Ghostbusters: Afterlife tries and fails to resurrect the franchise

After alienating fans of the great 1984 comedy with 2016’s Ghostbusters, Sony Executives crawl on their hands and knees to show people that they actually hold the franchise in God-like awe and worship in Ghostbusters: Afterlife. The movie stars Finn Wolfhard, playing a young actor tired from shooting Stranger Things season 4, and Paul Rudd, playing a recognizable face to boost box office returns. The movie is lifeless and transparent, a ghost before its time.

Let’s start with a quick synopsis: 40 years after the first Ghostbusters movie, Egon’s daughter (Carrie Coon), her son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and daughter Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) have just been evicted from their home just as Egon dies, so they get to move into his place in the middle of nowhere. Once there, the kids slowly begin to uncover the relics of the Ghostbuster’s past, and find ways to use them.

Okay, so my first problem with this movie are the main characters, who really do nothing for me. They feel played out and tired. Wolfhard plays a brat teen who’s too good for everything. (Actual line in movie: “Ugh, seriously, no bars?!”) Grace’s character is a typical socially awkward nerd, and the mom is an alcoholic who mostly complains about her dad never being there. Then there’s Paul Rudd and this kid named “Podcast”; guess what his funny quirk is.

Anyway, none of these characters interest me. They are blandly conceived, written very stereotypically, and for my money not funny in the least.

The main story follows Phoebe, who discover’s Egon’s inventions, learns about the Ghostbusters and becomes one herself. Her motivation for rediscovering the Ghostbusters stuff is her scientific curiosity and unspoken kinship with Egon. It takes half the film before she does any ghostbusting, and I thought her story needed a strong ticking clock to add more stakes early on, like perhaps they unleash a minor spirit and need to take care of it. Because it feels like she and Podcast are only picking up the Ghostbusters stuff because they feel like it, not because they have to.

I suspect the movie goes this route because it knows it can get away with it. It’s banking on the audience feeling nostalgic, so they don’t need a strong reason for the rediscovery of the Ghostbusters gear and the passing of the torch. The audience just wants to get to it. Obviously the character should be just as excited to grab a proton pack as the rest of us would be, right?

That aside, Phoebe and Podcast’s adventure is probably the best aspect of the film, however bland they are. Once they get to using the proton packs and other gadgets on an actual ghost, the film picks up a little, but it takes too long to get there, and the trill doesn’t last long.

Perhaps the movie would be better if this storyline was fleshed out more, but it insists on wasting time with pointless subplots. For instance, Finn Wolfhard goes to a burger joint in town and gets saddled with a terribly predictable romance story. The camera zooms in on Wolfhard’s awed expression as he sees — oh could it be — a girl! And of course she doesn’t like him at first, but they start hanging out and warm up to each other. Every time they were onscreen I had to check to see if I still had a pulse. This story feels like it’s here because Finn Wolfhard is in the film, so they have to have him do something, right?

Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd have a similar love story going on, and I feel the same way about it. And, just a touch of SPOILERS here, but I could tell the second they appeared onscreen together that they were going to be possessed by the gatekeepers. This highlights the other big problem with Ghostbusters: Afterlife: the unabashed nostalgia baiting of the original.

I can only assume this is as a result of the reception to 2016’s Ghostbusters. Higher-ups at Sony saw the backlash and box office returns and thought, “Hm, they didn’t like that. So let’s swing the pendulum in the other direction and fill this movie with fanboying and praise for the original.” And that they did. If only they paired it with a decent script. Instead, sentimentality reigns.

Take the score. Every time Phoebe or another character picks up a ghost-hunting device or makes a discovery, you’ll hear this musical cue play, over and over again, letting you know that it’s time to feel nostalgic. And they have Twinkies in the glove compartment, and a fire hydrant gushing water cleans the logo on the Ecto-1 as it drives past. “Who you gonna call?” asks the sheriff when Phoebe asks for her one phone call. Hopefully someone who gives a damn.

WARNING: Major SPOILERS for Ghostbusters: Afterlife ahead, if you care, and you probably don’t need to

The nostalgia baiting continues right to the end of the film when Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson appear of nowhere at the most convenient moment. Dressed in their old uniforms, they cross the streams and it looks like they’ll save the day, but uh oh, not quite! Clearly we need even more nostalgia, and so what does the movie do? It gives us a little simulated grave desecration. That’s right, the moment Ghostbusters fans have until now only sarcastically joked about: the ghost of Harold Ramis appears, peak cringe is achieved, and I have trouble looking at the screen.

As I walked home from the theater, I reflected on why I had that reaction. While I like the original movie, I’m not a superfan of Ghostbusters or Harold Ramis. They had their cultural peaks long before I was born, so I have no sentimental attachment to them. I don’t care if Ghostbusters is “ruined” or not by this movie. However, what offends me about it was the cynicism of it all. The idea of taking a dead man’s face, putting it in your film, and for what? To make some money; to create the illusion that this film was worth seeing to an audience that’s been trained to be pleased by references and old logos. I don’t care that the Ramis family gave their blessings. It’s gross and embarrassing that this movie felt the need to even include the old Ghostbusters, let alone a deep fake Harold Ramis.

But I digress. Egon helps Phoebe and the three original Ghostbusters take care of the big bad, and the camera pans to the sky as his spirit is returned to rest, and the words “For Harold” show up as the film closes. Yeah, this is for you Harold. We remade your face in a computer.

At its core, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a below average action-adventure film. It doesn’t have any interest in taking Ghostbusters in a new direction. What it wants to do is present the same movie you’ve seen a million times before, dress up it in a new tired script. The only surprise it has in store is how shamefully low it will stoop to pander to nostalgia.

Grade: D

To stay up to date on everything fantasy, science fiction, and WiC, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and sign up for our exclusive newsletter.

Get HBO, Starz, Showtime and MORE for FREE with a no-risk, 7-day free trial of Amazon Channels