GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE - Not Afraid Of No Glorified Cameo!

Now playing at a haunted, slimy multiplex near you:

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE

(Dir. Jason Reitman, 2021)

Since the 1989 release of GHOSTBUSTERS 2, there have been a head-spinning multitude of attempts to continue the series largely derailed by Bill Murray’s reluctance to revive his wise-cracking character of Dr. Peter Venkman. Yet, Murray did appear, in a different role, in Paul Feig’s 2016 female-led reboot, as did many members of the original cast despite it being a non canon entry.

 

But Feig’s film bombed, and angered fans, so we’re supposed to forget it exists, and embrace what’s being billed as an authentic GHOSTBUSTERS movie, one that exists in the same universe as the first two films, is filled with musical ques from Elmer Bernstein’s iconic score (now rendered by composer Rob Simonsen), is littered with callbacks to the 1984 classic including the reappearance of the Ectomobile (Ecto-1), and, most importantly, re-unites our proton pack wearing, spirit-capturing/entrapping, and beloved buddies, the real Ghostbusters (incidentally the name of an ‘80s animated series – whew, this franchise is ginormous!).

 

Thing is, if you’re buying a ticket to see Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and other returning cast members like Sigourney Weaver, and Annie Potts, you’re going to have to wait through most of the movie to get to them (ok, you don’t have to wait very long to get to Potts).

 

Not that this is a bad thing as it’s admirable that Reitman, and co-writer Gil Kenan wanted to establish a new ensemble including geeky teen Fin Wolfhard (who at times makes this feel like a super-sized episode of Stranger Things, an episode of which even had him wearing the Ghostbusters uniform), his just as geeky sister played by Mckenna Grace (whose hairstyle is overly familiar), and their exasperated mother portrayed by Carrie Coon.

 

There’s also a budding love interest for Grace, Logan Kim who’s named Podcast, for cuteness sake; Celeste O’Connor as Wolfhard’s crush, and, thank the heavens, Paul Rudd, bring the hip charm as a science teacher, who educates the kids about how the Ghostbusters saved New York with their unbelievably powerful paranormal activity.

 

As the kids learn that their broken down Oklahoman farm house (described as “Apocalyptic” by their mother), was once owned by their grandfather, Egon Spengler (originally played by the late, great Harold Ramis), they encounter a round of paranormal pursuits they can call their own.

 

Rudd is plagued by an army of tiny Stay Puff Marshmellow men, and then a terror dog named Vinz Clortho that possesses him, while Coon gets the Zuul makeover. This puts Rudd and Coon into the Rick Moranis, and Weaver parts, which even includes a recreation of the ascending stairway from the first one, though this time up the side of an ominous mountain.

 

So it’s up to the new breed of apparition hunters to take on these supernatural baddies, but don’t worry, they are joined by you know who. Unfortunately the guys that most of us are going to this movie to see only appear in the last 10 minutes, with a minimum of dialogue. Murray only gets four-five one-liners, tops, and we don’t get a story as to how they re-grouped to get there. Any of these guys' talk show appearances is bound to have more substance than their glorified cameo here.

But their appearance does work, and it’s nice that the filmmakers even found a way to include Ramis, who the movie is dedicated to.

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE may lack the laughs of the 1984 effort, and it may rely too much on plot points and story beats from that one too, but it’s a spirited (sorry), and a heartfelt tribute brought forth by a group of likable kids. I do miss some of the edge that was there before, and, of course, wish there was more material featuring Murray and Company, but at least there’s a during-the-credits scene with Venkman and Dana Barrett that’s worth sticking around for.

So this valiant venture to conclude the GHOSTBUSTERS trilogy is a warm and fuzzy follow-up, even if it most likely won’t come, see, or kick anybody’s ass.

Postnote: The picture above is of Murray donning the Ghostbusters outfit at the Spike Scream Awards in 2010. I’m using it here as pics of he, and his old buddies from the new flick are hard to come by.

More later....

GROUNDHOG DAY Is A Genre, And I’m Okay With That

 

During the last several months , one movie has been brought up a lot during the pandemic: GROUNDHOG DAY. Obviously this is because many of us have been quarantined since March, and it feels like we’re repeating the same day over and over just like Bill Murray’s character, weatherman Phil Connors, in the 1993 Harold Ramis comedy classic.

In the 27 years since its release, GROUNDHOG DAY’s popularity has grown as it has become shorthand for overly repetitive situations (it was even referred to as such in a speech by President Bill Clinton in 1996), an Award-winning Broadway Musical, a video game, and, most importantly for our purposes, a genre. 

One early example is Tom Tykwer’s excellent 1998 thriller RUN LOLA RUN. While it would be wrong to say that the German director’s movie is indebted to Ramis’s as it has its own themes and vibe, it still belongs to the genre as it largely concerns seeing its protagonist Lola (Franka Potente) maneuver through the same series of events in different ways. In the frenetic film, Lola is racing against the clock to save her boyfriend’s life, and it seems that Lola is aware of her repeated predicament.

Other GROUNDHOG DOG-styled thrillers followed including PRIMER, SOURCE CODE, DAY BREAK, and a number of less memorable movies, but the one that stands out from the crowd was Doug Liman’s 2014 sci-fi action film EDGE OF TOMMORROW (terrible generic title that was marketed on DVD/Blu ray as LIVE DIE REPEAT). The movie features Tom Cruise playing against type as a cowardly Army Major who gets caught up in a time loop while fighting aliens.

With the help of a superb Emily Blunt, also playing against type as a tough as nails Special Forces soldier, Cruise’s character evolves into a fighting machine and conquers the day just like you knew he would. EDGE, or LIVE, is a clever take on the GROUNDHOG DAY genre with an over-active inventiveness that makes it never feel like a retread.

Not as successful, but still entertaining, is Christopher Landon’s 2017 horror comedy mystery HAPPY DEATH DAY. Set at a college in New Orleans, Jessica Rothe wakes up to find herself reliving the day she was murdered (her birthday) and having to figure out who killed her so that the time loop will stop looping. At one point, GROUNDHOG DAY is referenced by her would be boyfriend (Israel Broussard), who’s stunned to hear that Rothe’s protagonist has never heard of the film (or Bill Murray either). HAPPY DEATH DAY is a fast paced, and fun throwaway, but it really didn’t need a sequel, HAPPY DEATH DAY TO U (2019).

After a brief theatrical run, a movie premiered this summer on Hulu called PALM SPRINGS, starring Andy Samberg, and Cristin Milioti, which applied the GROUNDHOG DAY blueprint on a rom com largely taking place at a wedding. One difference this time is that Samberg’s character is already in the infinite time loop when the story begins. Milioti gets trapped in the loop with Samberg, but she is more determined to get out of it, while he mainly downs beer after beer and makes slacker-minded wisecracks. 

This is another movie which finds ways to go in different directions with the premise, and is a fine, funny addition to the GROUNDHOG genre. It may be as disposable as HAPPY DEATH DAY, but it’s an amusing diversion that I enjoyed watching on a recent depressingly repetitive night under lockdown.

On the television front, many shows have done GROUNDHOG DAY-themed episodes including Supernatural, The X-Files, Doctor Who, Fringe, Xena: Warrior Princess, Star Trek, Stargate, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mindy Project, Charmed, and many more. But the 2019 Netflix series, Russian Doll, gets extra kudos for making a whole series out of the Déjà vu device. 

Natasha Lyonne (who co-created the show with Amy Poehler, and Leslye Headland) stars as a New Yorker who keeps getting killed then finding herself back in a friend’s bathroom at her 36th birthday party (like HAPPY DEATH DAY, the repeating day takes place on the protagonist’s b-day). 

As the cynical, exasperated Nadia, Lyonne makes for a compelling character, and the NYC hipster scene is a perfect backdrop for the variously changing situations. Glad to hear that Russian Doll has been renewed for a second season.

So GROUNDHOG DAY is definitely its own genre, and I for one think that’s a good thing. Folks who might complain that its cementing a formula that will become more and more predictable, I would argue that there are many formulas that have been overdone and yet still stand. Sure many of them suck, but every now and then some new creative juice is injected into them and the form becomes fresh again.

The time loop premise of Ramis’ comic masterpiece (co-written by Danny Rubin) is a flexible one with as many infinite possibilities as there often are time loops in the premises themselves.

The cherry on the top of the cake is that it was just announced that GROUNDHOG DAY will be resurrected as a TV series. The funny thing is that the project is planned as a sequel to the 1993 taking 30 years after the original. The only cast member that’s been announced so far is Stephen Tobolowsky, who played the annoying insurance agent Ned Ryerson the first time around.

Here’s hoping the producers of the TV reboot will capture at least some of surreal spirit and hilarious humor of the original. If not, it looks like we’ll have infinite alternates for time after time to come.

More later...

NEIGHBORS: A High Concept Comedy That Never Becomes Overwhelmed By Its Concept

Guest reviewer William Fonvielle, of the blog Filmvielle, takes on:

NEIGHBORS (Dir. Nicholas Stoller, 2014)

Well how 'bout that. Lend it to this silly battle of Seth Rogen versus Zac Efron to produce the unofficial State Of The American Comedy. Raucously funny, tightly paced, and oddly thoughtful without being oppressively so, NEIGHBORS is one of those comedies where so much of what matters clicks, you're even willing to forgive the few parts that don't.

If it carries with it any sort of dread, it's only the countdown to the inevitable horrible sequel that doesn't understand any part of what made the original special.

An oddly omnipresent theme in recent comedies, particularly those produced or directed by Judd Apatow, is the need for adolescent males to leave their childish habits behind. The 40-year-old virgin accepted that he could no longer substitute action figures for companionship.

Rogen in KNOCKED UP didn't shirk the lifetime of responsibilities from his one-night stand. Instead of moping over his break-up in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (also directed by Nicholas Stoller), Jason Segel focuses his energy into his dream project about puppet vampires.

It's a simple concept, getting surprising mileage because each of these respective movies seems to genuinely believe what it's preaching. And it's not without lineage. If, as everyone suggests, Apatow is the closest we have to a Harold Ramis heir, then his movies are a direct continuation of Ramis' "snobs vs. slobs" classics (STRIPES, ANIMAL HOUSE, etc). Not an exact echo, mind you. Just carrying the torch further down the road - Apatow's movies relish the sight of grown men getting into mischief, but they invariably arrive at the point in the third act when enough is enough and it's time to grow up.

So where does that leave NEIGHBORS here in 2014? On the surface, you have a classic Ramis battle. A rowdy frat house (led by a shockingly adept Efron), whose bongs puff smoke with the same thoroughness as their stereos blast loud music, move in to the house next to a young newlywed couple (Rogen and Rose Byrne). The bros dreams of partytime antics so legendary, they can land on their frat's wall of fame. The young couple wants nothing more than blissful, suburban peace for themselves and their infant daughter. Snobs and slobs, enter the ring!

Wait a sec, though. Stoller immediately subverts expectations by casting Rogen not as the stoner party animal, but as half of the husband/wife team. That's right. Seth Rogen, once among the freakiest of the Freaks And Geeks, now convincingly stands as a movie's bastion of adulthood. Essentially, Stoller and screenwriters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O'Brien take their standard Ramis frame, plug in Apatow's favorite Boy Who Must Grow Up into the role of Boy Who Already IS Grown Up, and make that character and his wife the audience surrogate. 

And are the couple's demands really that extreme? They're not against partying. Hell, the movie opens with them brazenly having sex in the living room while their wide-eyed child gazes on. They're just trying to create a normal life for themselves in the process.

Ultimately this results in neither a Ramis cautionary tale of excess partying (where there are no consequences) or an Apatow cautionary tale of excess adolescence (in which there are no consequences for a while, until there are), but an impressive summation of both. There is where American comedy was. NEIGHBORS shows you where it leads.

All the more impressive is that Stoller doesn't club you over the head with this either. With each passing movie he grows more skilled as a true director of comedy. Not a mere assembler of scenes, but a director. A director makes the hard choices. He knows when to let his talented performers riff, and more importantly, he knows when to judiciously bring the editing blade down. The movie contains a few fantastic examples of actors running with a concept (witness Efron and frat brother Dave Franco's bit on bros vs. hos), but it still runs a tight 96 minutes and damn well means it. Apart from any scholarly examination you or I might bring to the table, this is fundamentally a movie that sprouts from a solid concept, embodies it with distinct characterizations, then honestly follows those characters and that concept as far as they go.

A comedy that decided what it wanted to be and made choices along the way to make that happen.

And by the end, Stoller and his team prove themselves adept at the fine art of having their cake and eating it too. After two acts that take great relish in the joy of watching mischief, an uneasy feeling began a-boiling in my stomach. Stoller and his writers overall did a nice job of adding layers to their characters along the way - Efron fears graduating college and entering a world where he doesn't matter, while Rogen and Byrne worry that becoming a couple who just wants a night of peace with their kid means their youth is effectively killed. All this works nicely as background to the action.

But will NEIGHBORS unfortunately remember that a story requires an end, and then fall into the trap of blatantly Imparting A Lesson? 

What makes NEIGHBORS so impressive is as it arrives at the finish line, it manages to simultaneously hit the gas while leaning on the brakes. The bawdy, lets-have-a-good-time nature of the movie never lets up. If anything, it only escalates. But Stoller ultimately never sides with anyone, and he takes a step back with these characters, by now so well established, and allows us to see things from everyone's point of view.

When Rogen and Byrne finally lie in bed in the end and lovingly coo over such boring things as the smell of freshly ground coffee, it plays not as a joke. NEIGHBORS means it. But when Efron gazes at the extremest of the extreme party he hath wrought as a source of genuine pride and accomplishment, it plays not as a moment of pity. NEIGHBORS means that too. Stoller never actively judges nor supports any one character. Instead he has the temerity to suggest they might both be right, a concept he subtly weaves between the laughs. There's a place for partying, there's a place for adulthood, and they both matter.

One hell of a juggling act, this movie is. It's a high concept comedy that never becomes overwhelmed by the concept. It's a loving embodiment of both the Ramis and Apatow schools of comedy while simultaneously tweaking the formulas in both small and meaningful ways (lets not gloss over the fact that instead of a shrill nag, the lead female is Rogen's equal partner in crime). And it's a movie that will make you cackle to the point of missing lines.

All NEIGHBORS had to do was make us laugh. How nice that it decided to do more.

More later...