By absolutely wanting to pay tribute to his father’s films while delivering a new story, Jason Reitman takes his feet in the carpet.
• Read also: Paul Rudd, sexiest man in the world
• Read also: 25 movies to watch this fall: Hollywood releases heavy artillery
Directed by Ivan Reitman, Jason’s father, the first two Ghostbusters are timeless classics, born from the imagination of Dan Aykroyd. So there was only the son to be able to take over the father’s work without risking harsh criticism from the “fans”, as had been the case with the Ghostbusters by Paul Feig, released in 2016.
Ghostbusters: the afterlife is therefore first and foremost a tribute. There are dialogues taken from the originals, the same accessories – the range of machines, the costumes – as well as an appearance by the actors – the film is also dedicated to Harold Ramis. In short, the son claims to be from the father in order to avoid any damage.
Then there is the other Ghostbusters: the afterlife. The revival (“reboot”) with its new story, its teenagers, its black humor, its jokes – sometimes frankly funny -, and the return of ectoplasms, including the “Marshmallow Man” redesigned very effectively for the occasion.
Here the viewer follows Callie (Carrie Coon) and her two children, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Phoebe (McKenna Grace), a truly gifted apprentice scientist. When Callie’s father dies suddenly – yes, she is Egon Spengler’s daughter – she inherits her home in Summerville deep in Oklahoma … and finds herself confronted by Gozer. And Paul Rudd as a really lazy teacher who just shows horror movies to his students is a great find.
But the mixture quickly smacks of easy recipe. Ghostbusters: the afterlife, co-written with Gil Kenan, is nothing more than a lazy capitalization of a cinematic success, iconic reference of Generation X. By falling into the trap of a relaunch claiming at all costs of the originals, Jason Reitman forgets to breathe soul into his long (really too long at 124 minutes) footage. He therefore avoids the turnip, but does not meet the expectations.
Rating: 3 out of 5