There are a bunch of movies from the ‘80s and early ‘90s that I remember being on repeat in my house as a kid. The Goonies, Jurassic Park, The Land Before Time, Raiders Of The Lost Ark. The VHS of these films got a lot of mileage, but perhaps none were quite so worn out from endless rewinding as Ghostbusters. The 1984 supernatural comedy is a staple of the decade and remains as delightful to watch as an adult as it did as a kid. The sequel and 2016 reboot, not so much. I wouldn’t want to watch anything after 1984, and yet, I’d take either of those movies over Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
Jump to…
I hated Ghostbusters: Afterlife, twice
After the 2016 Ghostbusters bombed at the box office, I and others never expected to see the franchise rear its head again so soon. Alas, Jason Reitman, son of Ivan who helmed the original movie, stepped in to helm Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
Billed as a sequel to the original two films, the movie takes place 32 years after the events of Ghostbusters II and was said to have original cast members returning. I was skeptical but nonetheless intrigued enough to go and see it in theaters.
Introducing a bunch of new characters, the movie follows a family moving to an Oklahoma farmhouse after inheriting it from Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis). The kids discover his old Ghostbusters equipment and the torch is gradually passed over to a new generation of supernatural investigators.
- SPIDER-MAN: All 8 movies ranked
Even on my rewatch last night, I felt the same: It’s a movie that underlines all of the bad traits of the modern blockbuster. Ironically enough, the movie is a hollowed-out shell, a ghost, of the first movie. It tries to recapture that magic but feels too glossily manufactured, so bland and inoffensive that it, by turn, becomes offensive.
Finn Wolfhard’s casting was an obvious attempt to cash in on Stranger Things success, and by meeting two properties smack-bang in the middle, the movie just feels like a soulless attempt to try and profit from two fandoms without caring for their identities or what made them great.
Scared you’re losing the audience? Just show them the Ghostbusters logo, call back to the original, and bring out the car—it’s all the cinematic equivalent of dangling keys in front of a baby.
Even the emotional beats feel so contrived, forced, and hokey. Rather than tug at the heartstrings they just make you roll your eyes. None of it feels fun, but instead, it is tiredly played out. Hollywood has resurrected a bunch of beloved franchises in this vein, but Ghostbusters: Afterlife comes across as one of the most uninspired examples of retracing your steps in hopes of finding some money you dropped and lost in the ‘80s.
I’m giving Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire a shot
All that being said, why on earth would I bother going to see its sequel, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire?
For starters, it looks like it has far more of its own identity, and that’s just from the trailers. I already sense it’s bringing something new to the table, while still juggling enough of the old to honor the franchise.
From marketing, it doesn’t feel like the legacy characters are being shoehorned in for a cash-grabbing cameo. Their presence looks far more organic and central to the story.
But above all, the biggest thing attracting me back to the franchise is the introduction of a new villain, and remarkably, one that looks pretty fantastic too. I’m sure the nods and winks to the original will be there, but Frozen Empire has the makings of a refreshing step forward for a franchise that Afterlife made feel so damn stale.
I thought I was done with all things Ghostbusters, but here I am hoping for the first worthy sequel.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is in theaters on Friday, March 22nd 2024.
- LEAVING SOON: Black Adam on Netflix
