Nostalgia is one powerful drug. It can make even the most maligned properties seem rose-tinted in hindsight. Luckily, the original “Ghostbusters” film was never a victim of that, remaining in the public consciousness for decades not just due to nostalgia but also due to a high-quality script, engaging cast, and just an overall sense of fun. Despite plenty of their own charms, neither of the series’s later films, be it the direct sequel or the unfairly bashed 2016 reboot, could capture that first film’s spark. Yet, over three decades after the release of “Ghostbusters 2,” Jason Reitman (“Juno,” “Young Adult”), son of Ivan Reitman, the first two films’ director, is here to give his own take on the series his father started.
Ivan famously said years back that if he ever made a Ghostbusters film, it would be more about people sitting around talking about ghosts than actually fighting them. To his credit, he manages to provide a hearty balance of both. This is a far more introspective film than the previous ones, getting into a lot of material related to family, legacy, abandonment, and feeling like an outcast. The tone is particularly more dour than the comedies that came before it, and Ivan’s strengths as a director shine through in his ability to make the world feel grounded even as proton streams and ectoplasm go flying.
McKenna Grace (“Troop Zero,” “Spirit Untamed”) plays Phoebe, the film’s middle school-aged protagonist who is an instant and absolute charmer. Her nerdy personality is mixed with a healthy level of fascination at the new ghostly events she begins to encounter, and Grace imbues the character with this sense of pure-hearted fun. With every purposefully bad joke and deadpan statement about her love of science, it’s virtually impossible not to fall in love with this young scientist extraordinaire.
Her mother Callie and brother Trevor are played by Carrie Coon (“Gone Girl,” “The Leftovers”) and Finn Wolfhard (“Stranger Things,” “IT (2017)”), respectively, and the pair aren’t as uniformly excellent as Grace is but are still fun to be around. Coon is the best of the pair, bringing a wisecracking, blue collar energy to the proceedings, poking fun at her kids and bringing a lot of “cool mom” energy to the character. Wolfhard meanwhile seems like he’s coasting off of his work on other nostalgic horror themed entertainment. He’s fine, but the character isn’t given a lot to do apart from a cliched romance subplot that never really feels like it amounts to anything at all.
When you have Paul Rudd (“Clueless,” “Ant-Man”) in your film, it's hard to not have him steal the show, and the same is true here. Playing Phoebe’s summer school teacher, he shares her love of science and many of the film’s best moments involve him, her, and her fellow classmate Podcast, played by Logan Kim in his film debut, geeking out about the town’s bizarre earthquakes and Ghostbusters technology, with Rudd’s exuberance and charm, as well as Kim’s happy-go-lucky energy to match, shining through.
It’s in these moments that the film feels like it knows exactly what it is. This is, at its core, a film for the fans, delivering fan service and references at every turn. Ivan smartly manages to keep it on a calm enough course that it never feels like it devolves too much into unnecessary franchise self-aggrandizing, but it never avoids it either. The script, written by Ivan and Gil Kenan (“Monster House,” “Poltergeist (2015)”), is all too happy to treat the Ghostbusters like a bygone era of superheroism that never doesn’t feel at least a little bit weird.
It’s the kind of reverence that feels more appropriate for a film with the subtitle “The Force Awakens,” and seeing the busters treated with a holier than thou legendary status is eye rolling. Watching Rudd earnestly deliver lines like “You don’t know what this is? It’s a ghost trap!” feel catered to one particular kind of moviegoer and it overall saps the film of the kind of comedy that the original had, feeling more like a light drama than anything resembling comedy.
When the back-patting does happen, it feels so weirdly at odds with what’s an otherwise extremely earnest film, and it also opens up a whole mess of plot holes. I know it has to happen for the plot to happen, but in the age of YouTube and the information superhighway, you really expect me to believe that a science geek kid has never, EVER, heard of the massive supernatural scientific event that happened just barely 30 years ago?
Weirdest of all, “Afterlife”, despite having a lot of references to it, never feels like a Ghostbusters movie in the same way as the previous films. It’s far closer to the works of Spielberg, going for a “Stranger Things” or “Super 8” style of film making as opposed to the fantasy comedy roots of the series. It does work, providing a different kind of spin on the franchise, although it doesn’t necessarily feel extremely fresh or unique.
Thankfully, Ivan maintains a balance between physical and digital effects that gives the film a sense that’s somewhere between the cheesy, rubbery effects of the 80s and the earth toned realism of the 2010s. Rubber monster suits are used for close ups, and there are plenty of physical sets and environments packed with tiny little objects and details. It’s a lived in world that’s easy to get invested in on a visual level.
Is “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” entertaining? Absolutely, and it's thanks to Ivan’s character focused direction and a collection of capable and likable characters that the film manages to be as entertaining as it is despite its massively self-congratulatory nature. It’s McKenna Grace as Phoebe that sells the entire film, and if she can be so wide-eyed and enthusiastic at the prospect of this new world of science and ghosts, maybe that’s all the film needs. 3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment