Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed

[idunnosomename]

A lot of that synopsis seems a bit like it was written by an old man with dementia. Loads of inappropriate "getting off with women") and strangely unnecessary ("high voltage equipment") language

[Small Man Big Horse]

Well I woke up annoyingly early today so watched it in two chunks, and this was my letterbox'd review:

Ghostbusters Afterlife (2021) - This had been slagged off by most people I know but eh, it was just about okay I suppose. The first hour is fairly watchable as Egon's grandkids discover his old house and mess about in the small town he lived in as Paul Rudd tries to seduce their Mom, and then the ghosts turn up and it's vaguely amusing, though I've a good few issues with it including the uneven pacing and how the the kids are precocious and annoying, initially it was just Podcast who I thought was shit but Stranger Things kid and Phoebe were irritating by the end, and with the latter making her so incredibly intelligent that she knows every-fucking-thing aged only twelve felt a bit ridiculous. The score's also annoying and repetitive and really obtrusive, and the ending wasn't that exciting, but going in with the lowest of low expectations (and not being that big a fan of the original) I kind of don't regret watching it, a comment I'm sure they'll use on all of their advertising from now on. 6.0/10

[popcorn]

I stand corrected on this prediction, based on the crap clip they released last year:

I realise this comes off as nitpicky, but I did find it distracting and noticeable on first watch: at 0:24 he seems to have walked off completely out of shot without noticing the marshmallow blokes, and then there's a cut and he's suddenly peering at the bag. And the bloke's eyes don't seem to be looking at the marshmallow men at all.

This isn't how it will play in the actual film though, or do you know that already and you just don't like how it's been edited for the clip? Clips are often cut right down to highlight whatever they want the focus to be on.

The final film does have a better edit of this sequence. I'm really confused about why they cut it the way they did for the clip - it's only one second shorter and looks noticeably bad.

[popcorn]

Again, it's best to keep in mind that this is purely a clip for viral purposes to show off the mini puft guys. I would wager that beyond the edit being different in the finished product, the post-production will also be different such that it will look less like a overly-lit TV show or whatever.

This turned out not to be the case though.

[Rev+]

my letterbox'd review

Pretty much my feelings too.  The first half was a load of nothing, but it was an amiable and watchable load of nothing.  When things actually kick off in the second hour it becomes weirdly disjointed, given that it's telling a reasonably straightforward story, and the characters just become increasingly annoying.  I say 'characters' - only Phoebe and the teacher really have much to them, and even then they're still paper thin.  It doesn't help that the second half is essentially a less engaging remake of the first film, given that the whole concept is open to so many different stories.  Why just tread old ground here?

It's alright but is definitely the fourth-best Ghostbusters film.  It doesn't quite get the tone as wrong as the trailers suggested, but it also doesn't seem at all comfortable with the expectation that it should be a comedy film.  Which it isn't, really.  There's some vaguely witty dialogue but when you feel the need to set up a whole device of characters telling each other jokes that have bugger all to do with what's happening in the film you're in trouble on that front.

[Shaky]

I thought it was far superior to the reboot and roughly on a par with the underated second film. At least they tied the plot rehashing into Egon's story (I'm not pretending it's some massive artistic move, but it's something). It also has an emotional edge none of the other ones have. Forced, sure, but it worked fine for me.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Pretty much my feelings too.  The first half was a load of nothing, but it was an amiable and watchable load of nothing.  When things actually kick off in the second hour it becomes weirdly disjointed, given that it's telling a reasonably straightforward story, and the characters just become increasingly annoying.  I say 'characters' - only Phoebe and the teacher really have much to them, and even then they're still paper thin.  It doesn't help that the second half is essentially a less engaging remake of the first film, given that the whole concept is open to so many different stories.  Why just tread old ground here?

It's alright but is definitely the fourth-best Ghostbusters film.  It doesn't quite get the tone as wrong as the trailers suggested, but it also doesn't seem at all comfortable with the expectation that it should be a comedy film.  Which it isn't, really.  There's some vaguely witty dialogue but when you feel the need to set up a whole device of characters telling each other jokes that have bugger all to do with what's happening in the film you're in trouble on that front.

I was thinking about the film as I was failing to sleep last night and I'm with you on all of the above, it just doesn't quite seem to know what it should be, and some parts are just a bit weird and off (Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd fucking when possessed but then being absolutely fine about it especially), while Gozer as a villain is given so little to do and never comes off as that menacing.

I'm completely confused as to why they brought in J.K. Simmons to be the old town mayor too,

Spoiler alert

I only recognised that it was him seconds before he was sliced in two

[close]

, and what appealed to him about the role is beyond me.

[Key]

He's worked with the director before on a few previous films. Maybe it was a day or so to film a fun cameo, why not eh?

I quite liked his role.

Spoiler alert

it was an ok joke in a movie short on them. The devoted cult follower who had implausably survived though this absurd scenario, only to be instantly disposed of by the object of his affections

[close]

[popcorn]

I was really bored by this. OK, Ghostbusters 2016 was a poor film - it was cheap, unfunny and ugly. But I think it's more faithful to the original Ghostbusters than Afterlife. It was at least an unpretentious SNL comedy about going into the business of busting ghosts. Afterlife in no way resembles the original Ghostbusters - not in direction, writing, characters, plot (until the finale), theme, attitude. Its only function is as a vehicle for showcasing old film props and soundtrack cues.

Instead, it resembles the world's most boring scifi series, Stranger Things. Like Stranger Things, the first half has no dramatic drive, tension or mystery, because it's just characters slowly discovering things the audience already knows. We know Egon wasn't a bad man, or insane. We know ghosts are real and that he was a ghostbuster. There's nothing to hang a story on. The scenes play out like this, over and over again:

KIDS: Whoa what is this
AUDIENCE: It's a ghost trap

KIDS: Whoa what is this
AUDIENCE: Ghost meter

KIDS: Whoa what is this
AUDIENCE: Marshmallow man

KIDS: Whoa what is this
AUDIENCE: Car

KIDS: Whoa what is this
AUDIENCE: Pole

I suppose a certain kind of fan might find this game of object recognition exciting. NOT ME !!!! It's just a tedious and repetitive excavation of the past - which the film seems to realise on some level, because that's what the characters end up literally doing in the third act.

In the first Ghostbusters, this theme communicated humour, sly resolve, and industriousness. (It's even called "In Business"). When it's used in Afterlife, all it communicates is "this is the music from the old film". That's it.

In the first Ghostbusters, all the ghost stuff - the stacked books, the claws through the chair, the the Stay-Puft Man, Zuul - was just, you know, ghost stuff. It wasn't like here are the rules of ghosts in this universe, as if there always has to be a Gatekeeper and a Keymaster and marshmallow guys. Ghostbusters 2 established that. (Funny how Afterlife not only disregards the 2016 reboot but also Ghostbusters 2, which wasn't interested in revisiting the original quite so literally - like, it had a completely different villain, a notion which now feels shockingly innovative.)

OK, Afterlife is a sequel. And sequels, almost (but not quite) by definition, extend from ideas or motifs or characters or whatever from the previous thing. But this is just so earnest and literal-minded about it all. Sure, keep the car, sure, use the proton packs - but they're not holy relics, for fuck's sake. Egon wasn't Jesus.

Spoiler alert

The only time Afterlife felt briefly alive to me was, surprise surprise, when the original busters inexplicably showed up. I cringed initially, but actually I was amazed at how familiar their performances were - and more than anything this meant the film finally had some fucking characters in it, however briefly. I don't think a sequel to Ghostbusters has to suck by definition, and Afterlife made me realise I'd be happy to spend more time with these characters, even in their old age, but I think that window has already closed.

[close]

[olliebean]

What the 2016 film had, that the originals had and this one didn't, was strong, experienced comic performers in the central roles.

[Shaky]

What the 2016 film had, that the originals had and this one didn't, was strong, experienced comic performers in the central roles.

The 2016 one had a weaker script, though, and the talented cast could do little with it. For all it's flaws, for me this new one works a lot better as a film overall. I did care what was happening onscreen, when I honestly didn't with the reboot.

Afterlife in no way resembles the original Ghostbusters - not in direction, writing, characters, plot (until the finale), theme, attitude. Its only function is as a vehicle for showcasing old film props and soundtrack cues.

I feel it's both, and more or less gets away with it. There were plenty of moments that felt Ghostbusters-y to me, even leaving aside the reused music cues etc.

[popcorn]

The 2016 one had a weaker script, though, and the talented cast could do little with it. For all it's flaws, for me this new one works a lot better as a film overall.

Afterlife is easily the more competently made and plausibly cinematic film, but it's soulless and boring. I feel like both films miss the point in opposite directions.

The original Ghostbusters is basically a raunchy sex comedy, isn't it? Combined with a story about the joy of capitalism and going your own way. It's schlubby, unglamorous, and funny. The 2016 film at least recognised those things, even if it failed bitterly in replicating them.

[Famous Mortimer]

It misses the point the same way so many modern remakes miss the point. No-one loved the original because of Slimer or the Stay-Puft fellow, they loved it because it was a group of comic performers who'd known each other for years and were all at the top of their game. Well, that's why I like it at least.

[phantom_power]

Yes, those things became iconic because they are contained within a brilliantly made film. They aren't great in and of themselves so taking them out of that film and putting them in a bland Stranger Things rip-off does nothing.

[Miasma]

One thing that baffled me about this new one was how unphased the characters seemed to be about most of what was going on.  Given that, apparently, the events of 1984 weren't interesting enough to have stayed in the public consciousness, I would've expected a bit more 'fucking hell! Ghosts!'.  The little girl didn't seem to think that levitating chess pieces was worth mentioning to her mum?

I thought the film overall was pretty dull - just another one to chuck on the pile of mediocre time killers - it could definitely done with some more jokes.  (Ironically, given the carry-on about the female reboot, the most entertaining stuff in the 2016 film for me was the bits with Chris Hemsworth; his job interview was a solid bit of comedy.)

[Glebe]

Watched this last night, it started off promisingly and there was some reasonable wit on display but it ended up relying far to heavily on the original film and just never really properly took off.

Spoiler alert

J.K. Simmons was a nice surprise. Didn't cop that that was Olivia Wilde as Gozer.

[close]

Spoiler alert

Mute ghost Egon

[close]

Yeah that was weird. I kept waiting

Spoiler alert

for him to speak.

[close]

[Glebe]

Spoiler alert

The Ghostbusters theme hitting at the end just felt like it belonged to a completely different film, cos it does. The recognisable background music was jarring too

[close]

Spoiler alert

Yeah, Elmer Bernstein's themes featured far too prominently.

[close]

[Avril Lavigne]

I think the only thing that could have saved this movie would have been the involvement of Ushi Hirosaki.

[Mister Six]

I'll probably never watch Afterlife (maybe just the cameos on YouTube at some point) but I am heartily enjoying the remastered version of the video game on PS4, which acts as a third Ghostbusters film (in fact, I think it cannibalised the script for Aykroyd's planned Ghostbusters 3), features the original cast and is really funny.

Yeah, the gameplay is a bit naff (you'll want to put it on Easy, as it gets too chaotic and your character isn't very agile) and yeah, so far it's trotting out the greatest hits (first mission is to recatch Slimer in the hotel, then you fight the Stay Puft man in Times Square, then it's off to the library to finally catch the librarian ghost) but it's funny, impish, playful and captures the spirit of the film and characters. And Bill Murray only sounds a bit bored.

[Avril Lavigne]

And Bill Murray only sounds a bit bored.

I liked the game more than most but let's be honest, he sounds like he's reading his lines off cue cards while tranquilised in a hot tub.

[Mister Six]

There are ups and downs. Maybe the tranqs wore off from time to time.

[druss]

I have watched an hour and a half of this and it is the most boring film I've seen for years. Definitely the most "'member x?" film I've seen. Seems to be getting worse and worse with the references to the point where it's now just a shitter Ghostbusters playing out with annoying kids, one of who is apparently the cleverest person in the world.

Edit: Finished now. Atrocious. CGI Ramis was the most interesting thing about it in the same way that a car crash grabs your attention.

[greenman]

Afterlife is easily the more competently made and plausibly cinematic film, but it's soulless and boring. I feel like both films miss the point in opposite directions.

The original Ghostbusters is basically a raunchy sex comedy, isn't it? Combined with a story about the joy of capitalism and going your own way. It's schlubby, unglamorous, and funny. The 2016 film at least recognised those things, even if it failed bitterly in replicating them.

I feel like the main problem was that comedy these days like horror has become a bit of a ghetto, Hollywood thinks it easy money aiming at people who will pay for low effort fratboy puerility and a very weak script which depends mostly on improv for laughs same as it thinks low effort jump scares will sell horror. Genuinely witty well written films are quite rare now as are films with a good concept to hang said wit on.

I think a lot of Marvel's sucess has been pushing into the market "comedy" left behind, films like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ragnarok are probably closer to Ghostbusters than most mainstream comedy.

[dissolute ocelot]

Tonally it would have made more sense if this was about discovering your granddad was Eliot from ET. Or some other winsome 80s kids drama.

I enjoyed it because I liked all the actors, and it does have a low-stakes kids' drama element to it, where kids get to find out secrets and discover cool toys, so it's probably more of an actual kids film than the original or sequel or certainly the reboot which was aimed more at the Bridesmaids audience.

I feel like the main problem was that comedy these days like horror has become a bit of a ghetto, Hollywood thinks it easy money aiming at people who will pay for low effort fratboy puerility and a very weak script which depends mostly on improv for laughs same as it thinks low effort jump scares will sell horror. Genuinely witty well written films are quite rare now as are films with a good concept to hang said wit on.

I think a lot of Marvel's sucess has been pushing into the market "comedy" left behind, films like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ragnarok are probably closer to Ghostbusters than most mainstream comedy.

Cinema Hollywood comedy is definitely in decline. Comedy's not made as much money as action or adventure for decades (although musicals used to make insane amounts so I guess it's not immutable). Maybe it's because comedy works better on Netflix than big action movies do, so a lot of stuff has gone straight to streaming. Recently aside from your noisy non-Disney animation aimed at younger kids (Shrek, Minions, etc), there was a trend for bawdy adult comedy but it seems to have played out (American Pie to Hangover and Bridesmaids), and I guess studios are focused on what they can sell to the Chinese. Who may well dig Afterlife.

[Jack Shaftoe]

I think a lot of Marvel's sucess has been pushing into the market "comedy" left behind, films like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ragnarok are probably closer to Ghostbusters than most mainstream comedy.

Ooh, that's an excellent point.

[Shaky]

I enjoyed Afterlife for what it was but it is a bit weird how all GB films over the last 40 years are basically beat for beat identical. You could take a team anywhere and have them busting all sorts of mental spooks but no, it's the same thing over and over again. Some days I'd be happy if Aykroyd got to make his deranged Scottish fairies proprosal from the late 80's.

[Glebe]

The original was on telly recently, something that never properly registered before, why in the dodgy-for-a-family-movie scene where Ray is dreaming of getting a ghost BJ is he wearing that jacket with the epaulettes? Is he fantasising about being some kind of old-style military officer? Or is it meant to be after some fancy-dress party? I don't think I've ever seen any deleted scenes which offer any further explanation. 

[popcorn]

The original was on telly recently, something that never properly registered before, why in the dodgy-for-a-family-movie scene where Ray is dreaming of getting a ghost BJ is he wearing that jacket with the epaulettes? Is he fantasising about being some kind of old-style military officer? Or is it meant to be after some fancy-dress party? I don't think I've ever seen any deleted scenes which offer any further explanation. 

It was indeed from a deleted scene.

https://ghostbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Ghostbusters_(Deleted_Scene):_The_Fort_Detmerring_Ghost

Bonus fact: when Ray is receiving this sexy spooky visit, the line "bustin' makes me feel good" was deleted from the song, just for this scene.

https://youtu.be/NsxhmXEmRZY?si=1GjK4QO1_A7gFlgp

Apparently the bit in the montage in Ghostbusters 2 when they're setting some elaborate laser trap in a jewellery shop was also from a deleted scene. (I think.) That bit always confused me as a kid, what the fuck is going there?

[Glebe]

Thanks popcorn... you know what, I think I have actually seen that before I completely forgot! In any case I reckon they were right to remove it, it's not an essential scene and it'd have only slowed things down.

[beanheadmcginty]

They should've inserted a scene of Aykroyd getting a spectral blowie in all subsequent GB films.