Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Yes, I enjoyed Ghostbusters: Afterlife. It was very entertaining. But I’m not blind to the real reason why it was made. Whatever the trades or Wikipedia or any of the showbiz websites might say, it’s obvious that the intention was to apologize to Ghostbusters fans for Paul Feig’s 2016 remake of Ivan Reitman’s 1984 film, which transformed the title characters into women. Was an apology necessary? I don’t think so; the film was a great deal of fun, just as the ‘84 film was. That didn’t prevent critics or audiences from maligning it months before its release, strictly on the basis of its trailer. Most people wrote it off without bothering to see it. Those that saw it and wrote it off were mostly blinded by nostalgia, unwilling to accept or even acknowledge that a new creative team had something to offer.

For such people, Afterlife will be like dusting off an old scrapbook and thumbing through the pages, which may be yellowed but are loaded with memories. The film, a direct second sequel, is built on nothing but nostalgia, and it’s aimed at no one other than diehard fans of the original. Appeasing a fan base is, in my opinion, one of the laziest ways to make a movie. It leaves general audiences out in the cold. If you haven’t seen the original Ghostbusters, the many, many inside references Afterlife is full of will mean nothing to you, and thus make a full understanding of the plot difficult. Just a few examples: Famous lines of dialogue; the wrapper of a candy bar in the pocket of a Ghostbusters suit; a Twinkie in the glove compartment of the Ecto-1 car; jars filled with spores, molds, and fungus; demonic arms thrusting out of the cushions of a recliner; the physical appearance of an evil underworld demon named Gozer.

My cynicism and misgivings notwithstanding, I did begin this review by saying that I found Afterlife very entertaining, and I meant it. Ivan Reitman remains on board as a producer but hands the directorial reins to his son Jason, initially praised for compelling character-driven comedy/dramas like Thank You for Smoking, Juno, Up in the Air, and Young Adult, then misstepping with the melodramatic Labor Day and completely running off the rails with the inexcusable Tully. With Afterlife, he redeems himself by finally taking the plunge into mainstream popcorn moviemaking, giving audiences not just nostalgia but also a lot of action and a wealth of special effects we’re more than happy to gawk at.

The plot involves a financially-strapped family forced to move to a middle-of-nowhere Oklahoma town after getting evicted from their Chicago apartment. Callie, a bitter single mom (Carrie Coon), is dismayed that she has inherited a worthless, dilapidated farmhouse from her estranged father, now deceased. She has harbored nothing but resentment ever since he abandoned his family years ago, for reasons not initially made known. Needless to say, her children are just as unenthusiastic about their new situation. One is teenage son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), who immediately develops a crush on a local girl (Celeste O’Connor) that works at a carhop burger joint. The other is twelve-year-old daughter Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), a socially-awkward science nerd who couldn’t tell a funny joke even if her life depended on it. She soon befriends a goofy adolescent podcaster, fittingly nicknamed Podcast (Logan Kim).

While at summer school, she also befriends her teacher Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd), secretly a passionate seismologist but very unmotivated when it comes to actually instructing his disinterested students; class time consists of having them watch obsolete VHS copies of horror movies, including Cujo and 1988’s Child’s Play. Phoebe and Grooberson’s mutual interest in science disgusts Callie on a personal level. This doesn’t stop her and Grooberson from taking those first steps towards a relationship. But of course, things get in the way. Why is this part of Oklahoma seismically active when there are no fault lines and no fracking activity? What is the invisible force guiding Phoebe to a hidden lab? What secrets lie within an abandoned mine located at the top of a mountain? And why was Callie’s father ostracized by this small-town community?

I should mention that Reitman makes it a point to not reveal anything about Callie’s father, including his name, until a very specific moment. The intention, I’m sure, was for the revelation to be a surprise plot twist. I’ll play along for the sake of this review, but know this: It will be surprising only to those who haven’t seen the original Ghostbusters. For those who have, the twist will raise questions about why anyone bothered to include it. The father’s identity is obvious as early as the opening scene when he’s still alive, even though his face is always obscured by shadows. The real mystery is why he abandoned his family, what he was so obsessively working on in his farmhouse, and what purpose, if any, his work would serve.

Enough with the vague plot description. Rest assured, you will see proton packs, ghost traps, and even a few ghosts, including a fat, multi-limbed blob that scarfs down metal the way Slimer scarfed down food in the original film. This time around, the protagonists are kids and teenagers, I suspect as an homage to another 1980s cult classic, The Goonies. More broadly, the film is an homage to its own franchise, irrespective of an audience’s familiarity with it. This is apparent not just with specific characters appearing in the final act, but also with (1) a mid-credit sequence involving a device that induces electric shocks, and (2) a post-credit sequence that begins with a deleted scene from the 1984 film and ends, of course, with an opening to a sequel. I’m recommending Ghostbusters: Afterlife as a fun, escapist, good-looking entertainment. But I don’t appreciate that it exists in an insulated fanboy universe.