The "Ghostbusters" franchise has had a complicated history. While the first film was a smash hit and the sequel being a disappointing follow-up, a third film refused to be green-lit due to script troubles and Bill Murrey refusing to be a part of the project. After the 2016 reboot, it seemed that a third film starring the original actors was dashed, until the surprise announcement of this continuation. After multiple delays, the film is finally here with most fans praising it as a proper return to form with critics being mixed on the overall delivery. So, was it worth more than thirty years of development hell? The story shows off the dual identity of the film, both good and bad. When a single mother and her two children are evicted out of their home and have to relocate to their only inherited property, a run-down farmhouse in a small town in Oklahoma left by their deceased grandfather. As the three slowly readjust to the small town, the daughter, Phoebe, starts to discover more about her grandfather and discovers the legacy of the Ghostbusters, becoming fascinated by the paranormal team. When an ancient foe is set to return to rule the earth, it is up to Phoebe, her family, and some newfound friends to stop this ghostly apocalypse. The most frustrating thing about the story is that I really love one half of it and found the half shockingly lazy. The first half of the film does a great job at being a lower-level entry point of the franchise and having Phoebe and her family get comfortable with the town and her desire to be like her late grandfather. The second half of the film completely drops all originality and just does the first film all over again just for the fans. There are things to enjoy in the second half of the film, but it severely drops in quality. The tone does stay consistent in being a grounded and witty family film with relatable drama and humour. Not every joke works, but a good portion do, and it does feel like a nice gap between the classic film and injecting a new identity to the franchise.
The new characters, for the most part, manage to steal the show. Phoebe, played by McKenna Grace, is fantastic as the lead since she is so likeable in her dry wit and chemistry with the cast, along with being a sympathetic character. Paul Rudd is entertaining as always as Mr. Grooberson, Phoebe's teacher and massive fan of the Ghostbusters. While I do wish he got to participate more in the climax, Rudd steals every scene he's in. Carrie Coon is also great as Callie, Phoebe's mother who holds justified stress and spite towards her estranged grandfather while hoping to have a nice romance with Mr. Grooberson. Lastly, there's Logan Kim as Podcast, Phoebe's new friend and comic relief. While I do think Podcast could have needed more serious moments, Kim is just loveable as the eccentric kid who wants to make friends. Not every new addition works though. Finn Wolfhard as Trevor, Phoebe's brother, doesn't have much to do with Phoebe's narrative other than crush on a girl. He does have some good lines and Wolfhard is a charismatic actor, but the character feels like an afterthought when compared to Phoebe. And then there's Lucky, Trevor's love interest played by Celeste O'Connor. Talk about a pointless character. Not only is the romance between the two so underdeveloped that they don't have a kiss or anything, but the attempt to have a fourth member of the new team backfires when she barely gets involved in the action and has a bland personality to boot. As for the returning characters, this, again, is another issue of the film. I don't mind seeing the classic characters and actors return during the climax, since fans wanted them to return. However, the choice to reuse Gozer as the main threat along with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper is just lazy. Not only does it detract from the film's unique and original direction, but they barely do anything fun. or interesting with the use of Gozer, aside from a few jokes. Nothing new is discovered and it actually gives the 2016 film some credit in that they actually tried doing a new villain for the franchise. So, the cast is mixed in my opinion. I think that Phoebe and Callie are great additions, Mr. Grooberson and Podcast being fun yet under-utilized, the returning Ghostbusters being a predictable yet necessary moment for the film, and the use of Trevor, Lucky and Gozer as poorly written or used. With that said, all of the cast members do a great job, it's just that some characters needed improvement.
Jason Reitman takes over his father's franchise and utilizes his indie talents on a special effect-driven franchise. What Reitman does so well is that he captures the small-scaled nature of the film and setting and yet makes it feel far more cinematic than it has every right to be. The isolated environment and sleepy-town aesthetic helps make the film more like an indie comedy-drama than an action-packed blockbuster and it really excites me to see what Reitman does in the future. Reitman's long-time cinematographer, Eric Steelberg, offers some great wide shots that show off the rural landscape as well as some more personal close-ups that is very reminiscent of the first film. The score by Rob Simonsen however is a bit underwhelming. While there are some nice new tracks that touch on the more dramatic and personal side of the story, especially towards the end, Simonsen overuses the iconic soundtrack and motifs from the original and it overstays its welcome and adds to the conflicting identity of the film. Since the film is more modest in budget, the effects aren't going to be mind-blowing, but they look decent for what it is. It helps that the film doesn't try to push the effects as much as possible and tries to use practical work for more smaller moments than going bombastic in design. The action sequences are also well done and try to be creative in their set-ups. Personally, the 2016 film offers the best action of the franchise in regards to the use of creative gadgets and offering the biggest set-piece out of all of the films. However, for the small-scale nature of "Afterlife", the action is solid. The only thing I have an issue with though is that the film fails at being nearly as scary or creepy compared to the first film. While mainly a comedy, the first film had some great jumpscares that freaked children of any age to this day due to the snappy delivery and lack of warning. "Afterlife", much like the 2016 film, fails to scare audiences because of a sanitized market and it's a shame. Despite this, Reitman did a wonderful job in directing a franchise that his father created and would be proud of.
"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is a good, but not amazing, return to the franchise. While the film has some prominent issues in regards to the lazy retreads of the second half, Trevor and Lucky being pointless in the overall film, Gozer being reused as a villain and not do anything new with it, the over-use of nostalgia sound cues and music, and the lack of real horror moments, the rest of the film delivers on being a worthy follow-up. From the more human and grounded first half storytelling, a balanced tone of wit, heart and comedy, Phoebe being a loveable lead, Callie, Mr. Grooberson, and Podcast being great newcomers on their own right, the cast as a whole being generally likeable, the return of the classic Ghostbusters is a nice moment, the camerawork by Steelberg replicates the original in a fresh way, the visual effects are neat in its modesty, the action is decent in being small-scale in nature, and the direction by Reitman shows how indie filmmakers can add to a iconic franchise. It's not as amazing as fans make it out to be, but I wouldn't say that it didn't make me feel good by the end of the day.
Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not close to being on par with the original. Still better than the 2nd and 2016 reboot though.
No comments:
Post a Comment