What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Will Dan Akryod show up to adverstise his Vodka?? I hope so! Does the Ecto-1 run on ectoplasm? Is that how they got it to fire up after sitting in a barn for 30 years? No mice eating the rubber, no dry-rot? I believe its Magic! (I sure hope they play that song.)
 
This movie is so completely different in tone and style (if the promo is any indicator), they would have been better off not referencing the original.

But of course, the whole point is to demonstrate marketing synergy with the corporation's collective IP assets to please the shareholders, so there's that.
 
This movie will sure attempt to remind us of things from Ghostbusters.



I kind of like that they're all killing each other at least.
 
CaptainWacky said:
This movie will sure attempt to remind us of things from Ghostbusters.



I kind of like that they're all killing each other at least.
Click to expand...


That's, um... kind of part of the deal, yeah. Be pretty fucking weird if it was trying to remind us of shit from Caddyshack. :hmmm:
 
Just got back from it. Need to try to organize my thoughts on it. Will try to avoid spoilers, but the more you read, the more likely you are to get spoilers.

I loved it so much that I will probably have to go see it again this weekend. It is impossible for me to analyze it objectively as to whether it is a good film for the various things that make for a good film because it found every button I have and pushed it.

Nostalgia. But well executed. It stayed true to the original movie while giving it enough of a twist to keep it fresh(ish). The concept of the misfit with the boring, mundane life, who finds out a secret, magical life they were destined to. Scenes where it looks bad and like someone's utterly alone and failed--when they find out they *aren't* alone and someone's got their back after all.

The casting was great. The story leaned heavily on the original movie but in a way that was mostly entertaining without being TOO slavish and derivative. The writing gave us likeable characters and gave each of the characters enough to do. The girl is the science geek. The boy is good with cars. There really aren't any characters that are just in there for no reason and with nothing to do to advance the plot. And the plot moves along without getting too bogged down at any point.

That's a gripe of the Craig Bond films for me. I generally *like* the Craig Bond films. But it seems like he's always the retired/rogue agent. So they have to spend a huge chunk of the movie just getting Bond involved. In the earlier movies it's just...Bond comes into the office. Moneypenny says M wants to see him. M tells him the mission. Maybe Q gives him some gadgets and we're off. The latest one starts with a flashback to Bond's girlfriend's childhood. Then we get a flashback to when Bond broke up with his girlfriend. Then we finally get to Bond, living the good live, retired in Jamaica. Then we have to set up a conflict between the CIA and MI6 and a new 007 until we're halfway through the movie before we even get to the movie. The have to spend so much time getting Bond on the mission that they have to cut corners on the rest of the story. This one, they get to the point: A family of poor misfits have to go deal with the estate of their dead, estranged Dad/Grandfather. The main reason is to get the money. But it turns out Grandpa was broke too. So life sucks. But then it turns out Grandpa was a Ghostbuster, ghosts are real, and Grandpa wasn't really a bum who abandoned his friends and family for selfish reasons. He abandoned his friends and family for selfless reasons. Everyone plays their part and gets to an ending that is admittedly pretty heavily derivative of the original movie and they make some pretty blatant and sappy decisions about how to deal with Harold Ramis being dead, but they did it pretty well and I enjoyed it.
 
I didn't see him. Unless there's a post-credits. But pretty much everyone else is back--although Sigourney Weaver doesn't show up until the mid-credits.
 
THERE IS A POSTCREDITS SCENE!

Went again tonight. On the way there I worried maybe I would be bored this time and it would be ruined. While it wasn't to the degree of "Gran Torino," where you get so much more from it after you've seen it once, it was as good if not better the second time. And the performances and writing and directing holds up. I actually liked the ending better this time too. Anyway, the first night I had an entire pot of tea before going to see it, so I cut out right after the mid-credits scene. This time I sat through the whole thing on the chance that there was a post-credits and there was. Without giving anything away, I thought it wasn't just thrown in there, it actually had something very interesting to it.
 
Saw it a 3rd time. E.T., maybe the 1989 Batman is the last movie I saw in the theater this many times. And it has held up to repeated viewings. I think I've got my fix now, which is good, because I think its theater run is winding down. Anyway, there were a couple things in the opening scene that I missed the first two times--one I totally missed and one I just needed to confirm. In the opening scene, with "Dirt Farmer," there are no books stacked in the living room.
 
I watched this, didn't really feel much from it. The obvious thing to point out is that it's a totally different tone from the original Ghostbusters: it was a comedy (not specifically for kids) and this is an adventure movie with kid main characters. Now also obviously this is intentional, the movie seems to be aimed at middle aged men who loved the original and are watching this with their kids and feeling misty eyed at the iconograpy (it's The Force Awakens basically.) The problem there is that I don't have children (no woman will ever love me) and, while I loved the original movie (and the cartoon and the toys!), I don't get that much of a warm nostalgia feeling from it because it was a silly comedy where a man dreamed of getting a blowjob from a ghost. I don't feel like it's a movie that lends itself to this kind of thing as much as Star Wars does - but this made a ton of money so what do I know. Also for an kids adventure movie not much actually happens? It takes a really long time for them to discover the proton packs and car and stuff. The scene with them chasing Blue Slimer in the car was a pretty fun action bit in a "kids discovering Ghostbusters" way but I think it was kind of lacking in fun moments like that. The living three old men Ghostbusters showing up at the end...I don't know. Too mushy. The ghost Egon felt a bit like poor taste but I guess his family were fine with it (given that they made the movie.) On the plus side the main character young girl was very good and well acted and would have made a great lead for something a bit more adventerous. Her feeling a kinship to Egon becaues they both loved science was the character moment that worked best. Wolf Finnhard seemed to just be playing his Stranger Things character but he was fine. There's a kid called Podcast because that's what kids are called these days and another girl who just kind of tags along because they need four Ghostbusters. Carrie #### and Paul Rudd are good actors but they get stuck doing a rehash of the plot from the first movie in the end. I know he doesn't acty anymore but Rick Moranis was missed. Sigourney Weaver has aged a lot better than the male castmembers.
 
The exact target audience for Ghostbusters: Afterlife is the guy who says "Actually Ivo Shandor is mentioned in the original film as the person who designed Dana's building." to people around him when no one asked or cared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top