Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

It's no wonder that mainstream moviegoers are so often given the same product recycled again and again and again. It would seem that many, understandably, crave the comfort of familiarity over any attempts to strike out on some new directions. Sold on the line that "this is the sequel that the fans deserved"and "this is what fans really wanted", Ghostbusters: Afterlife is, essentially, a clumsy rehash of elements from the first movie. It relies so much on nostalgia, and has a plot that comes perilously close to simply being "evil dies tonight", that it's arguably closer in form to Halloween Kills than the first Ghostbusters movie.

I'm going to try to avoid spoilers here, but you can all rest easy in the fact that there are a number of satisfying cameos in this film. One such cameo is Egon Spengler. Well, it's the spirit of him. Due to Harold Ramis having passed away a few years ago, the writers of this film (Gil Kenan and director Jason Reitman) decided to kick things off with the death of his character, allowing for plenty of extra button-pushing and emotional manipulation throughout. With Spengler deceased, his property is handed over to his estranged daughter, Callie (Carrie Coon), and her children, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace). Things start to get spooky, old equipment is discovered (including the ECTO-1, of course), and there's a local teacher, Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd), who can provide exposition and become directly involved in the whole escapade. 

I enjoyed many parts of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and that includes many parts that worked for me by simply making reference to the first film. It's fun to see people practising their aim with a proton pack. It's great to see the engine of the ECTO-1 starting up. And a decent part of the plotting actually works well as a direct continuation of previous events. The good work, however, is undone by the feeling of laziness, smugness, and disrespect by the time everything if thrown at the screen in the third act to placate viewers who deserved much better. A large part of the problem is the reliance on the spirit of Egon, which would have worked better if it was just, as it is in much of the movie, a vague and undefined thing. There are another couple of major issues though, and they will be brought up shortly.

Cast-wise, everyone is fine. While I am not the biggest fan of Wolfhard, and he is the least of the younger players here, he doesn’t do a bad job. Celeste O’Connor does a bit better, playing a girl who catches his eye/heart. Rudd gets to play the character who is the most amusing and Coon has to simply be “the parent”, which she does fine with. But it’s the younger cast members who shine, with Logan Kim great fun as a young podcaster, imaginatively named just Podcast, and Grace being the best new Egon type since Kate McKinnon in the last Ghostbusters movie (oh stop pretending it doesn’t exist, it is a better idea overall film than this one). Grace is so good that she makes up for a lot of what Reitman and Kenan get wrong.

Directorially sound, everything wrong here stems from a script that is desperate to remind viewers of the original without the writers themselves remembering, Yes, people love the characters and the equipment, and we all want ghosts and beasties to create havoc at times, but there should also be a lot of laughs (which this is lacking). There IS, at times, a sense of fun, and it is often blended with that warm glow of familiarity, but there are very few actual laughs. What you also used to have were movies that stemmed from a legacy of films mixing chills and humour, so it wasn’t necessarily entirely original, but it felt entirely original. What we have here is a film that cannot go for more than a few minutes without repeating a well-known beat or referencing the cinematic past of the Ghostbusters business. That doesn’t seem so bad when it all feels effective (references to Shandor work well, and some returning faces feel like a logical choice for a big villain). It fails when you realise that it’s the height of laziness (cute they may be, and in the final trailers, but there is no reason for the mini-Stay Puft characters here, except for easy bonus points and merch).

It didn’t pain me while it was on. There are some nice shots, the soundtrack works well, and uses a number of familiar cues, and one or two set-pieces feel enjoyably cinematic and able to remind us all that “bustin’ makes me feel good”. It’s not a great film though, and I would argue that it’s the weakest Ghostbusters film yet. Maybe a sequel that doesn’t feel too beholden to the original film will work better. I hope we get to find out.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Pretty In Pink (1986)

Despite not being able to remember the whole of Pretty In Pink, I was always a fan. I expect that a lot of people my age have fond memories of all of the teen films penned by John Hughes that were bestowed upon us throughout the 1980s. And this remains one of the more cherished titles.

It's all about a young woman named Andie (Molly Ringwald), who spends her time resenting the fact that she lives in the poor part of town, being wooed by the very persistent Duckie (Jon Cryer), and working in a record store with her older friend (Iona, played by Annie Potts). She's also hit on now and again by James Spader AKA the guy who was always the creepiest one in any movie high school, and finds herself the unexpected object of Andrew McCarthy's affections. He's a rich kid though, so neither of them are sure that it can really work between them.

Directed by Howard Deutch, featuring a collection of lively pop hits (with one or two classics slotted in between the contemporary tunes), and with a cast that features everyone mentioned above PLUS the great Harry Dean Stanton (playing Andie's father, and one of the great, sweetest, movie dads, for my money), Pretty In Pink has plenty to enjoy. The appeal is obvious, if you're watching this in the mindset of a teenager.

But watching it through the current world filter, a time of #metoo and #timesup, and it's hard not to view this as problematic, at best.

Andie basically spends most of the runtime being stalked, mainly by Duckie, but also by Steff (Spader), and by Blane (McCarthy, although he is less creepy and more adorable than the other two). It's good that the motivation for Steff is so obviously nasty - he just wants her because he can't get her - but not so good that Duckie was playing someone that viewers are supposed to root for. He's a complete asshole, and sums up the worst behaviour in boys who get upset about being stuck in "the friend zone" (the quotation marks are to emphasise that the phrase is bullshit anyway).

Think about it. You may have enjoyed watching the antics of Duckie the first time you saw this film. You may have laughed on numerous occasions. But he hangs around Andie as often as he can, be it at school, at her work, even outside the club she visits that he can't get into (while he chats to a doorman, played by Andrew Dice Clay). He calls her repeatedly. One scene shows Andie rolling her eyes as she deletes messages that have been received only minutes apart. He sets off the bloody alarm at her work, more than once, just to get some time with her. And that's before we even mention the conversation he has with Andie's father about his intentions, his total asshole turn when Andie gets to spend time with a boy she's attracted to, and his big moment of miming along to Try A Little Tenderness.

Oh, and that moment isn't quite how you remember it either. It's a lot of fun, and Cryer gives his all in the performance, but the sheer bravado of it all is seriously undercut by Ringwald looking on and realising that this guy is going to have his heart broken if he seriously thinks his persistence will pay off.

So many thoughts were battling in my mind while I watched the film this time around, thoughts that I don't think ever bothered the teenage me. Did Hughes intend things to have such a sinister undercurrent? Are our teen years just that fraught with danger (because, without excusing the behaviour, there's some hope in considering that these ARE girls and boys being shown here, as opposed to women and men)? Why did I never before realise that Gina Gershon was in this? Was the record shop named Trax just to emphasise that Andie lived on the wrong side of the tracks? Why did the 1980s never give us a comedy caper pairing up Annie Potts and Cyndi Lauper as two sisters out for shenanigans?

And why, despite the MAJOR flaws here, did I still smile and enjoy the end of this film? Characters are given a shot at redemption. I'm not sure if that makes up for a lot of their past behaviour, but it goes some way to making the preceding events that bit more palatable. Which maybe sums up how everyone feels as they look forward to life beyond high school.

6/10

Pick it up with a couple of better movies here.
American readers can pick it up here.

Crimes Of Passion (1984)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, god bless the brilliant and bonkers Ken Russell. Crimes Of Passion is his usual mix of sex, death, and blasphemy. It's a good film, but it's lifted up further by a starring role for Kathleen Turner and a brilliantly off-kilter turn from Anthony Perkins.

Turner stars as Joanna Crane, a successful businesswoman who leads a double life. At night she likes to dress up, head out, and get her kicks as a prostitute named China Blue. Many of her clients, end up smitten with her, and it's not hard to see why. She knows just what everyone wants, and will enthusiastically work to please almost any fetishist. She risks losing her anonymity and security when a man (Bobby Grady, played by John Laughlin) is hired to shadow her, all because her daytime boss suspects her of theft. Bobby finds himself joining the long queue of smitten men, but China does her best to stop people getting too attached to her. Meanwhile, an unbalanced preacher (Anthony Perkins) becomes determined to save China's soul.

Written by Barry Sandler, Crimes Of Passion is blessed with a script that's profane, witty, lovably ludicrous, and consistently entertaining. The introduction of Turner as China Blue is a scene that no viewer will ever forget, and with good reason. Everything is, quite rightly, skewed towards adoring China and showing just how good she is at her job, and also how being naughty in all the right ways doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. The numerous men who want to save China from her situation fail to realise that she doesn't need saved. She will choose when and how she wants to change her life, and when she will return to a life of being Joanna Crane full-time.

Russell directs with a fearlessness that defined most of his movies. He revels in the material, even if it's somewhat lighter fare than some of his more acclaimed pictures, and doesn't do anything by halves. Russell may be an acquired taste, to put it mildly, but I feel sorry for anyone who can't relax and enjoy the exuberance and sheer cheek present here, and in the majority of his work.

Laughlin is decent enough, I guess, in his role, and Annie Potts is as solid as ever in the role of his unhappy wife (the marriage is not in good health), but all of the best moments revolve around either Perkins, or Turner, or both. Both are brilliant, happily going up to the very edge and then, in different ways, completely over it. Perkins almost seems to be foaming at the mouth during his every moment, while Turner effortlessly mixes comedy, confidence and sexiness in a lead performance that acts as the keystone for the entire film.

It's ridiculous, but it knows exactly what it's doing. Crimes Of Passion will keep you entertained throughout, and also have you laughing out loud at times, but you'll be laughing WITH the film, which may be the highest compliment I can give. Because, in lesser hands, it would have been so easy to laugh AT it.

8/10

http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Passion-UNCUT-China-Blue/dp/B006PM86JO/ref=sr_1_5?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1401637528&sr=1-5&keywords=crimes+of+passion

Ghostbusters II (1989)

When Ghostbusters II was released in 1989 it did solid business at the box office. You wouldn't think that nowadays, with the way many people deride it and claim that it's a completely unworthy sequel to the classic first movie. Well, the first movie is a classic. I completely agree with that and already praised it here. What I don't agree with is the opinion that this sequel is completely unworthy. It's not as good as the first movie but few films are. It is, however, a very enjoyable film that picks up some years after the events of the first movie and allows viewers to find out just what the main characters have been up to since their big battle with Gozer.

And just what have the Ghostbusters been up to since saving New York City and, indeed, the world? Well, they were sued by a number of city and state agencies and the brand became worthless. Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are trying to keep the Ghostbusters name out there by entertaining ungrateful children at birthday parties, Egon (Harold Ramis) is conducting scientific studies with his usual, detached demeanour and Venkman (Bill Murray) is hosting a paranormal chat show. Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) has a son and is enjoying the time that she spends helping to restore paintings under the watchful eye of Dr. Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol). There's one painting in particular, of a nasty man called Vigo (Wilhelm Von Homburg) that starts to cause no small amount of trouble and so the gang need to get back together and get back to doing what they do best.

The baddie may not be as memorable this time around and there's no denying that the movie doesn't feel as fresh as the first film (but sequels rarely do, by definition) but there's a hell of a lot here to enjoy and anyone dismissing this movie completely is, I'd say, being very harsh.

Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson are all still great in their ghostbusting roles, Weaver plays off them all very well once again and Annie Potts and Rick Moranis return to reprise their memorable characters. Peter MacNicol is also good fun and Wilhelm Von Homburg keeps his mean face on throughout. Kurt Fuller may not be able to replace the great William Atherton as the main jerk of the movie but he tries his best. David Margulies returns to play the Mayor of New York and Harris Yulin has a small, fun role as a very strict judge who ends up seeing the Ghostbusters on trial in his court.

With Aykroyd and Ramis also returning to their writing duties and Ivan Reitman once again directing the action, this is very much the kind of sequel that feels like audiences are getting to catch up with some old friends. Because that's exactly what it is. I will watch Ghostbusters any number of times and never tire of it but this second outing is almost as rewatchable and has a smattering of great lines in almost every scene. The ending is a bit of a letdown but I think that any ending would have been slightly underwhelming compared to the brilliance of that big finale of the first movie featuring Gozer and The Traveller.

Oh, okay, there's also a pretty lame soundtrack compared to the complete '80s greatness of the first movie but that's the only other major complaint I have.

If you haven't seen it in a while then do give it a go and you might just find that the Ghostbusters are still the guys to call when you want some ectoplasmic entertainment.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghostbusters-2-DVD-Bill-Murray/dp/B001G61178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351446146&sr=8-1

Ghostbusters (1984)

The 1980s is a strange time. It's easy to look back and point and laugh at a decade that had so much excess. The big shoulder pads, the clouds of hairspray, lots of clothing in nigh-on luminous colours. But when it comes to movies it was almost a golden age. Before you stop me and tell me off for letting nostalgia overrule my critical faculties let me just make one thing clear. EVERY year has a fair share of great movies and stinkers. Every year. I am well aware that we can look back with fondness at certain times simply because the rubbish has been forgotten and, boy, did the eighties have a lot of rubbish. But it was also, in a way, the perfect mix of cinema made with the latest technology that still relied mainly on practical effects. Of course, there WAS CGI but it was still a bit of a novelty. The best films, the ones that we remember with such fondness, from that decade are, in my view, so fondly remembered because they took us all on an incredible journey and they did it in a way that felt more realistic, despite the outlandishness of the plots. I'm thinking of the likes of The Goonies, Gremlins, Back To The Future, Labyrinth, The Thing, An American Werewolf In London, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lost Boys and quite a few others. Of course, nostalgia does contribute something (especially in the case of The Lost Boys) but I don't think that any of these movies would be remembered as fondly today if they were full of dated CGI. Just look at An American Werewolf In Paris compared to its predecessor. Actually, don't do that. You don't want to lose your eyesight.

Ghostbusters is one of those movies and that's why I stopped listening a long time ago when the talk of a third movie kept going round and round and round for years (who knows, if you're reading this some time in the future then maybe the damn thing finally got made). A third movie just won't have the heart that this movie has. It won't have the same texture. The second movie isn't all that beloved (though I like it) so why not let sleeping dogs lie. Or sleeping ghosts rest in ecto-containment units, or something.

Directed by Ivan Reitman, and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis (with some uncredited work from Rick Moranis too), Ghostbusters is all about three men (Aykroyd, Ramis and Bill Murray) who become . . . . . . . . ghostbusters. They end up doing great business, so great that they have to hire an extra member of staff (Ernie Hudson) but the increase in paranormal activity also leads them to believe that something big is happening. Maybe that something is linked to whatever is happening in the apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Whatever it is, the guys try to stay ready for action even while weaselly Walter Peck (William Atherton) tries to make big trouble for them.

I don't even know why I wrote that last paragraph. You already KNOW Ghostbusters. Or know OF it. If you don't, stop reading now and go and watch it. Now. Seriously.

It's a great supernatural comedy, it's one of the best outright comedies of the decade, if not THE best, it features brilliant performances from everyone involved (and I'd better mention the superb turns from Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz and Rick Moranis as Louis Tully, two absolutely classic supporting roles) and if you don't think that every line is worth quoting then you'd be hard pushed to deny that every other line is worth quoting.

It's one of my favourite movies of all time and I can't really think of anything worthwhile to convince you to see it if you haven't already done so. There's that great theme song, the pace and editing are both pretty perfect, every single main character is memorable for a different reason and it features the best use of marshmallow I've ever seen outside the world of adult entertainment (don't ask!).

On a more personal note, I have since been relieved to discover that I wasn't the only one to think that the big villain named Gozer (Slavitza Jovan) was a bit sexy while also being really, really evil. On a less embarrassing personal note, I will always have an added fondness for this film because of the cinema that I saw it in - I can't recall if it was The Dominion here in Edinburgh or The Odeon that has long since closed down but whoever put little "ghosts" over all of the side lights deserves good karma forever. You, sir or madam, helped this movie to leave a smile on my soul that has not waned in over a quarter of a century.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share