Spoiler "Like the ghost blowjob sequence; Afterlife is 2 hours of middle-aged men being fellated by something long expired."
I appreciate your sharing of the review so please don't take my following negative statement about the review as directed towards you in any way... Unfortunately, this review doesn't actually review the movie. The guy basically waxes poetically about the pitfalls of the premise of Afterlife, specifically the nostalgia factor behind the movie, but doesn't actually give any critical analysis of the movie. Does Afterlife have a coherent and cohesive plot? Do the actors deliver on their performances? How's the pacing? Is the score appropriate for the scenes? Are the special effects good? These questions and more aren't addressed. It would be great if reviewers/critics were more than professional opinion sharers. It would be great if they possessed any skill and understanding of the craft of film making.
Regardless of the content of the rest of your post or that review (or "review"), that's not really possible. Reviewers are professional opinion sharers. You can't be objective about things which are inherently subjective. Like whether a movie, or any given part of it, is good or not. "Good" and "bad" are subjective by definition, and thus also by definition opinions. The objective (and thus not opinion-based) aspects of a movie, if they were the only things included, would be like reading a spec sheet. It might interest those interested in only the most technical aspects ("the craft of filmmaking"), but for people looking purely for information on a movie's entertainment value it would be useless. For instance, if a reviewer talks about whether a plot is "coherent and cohesive". That's essentially just saying whether the plot it fits together and follows a logical progression. That doesn't tell you if the plot is interesting or engaging. If doesn't tell you if a plot is worth watching. The daily life of any stranger on the street is "coherent and cohesive", but in almost every case nobody would want to watch it. However if you do say whether a plot is interesting or engaging then you're giving an opinion.
The fact that a review is ultimately subjective/an opinion, doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't involve objective metrics to judge a work by. The definition of review Reviewers often lack critical analysis in their reviews. I'm advocating for inclusion of objective reasoning in reviews. A plot can be interesting and engaging as well as coherent and cohesive. It's not far fetched to indicate such qualities in a review. I didn't say that objective aspects should be the only things included in a review but they are important qualities to be included in a review. Especially when reviews are often purely subjective with little to no indication of anything approaching common markers of understandable judgment. "This is an entertaining movie!" Okay, great...why is it entertaining? It's hard to qualify such a statement without objective qualification. People are going to ask why, the review should provide an answer beyond because opinion... An actor can be said to possess pathos in their performance appropriate for the character's role in the plot. That's an opinion that could be debated but it still stems from an objective statement. It's not pure opinion with little to no descriptive framework. There are plenty of ways to incorporate objectivity in subjective reviews.
I was looking at some review headlines of GB Afterlife and they are not kind.though I never really care about movie critics. Most probably loved GB 2016. Luckily I waited for it to come to FX.
So none of these reviews really say anything about the plot. Does the whole thing take place in this sleepy little town? It feels underwhelming to have Gozer attack Nowheresville, Kansas, after New York. Honestly as someone who saw the Real Ghostbusters before watching the movies (which as a kid, I found pretty scary more than comedic) I never had that much of an attachment to these movies. I know people handle Ghostbusters as if it was the best comedy ever made, maybe it is an USA thing and it never had that impact in translation - at least I never met anyone in my country who held the first movie in such a limelight. It's a fine horror comedy but I was just never blown away by it to the levels some internet reviewers and people on forum seem to hold it in high regard like a holy grail of cinema. As such, I never found Ghostbusters 2 so bad as people say it is, it is more of the same for me, and being a Rick Moranis fan I actually liked he got more to do (even becoming a Ghostbuster, sort of) and that Slimer actually showed up as a driver instead of a ghost to be captured. The 2016 movie, though, it was utterly terrible, with unfunny improv humor and annoying characters. As for this new one, I really have no expectations and with COVID being in full swing for its latest wave, I have no inclination to watch it in theaters even after my third vaccination. It looks to be mostly trying to be Stranger Things, and I just never cared for movies with kid main characters - not even when I was a kid myself. Nostalgia Critic and Cinema Snob were all over themselves to promote the movie, but given how they also went out of their way to give thanks for the early screening invites, it feels disingenuine (I expect you need to gush about such movies or you are never given such invites again by the studio). I mean Doug is still being too careful and doesn't say he hates Ghostbusters 2016 just that it was "meh", which is ridiculous 5 years later when uniformly everyone accepts it as truth that the movie was terrible. EDIT: Found this spoiler review on Reddit. Dunno how truthful, but if so, then the plot seems really lackluster to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/q6924i/anyone_want_spoilers/ Here is another SPOILER topic. People say it's basically the first movie set in a small town and with kids. Spoiler We even have the comedic character and the main love interest turn into Terror Dogs same as the first movie. Serious lack of new ghosts other than Muncher, the others are just quick few second cameos. Gozer spent 40 years coming back and... does nothing but chill out in his/her temple on the steps? And apparently ghosts are all connected to Gozer, after he got defeated they all went away and the Ghostbusters disbanded? Guess that'd mean there is no need for them now either after the end of this movie... if what Ray says is true. Also how the hell is Ivo Shandor still around, and did we need a 17 second cameo of him played by JJ Jameson (aka JK Simmons) only for him to die immediately after releasing Gozer? Also, I know many people hate the second movie, but it feels just mean that this movie basically retcons it out of existence like the new Halloween movie did. Other than Ray's bookstore, there are no references to it happening at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbuste...ters_afterlife_worldwide_discussion/?sort=new Huh, saw the movie multiple times but never noticed their horns are different. Most toys of them depict them as the same too. Ernie aged far more gracefully than the others. Disagree. When an actor plays things horribly wooden (see the Happening), or the CGI is atrociously bad, then a reviewer can be pretty objective about this since it is there for anyone to see who watches the movie. That tells me nothing. A movie can be a nostalgia wank / overfilled with references and be a terribly written and directed mess that provides nothing else but fan-wank (like Ready Player One) or recapture an era and reference other movies, and still be a cohesive story with interesting characters (like X-Men: Days of Future past). Just because Afterlife references the old movies out the wazzoo doesn't mean it's good or bad. I need to know plot details and info about the characters and the story, whether it is interesting and well written enough. That makes or brakes things.
Pacing was terrible and I'd imagine a whole lot of people would start to tune out, waiting for the Ghostbusters to arrive but, it's not a bad movie.
Just got back and really enjoyed it. I don’t think there was any issues with the pacing but maybe 1/3rd less nostalgia callbacks would have helped. It felt a bit much. As far as scoring it I could care less what the reviewers think. It’s 95% on RT as of now and that’s good enough for me.
People are too damned ADHD these days. It's not until about ~halfway through the original films before any ghostbusting actually happens, either. Over halfway into the movie before you even see the damned shark in Jaws. Or any dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.
I enjoyed the film. It put a smile on my face. I personally would have done a few things different, but I dig it enough. Worth the wait? Eh, it’s fine. My 2nd theatrical outing since Covid. My 1sr was Halloween Sucks. This is much more satisfying.
I liked it. Is it amazing, no but it’s a decent movie and I had fun watching it. Though I admit the last few minutes is what I enjoyed the most. I figured the ghost at the end would show up and I think they did a pretty good job with the special affects there.
Like the first two ghostbusters this movie isnt a masterpiece but dam is it fun, hilarious, and heartwarming. Loved the style of comedy in this being mostly natural. Definitely laughed more at this than any recent MCU movie ive seen other than Shang-Chi. Phoebe telling bad anti-jokes had me rolling. Podcast is prolly my fav of the bunch. Was a pretty big fan of Spoiler each of the kids lightly taking a role from the previous team, phoebe = egon, Podcast = Ray, Trevor = Venkman, Lucky = Winston. Spoiler I could have done without Ivo Shandor actually being shown. I always liked him being a non faced character that was just a crazy zealot. But i liked how they explained how the metal for Danas apartment came from this town and thats what made it the ultimate gateway. The ending brought me to tears just knowing the battle that it took to even get a third script from the og team made and how they were relegated to minor roles in Answer the Call. Great stuff man. I really think this should be the last one though. No reason really to make another one cause this one just ties up everything beautifully. I do wish there had been some reference to the events of the game but i figured that might be a stretch to ask for. All in all its not as good the first one but id say its superior to 2 and ill gladly add it to the set when it arrives on bluray. edit: also gotta say i really appreciated the slow burn. Love the buildup to all the events and how the characters have to actively think about whats happening and how to solve problems. It makes them feel like actual people and not just superheroes. They have arcs and change as the movie progresses. Its excellently written in terms of that. Which all makes sense because that Jason Ritemans whole deal. He lives in the realm of slow burn dry comedies like Juno and Thank You For Smoking. Satirical but very relatable with characters that come off as having lives outside the films world. The world itself is also really well detailed, i love how every set feels very lived in, from the familys apartment in the opening to the farm house to the local diner, each set feels like a real place each rich wuth details about the characters in them even all the side characters in the background. They feel like they each have their own personality without having a ton of lines. Very distinct looking people and places communicating traits about each. I have to rewatch just to catch more details honestly. I think that shows how much care really went into fleshing out this world and its characters. This isnt just another marvel movie in computer generated warehouses and bland sets with no life to them (lookin at you eternals and black widow). The spaces shown feel lived in, they feel real. Just a wonderful movie. Not perfect, but id say very enjoyable to watch.
