To be fair, the sentiment attached to the title of this post could/should be applied to every piece of entertainment that comes out today. This just happens to be the most recent movie that benefits from the bottomed-out expectations of the movie going audience. And, to be clear, I am not free from this sentiment. Having consumed my big screen red pill in 2014 I, too, thirst for entertainment, any entertainment at all, that is not simply radical left-wing agitprop. The thirst is so strong that even I, at times, have completely ignored actual movie quality for the sake of just finding something that isn’t drenched in woke.
However, as with The Suicide Squad, Hollywood has not removed the woke from our diet. Instead, just like the mom that plays airplane with your vegetables, or hides them in your mashed potatoes, Hollywood has tempered the woke preaching in their films and tried to disguise it by showing it rather than preaching it.
I always hear people that preface any review by saying “I wanted to like this.” And, for a long time, I never believed them. ‘How could this guy who makes a living criticizing things honestly WANT to like anything?’ I thought. But I’m starting to change my mind on this. It is truly difficult(at least for me) to have the same negative response to every piece of entertainment I consume. But when someone keeps handing you bananas and telling you they’re oranges, you don’t just give in and agree that it’s an orange, no matter how long the joke goes on. It’s still a banana. Ghostbusters Afterlife is another banana.
And it really would be easy to join the chorus and heap praise on the show. People like you more when you say good things. And what’s the harm in calling one or two bananas oranges? [let’s not pull at that thread]. But in future generations, when cinematic historians are spelunking through the digital caves and rediscovering entire eras of entertainment, I think it’s only fair that we be honest. Afterall, it would be impossible for these historians to get an accurate view of society’s progression when they discover that Ghostbusters Afterlife held a more favorable rating with it’s audience than the original?!
I will start with the good parts of the movie. And I think I could just copy/paste the “cinematography” compliment from every movie review post-2009. Hollywood is pretty good at imagery and this movie is no different. They have really perfected the ‘shiny things and loud noises’ side of things. Every once in awhile a show will come along that reminds us that they’re not all 1st round picks (what’s wrong with your lip, Superman??) but for the most part, Hollywood gets this part right.
My second compliment would have to go to Mckenna Grace. While I have plenty to say about Hollywood’s occasional tendency to hide their awful writing behind cute kids or sympathetic characters (baby green Jedi, anyone?) since, I’m already tearing down the greatest movie since sliced bread, I’ll back away from that ledge. I don’t believe I’ve seen Mckenna Grace before and, for a 15 year old, she’s an excellent. I will not go as far as the “Forget ‘for 15’ she’s the greatest of all-time evar no matter what age!!!” crowd(this is when you know smoke is being blown up your ass). I will just say she’s great for 15. 90% of the movie rests upon her performance, and she holds it together. She is a clear stand out amongst all of the actors her age and embodies the character she’s given seamlessly. I used to think that maybe children were more equipped for acting, in general, but then I remembered our grade school Christmas programs(woof!) and I dispensed with that theory.
And my last compliment(since I don’t want anyone getting the impression I liked the movie) will be the last 20 minutes of the movie. I have to believe that even the most ardent supporter of the film would have to agree that the last 20 minutes are, essentially, the whole movie. The return of the original Ghostbusters and, probably, the best tightrope performance I’ve ever seen in the handling of Harold Ramis, is the extent of the film. These callbacks, at the end, were well-done. We sit through 2 hours of modern movie misery, to be handed a little bit of ‘why we showed up’ and many, apparently, leave satisfied. For all the crap I may give the movie, I also think one universal agreement will be that the arrival of Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Ernie Hudson at the end pushed all the buttons they were meant to.
So, since we’re already here, let’s start in on the movie’s failures. And that is everything preceding these 20 minutes. As the phrase goes from the brilliant and esteemed ‘Ya Boi Zack’ of YouTube Superstardom, ‘Watching the first 2 hours of this movie is a lot like NOT watching the first 2 hours of this movie.‘ Aside from a couple of well-executed dad jokes(over-played per the usual) it was a huge waste of time, and filled with all the atrocious writing tropes that have destroyed the comic book industry and are working their way through the rest of entertainment.
[Side Note: Lest you read this and assume me a flare for the dramatic, I assure you, I am not. Hyperbole does not wear well on me. The receipts litter the internet. Each of these tropes have extensive documented history by learned Tweeters, YouTubers, Twitchers and TikTokers.]
Right off the top, we are dealt the criminally played-out ‘single mom’ and ‘bad dad’ tropes. Has there been a movie, book, or TV show made in the last 10 years without a single mom being a major role in it? Seriously? I’m pretty sure that if an alien race were to have arrived at the edges of our galaxy in the last decade and their only observations of our species were from digitally extracting all of our entertainment, they would assume us an Asexual species; each female human being capable of reproducing all on their own. They would not be familiar with the word Husband and ‘Dad’ would be a word used to describe a bigfoot-type evil monster that we rarely see but we know is evil.
And, yes, I’m aware that the show tries to justify the ‘bad dad’ behavior in the end but, when you’re looking at a flock of 30,000 sheep, you really don’t care, much, that one of them happens to be a dog that looks like a sheep. And to believe that the motivation for this direction in the movie had more to do with Spengler’s redemption than it did just the writers’ comfort zone, I think, would be naïve.
‘Nihilistic single mom with sarcastic kids that are outcasts, yet great at everything,’ tastes exactly like every other banana I’ve had this past decade.
Next, we have the obligatory Asian. That’s it. (Boy, did we learn the wrong lessons from The Goonies)
Next is the trope that may sound the most made up, but is not; the “Something Something Science” trope that we find with all adolescent girls. You will find this ingredient most abundant in the rotting carcass of the comic book industry, but it is no stranger to any medium. All young girls MUST be good at ‘The Science.’ And they can’t just be proficient. They must have mastery comprehension of the types of science that would put Galileo in his place. Preferably, by the age of 12. And yes, I’m aware that there is a suspension of disbelief requirement in the fact that the movie is a ‘comedy…I guess?’ And maybe, had this not been the 82nd time that I’ve seen this exact same character, I would accept this defense. But I have seen them, and it’s just as annoying this time as it was the 28th time I saw her. (And we’ll come back to the comedy thing)
Next are the bumbling idiots of this and every other film my 6-year-old niece has ever seen; the men(boys). And this movie struggled with their bumbling men. Because, while it is of the utmost importance that we demonstrate how inept men are, we must also push our fecal plot forward. And to do that, these men are gonna have to do some stuff.
I’m not a Stranger Things guy, so I don’t have any experience with Finn Wohlford. But it was clear they had absolutely no idea what to do with his character in the movie. It felt like a producer called up the writers when then script was done and said “we got one of the Stranger Things kids, get him in it.” Flummoxed about how to give him a role in a movie that’s all about Pheobe (whom clearly has single-child vibes) they decided to just add a stupid boy and make him do the stupid boy things that all stupid boys do. Oh, but with a “vaguely ethnic” girl interest.
The way they wrote his character seemed, to me, like having an unwelcome splotch on a painting, and then highlighting the splotch and drawing an arrow to it. They show how klutzy and bad he is with girls. The girl displays nothing but contempt for him the entire time, yet they become sweethearts anyway? This, combined with the lack of any type of chemistry between the two actors only underscored the train wreck. And, after assigning him the ‘dumb older brother who couldn’t pass his driving test’ role, they, then decided to use him to get the Ectomobile (member-berry) back up and running, so he had to be a whiz mechanic as well. Whatever.
Paul Rudd? Well, they needed him to be smart, because our single mom needs a suitable mate. So, he’s a scientist. But he’s got to be a dumb scientist who shows horror movies to kids while he teaches summer school and is, certainly, way dumber than the 14-year-old new girl in class. Oof.
[Side Note: I love Paul Rudd. I don’t care if every character is I Love You, Man. It’s been 12 years and I still like it, every time.]
They, of course, have to break character at the end, when the movie transitions to ‘Fan Service: Afterlife.’ Having Spengler’s ghost be the ultimate hero was the thing that probably surprised everyone the most. And let’s be honest. Stakes could not have gotten higher when not even the minority teenage girl that showed up to save the day wasn’t enough to conquer the threat!
And that’s about the extent of it. I can’t emphasize enough that these tropes are not ones that came from the top of my head. I’m sure there are different terms for each one; I, personally, read from the dictionary of ‘Ya Boi.’ They are so abused and uninteresting that I long for the days of the cheesy one-liners.
But, putting all of that aside (which I won’t), the fact that the movie didn’t really know what it wanted to be was just as distracting for me. I think I might understand why the creators behind the 2016 debacle elected to go for a straight-up satirical take on the classic. To me, that’s the only thing you can do. The original Ghostbusters threaded an unmanageable needle between satire and science fiction. But to call it “SNL does SyFy” would not do it full justice. And for its part, this movie struggles mightily to thread that needle. Clearly, the movie does not take itself very seriously…for much of it. But where, at times, it wants to be characterized as almost a spoof, at others it wants to be counted as a serious comedy. And you can’t do both. The family element (the part that most probably appreciate) somehow felt forced. And the one thing that the movie does NOT want you to call it- a Cash Grab– is undoubtedly the flavor you had to be left with at the end.
So, no, I do not think this is a ‘good’ movie. I do not think “well, at least it’s not woke!” And I do not identify with the “Well, at least it’s a family film. We don’t get enough of those” crowd either. None of these sentiments cut the mustard for me(plus, it’s PG-13). And I, honestly, don’t think they would for anyone else, either, if it wasn’t 2021. The picture I posted above, I think, shows just how ridiculous our expectations have gotten. Even if a person liked this movie, there’s not a person alive, or dead, that would consider it a better movie than the original, right?
This movie felt like a Disney Channel Original Movie, back before the sterilization of that channel. It was a kids’ movie with a Ghostbuster theme. And that would be fine enough…for a 15-year old…on a Thursday night…after their homework was done…and nobody was on MSN Messenger. If that were the genre they were aiming for, I’d give it 2-Thumbs-Way-Up!
AgingMillenial 