Ghostbusters series

  • Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Amazon Streaming, May 2022) I would be of the right age to be a big devoted Ghostbusters fan, except for one thing: I don’t really go nuts for those intellectual property franchises (in the language of our corporate cultural oppressors) that are being periodically unearthed in the name of big profits. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug when you’re a studio executive greenlighting projects in an ever-more-ferocious entertainment landscape, and I feel an almost-pigheaded instinct to rebel against attempts to regurgitate and repackage older properties as something we should get excited about. (Heck, the last time I was tempted to let go and give in to the nostalgia gave me the mediocre The Matrix Resurrections, which is a lesson that should last me years.)  So, when I approach Ghostbusters: Afterlife, an umpteenth attempt to re-create the success of the original film, it’s almost natural that I would conclude that the film would be much stronger if it got rid of its Ghostbusters legacy to focus on the story it has to tell. Worryingly leaving the urban backdrop of Manhattan for the wide-open expanses of the rural Midwest, Afterlife focuses on the adventures of a brainy teenager (the very likable McKenna Grace) as she awkwardly tries to fit in a small town and starts investigating the legacy of her eccentric grandfather. The film is most engaging when it’s its own thing, following a family trying to figure out what to do next, and uncovering a world-threatening prophecy from a place that couldn’t be farther away than The City That Never Sleeps. But, of course, such a film can’t help but directly tie itself back to the Ghostbusters mythology (even if it ignores the much-maligned 2016 reboot and only pays a minimal acknowledgement of Ghostbusters II) –all the way to bringing back nearly everyone from the original film and lasciviously playing up even the logo reveal. Whom are we trying to fool here? If it doesn’t work (as it didn’t in 2016), we’ll be back with another instalment in 5–10 years. If it works, we’ll keep digging up these corpses for more necrophilia on a regular basis (and this isn’t that outlandish an exaggeration, considering what CGI is capable of doing now). I would have liked Ghostbusters: Afterlife had it stood on its own as simply Afterlife – but then again, it’s an open question as to whether the film would have been made at all had it not vampirized the franchise for funding. You’d think that, as I grew older, I would be both grouchier and more nostalgic – but now it looks as if I’m just overwhelmingly grouchy, even about nostalgia.

  • Ghost Busters (2016)

    Ghost Busters (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2017) I’m not that much of a Ghostbusters (1984) fan, so the news of a gender-swapped reboot didn’t trouble me much beyond my usual “eh, I’d much prefer if they did original movies”. The reactionary nerd rage at the film’s release was troubling insofar as was a reflection of the current unhealthy outrage culture—but let’s face it: people who get worked up about a female Ghostbusters movie are exactly the kinds of people who wake up every day being offended at anything that makes them uncomfortable. Given the track records of movie reboots, it was almost a given that the end result would be a mildly entertaining piece of fluff. So it is: This Ghostbusters (2016) is a technically accomplished but far more mechanistic version of the 1984 original. Both Kirsten Wiig and Melissa McCarthy play up to their persona in the movie, although McCarthy seems thankfully more restrained in a movie in which entire sequences are storyboarded for special effects. Wiig is up to her usual neurotic persona, which works relatively well here. The same can be said for Leslie Jones, likable in a stock role. The real surprise here, though, is Kate McKinnon, stealing nearly every scene as an eccentric scientist—again, it’s not an original character, but she makes it work. Meanwhile, Chris Hemsworth probably gets the biggest laughs as a scatterbrained hunk. Director Paul Feig keeps getting better every movie, and if his style is still generally bland, he’s able to keep up with the demands of a special-effects-driven production. His conscious decision to avoid glamorizing his character works well, even if some other intentions—such as limply incorporating original 1984 cast members—end up being more irritating than anything else. The upshot is a generally watchable film, even if it never steps too far away from the original film or from the basic special-effects-driven comedy template. This Ghostbusters is all surface and flash, with minimal character work and even shallower thematic concerns. It’ll do for an evening’s worth of entertainment, but I have a hunch that the original will remain the definitive edition.

  • Ghostbusters II (1989)

    Ghostbusters II (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second viewing, On TV, December 2016) I’ve seen Ghostbusters II so long ago that I’m not sure that what I remembered was from the movie or the videogame. (I definitely remembered the soundtrack, though.) That, in itself, is a pretty good capsule summary of a relatively forgettable sequel. Bits of Ghostbusters II are bad; others are uninspired; others are competent. Some are all three, such as the idea of the Ghostbusters being discredited frauds—it’s patent nonsense after the events of the first film, but it does lead to a few good jokes here and there. The sequel cheerfully takes place five years after the fact and confronts how its characters have moved on (or not). There are a few choice gags here and there, and the basic idea of New York being overrun by slime that feeds on negative emotions is rich in possibilities—and while Vigo makes for a poor antagonist, the use of the Statue of Liberty is inspired. The courtroom scene also works well. As for the actors, it’s a mixed bag: Bill Murray is close to self-parody while the rest of the cast is more or less up to their usual tricks. The special effects are … not good by today’s standards (the subway sequence is notably subpar), and many of them don’t even have the quaint charm of the original: There’s a lot to be said about atmosphere in boosting the impact of special effects, or at least the viewers’ indulgence in suspending their disbelief. Ghostbusters II amounts to a serviceable sequel, one that does feel as if it’s coming from the same place as the original, but not one that equals the standards set by the first film.