Ghostbusters: Afterlife

I saw it preview last night. A film that in some points recalls the first Gostbuster, but which has its own ideology. The characters they present to us are almost all well characterized and useful to the plot. The director did a good job, given the great responsibility he had with this film. Some ideas are very bright and innovative. The first hour and a half is very beautiful, full of jokes and suspenseful scenes, the problem is the last half hour that is lost a bit by recalling the first film a lot. The soundtrack is irrelevant, apart from those two moments when you hear the original themes. Overall it is a good film, not at the levels of the first but certainly superior to the female Gostbuster.

How did they make ghostbusting so boring? Barely anything happens in this nostalgia-fuelled film, which doesn't introduce any original concepts or memorable characters.

The story is essentially kids messing around in a small town, discovering their grandfather's legacy (you'll be able to guess pretty quickly who that is) and fixing things when they go bad. I'm guessing the script may have been inspired by the success of titles like "It" and "Strange Things", so the story focuses on children.

It doesn't help the teenagers are written kinda annoyingly, although McKenna Grace and Logan Kim are both amazing and easily the highlight of this cast. Some actors are completely wasted, for example JK Simmons - why is he in this for 15 seconds? At least there is a couple of funny scenes, like Paul Rudd losing it in Walmart.

Disappointingly, there are only a few ghosts in this film, mostly creatures we're already familiar with (you're supposed to love all the throwbacks, remember?). The action is not particularly thrilling and there are just so many instances of lazy writing in the script, it's just laughable. For example, people mostly forgot about ghostbusters (never quite explained why), yet no one is even slightly shocked to see ghosts. When the ghosts wreak havoc around the town, nobody cares either, something as obvious as crowd reaction is missing. The whole thing just feels cheap and basic most of the time, except the last 15 minutes where the budget probably went.

Overall, it's like watching a safe, respectful tribute rather than a worthwhile, stand-alone film with something to say.

Good movie, fun, interesting, and quirky, but, it doesn't use Paul Rudd nearly as much as it should, there were a lot of jokes that Paul could've brought and they missed the ball there, also, where are the ghosts? I mean, there should've been a lot more ghosts and some creepy and cool ghouls, but there are only a handful. Still, the movie is good, not great, but it's fun.

About ten months before the release of "Ghostbusters: Afterlife", and without any knowledge whatsoever that a belated sequel was in production, I re-watched the 1984 original for the first time in 25 years, and together with own kids (aged six and ten). Needless to say, my offspring wasn't the least bit impressed with special effects from the early eighties, and to be totally honest, I found that my childhood favorite had badly dated as well.

My biggest regret was that I couldn't pass on that magical feeling of "discovering" the world of horror, monsters, F/X, and ectoplasm! But when we saw publicity for the brand new "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" on television, it were my children who spontaneously asked if we could go and see it on the big screen. So, yes, with a slight delay they experienced how I felt when I saw "Ghostbusters" for the first time. And I felt 9 years old again, myself.

Undoubtedly the best thing that could have happened to the franchise, especially after the flopped 2016-remake, was a return to the roots. The story links straight back to the original, the beloved protagonists show up (albeit briefly) and the co-writer/director is none other than the son of Ivan Reitman; - Jason. "Afterlife" is chock-full of gimmicks references towards the original, varying from subtle to plain obvious. The young cast members are refreshing, and fit wonderfully well in the "Ghostbusters" universe, but it feels even better to reconnect with the old-fashioned familiar trumps, like the legendary Ghostbusters-vehicle and - of course - the Ray Parker Jr. Theme song. The homage to Harold Ramis, one of the creators of the original concept and the only cast member who passed away, is beautiful.

The first 'Ghostbusters' is one of the most beloved movies of my childhood. The second one gets critized sometimes but I think it's as good as the first. Let's forget that embarrassing awful movie that took place in the 2010's and finally focus on this one: THE TRUEST THIRD MOVIE OF 'GHOSTBUSTERS'. I had no hype for this one (mostly because of the trainwreck that out-of-place-2010's movie), but I felt somewhat compelled to give the benefit of the doubt and realise if my fears were right or wrong... I'll tell you this: watch this movie!

It is a heartfelt, coherent and fun story that pays respect to its roots and moves forward the saga on a loving way. The plot hasn't been revealed too much because of a key reason and even if someone has been sadly spoiled, when that part occurs in silver screen is just downright marvelous. But not just that peak: the movie has several peaks. The characters were much, much better than I expected thanks to great and compelling performances. Finally we go back to some terror and some suspenseful sequences that harck back to that so damn missed old style from the eighties. The CGI is good, the soundtrack is on point and the script never dragged to me.

All in: a pleasent surprise. If the story ends here, it is the best finale they ever could have pulled off. Whatever happens in the future, this movie made its work so right and so enjoyable (with a truly emotional ending in which I cried) and that's all that matters. This is a joyful, emotional throwback call that must be seen!