Ghostbusters: Afterlife
SONYThere is a sense of irony that Jason Reitman's Ghostbusters: Afterlife is literally and figuratively chasing ghosts. Resurrecting the franchise once again with the original cast almost thirty years later and one major misfire in an all-female reboot in 2016, this long-delayed third entry feels more so an apology of sorts to course-correct fans’ love and adoration for the series while also standing as healing for its benchmark stars, rectifying wrongs and regrets in quite touching moments of tenderness and franchise homage.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a return to form, focusing more on character and internal moments; it is a constant reminder of the fleeting memory of lighting caught in a bottle. Each narrative beat and the plot overall, quite frankly, is almost identical to the original 1984 version. Of which comes to little surprise, with the marvel and money pushing through Hollywood, that not a single person could conjure something remotely original. That being said, what this venture does right and so few reboots/sequels understand is that audiences return to these nostalgic entities not for the story or the special effects, but for character. However, it is not in the way audiences would expect.
This time around, Reitman and company focus on the original characters: a dysfunctional and angst-fuelled family played by Mckenna Grace, Finn Wolfhard and Carrie Coon, who have been brought to a house in the middle of a dead-end town due to financial and family issues. The trio of performances are rather good, if not perfect, for this tone and content. Mckenna Grace continues to define herself as a consistent star, and while the emotive connection to her character and the Ghostbusters lore are ever apparent from the first moment she is on screen, Grace brings a delightful tenderness and fragility to proceedings with a beautiful rendition of hope and strength the caters to the overall plot. Finn Wolfhard also impresses here with what is essentially a casual performance teenage angst, and though it does not have the tenderness that Mckenna showcases, the actor is slowly but surely shaking the shackles of Stranger Things, albeit no doubt needing more time to hone his craft.
The standout and glue that keeps this all together is the performance of Carrie Coon. She effortlessly wrestles tone wonderfully and incorporates the most human and this immersive performance throughout. She beautifully pieces together fragility in emotion and physicality, bringing quite a warm and moving portrayal of motherhood. However, she also brings the trauma forward in quite touching moments in this screenplay. Granted, Coon has the splendid Paul Rudd to bounce off, and the actor incorporates his humour and sensibility to a strong degree. Bringing out tender emotion in Coon’s character while also interacting in the more childish and fun identify the actor is known for with the younger cast, namely Mckenna.
The familiarity of genre convention and coming of age vehicles is primarily the strongest attribute that Reitman echoes with this arc. Kids feel like kids, and the modern stress of reality is felt for the adult storyline. Believability and immersion are undeniably this feature’s strength, Ghostbusters – or the mere mention of this franchise – is very much played on the back burner, and this not only crafts more connection to the initial characters but furthers the mysticism surrounding the actual Ghostbusters themselves and the lore of the series.
Nevertheless, here is where the feature almost crumbles. The weight of having this icon on-screen is sadly and disappointingly too heavy for the shoulders of this feature, and it simply does not know what to do with said characters when they eventually show up. The irony throughout is that Ghostbusters: Afterlife works best when it focuses on the new original characters, and while much of the focus is handled on this direction, the Ghostbusters themselves – ruined by the marketing campaign – are bound to show up. Now, the feature pushes them in small bites and crumbs of detail in what is essentially background noise and clues that justifies their involvement; it is until the final ten minutes that everything comes together that sadly holds the biggest disappointment.
The sequence itself is fun and entertaining, but nevertheless, the irony of having these iconic characters on-screen feels lifeless; they are thrown in without much prior warning, no doubt shot on a sound stage with a blue screen background and not only is their interaction in proceedings stifled, but with each other the commaradiere is dire. This is where the point of healing comes in, which was mentioned earlier. It would seem from afar that Murray's only involvement is to bring peace to his relationship with the late Harold Ramis, who passed away in 2014. Murray's participation feels like a conscience cleaner, and while he and the film do quite a tender and beautiful ode to their friend and collaborator, it is clear this is his one and only stipulation for his involvement. Sadly, the very inclusion of these major characters in the climax ultimately undermines and evaporates in almost an instance – feeling hollow and sadly flat in the supposed feeling of nostalgia, breaking down the momentum and immersion of everything this feature built up initially and excels in crafting.
Beyond this, Jason Reitman does a standard job behind the camera. The director keeps it simple: his modus operandi, alongside the visual department and story never escape from him. The director concentrates on the family dynamic with moments of the genre in comedy and horror come second fiddle, but most importantly, they come organically and never feel forced. Nevertheless, the writer-director with co-writer Gil Kenan do have some misgivings. Namely, the plot and score from Rob Simonsen are both the antithesis of originality and quite appaling in the standards of what is capable with the endless possibilities of imagination. Equally as frustrating is that the two writers almost go overboard in silliness, namely the character of Podcast, who is well played by Logan Kim but is ever so clear it is a character written by two fifty-year-olds disconnected from youth. The story also wastes the notable talents of J.K. Simmons, Bokeem Woodbine, a-blink-and-you-will-miss-it Olivia Wilde, and more secret original characters who turn up here and there.
Last but not least, coming full circle brings this conversation on once again: chasing the ghosts of the past. While neither SONY nor Reitman will acknowledge the fact, Ghostbusters: Afterlife’s primary function is to rectify the colossal mistake and misgivings of the franchise with what happened in 2016. The main job of this feature is to course-correct and bring finality to this franchise by the end credits, and it is finally achieved. It feels a genuine and organic end to close the door and pull the curtain on this franchise that has proved on multiple occasions it can not repeat its success creatively nor financially, so what does SONY do with this tender full stop? They sequel bait and drop hints for a possible fourth entry. It honestly baffles belief at this point that SONY has the audacity to continue and possibly burn its bridges once again after just about an inch of its life in bringing peace and stability to a franchise they themselves almost destroyed. Time will only tell, but history has a terrible theme of repeating itself.
