Film Review: Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is an incredibly frustrating movie, the kind that makes you feel like you’re losing your mind because the whole approach seems so off. This has been a trend with these Ghostbusters sequels. The first sequel was a mostly uninspired rehash that made bizarre conveniences for its setup, the reboot was made like an overblown blockbuster tentpole, which I don’t think plays to Paul Feig’s strengths as a filmmaker. Admittedly, I think there are some charms to be found in both Ghostbusters II and the 2016 reboot, especially since – unlike this new sequel to the original – they remembered to be comedies.

This new film from director, Jason Reitman, who co-wrote the film with Gil Kenan, follows a single mom, Callie (Carrie Coon), who is down on her luck and gets evicted from her apartment. However, after the death of her estranged father, she is left with his home out in a small Oklahoma town, where she takes her two kids, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (McKenna Grace), to have a fresh start, even if they aren’t too fond of the idea. However, mysterious earthquakes take place in the town, which catches the interest of Phoebe and her summer school teacher, Gary (Paul Rudd), and they figure it may have a connection to events that happened in New York in 1984.

If I could describe this film in one quick phrase, it’s basically “The Force Awakens, but with Ghostbusters.” And I don’t just mean that in terms of its nostalgic tone, but also in structure as well. Beat by beat, it follows the formula of that film to such a degree that it more often than not feels like a parody of these legacy films we’ve been getting in the past decade. However, to be a parody would require a sense of humor, and the comedy in this is largely reduced to being a (very, very) mild undertone, relying mostly on a few character quirks as opposed to having actual jokes.

One thing that exemplifies all my issues with how Reitman and co handled the tone. There’s a couple moments in the film where the Phoebe is watching the famous Ghostbusters “we’re ready to believe you” commercial on YouTube, and it plays out with a profound sense of reverence. Except, the commercial was a joke, as in, it’s literally a recreation of those awkward small business commercials that are stilted and awkward and featuring the actual business owners because they can’t afford actors, and yet, this film treats that commercial like how the kids in The Sandlot treated the Babe Ruth signed baseball. The disconnect is bananas.

Now, this isn’t to say that the film is totally allergic to fun. There is some charming qualities in some of the characters, especially Phoebe, Gary, and the unfortunately named kid Phoebe befriends who calls himself “Podcast” (Logan Kim). And there is a chase sequence about halfway through the film where the kids try to nab a ghost while causing destruction all over town, which ends up putting them in jail, and that whole bit kind of nails the tone this whole film should have been from the get-go. Instead, it doubles down on the lore, the iconic trinkets from the original, and blatantly devoting the second half of the film to redoing the ending of the original.

While I don’t want to give away any of the film’s surprises, everything is so telegraphed in a way that none of the surprises feel that way, especially as we hit the final act. And it’s here where the film does something I was really hoping it wouldn’t do, but was nonetheless not shocked that they did. There’s definitely an argument that the moment fits due to the thread involving Callie’s history with her father, but the way the film goes about it relies on doing something that I just find kinda gross. Especially when another “surprise” within the finale proves that we could have just had a straightforward sequel with characters we’re already connected to and be an enjoyable experience without dealing with all the nostalgic nonsense that overpowers any of the quaint charms of the original.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is technically well-made, Reitman is a solid enough filmmaker that he brings a tactile quality to some wild ideas and imagery, and the work put in by the cast is certainly commendable. Grace in particular is a total star, and I can’t wait to see the kind of actor she becomes as we watch her grow and build her craft. However, from a creative standpoint, hell, from a philosophical standpoint, I just found the film to be a major drag. Like, am I asking too much for a sequel to a beloved comedy to at least try to be funny? At least The Force Awakens was a sequel to Star Wars, not something like Spaceballs. That said, I probably would have been more forgiving of its shift in tone had the dramatic elements not been so hackneyed and superficial. Nothing about this Amblin-wannabe feels earned, and that is what kept driving me nuts as I was watching it. Not only does the source that this film is built upon not asking for this kind of reverential treatment, the film itself isn’t skilled enough to take the silly and turn it into something sincere like how Creed brought pathos to the wackiness of Rocky IV. This is definitely no Creed, it’s hardly even a Force Awakens, it has little of interest or value to offer, and frankly, it just makes me want to revisit the original, and forget anything ever happened afterwards.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is now out in theaters.