This belated sequel, lovingly directed and co-written by the son of the director of the original Ghostbusters movies, is a nostalgia-packed love letter to the beloved films, that manages to successfully recapture their warmth, humour and thrills while also introducing a fresh and engaging new cast.

Premise: When Callie (Carrie Coon) and her two children, Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) and Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), are evicted from their apartment, they’re forced to move into Callie’s recently deceased father’s dilapidated farmhouse in Summerville, a small town in the middle of nowhere. But when Phoebe begins to ask her school teacher Mr Grooberson (Paul Rudd) about the mysterious earthquakes affecting the town, she learns that her grandfather was one of the original Ghostbusters, and that he came out to Summerville for a reason...

Review:

I have to be upfront from the start and say that 1984’s Ghostbusters is one of my all-time favourite films, which makes it very difficult for me to be entirely impartial about reviewing Ghostbusters: Afterlife. When I was 8 years old, I was obsessed with Ghostbusters – I would rewatch it endlessly on VHS until I could quote the entire film verbatim, and I spent my school holidays building homemade proton packs from cereal boxes and cardboard tubes. It’s held a special place in my heart ever since, and it’s still in my Top Ten list of my all-time favourite movies.

The reason I’m saying all of this, is that the original Ghostbusters (and its often underrated 1989 sequel) are sacred ground for me, which meant that I have always been wary whenever there was talk of a belated sequel, and especially any that didn’t revolve around the original team of Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson). I don’t want to spend time in this review giving Paul Feig’s 2016 reboot a kicking, but suffice to say that that reinterpretation was ultimately a disappointment, and for me, it completely failed to recapture the tone or spirit (no pun intended) of the original films.

“…a heartfelt & affectionate tribute to the original films…”

My point is that I was certainly not predisposed to liking Afterlife simply because it was a Ghostbusters film, and it anything, the weight of expectation on Afterlife could have been hard for any film to live up to. All that made it even more of a relief to discover that Afterlife is a heartfelt and affectionate tribute to the original films, that never feels like a studio-mandated attempt to cash in on the films’ legacy.

I suspect that this is due in large part to the involvement of Jason Reitman, who directed and co-wrote Afterlife. For those who don’t already know, Jason Reitman (an award-winning writer and director in his own right) is the son of Ivan Reitman, who directed Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II, and who was instrumental in establishing the tonal balance between the comedy and horror elements in those original films. Jason Reitman grew up on the set of the first two films, and even has a cameo in Ghostbusters II as the obnoxious kid who insults Ray and Winston at the children’s party. So Jason Reitman has as strong an emotional attachment to the original films as any fan could have, and his affection for that universe shines through in every aspect of Afterlife.

“… the affection that Jason Reitman has for the original films is palpable…”

Given that it’s confirmed in the opening section of the movie, I don’t think it’s a spoiler (although – mild spoiler warning – skip the rest of this paragraph if you don’t want to know anything about the plot to this film) to say that the late father of Callie (Carrie Coon), and the late grandfather of Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) and Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), is Egon. Harold Ramis sadly passed away in 2014, and given that he not only starred in the original films as Egon, but he also co-wrote both of them with Dan Aykroyd, it was only right that this film found some way to acknowledge and pay tribute to his passing. But this film does far more than that – Egon (and by extension, Harold Ramis) is the central driving force for the film, and his absence from the world is what gives the film its title.

The affection that Jason Reitman has for the original films is palpable, and Afterlife is packed full of nods to the original films and easter eggs (large and small) for fans to pick up on. In fact, if I was to make one criticism of the film (and it’s only a minor criticism), it’s that it arguably goes a bit too far in terms of paying tribute to, and riffing on, the elements from the original 1984 film. A (very) cynical viewer could even (uncharitably) say that the film is, at least in part, re-treading a lot of the same beats as the original film – but I would have to disagree with that assessment. Afterlife is not, for example, doing what Star Wars: The Force Awakens did, which was “repackage” a lot of the same plot elements and character beats from the original (A New Hope), but without acknowledging that that was what it was doing. In contrast, while Afterlife touches on a number of elements from the original 1984 film, it does so openly, and the plot even hinges around these recurring elements, rather than attempting to hide the connections to the original film’s plot.

“…recapture the tone & spirit of the original, while telling new characters’ stories…”

Equally, it would be a very hard-hearted person to criticise Afterlife for paying tribute to the original films, when it does so with such obvious love and affection. Jason Reitman grew up on the set of the original films, and the franchise is in many ways his father’s legacy, so surely we can forgive him (and the fans) for indulging in a little nostalgia and sentimentality, especially knowing that the film is dedicated to the memory of the star and co-creator of the series, the late great Harold Ramis.

I don’t want to say too much about the plot, but there’s certainly enough differences in Afterlife to make it feel separate and distinct from the original films, not least because the action all takes place in a rural mining town rather than New York City, and the main characters are school children rather than university academics. But despite the surface level changes, Afterlife does the most important thing that any Ghostbusters sequel could do, and that’s recapture the tone and spirit of the original films, even if it’s telling different characters’ stories in a different setting.

“…Phoebe is played perfectly by Mckenna Grace…”

The new cast is universally great, but I want to give a special mention to Mckenna Grace’s performance as Phoebe. On paper, the idea that the film’s main protagonist is a precocious 12-year-old genius sounds terrible, but Mckenna Grace absolutely sells it. She’s never annoying or grating in the way that some child actors can be, and in her hands, Phoebe never feels like a “Mary Sue” character either. She’s socially awkward, but she’s also incredibly endearing, and her attempts to use pre-rehearsed jokes to make friends was played perfectly by Mckenna Grace.

For me, the other revelation in the cast was Logan Kim, who pays Phoebe’s classmate. Again, on paper he sounds like a thoroughly irritating character, but Logan Kim’s performance makes him instantly likeable. None of which is meant to imply that the rest of the cast isn’t also great, but I already knew what Finn Wolfhard, Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon were capable of as actors. Finn Wolfhard in particular balances the character of Trevor perfectly, between being the cool big brother to Phoebe, but also being the younger social outcast in the eyes of the older teenagers, including his crush Lucky (played by Celeste O'Connor, who has arguably the only underwritten role in the movie). Carrie Coon, meanwhile, gets to show off her range during the course of the film, while Paul Rudd expertly juggles what is effectively both the “exposition guy” function and the “comic relief” role.

“…unashamedly a movie made by fans of the original, for fans of the original…”

As well as recapturing the emotional tone of the original film, Afterlife also manages to recreate a lot of its visual elements. While I have no doubt that the new ghosts are all CGI creations, their visual appearance and style does mimic the feel of the puppets used in the original 1980s films (whereas the 2016 reboot went all out on giving the ghosts a fully CGI feel). Even little things like the colour palettes used for the swirling spectral energies match those effects seen in the original films. I also feel that composer Rob Simonsen is the unsung hero of the movie, as he leaves his ego at the door and incorporates as much of Elmer Bernstein’s score from the original movie as possible into this sequel.

Overall, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is unashamedly a movie made by fans of the original, for fans of the original, and so if you don’t have a pre-existing relationship with the 1984 movie, you’re going to have a very different experience watching Afterlife. Don’t get me wrong, it will still hopefully be an enjoyable ride with plenty of comedy and thrills, but it’s unlikely to carry the same emotional weight. For long-time fans, however, it’s a nostalgic joy to know that the Ghostbusters are still out there, ready to believe you.