Led by the release of “Ghostbusters: Afterlife”, Sony has a rough idea of what the movie could be: is it a prequel, sequel or some kind of spinoff? Any discussion of the answer will come as a spoiler to dazzling people, so beware that this review is not as a marketing tool for the studio (those looking for a coy teaser are better to watch the trailer), but as a critique of what this unnecessary but enjoyable movie actually offers.
The good news for “Ghostbusters” fans is that while nothing has happened to tarnish what happened before “Afterlife”, Jason Ritman bears the legacy of his father (and “Ghostbusters” director) Evan, who played a key role in shaping this twenty-first century update. Introduction behind the scenes. The suffrage has enriched the family, creating a sequel, an animated series, a comic book line and an unfortunate 2016 reboot. After an impossibly uneven spread, the new movie aims to bring things back around, deepen the myth of the 1984 blockbuster, focusing on the diverse grandchildren of one of the original Ghostbusters, who was forced to move to Summerville, somewhere in the middle.
The mother (Carrie Coon) is still grieving about being abandoned many years ago, but can reconcile 15-year-old Trevor (“Stranger Things” star Finn Wolfhard) and science fiction Phoebe (terrible young “Troop Zero” fame actor McKenna Grace). As it turns out, kids take it better, adjusting almost instantly. Trevor gets a job at a local burger joint – a strategy to get close to crushing Lucky (Celeste O’Connor) – when Phoebe is enrolled in summer school, taught by amateur seismologist Gary Groberson (Paul Rudd). There, he befriends a kid (Logan Kim) who calls himself a podcast for obvious reasons (he insists on documenting his life regardless of whether anyone cares for him).
It takes about an hour (51 minutes, to be exact) for any ghosts to appear, although the movie annoys their presence with a familiar scene long ago: an ominous, rolling cloud located directly above the city’s long abandoned mine. Now here’s the part where I take a moment to admit that I don’t care about the original “Ghostbusters”. I like the songs, costumes, cars and cartoon no-ghost logos, but I find myself tired of the goblidiguk pseudoscience and the end of the world. What’s more, I blame “Ghostbusters” for decades of lazy blockbuster imitations (including “Men in Black” and a few Marvel movies), where we want to be most frightened when some apocalyptic weather patterns turn, purple from the sky. The bright ray of light. (Only “Independence Day” used that strategy well.) And yet, here we go again.
After the movie’s leisurely, kid-centric buildup, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” finally reveals itself as Rural, a repetition of what happened before the 21st century: the remnants of Ghostbusters য় both old and new-reunited to thwart the return of Gozar. The movie basically denies the gender-swapping reboot, although it gives a good idea of the movie (which had five cameo appearances on the original cast) available and willing to re-list.
While Dan Icroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson were the first to point out the very clever, irrational swaps, it’s fun to see them a little more agile and weak in their old age, while still holding their own against terror dogs and any other ghosts. Trying to break from. Special effects have been advanced light-years since 1984, and yet Wrightman makes the honorable decision to adapt to the appearance of the (short) original film, choosing possible models and practical techniques, but not dismissing CG where necessary.
In Slimmer’s place, we find a powerful computer-animated ghost named Muncher, who drowns the metal and then splashes on anyone who tries to fight him. And the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man returns in a slightly different (not at all self-destructive) form. Comfortable to see one of these grammarines in a chocolate-bar blanket and a graham-cracker bed is one of the best sightings of the year. And considering how randy the previous film was, it feels good to see so much more Duffy romance blooming between the characters of Koon and Rudd (the “Ant-Man” star continues to prove himself a comedy MVP, earning half the laughter in the movie).
A few years ago, there was talk of a possible “Ghostbusters 3”, but then Harold Ramis died, leaving the team unfinished. “Afterlife” finds an emotional way to honor his legacy, using a combination of technology and creative screenplay to make his character feel in the movie’s supernatural warlike monarchy. At first glance, there was only one correct answer, and “parasitism” nailed it. But moving the work from the big city to Oklahoma to a “dirty farm” seriously reduces the feeling that Gozar’s return could be the end of humanity. It might have been just as effective if it had been said that the monster-like a kind of evil genie freed from decades of captivity বড় was satisfied to take revenge on those big Apple ghost-catchers who had previously shut it down.
Between “Stranger Things” and the upcoming “Top Song” sequel, ’80s pop culture nostalgia seems to be at an all-time high, but “After Life” tries not to lean too heavily on that feeling alone. It’s designed to work for those who have never seen an incarnation of the franchise before, and although the film frankly adopts the Ambleen-Esku vibe স্প obviously “What if the thugs are ghostbusters?” You don’t have to grow up in these kind of movies to appreciate how sensitive you are at work, empowered by the Spielbergian Magic-Hour shots of kids gathered around Devil’s Tower-shaped rock formations to appreciate how you elevate teenagers to hero status.