Jump to content

Ghostbusters -Afterlife


papalazarou
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Festoon said:

Well written review (SPOILERS). "A dungeon of necrophilia" is a hell of a phrase.

 

https://northshoremovies.wpcomstaging.com/2021/11/19/review-ghostbusters-afterlife/


Quite an extraordinary review. It takes the movie to task not for what it is on its own terms, but through the lens of a culture war - if turgid man babies who violently decried the 2016 movie like it, it must be a nasty piece of work. 
 

There’s no doubt that this movie trades heavily on nostalgia, but there is also a great movie underneath that. 
 

I haven’t heard Kermode’s review yet (I’ll listen to it on the Wittertainment podcast) but I wonder if the ending has proven a bridge too far for many. The reviews I have read fluctuate wildly between loving it or hating it, it seems to have proven divisive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Popo said:


Quite an extraordinary review. It takes the movie to task not for what it is on its own terms, but through the lens of a culture war - if turgid man babies who violently decried the 2016 movie like it, it must be a nasty piece of work. 
 

There’s no doubt that this movie trades heavily on nostalgia, but there is also a great movie underneath that. 
 

I haven’t heard Kermode’s review yet (I’ll listen to it on the Wittertainment podcast) but I wonder if the ending has proven a bridge too far for many. The reviews I have read fluctuate wildly between loving it or hating it, it seems to have proven divisive. 

 

I saw some written excerpt of Kermode's review which also mentions the toxic hate the last film got and therefore this being shit (in his opinion) is what the fans deserve.

 

Incredible for reviewers to re-enforce the narrative that these racist, women hating cunts on twitter attacking films are representative of the fan base of that film or that they even give two shits about it.

 

Next up - a new Superman film being shy being deserved because Farage and Tucker Carlson were furious about Superman's gay son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s weird how people who are desperate for it to be shit are putting effort into seeking out reviews which seem to back up their view before they’ve seen it rather than, I don’t know, forming an opinion of their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I think it’s weird how people who are desperate for it to be shit are putting effort into seeking out reviews which seem to back up their view before they’ve seen it rather than, I don’t know, forming an opinion of their own?

 

I did see it. I happen to agree with the reviewer a lot. I'm not as down on it as he is, it felt like a Disney+ show based upon the franchise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ork1927 said:

 

I saw some written excerpt of Kermode's review which also mentions the toxic hate the last film got and therefore this being shit (in his opinion) is what the fans deserve.

 

Incredible for reviewers to re-enforce the narrative that these racist, women hating cunts on twitter attacking films are representative of the fan base of that film or that they even give two shits about it.

 

Next up - a new Superman film being shy being deserved because Farage and Tucker Carlson were furious about Superman's gay son.


I’ve seen some that are almost incredulous the 2016 film is ignored, which has to be the biggest stretch in the history of review given that it’s set in a different universe where the original Ghostbusters didn’t exist.

 

I think if you’re bringing up the 2016 movie and using the reaction to that - as unnecessarily and prematurely vitriolic as it was - as a cudgel with which to beat this one, your credibility as a reviewer has to be called into question. There’s an unsubtle partiality that compromises your verdict; I can’t take seriously tooth gnashing about fan service in a sequel 30+ years in the making if you’ve been throwing out positive notices left, right and centre to 95% of the 6,002 Marvel films released over the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rain Birds said:


I’ve seen some that are almost incredulous the 2016 film is ignored, which has to be the biggest stretch in the history of review, given that it’s set in a different universe where the original Ghostbusters didn’t exist.

 

I think if you’re bringing up the 2016 movie and using the reaction to that - as unnecessarily and prematurely vitriolic as it was - as a cudgel with which to beat this one, your credibility as a reviewer has to be called into question. There’s an unsubtle partiality that compromises your verdict; I can’t take seriously tooth gnashing about fan service in a sequel 30+ years in the making if you’ve been throwing out positive notices left, right and centre to 95% of the 6,002 Marvel films released over the last decade


Yep - really moaning the 2016 film was ignored is the same as moaning that they didn’t explain how Heath Ledger Joker is running around Gotham after Jack Nicholson Joker died.

 

And attacking the film for arseholes on Twitter is like negatively reviewing the Mandalorian because of arseholes attacking Kelly Marie Tran after The Last Jedi.

 

And also regarding the other moan

 

 

Spoiler

Ramis appearing in the film.
 

I get people don’t like digital actors who are no longer alive, but there is criticism that’s it is somehow a cash grab and/or massively disrespectful.

 

To be this felt  like a heart felt tribute to the man and I’m sure was cleared with his family. 

 

It is a lot different to having Peter Cushing turn up in Rogue One. 
 

If Harold Ramis had turned up in the film as a walking, talking alive CGI/uncanny valley Egon with someone doing an impression of his voice alongside the other three actors  then I can see why that wouldn’t have been a wise choice at all. But what they did was really well executed and respectful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @Ork1927 on the spoilered bit,

 

Spoiler

Surely if there is any franchise that is allowed to do a CGI ghost for a dead much loved character it’s this one.  I mean the whole film he was present, giving him form seemed fitting at the end as he was putting all the wheels in motion to get his plan to work out.

 

I assume the original cast all loved being a part of Ghostbusters and ultimately this sort of thing probably comes down to what people would try and think of what Harold would want.  I’d like to believe he would want to be in THIS Ghostbusters movie, it’s excellent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ork1927 said:


Yep - really moaning the 2016 film was ignored is the same as moaning that they didn’t explain how Heath Ledger Joker is running around Gotham after Jack Nicholson Joker died.

 

And attacking the film for arseholes on Twitter is like negatively reviewing the Mandalorian because of arseholes attacking Kelly Marie Tran after The Last Jedi.

 

And also regarding the other moan

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Ramis appearing in the film.
 

I get people don’t like digital actors who are no longer alive, but there is criticism that’s it is somehow a cash grab and/or massively disrespectful.

 

To be this felt  like a heart felt tribute to the man and I’m sure was cleared with his family. 

 

It is a lot different to having Peter Cushing turn up in Rogue One. 
 

If Harold Ramis had turned up in the film as a walking, talking alive CGI/uncanny valley Egon with someone doing an impression of his voice alongside the other three actors  then I can see why that wouldn’t have been a wise choice at all. But what they did was really well executed and respectful.

 


I think it’s shown me that supposedly credible critics can be just as susceptible to a good old fashioned pile-on as fanboys. I’ve seen more than one reference to the fact Afterlife treats the original as a “sacred text” and “serious sci-fi”. Where was this shit when you were gushing over Star Wars and Marvel?
 

Am I going nuts or were most of the jokes in the original courtesy of wise-cracks from the characters rather than situational or indicative of the film’s tone? I feel as though a lot of the aforementioned scribes watched 2016 as a refresher course and thought because that at times felt like a feature-length SNL skit that the original was exactly the same since it too featured alumni from the same series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I want to go see it again :wub: 

 

This iSense business - so I went to an Odeon I've not been to before, it was an Odeon Luxe which apparently means reclining seats in every screen and that was very comfy.  The iSense was about the screen and sound itself and it was excellent, during loud atmospheric shaky moments you could feel it in the seats which was pretty cool :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rate the 2016 GB film up there with the Robocop and A-Team reboots. Amazing that one year could turn a reaction to something very, very ordinary - into a debate about sexism. And I think that originated from marketing folks getting on the defensive because it tanked on their watch.

 

The new one isn't perfect - but it is utterly, utterly delightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as though this is in course for a better than expected opening weekend in the US at least, with $40.5m, vs Sony’s projection of $27-28m and independent tracking of up to $35m. Pretty solid for a post-COVID opening and hopefully positive word of mouth keeps it going for a few weeks at least, which would bode well for more given it cost half as much as 2016.

 

https://deadline.com/2021/11/ghostbusters-afterlife-opening-weekend-1234877444/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Reitman on GBII, spoilered due to Afterlife references:

 

Spoiler

I actually do want to know, at what point before the events of this movie, when Egon’s living in Oklahoma, did he look at the Ecto-1 and decided he needed to remove the Ghostbusters II logo with the ghost holding the two up and go back to the original logo?

 

I wish I could talk to you about that. 

 

That’s actually a secret?

 

Well, I’m just saying that’s a plot that is not in this film and we have ideas moving forward.

 

I see.

 

And Ghostbusters II is canon.

 

People keep wondering if it is or not

 

No, Ghostbusters II, definitely canon. There are references to Ghostbusters II in Afterlife. We meet Ray working at Ray’s Occult. The toaster from Ghostbusters II is in the kitchen in the farmhouse. There’s actually lots of lost of Ghostbusters II details but nobody knows Ghostbusters II outside of Vigo the Carpathian and the Ghostbusters II logo. So there’s this assumption that it is not canon but it is definitely canon.

 

The second plot question, when we see the pictures of young Carrie Coon they are from the late 1980s. So Egon has a kid in Ghostbusters II?

 

Oh, yeah.

 

Okay. We just don’t know that at the time when we’re watching Ghostbusters II.

 

Correct.

 

https://uproxx.com/movies/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-afterlife-interview/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rain Birds said:


I think it’s shown me that supposedly credible critics can be just as susceptible to a good old fashioned pile-on as fanboys. I’ve seen more than one reference to the fact Afterlife treats the original as a “sacred text” and “serious sci-fi”. Where was this shit when you were gushing over Star Wars and Marvel?
 

Am I going nuts or were most of the jokes in the original courtesy of wise-cracks from the characters rather than situational or indicative of the film’s tone? I feel as though a lot of the aforementioned scribes watched 2016 as a refresher course and thought because that at times felt like a feature-length SNL skit that the original was exactly the same since it too featured alumni from the same series.

 

Yeah - its odd. The original Ghostbusters managed to be both a very funny 80's comedy containing Saturday Night Live alumni and other great actors but it also contains more cool gadgets, memorable spooks, iconic locations and interesting themes than most films could dream of.  Its easily in the top ten most iconic films of the 80s. Got to be. And that isn't just down to the comedy and the song.

 

Why wouldn't you lean into that? The film has quite the legacy with sequels, reboots, cartoons, games, toys that have appeared over the last 30+ years - its a film parents who watched it originally have shown their kids for the last 20 years along with Star Wars and BTTF and that song - I've seen it get 3 year olds who've never heard of the film yet bouncing around a party and 40 somethings rushing to the floor at Weddings.

 

Proton Packs and Traps remain cool as fuck. Terror Dogs are still scary and those New York locations - we went in Feb 2020 and locating the fire house, and running down the library steps with the kids and locating the spook central apartment building was a massive highlight for me and my kids (and they've only seen it once). Only disapoinment was the Inn on the Green was gated so you couldn't bang on the windows and pretend to be attack by a terror dog while the diners looked on.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fierce Poodle said:

My word this was incredibly dull. Unmemorable characters, plodding and unfunny dialogue and just, well, boring. Actually makes the 2016 film look like a classic.

 

Edit: I did quite like the mini marshmallow men though 


Rarely has someone been so wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t think the 2016 film was too bad but very forgettable. The worse thing about that was they effectively just replaced like for like characters but changed up the genders. I felt that each actor was then a bit restricted on emulating the originals. Plus, there was no need to cast the Winston character in exactly the same light -  black layperson just wanting the pay check. 
 

I’m m looking forward to this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, layten said:

Caught this on opening night and really enjoyed it. Really hoping it does well enough to get a sequel.

 

Passing the torch films rarely work, but for this one I'd love to see a new film with the same kids, they were great. Podcast and Phoebe were very funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

How scary is this? I know its a 12A, but would it be OK for a 5 and 8 year old? My 8 year old especially really wants to see it.

There were some young kids in the screening I was in. They didn’t seem bothered by it, mind you they were probably bored shitless, the first hour really drags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

How scary is this? I know its a 12A, but would it be OK for a 5 and 8 year old? My 8 year old especially really wants to see it.


Being as vague as possible - there are 3 or 4 loud jump scares.

 

The end gets quite intense.

 

There aren’t that many scary ghosts as such.  
 

Id say nothing as outwardly scary as the library ghost in the original, but a lot louder and some horror imagery. 
 

Mild spoiler for returning ghosts.

 

It’s hard to gauge for kids - I’d say 8 year old is probably my okay if they are used to cinema, but probably too intense on the big screen for a 5 year old.

 

 

Spoiler

If you are scared of dogs then the Terror Dogs aren’t a barrel of fun.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.