus more on letting people know how you felt about it in the writing.

If you decide not to, that's perfectly fine. But you're not going to be improving much if you just give a plot summary, only mention one vague and generalized think that you liked and disliked, and then give a number that is seemingly random and comes out of nowhere without any basis in the text itself.

Reviews really need to explain what they are scoring by to work.

For instance a short review of the Lord of the Rings movies could be:
1. Fidelity/respect to original text.
2. Updating to modern tastes.
3. Visuals.
4. Music
5. Firework Effect (do you get engrossed or not)

Then you could measure each of those 1-5 stars, or 1-5 stars as each one is a check or not.

1. It is respectful but not high fidelity. It has tone issues shifting from a British story to an American one, 4/5 stars.
2. See above, doesn't include many women or minorities and is largely unproblematic about Sauron's minions. 2/5
3. 5/5, gorgeous.
4. 5/5, is one of the bars movies are compared to.
5. 4/5, sometimes the pacing breaks down (especially around Sam/Frodo) but better then the books did there.

Total: 4/5, nearly perfect.

I appreciate your criticism about my movie review. Thank you both.

[KillianHawkeye]

Regarding the particular CGI character...

Spoiler

Show

I thought they did an okay job with a CGI Egon/Harold Ramis. The whole plot of the movie is sort of based on Harold's death equated to Egon's death, and it felt necessary to include at least something of him since the rest of the old cast shows up as well. Doubly so since the main characters are from Egon's family. It felt like a good send off or tribute to him, and it was written well.

I think they really sold the whole thing pretty well. Even the ghost Egon at the end. It felt good and it made sense, and the closure at the ending seemed right to me. At the very least, I don't think they could have not included something for Egon/Harold, and I'm not sure how it could have been any better than this.

[The Glyphstone]

Saw it today. It was very good overall; had the proper reverence for the originals like people have said, but worked well to some extent on its own too.