RECENT WATCHES: Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Ya know, I love “Ghostbusters.” I grew up with the cartoons and toys. I have nostalgia for Ecto Cooler and all that. But it says a lot about how fucking weird things have gotten that a harmless blockbuster from the eighties would become a center point of the Culture Wars. That a fan backlash to a comedy reboot would be a foundational part of a sexist, racist political faction. Whatever you thought of that 2016 movie – I thought it was okay –  it didn't make the kind of money Sony was hoping for. Back to the drawing board they went, deciding to capitalize on another recent trend in I.P. expansion: Decades later sequels. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” positioned itself as a “real” “Ghostbusters” movie, so determined to show fidelity to the original that it's directed by Ivan Reitman's son. This has also been a controversial decision, as some have complained that this was Sony bending the knees to the horrible fanboys. All of this overlooks a pretty crucial question: Is “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” even any good?

Callie receives news that her father, Dr. Egon Spengler, has died. She has been willed a crumbling farm house in Summerville, Oklahoma. She moves with her two kids, rebellious teenager Trevor and brilliant pre-teen Phoebe, to the middle of nowhere. There, Phoebe discovers that her grandfather was a Ghostbuster. Led by Egon's spirit, she uncovers a basement full of equipment. With help from a podcast obsessed classmate and her teacher, a Ghostbusters fan himself, Phoebe also finds something more frightening: That Ivo Shandor, the occultist who nearly summoned Gozer back in 1984, operated out of this town. That the machinations he set into motion are preparing to bring the evil god into our world again. 

Due to movie studios relying on it so heavily to help sell big budget tentpole releases, like this, film fans have endlessly debated the merits of nostalgia. And it's true that, sometimes, filmmakers rely on knowing nods and callbacks to older, beloved properties to smooth over any flaws with their actual movie. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is awash with nostalgia. The film is a direct sequel to the original “Ghostbusters” and revisits many of its ideas. Beloved creations like the Terror Dog, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and the Cab Driver Zombie return in one form or another. The climax patterns itself directly after the original's conclusion, in many ways. Even Elmer Bernstein's score is quoted extensively. “Afterlife” frequently goes out of of its way to remind viewers of the older movie, to reassure us that it was made by people obsessed with “Ghostbusters.” It feels a little desperate at times, especially when the movie is recalling the Keymaster/Gatekeeper plot point from the original.

Yet, at other times, “Afterlife” does put some clever spins on the older ideas it's utilizing. If it's determined to revisits so many beloved pieces of “Ghostbusters” history, it at least occasionally does something kind of different with them. Stay Puft returns via an army of miniature doppelgangers, who are all driven to commit suicide in dessert mimicking ways. Which almost leads like a critique of the babyification of various characters, if the little Marshmallow Men weren't so marketable. A chase sequence through the town involving the classic Ecto-1 and Muncher – seemingly the stand-in for Slimer, who is strangely absent – has a few neat gags. Like a ghost trap being installed on a remote control car. Or a gunner seat being installed in the vehicle. As much as “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” goes out of its way to say “Hey, remember this thing?,” it does have some fun with these old toys. It expands on the mythology of the first film in some interesting ways. 

“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is also a rare example of a son directing a sequel to his father's film. Jason Reitman – one of his earliest credits is as a kid in “Ghostbusters II” – at least had already established himself as a successful director before this point, so it's slightly less nepotistic than it looks. Part of “Afterlife” involves Callie dealing with her resentment towards her father, who was emotionally distant. When a son directs a sequel to his dad's movie, that involves a crucial hug between an alienated child and their remote father, one can't help but assume the filmmaker put some of himself into the material. I don't know, maybe Jason has a great relationship with his dad. Either way, the lingering daddy issues in the air does give “Afterlife” a far more bittersweet tone than the previous entries in the franchise. 

In fact, when the earliest trailers for “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” came out, some people noticed the overly reverent tone. This was certainly sold as a “Ghostbusters” movie that had no jokes in it. Well, I am happy to say that “Afterlife” does have jokes in it. A lot of these laughs are owed to the cast. Paul Rudd was such a natural pick for a “Ghostbusters” sequel, because he has that similar vibe to Bill Murray. Where he's so relaxed, so funny in an off-handed way. He makes gags, like getting a classroom full of kids to watch “Cujo,” that would probably be clunkers in anyone else's hands, and turns them into highlights. Logan Kim also gets a surprisingly high number of laughs as Podcast. His gimmick, of always recording everything and narrating in a hyper-dramatic way, probably should've been annoying but it's a surprisingly versatile joke that continuously produced laughs. 

Among the next generation of Ghostbusters in this film, the biggest star is Finn Wolfhard as Trevor, Egon's teenage grandson. And I still don't know if Wolfhard is actually a good actor or not, as the teenage petulance he displays here is a little too accurate. Luckily, Grace McKenna, as his little sister, makes up for it. She's the real protagonist of the movie anyway. She's regularly funny but, more importantly, is incredibly charming all throughout. Phoebe is an inquisitive, brilliant young lady but McKenna manages to make sure these attributes never come off as overly precocious or annoying. I think she's going to become a big star.

Whatever your opinion on nostalgia poisoned cash grabs like this, they can usually be counted on for one thing: A fidelity to the special effects legacy of the original. Oh, sure, there's a lot of CGI in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” Yet the movie makes plentiful use of practical creature effects and animatronics, especially in the sequences involving the Terror Dogs. That was refreshing to see. Even when CGI is utilized, effort was taken to replicate the look and feel of the photography effects in the original. Muncher frequently moves in a slightly stiff way, which seems designed to recall similar moments from the original. If sequels must be made “for the real fans,” at least extra care is taken to ensure they look better than a lot of other big budget would-be blockbuster. 

“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” certainly didn't generate the maelstrom of angry screaming and cultural conversation that Paul Feig's reboot did. Most of the controversy that greeted the film dealt with the on-going debate around digital necromancy in modern films. A lot of people dismissed the entire sequel. Some fans did, indeed, really like it. It did decently at the box office and it remains to be seen whether Sony will continue down this path or reboot the franchise again in a few years. I can't say “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is the generation defining comedy classic that the original was. I don't think you can catch that lightning in a bottle again. Yet it's a decent little follow-up, too beholden to the original but with enough charm of its own to justify its own existence. Bustin' makes me feel, eh, pretty good, I guess. [7/10]