Change Your Image
mosquitor
Reviews
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)
Well-intentioned but misguided
I'll start by saying this: I came away from this film feeling emotional. There was a lot about its closing stages that was deeply moving, and many will come away from this film with warm tears in their eyes. Tears of nostalgia, sentimentality and love for the legacy of Ghostbusters.
The problem is: many will be blinded by these tears as to just how many flaws this film has, and how the writing and plot developments are often plain poor and illogical. The more I thought about it afterwards, the more I realized the cons of this movie outweigh the pros, and we should not allow sentimentality and our thirst for nostalgia to cloud our perspective of downright poor movie-making.
One thing is for certain: if Jason Reitman intended this film as a 'passing of the torch to a new generation' film, then he failed miserably. The new junior Ghostbusters are flat, bland, one-dimensional and completely uninteresting, and I can't imagine anyone being all that excited to see more action from this team. All they really do is build things up for the eventual climax involving the return of the original Busters, and once Bill Murray and crew appear they grab the spotlight straight off the younger cast members and remind us just how much better the original crew were.
The first act is fairly slow-paced, gradually unravelling the mystery around the central family's links to the original Ghostbusters, the second picks up a bit and you think for a while this may actually be going somewhere good, then the shambolically-executed third act manages to be both intensely moving and truly awful at the same time. Unfortunately, the former cannot excuse the latter.
The 'new' characters for one are one-dimensional and bland; Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd serve as the 'Dana' and 'Louis' figures respectively, both are wasted and given little in the way of intriguing development. McKenna Grace is given the bulk of the action as the leader of the new junior Ghostbusters team, but she's little more than a miniature Egon Spengler clone with few distinguishable character traits of her own. And when it comes to ghosts, there's surprisingly few of them and the ones we do see are either plain unimaginative or lifted straight out of the original film. While the idea of the Shandor Mining Corporation is a neat touch in principle, it seems completely unnecessary other than to enable a whole load of fan service and increasingly desperate reworking of moments and dialogue from the first film. It would have been a far better move to have given us completely new ghosts with a new spectral entity at the epicentre rather than retread old ground ad nauseam. And there is absolutely NO reason for the mini-Stay Pufts to be in it other than hopeless fan service verging on parody. The plot does not call for them whatsoever.
For a time the film drifts into a mindless special effects extravaganza and gives the feel more of a generic fantasy action movie than a Ghostbusters film. Once the original guys appear then it's sentimentality galore and lots of loving tributes to Harold Ramis and the legacy of the first film... but while there are some very moving moments, they belonged in a better movie than this. And there are a few points that may cause die hard fans of the original two movies to raise an eyebrow, particularly concerning the character of Ray Stantz, who in my opinion comes closest here to being bang out of character.
Ultimately, it's hard to fathom exactly what Jason Reitman was thinking with this film, for it's far too heavily reliant on the viewer having seen the first movie in order to get anything from it, any newcomers to the franchise will only think 'what exactly did I just watch?' and it seems to serve little purpose other than being an overly fan fiction-y love letter to his dad's film, that feeds the nostalgia bug far too heavily. Interestingly I have read that he and Ivan Reitman actually clashed over the direction he was taking this film in, and I'm left thinking, maybe you should have listened to daddy. The Ghostbusters are better off in his hands.
I never would have thought I'd say this, but - Paul Feig's 2016 all-female reboot was a better film. For all its flaws, that film at least tried something new and gave us fun and memorable characters who had strong potential. It's probably unfortunate that the proper GB3 was not made back in the 90s as was originally intended, and the franchise may not be in the mess it's in today, but what is ultimately clear is - it's time to retire the Ghostbusters franchise. The original movie was a singular flash of brilliance that will not ever be bettered or replicated. Let's stop tarnishing its legacy with these substandard reboots and sequels. The original movie continues to stand the test of time and will be remembered far better than these well-intentioned but misguided efforts ever will, so let's celebrate its legacy without feeling we need to drag the franchise beyond its natural lifespan - because at this point, busting no longer makes me feel good.
Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense: The Corvini Inheritance (1984)
Deeply flawed and disappointing episode
*WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS*
Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense (known in the US as Fox Mystery Theatre) had some excellent episodes, some on a par with its predecessor Hammer House of Horror. Sadly, despite a very intriguing premise, The Corvini Inheritance is by far one of the weakest episodes. This is not the fault of the actors; lead performers David McCallum and Jan Francis do the best with the material they're given, but this is not enough to redeem a lacklustre script.
A major problem with the script is that the final twist, revealed right at the last moment, is far too obvious, almost from the very start. I would be surprised at any viewer who has not guessed the twist after the first ten minutes. And this brings me to the second major flaw: the characters are just far too unlikeable. David McCallum seems to be doing his best to bring out the humanity in his character of Frank Lane, extremely proficient at his job but seriously awkward and timid when it comes to human interactions, but ultimately the actions of the character are just far too creepy and suspicious from the start. There are all manner of red flags surrounding Frank, particularly the knowledge that he was far too possessive of his ex-wife, of whom Eva is apparently the spitting image, not to mention his habit of spying on all his neighbours' outside activities without ever once contemplating the ethical problems of such an activity, and how quick he is to become overhelpful and overly interested in Eva's stalker problem. Simply put, the man has 'deranged stalker' written all over him, making him particularly hard to sympathize with, and making anyone who actually does not guess the final twist look... well, really not that smart at all.
This could be helped somewhat if Eva were a likeable character, but if anything she's even more unlikeable than Frank, to the point you wonder why he's interested in her in the first place. She comes across as brash and overly standoffish from the start, and though she certainly has good cause to feel uncomfortable around Frank and spurn his romantic interest in her, she nonetheless leads him on by visiting his flat and allowing him to let her accompany him to his workplace to get away from the unsafety of her flat, before abruptly cutting off the friendship. Then when she gets a boyfriend, she goes for a man who if anything seems even creepier than Frank and even more lecherous and pushy in his advances on her, making her look cheap and shallow and extinguishing any sympathy we might have otherwise felt for her.
Then there's probably my biggest gripe of all with this episode, which only adds insult to injury given the aforementioned factors - the completely unnecessary addition of a paranormal element to the story. Although the episode is titled after the set of jewellery Frank is monitoring at work, the Corvini Inheritance itself is more of a subplot, taking second place to the plot of Frank supposedly tracking Eva's stalker, and it serves no purpose other than to add an annoying, contrived and completely pointless touch of the paranormal to a story that really does not call for invocation of the paranormal at all. Since Frank is clearly unhinged as is, there is no reason to believe he needs some ancient medieval family curse to bring out his obsessive nature and the eventual outcome of the story, and this aspect of the plot comes across as hopelessly cliched and unnecessary. Of course it's possible that the supposed paranormal activity Frank witnesses at work concerning the jewellery only takes place in his mind, which is my preferred interpretation, but either way it adds nothing to the overall plot or outcome.
And if the aforementioned subplot is unnecessary, the episode certainly seems to drag at times - while most of the HHOM&S episodes were initially written to be 50 minutes in length, they were expanded when the show was instead given a 75-minute time slot to allow a 'Movie of the Week' feel, resulting in some of them dragging unnecessarily, and that problem definitely shows here.
Ultimately, with the final outcome and subsequent twist, both of which we saw coming and are likely to shock no-one, the viewer is left completely unsurprised and empty, not helped by the fact the characters have been so unsympathetic that it's hard to care what happens to them at all.
The Corvini Inheritance definitely had an intriguing premise and there should have been a great story in there. Unfortunately it is executed so poorly and in such an uninspired manner that it ranks easily among the weakest of Hammer's 80s output.
The Sins of Dorian Gray (1983)
Beautiful and haunting update of Wilde's classic.
A beautiful modernized version of the Oscar Wilde classic, in which Belinda Bauer gives a moving and poignant performance as the title character, here a female model led astray by the temptations of evil in a sharp allegory of the real-life corruption of celebrity culture and the rich and famous. Anthony Perkins also gives a memorable performance as Henry Lord, the movie's answer to Wilde's legendary Lord Henry Wotton, here a fashion tycoon who takes advantage of Dorian's youthful naivety to seduce her into his corrupt view of life. Despite the modern setting, the storyline's structure is surprisingly close to Wilde's original novel with almost every character, major and minor, given a modern-day equivalent in the narrative. Dorian's gradual descent into total corruption and malevolence is depicted perfectly, as is the eventual destruction of the world and people around her.
A haunting, eerie and dreamlike atmosphere prevails throughout the movie, and the film's answer to the novel's portrait- a screen test on a gigantic screen that grows more repulsive with each sin Dorian commits- is genuinely creepy and disturbing. The beautiful and haunting theme song, sung exquisitely by Lisa D'Albello, is truly stunning and enhances the film's captivating atmosphere perfectly. As each cast member turns in an excellent performance, the film should have the viewer literally on the edge of their seat as it approaches its destructive climax, ending of course on a tragic note that strangely leaves us feeling somehow more sorry for the debased Dorian, and even for Henry (who seems to have mellowed from his corrupt ways after witnessing Dorian's decline), than in the novel.
While some viewers may naturally object to the radical shift in style from Wilde's classic, along with the feminization and thus heterosexualization of the lead character, and of course the absence of Wilde's legendary quotes, this should not dissuade anyone from viewing the film, which is executed as perfectly as could have been possible. Although the film was made for the big screen, it was unfortunately only ever shown on TV due to lack of interest and is virtually unknown to this day. This is a shame, for The Sins of Dorian Gray is a truly beautiful, moving and haunting film that ranks easily among the best ever filmic interpretations of Wilde's novel. A true overlooked work of beauty that should not be missed.
Victor Frankenstein (1977)
It's Alive! Oh My God, I have created a... colossal bore.
This made-for-TV version of the Frankenstein legend attempts with all good intention to be a thoroughly faithful version of Mary Shelley's novel. And that it certainly manages... but leaves character development, suspense and emotional depth somewhere by the wayside.
Mindlessly translating the events of the book page-by-page to the screen, the film neglects to cover its characters in any emotional depth. Leon Vitali is a great bore as Victor Frankenstein (while unattractive enough that he may have been better cast in the role of the monster!), while the creature itself lacks all of its traditional sympathetic traits. The frightened, misguided and hurt creature of the novel and most movie adaptations is here just a banal, generic villain who isn't even that monstrous in appearance. As is sadly the case with even a lot of the better adaptations of the story, his alleged ugliness and deformity is so minor and subtle that it's hard to fathom how anyone could be scared of him based purely on his appearance. Here he resembles a lipstick-wearing rocker rather than any kind of monster... not only would he barely turn heads if placed on the street but he'd probably get all the goth and rock chicks swooning for him! Supporting cast members add nothing to the whole sorry affair either- Elizabeth, in her minimal number of scenes, is particularly annoying and you wonder why she keeps insisting on marrying Victor when they don't share a single intimate or affectionate moment throughout the whole movie and she's done nothing but complain about how he doesn't love her enough.
As a previous reviewer mentioned, the bizarre lack of incidental music does not help the film in the slightest, the camera angles and directing style are unimaginative and create no suspense, and ultimately we end up just not caring what happens to any of these characters in the end. The only real moments of genuine entertainment along the way are a few unintentionally funny moments of bad acting.
As it stands, this amateurish production is by far the weakest of all the numerous TV versions of the story, and is for completists only. For anyone wishing to see a good solid version of Mary Shelley's classic tale, skip this and go for the two far superior TV versions from 1973, namely the legendary "Frankenstein: The True Story" and the brilliantly acted Dan Curtis-directed version starring Bo Svenson.