Tuesday, September 06, 2022

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

They went back to the plot of the first Ghostbusters movie, but with a precocious pre-teen and a CGI Force Ghost Harold Ramis.

Egon apparently became convinced Gozer was going to rise again - in Oklahoma! - and abandoned his family to try and prevent it when no one would believe him. Personally, I think if Gozer emerged onto the Earth and saw Oklahoma, they would turn right back around, but whatever. His daughter and her two kids show up after he dies, to learn he left them with a bunch of debt, and that everyone in town calls him "Dirt Farmer" and didn't like him. His daughter is, understandably, pissed about him just fucking off one day without a word or any contact. But, of course, he was right to do that because he was saving the world. Everyone else just didn't understand. And he was apparently keeping tabs on her life via drones, or something, so he still cared!

What's the movie saying with that? If it's that not everyone expresses their love the same way, then sure, that's fair. But it feels like it's making excuses. That Egon was making a sacrifice to the greater good, so it's justified. Except for the part where his decision impacted other people who didn't get to make that decision.

The movie is definitely, whether on purpose or not, warning about becoming fixated on nostalgia. The whole reason everything goes wrong is because Paul Rudd's character was a huge Ghostbusters nerd, and when Phoebe shows up with a loaded ghost trap, Rudd just has to open it. Because he's always wanted to do that! Which releases either the Gatekeeper or the Keymaster, I don't know which. So, nostalgia bad. Got it, movie which brings back the original Ghostbusters who are still alive for a cameo at the end.

At least the cameo made sense from a plot perspective. I don't know why the Army of Substitute Stay-Puft Marshmallow Men showed up. The original one was created in response to Ray's stray thought when Gozer said to choose the manner of their demise. But Gozer wasn't even out yet this time, and other than her two hound spirits, we'd seen all of one other ghost the entire movie. So it isn't as though there was some overflowing amount of spiritual energy, or ectoplasmic waves that might make such a thing manifest, he said as though any of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Let's see, I think I laughed twice during the movie. Which either ties the Melissa McCarthy Ghostbusters movie, or exceeds it by one. I forget which, and don't care enough to reread my review. But one of the laughs was when CGI Harold Ramis crashes his truck in the cornfield, because I got to say, 'Aw no, the corn! Paul Newman's gonna have me legs broke.' Does that even count to the movie's credit? I can't remember what the other laugh was. Maybe Phoebe trying to distract Gozer by making bad jokes.

2 comments:

Gary said...

I'm with you - this left me underwhelmed.

In all fairness, I was never a massive Ghostbusters fan; I saw the first one, it was mostly enjoyable, but didn't bother with the sequel or the Melissa McCarthy reboot/reimagining or whatever. By the time this rolled around, I figured okay, if Bill Murray's showing up, maybe I'll take a look.

And it was just... okay, I guess?

CalvinPitt said...

I think I was a bigger fan of the cartoon than I ever was the movies, although I like the first one OK. The second isn't completely awful, but it's definitely a "we're just back for more cash," thing.

Bill Murray actually is in the Melissa McCarthy one, just not as Peter Venkman. Same with Ackroyd and Ernie Hudson. I can't remember if Harold Ramis was still alive then to show up.