Ghostbusters: Legacy

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.

I'll be honest, after the last Ghostbusters movie, I wasn't keen on it, reluctantly I went along, and have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It feels like a worthy successor to the original film, it doesn't just ignore the past, it supports it. I would advise seeing the original movie ahead of this, as there is a lot of nostalgia surrounding it. I feel like they wanted it to respect the original, that it does.

Some really nice special effects, a few perhaps not so good, but that's just me being picky. A good atmosphere, and a really good pace, there's nothing slow about the film, it doesn't lull, nor did it feel overlong. It's a bit goofy, it doesn't take itself too seriously.

Great to see some old, familiar faces, if you're a fan of the original, you really will love the nostalgia vibe. Paul Rudd was awesome I thought, he stood out for me.

8/10.

Much better than the reboot but doesn't even come close to the first 2. The original had a very "flavorful" cast and I think that's what made them so good. Like, had they cast this crew in the original films I highly doubt they would have been as good as they are.

In the end I still enjoyed it but it seemed for like a Fan Film kind of tribute than an actual 3rd installment.

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.

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.