Ghostbusters Afterlife Review

4.5 Stars

It's been 32 years since the Ghostbusters saved the city of New York from Vigo the Carpathian.   After their second successful standoff against a supernatural threat to humanity, the Ghostbusters began to quickly lose business.  It's not that nobody wanted them.  Nobody needed them.  Ghost sightings dwindled until there was just no business left.  Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) went back into academics.  Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) became a successful business man.  Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) went back to running his Occult Bookstore.  Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) severed all ties to his team and his family.  Somewhere along they way, he had a daughter Callie (Carrie Coon).  Egon predicted another humanity-threatening supernatural apocalypse.  He took all their equipment and went to the source of the future destruction: Summerville, Oklahoma.  The Ghostbusters never talked to him again.  His daughter never knew him.  The residents of Summerville thought he was just a crazy dirt farmer.  And that's where Ghostbusters Afterlife begins.  

Egon Spengler is seen racing away from Shandor's mine in his pickup truck.  A full ghost trap on the seat next to him.  A none-too-pleased spook chasing him.  Spengler leads the ghost to his farm.  A trap to catch the spirit.  A trap that fails and costs Egon his life.  To his estranged daughter Callie and grandchildren Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), he had a heart attack and left them nothing more than his worthless farm and a mountain of debt.  Not exactly what Callie needed having just been evicted from her current apartment, unable to keep up with the bills.

Coming to grips that this run down shack is now their home, Callie and her kids attempt to make the best of their situation.  Callie begins sorting through her dad's "junk", Trevor gets a job at the local burger shack, and Phoebe enrolls in summer school where she meets Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd).  Immediately, they find equipment left behind by Egon, they begin seeing inexplicable phenomenon, and there are seismic rumblings that don't make sense.  Mr. Grooberson recognizes the equipment and shows the children video footage of who the Ghostbusters were.  It is soon revealed, they are the direct descendants of Egon Spengler, the Ghostbuster. 

Ghostbusters Afterlife is being hailed as the sequel fans have always wanted.  And for good reason.  After the success of Ghostbusters 2 in 1989, several writing efforts went into making a 3rd installment, but some of the cast (namely Bill Murray) were more than just a little hesitant.  In 2016, instead of a sequel, a reboot was made and failed to deliver the same magic.  The original team got to work and created Ghostbusters Afterlife.

Ghostbusters Afterlife is truly a family reunion project.  It was directed by Jason Reitman (son of the original director Ivan Reitman); it was written by Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman and Dan Aykroyd; it was produced by Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd; and the list of appearances from the original films include Sigourney Weaver, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, the Ghost-mobile Ecto1, and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.  What more could you want?  

The biggest question I had going in to the film was the kids.  They're young, but they're seasoned veterans and this style of film should be right in their wheelhouse.  Finn Wolfhard is best known for his roles in Stranger Things and the modern Stephen King's It.  Mckenna Grace has an even longer resume with roles in The Handmaid's Tale, Designated Survivor, Ready Player One, and Amityville: The Awakening.  Neither are strangers to the big screen and both have experience in the spooky and the supernatural.  They were perfectly believable as the two Ghostbuster descendants fully capable of picking up the proton packs on their backs to carry on the legacy.

The story is the same plot line as the original.  Gozer the Gozerian wants to take over the world and needs the help of The Gatekeeper and The Keymaster to do so.  In the original, it was Dana Barrett (Weaver) and Louis Tully (Rick Moranis).  In Afterlife, it's Callie and Mr. Grooberson.  The special effects were perfect.  Reitman and his effects team took the original creatures and weapons from the original but just made them so much cleaner and realistic.  

I gave Ghostbusters Afterlife a 4.5 Star Prediction.  Remember, my rating scale doesn't necessarily mean this will be an Oscar-worthy film.  It really has to do with how honestly the preview portrays the movie and how much I enjoyed it and want to watch it again.  And this movie delivers everything fans would want and modern movies will want to see.  It is smart, new, fresh, funny, entertaining, with just the right amount of spooky.  I am sticking with my original prediction and giving Ghostbusters Afterlife a 4.5 Star Rating.  There was just enough nostalgia for fans of the original to get their sentimental fix while still making it a movie that stands on its own for today's audience.  

I only had a few small critiques of the film.  It took me a while to warm up to Trevor.  For about half of the movie, I didn't really see the point of his character.  Half-way through, it seemed the only point he really served was that he was old enough to drive.  But then he quickly turned into a formidable Ghostbuster and I bought into him for the remainder of the film.

I have mixed feelings on Egon Spengler's appearance.  It was similar to the feeling of seeing a digital Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia at the end of Star Wars Rogue One.  It was good, very well intentioned, but just felt a little off and not quite right.  But it was still sweet and certainly done to pay huge homage to the late Harold Ramis. 

Another fun touch I think they could have worked in in a subtle way was a descendant of the antagonistic Environmental Protection Agency inspector Walter Peck (William Atherton).  His character was just so juicy and easy to hate in the first movie.  He set in motion the events that lead to the final climax and he got what he deserved in the end with a shower of exploding Marshmallow Man.  I feel like they really could have found a place for a Peck presence in this film.

And I was missing a "Bill Murray" character.  Understandably, there is no one like Bill Murray, but it was a missing element from the film.  Phoebe was a clear descendant of Egon with her mind, mannerisms and humor.  Her friend Pod Cast seemed to fit the Ray character, and they share a special bond at the end of the film.  Trevor's love interest Lucky (Celeste O'Connor) fit the Winston position as the late-comer but equal contributor to their overall success.  Grooberson and Callie seemed the modern Dana and Louis.  And then there's Trevor.  If he was supposed to be the Pete Venkman of the bunch, it was a complete failure.  It looks more like Reitman agreed that there was no replicating Bill Murray, so they didn't even try.  Not a huge deal, but a noticeably missing piece of the original movie.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Ghostbusters Afterlife for both it's nostalgia and it's originality.  There were audible cheers and laughs from the audience with the throwbacks to the original film and for the new cast and story.  It's one I'll want to watch over and over again.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

Ghostbusters Afterlife Preview

It's been 32 years since the Ghostbusters saved the city of New York from Vigo the Carpathian.  A single mother, Callie (Carrie Coon) and her two children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) are evicted from their home and move to a dilapidated farmhouse in Summerville, Oklahoma.  You'd think things would be quiet and boring in the middle of nowhere, but inexplicable earthquakes and other strange phenomena happen upon their arrival.  

From the trailer for Ghostbusters Afterlife, it looks like the kids discover some of the old Ghostbusters' equipment but have no idea what it is.  Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd) recognizes the equipment and shows the children video footage of who the Ghostbusters were.  As it turns out, there's a reason why the equipment is in their farmhouse.  It belonged to their grandfather, Egon Spengler, making them direct descendants of the Ghostbusters. 

Ghostbusters Afterlife is being hailed as the sequel fans have always wanted.  After the success of Ghostbusters 2 in 1989, several writing efforts went into making a 3rd installment, but some of the cast (namely Bill Murray) were more than just a little hesitant.  In 2016, instead of a sequel, a reboot was made and failed to deliver the same magic.  The original team got to work and created Ghostbusters Afterlife.

Even without a preview, Ghostbuster fans will be lining up to watch this long-awaited continuation.  Here's all you need to know:  it was directed by Jason Reitman (son of the original director Ivan Reitman); it was written by Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman and Dan Aykroyd; it was produced by Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd; and the list of appearances from the original films include Sigourney Weaver, BIll Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, the Ghost-mobile, and they Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.  What more could you want?  

If that wasn't enough, the preview should sell you.  Jason Reitman seems to show restraint and pay homage to the original films using the same effects for the ghost-catching equipment.  The ghostly creations just look cleaner, while still embodying the same feel of the original movies.  Modern CGI technology should enhance the effects in this installment, but not completely isolate itself from the 80's hits.  

The only question is the kids.  They're young, but they're seasoned veterans and this style of film should be right in their wheelhouse.  Finn Wolfhard is best known for his roles in Stranger Things and the modern Stephen King's It.  Mckenna Grace has an even longer resume with roles in The Handmaid's Tale, Designated Survivor, Ready Player One, and Amityville: The Awakening.  Neither are strangers to the big screen and both have experience in the spooky and the macabre.  And the preview shows them perfectly believable as the two Ghostbuster descendants fully capable of picking up the proton packs on their backs to carry on the legacy.

I am giving Ghostbusters Afterlife a 4.5 Star Prediction.  Now, remember, my rating scale doesn't necessarily mean this will be an Oscar-worthy film.  At the same time, a film I can admit should win Oscars and accolades, does not automatically mean I will give it a higher star rating.  It really has to do with how honestly the preview portrays the movie and how much I enjoyed it and want to watch it again.  I feel like, even if this wasn't somewhat of a redemption for the failure of the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot, this movie would be a huge success.  Smart, new, fresh, funny, entertaining, with just the right amount of spooky.  It's one I hope I will thoroughly enjoy for both it's nostalgia and it's originality and one I hope I'll want to watch over and over again.  So, am I right?  We shall see.

Finch Review

2.5 Stars

In the not too distant future, a massive solar flare destroys the earth's protective ozone layer resulting in the obliteration of crops and livestock.  The temperature is an average 150 degrees outside, the ultraviolet radiation is deadly, and the planet, now a post-apocalyptic wasteland, is largely uninhabitable.  Finch Weinberg (Tom Hanks) and his dog Goodyear are two of the survivors.  Finch is a robotics engineer and uses parts from his company's St. Louis laboratory to build an assistant rover, Dewey, to assist him as he scavenges for any food or resources he can find.  

Finch reads books on post-apocalyptic survival to get by and the effects of UV radiation to understand his quickly approaching fate.  He builds a robot who's prime directive is to protect the dog.  The internet is no longer available, so he scans the contents of carefully selected books to give this robot a base wealth of knowledge.  But his timetable is unexpectedly accelerated with an approaching electrical storm due to hit the next day and last for 40 days.  Finch scrambles to get the robot functional enough to flee for a safer destination.  They have no idea what or who they might encounter along the way, but they'll do it together as the robot learns to think, feel, and communicate . . . even with Goodyear.

While the Covid-19 Pandemic makes it feel like it's been a while since we've seen Hanks in a leading role, he's actually been keeping quite busy.  Finch is his fifth feature film in the last three years.  His other works have been the fourth Toy Story installment, the role of Fred Rogers in the dark and touching A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, a naval Captain in Greyhound, and a messenger of hope and current events in News of the World.

Finch looked like it could be a possible mix of Cast Away (one of Hanks' previous films about a man stranded for years on a deserted island) and Pinocchio (the next in a trend of Disney live-action remakes of animated classics in which Hanks will play Geppetto, a toy maker who builds a wooden boy companion who comes to life). On his deserted island, Hanks was kept company only by a volleyball he named Wilson, the brand of the volleyball.  In Finch, at least he has a dog that's actually alive and he builds a robot with whom he is able to communicate.  Food, shelter and other necessities were scarce on the island.  While food and water are in short supply in Finch, but he has more options for material resources, travel, and shelter.  And the environment on the island was much more hospitable than in Finch where he can be immediately severely burned from simply exposing his skin to direct sunlight.

It's unclear from the preview what the end-game is in Finch.  The impending storm forces Finch and his band to flee their shelter in St. Louis.  Using a map he has been using to keep track of areas he has surveyed and scavenged, Finch decides to head west to San Francisco hoping there might be more resources, but hopefully no people.

Finch was directed by Miguel Sapochnik.  Who? is exactly the right response to that.  This appears to be one of the few full-length feature films Sapochnik has directed as his repertoire is mostly populated with TV series.  Now, the shows he has directed have been very high caliber: Game of Thrones and True Detective, for example.  But, it still didn't give us more clues as to what we can expect from Finch as would say a director like Stephen Spielberg, Tim Burton, or Martin Scorsese.  What we got was not noteworthy.  

So, honestly, my main motivation to watch this movie was purely Tom Hanks in the leading role.  I  tepidly gave Finch a prediction of 3.5 Stars.  I am lowering that rating to 2.5 stars.  Hanks was fine.  I really think it was the script overall that was lacking in substance.  In Cast Away, Hanks developed such a relationship with the volleyball Wilson that we were brought to tears when they were ultimately separated.  That relationship was not replicated in this movie with Goodyear the dog, Dewey the scavenger rover, or the robot protector they eventually named Jeff.  And there were so many opportunities to do so.  Immediately upon having his power switch activated, Jeff has a personality, but we have no idea where he got that personality, his mannerisms, his cadence, and it never really develops from that point during the movie.  Unfortunately, he and Finch don't get to spend much time together for teaching moments as they evacuate less than a day later.   

There were so many moments where we could have seen the understanding and capacity for human thought in Jeff that just weren't there in the movie.  Instead, Jeff is somewhat of a bumbling, often annoying robot who inexplicably has a very distinct and developed personality of his own.  His cadence seems to be fashioned after the Borat character of Sacha Baron Cohen.  There were so many moments where Jeff could have slowly broken down the walls of distrust between he and the dog Goodyear.  Those moments are few and far between.  There were missed opportunities for Finch to have us buy into his relationship with Goodyear that ultimately comes down to a touching story of how they came to find each other.  And there were opportunities missed to show the importance of Dewey to Finch making a scene in which Jeff believes he is learning to do the right thing ends up resulting in tragedy that could have been very moving, just fall flat.  The music during that scene didn't help either.  

Overall, Hanks was fine.  It wasn't his best work, but I think he was limited by a mediocre script.  I wasn't expecting much going into the movie, but Finch ultimately delivered even less.  It was flat and mostly emotionless which is a shame since it stars one of the masters of character and story-telling.  It wouldn't be worth paying full-price in the theatres, I might watch it again on a rainy day for free with absolutely nothing else to do, but this won't find a home in my permanent collection.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

Finch Preview

In the not too distant future, a massive solar flare destroys the earth's protective ozone layer resulting in the obliteration of crops and livestock.  The temperature gets to 150 degrees outside, the ultraviolet radiation is deadly, and the planet, now a post-apocalyptic wasteland, is largely uninhabitable.  Finch Weinberg (Tom Hanks) and his dog Goodyear are two of the survivors.  Finch is a robotics engineer and uses what remains in his company's St. Louis laboratory to build a robot, Dewey, who's prime directive is to protect the dog.

Time is of the essence as Finch anticipates another deadly flare.  He scrambles to get Dewey functional enough to flee for a safer destination.  They have no idea what or who they might encounter along the way, but they'll do it together as Dewey learns to think, feel, and communicate . . . even with Goodyear.

While the Covid-19 Pandemic makes it feel like it's been a while since we've seen Hanks in a leading role, he's actually been keeping quite busy.  Finch is his fifth feature film in the last three years.  His other works have been the fourth Toy Story installment, the role of Fred Rogers in the dark and touching A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, a naval Captain in Greyhound, and a messenger of hope and current events in News of the World.

Finch appears to be a possible mix of Cast Away (one of Hanks' previous films about a man stranded for years on a deserted island) and Pinocchio (the next in a trend of Disney live-action remakes of animated classics in which Hanks will play Geppetto, a toy maker who builds a wooden boy companion who comes to life). On his deserted island, Hanks was kept company only by a volleyball he named Wilson, the brand of the volleyball.  In Finch, at least he has a dog that's actually alive and he builds a robot with whom he is able to communicate.  Food, shelter and other necessities were scarce on the island.  While food and water might be in short supply in Finch, it appears he has more options for material resources, travel, and shelter.  And the environment on the island seemed to be much more hospitable than in Finch where he can be immediately severely burned from simply exposing his skin to sunlight.

While I'm not sure what the end-game is in Finch from the preview, we know many things before going in to this movie, even without the preview. . . because it's Tom Hanks.  The acting will be effortless, sincere and believable.  Hanks is one of the best all-time at this and has two Oscars to back that up.  Though, personally, I think he was robbed for not even being nominated for his performances in Saving Mr. Banks and Captain Phillips, but I digress.   We also know there will be a steady balance of character development, relationship building, humor, dramatic obstacles, and tear-jerking moments along the way.

Finch was directed by Miguel Sapochnik.  Who? is exactly the right response to that.  This appears to be one of the few full-length feature films Sapochnik has directed as his repertoire is mostly populated with TV series.  Now, the shows he has directed have been very high caliber: Game of Thrones and True Detective, for example.  But, it still doesn't give us more clues as to what we can expect from Finch as would say a director like Stephen Spielberg, Tim Burton, or Martin Scorsese.

So, honestly, my main motivation to watch this movie is purely Tom Hanks in the leading role.  I'm not sure if I'd be as interested in watching this film if another actor was portraying Finch.  With that, I am tepidly giving Finch a prediction of 3.5 Stars.  It doesn't look like a film that will be nominated for Hanks' performance or for it's original script or special effects or anything else.  I'm not expecting to be blown away.  I'm expecting to smile, maybe tear up once or twice, but ultimately be entertained.  I may want to watch it again, but it probably has little chance of becoming one that I will own in my personal collection.  Am I right?  We shall see.