[REVIEW] “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” (2020) – The Newcomer

Written by: “The Watchman”

This is the review that I’m sure you came here to read. How does the new “Ghostbusters” outing from 2020 compare to the original two movies that it is trying to add on to? I was skeptical going into this movie, because I had heard very mixed reviews about it. The general consensus seemed to be “It’s above average, but they tried really hard, so go and watch it for that reason.” If the movie was only that good, I would have accepted it, but still been a little disappointed after watching the first two back-to-back before it. Let me tell you a little secret, though. The movie is much better than that. I loved it!

“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” has a very different feel than the original two “Ghostbusters” movies. This takes a little getting used to. It’s directed by the son of the director of the original movie, and has a little bit different aura about it. It was quite a while into the movie before I came to a conclusion about how I felt about it. There was even a point in the middle where I missed the energy of the first two movies, but that feeling would pass as I drew closer to the ending.

One notable reviewer I trust found the movie to be too full of “member berries”, callbacks to previous movies in the franchise, but I never found that to be the case. The movie has a lot of callbacks to Ghostbusters I because it has some of the same antagonists as that movie, and, in many ways, continues the plot of the original “Ghostbusters” more than it does “Ghostbusters II”. Taking that into account, I never found its use of “member berries” to be excessive, and I usually smiled at the callbacks the movie included, especially since they were all so fresh in my mind from the last twenty-four hours of my weekend.

Overall, the movie is fun, and the characters, while different and new, are very likeable. At first glance, the protagonist, Phoebe, is usually exactly the kind of modern-day movie hero that I hate – a know-it-all girl that seems to be able to do anything without help… except that’s not who Phoebe is at all! She has a lot of trouble socializing and fitting in even with her own family, and seems to lack a clear idea of who she is, and what she even wants to do with her life, compensating for this with her incredible knowledge and analytical skills. Honestly, coming straight off Ghostbusters I and II, I simply nodded every time she did something strange, saying to myself, “Yep, that’s exactly how Egon would have been as a kid.” All this when combined with the talent of the actress, McKenna Grace, made me really like Phoebe and never once question her as the movie’s protagonist.

I liked her friends and family, as well, especially Paul Rudd’s character, not really finding any of them annoying (to my surprise), although I think I liked Phoebe’s brother the least out of the main cast of characters. Either him, or his love interest. It’s hard to decide, as both were a bit bland, but still acceptable.

Now let’s talk about the best part of the movie. Without getting too much more into the plot, I just have to say that the ending of the movie was so genuinely emotional that I actually shed a few tears, which is immensely rare for me. It felt both powerful and satisfying, making all the awkwardness and insecurity of the lead-up to the end absolutely 100% worth it.

While it’s a little slow coming, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” ends as a truly successful “Ghostbusters” reboot/sequel, one which in no way violates the canon of the original two movies, but, instead, adds much to it, and extends the time period of the original “Ghostbusters” movies to the present in a way that feels very much like a single, coherent cycle, and not just an unneeded tacked-on addition as so many reboot/sequels do these days. Making the ending even better are the two “After Credits” scenes, which are both fabulous.

Unlike “Ghostbusters I”, which I already owned, and “Ghostbusters II”, which I rented for $4, I had to actually buy “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” to watch it, and I feel every dollar was worth it to support an interesting, thoughtful, and truly fan-honoring conclusion to such a beloved science fiction trilogy, one which was arguably spit on by the recent ‘Ghostbusters: Answer the Call” “reboot” and really needed a win to redeem its good name.

While not a perfect movie by any measure, nor comparatively as good even as “Ghostbusters II” (although close), “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” definitely succeeds as a win for the franchise, albeit in a way that has its own unique feel that no other “Ghostbusters” movie has quite come close to capturing. It’s not as fast or as flashy or as funny as the original two movies, but it certainly has the same heart as them, and, in the end, I think that’s all that really matters.

Final Score: 8/10

“A satisfying, fan-honoring sequel to the beloved ‘Ghostbusters’ science fiction trilogy, one which has its own unique story to tell, and a new style to match, but which every true lover of the original movies will be hard-pressed not to be brought to tears by as it turns the original films into a complete and coherent trilogy.”

What’s next? “Who you gonna call?”

BACK TO “THE EYE OF ZATARA”

GHOSTBUSTERS

GHOSTBUSTERS II

[REVIEW] “Ghostbusters II” (1989) – The Sequel

By: “The Watchman”

I don’t think I have ever seen “Ghostbusters II”. I had heard that it wasn’t as good as the original, and was never inclined to watch it for that reason. Watching it back-to-back with the original movie, I must say that it was, however, a very good sequel, and one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

No, it is not as good as the original, but is that a fair comparison? How many movies are? It continued with the characters and concepts of 1984’s original “Ghostbusters” in a fun and believable direction that always left me wondering what would happen next. It was funny, too. It made me genuinely laugh out loud, which is very hard to do, proving the cleverness and quality of writing that Aykroyd and Ramis employed while trying to reach the bar of their original movie.

Is this Vigo character and his strange foreign henchman as intimidating as the hell hounds and glowing temple of Gozer the Gozerian from Ghostbusters I? No, not quite, but the… instrument… that the Ghostbusters used to help them reach Vigo in the final act made me genuinely smile with delight.

Seeing the interactions between Bill Murray’s character (Peter Venkman) and Sigourney Weaver’s character (Dana Barrett) once again, I was surprised by how much the addition of a baby added to the novelty of their strange “Will they? Won’t they?” romance. I also liked the addition of Rick Moranis’ character as a compliment to the Ghostbusters’ business, albeit still in the comic relief role we saw him fill from the first movie. I wouldn’t have been surprised if he put a giant “Dark Helmet” on his head, and started rambling about someone named “Lone Starr”. (Go watch “Spaceballs” if you don’t get that one. Another classic.)

As I said before, it’s true that “Ghostbusters II” is not as good as the original 1984 entry, but I’ve come to believe that focusing on that point is a red herring argument. “Ghostbusters II” is a very good movie that is worth watching. There are no qualifications that need to be added to the end of that sentence. Any franchise would be lucky to have a sequel of this quality, especially considering the kind of awkward place that Ghostbusters I ended, storywise, creating a difficult starting point for this sequel to work from.

All the main characters from the original movie are in this one, and are acting in character for themselves, although I guess you could also say that none of them really grew as a result of the first movie in a way that changed their characters all that much, if you really want to find something negative to say about this movie. That, and it is also a little hard to believe that all of New York simply forgot about ghosts after the events of the first movie and ruled the Ghostbusters off as charlatans, but the movie still manages to make it more or less believable.

Beyond all that, I really have nothing bad to say about this movie. It’s a solid 8.5/10.

Final Score: 8.5/10

“A solid sequel that brings us back to the world of the original ‘Ghostbusters’ in a way that feels exciting and interesting. All the characters you loved are back and ready to make you laugh out loud again, albeit one or two less times.”

What’s next? “Who you gonna call?”

BACK TO “THE EYE OF ZATARA”

GHOSTBUSTERS

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE

[REVIEW] “Ghostbusters” (1984) – The Original

By: “The Watchman”

I’d forgotten how good the original Ghostbusters is. Or, rather, I don’t think I’ve ever really noticed. Not having gotten into Ghostbusters much as a kid (it released a year before I was born), it was just this weekend when I sat down with a critical eye to watch it that I realized just how perfectly crafted and clever it is.

The pacing is excellent. The jokes are funny. The characters are all memorable, while being very distinct from one another. Even the special effects don’t look too bad after all these years. I almost wish I had realized sooner how wonderful a movie this is, except that it would have taken from the joy I felt this weekend watching it for, what felt like, the first time.

The movie was genuinely funny. Several times, I repeated scenes to watch them again, especially the final scene in the mayor’s office, because they made me laugh and I wanted to go over them one more time before continuing the movie. Every scene has a point, and every plot point has a purpose. It laid the groundwork for an excellent science fiction universe.

While, admittedly, it didn’t easily lend itself to sequels, as the cast and crew had no idea, at the time they were making it, that the show would be such a standalone hit, it still has a lot of interesting ideas that I wanted to see more of after the movie ended. Hence, my continuation to the next entries in the trilogy.

Bill Murray really steals the show in many of the scenes. While Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are excellent (and wrote the script), Bill Murray’s charisma shines brightly throughout its most memorable moments, and his interactions with Sigourney Weaver were both genuinely engaging and also quite a bit odd. Rick Moranis’ character was a bit strange, but never really bothered me. Somehow, he always stayed believable, even while the unbelievable happened all around him.

I could continue rambling on about this movie for a while, but that would miss the point of a comparative three part review! I’ll just go ahead and grade this movie with the incredible 9.5/10 that it deserves, and let you go on to the next movies in sequence, now that the benchmark has been set by this irreplaceable piece of science fiction history. Let’s see how well the next two movies in the universe hold up to the original.

Final Score: 9.5/10

“Perfect in nearly every way, this movie’s greatest fault is making it difficult for writers to expand upon the narrative of its universe, and even more difficult for them to try to surpass it.”

What’s next? “Who you gonna call?”

BACK TO “THE EYE OF ZATARA”

GHOSTBUSTERS II

GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE

[SATIRE] “The Eye of Zatara” Reviews – THE MATRIX: RESURRECTIONS — The “Real” Review (Blue Pill)

Review By: “The Gatekeeper”

“The Matrix: Resurrections” is the most interesting movie I have ever seen about Microsoft Excel, and the only movie about Microsoft Excel that, to my knowledge, stars Keanu Reeves. Apparently the sequel to another trilogy of movies that I haven’t seen, “The Matrix: Resurrections” is the story about a homeless man named “Neato” who wanders into some kind of modern day technology firm and begins working on an Excel matrix there until it seems to take over his life, and even cause him to seek after some other homeless-looking lady named “Serenity” which I think is from that show, Firefly, but I can’t say for certain, because I also haven’t seen that.

Apparently, in a previous “Matrix” movie, a younger looking dude that looks nothing like today’s Keanu Reeves hooked up with Serenity in some kind of green-looking city that kind of hurt my eyes to see flashbacks of. Then, John Smith, the guy who married Pocahontas if I remember third grade history class correctly, tried to kill this younger Keanu Reeves person for some reason, but Keanu stopped them using the power of his X-Box One, hereafter just referred to as his “The One”, possibly by hacking their Excel matrix. (Honestly, I didn’t even know Microsoft Excel could run on an X-Box, but I guess that’s what made him such a cool hacker in the previous films. Who knew?)

There is a lot of shooting things in this movie. Like, a lot, a lot. And, sometimes, when he’s being shot at, Neato (Keanu Reeves)’s internet connection to the Excel matrix seems to lag up, as the bullets stop hitting him and everything kind of moves slow for a while. Honestly, it’s kind of like playing Overwatch. I think he said his internet service provider was “Bullet Time”, which I have never heard of, so no wonder he has such poor connection speeds. Also, based on his scruffy hair and beard, I am still assuming that Neato is homeless, so he probably doesn’t have any money to upgrade his internet connection with, either.

At the end of the movie, something happens, but I can’t tell you what that something is because I kind of fell asleep playing “Pokemon: Shining Diamond” while watching the movie, and had a weird mixed dream about the two where Keanu Reeves was telling me about the legend of Dialga, and I woke up screaming “Use the Master Ball!” right as “Resurrections” started its end credits. So, since I did not see the ending of the movie, I will now make one up, and will sternly judge the movie based upon the merits of the ending that I happened to think of as the first thing on the top of my head after watching it.

So, Neato and Serenity ultimately get cornered by the villain of this movie, Orville Redenbacher, who attempts to trade them popcorn in exchange for helping him record his business expenses on Neato’s latest Excel matrix. Neato refuses, however, and calls a fleet of those Imperial Star Destroyers with Death Star lasers on them from the last horrible Star Wars movie and blasts Orville Redenbacher into non-existence along with half of the greater Seattle area. (I’m just kind of assuming they all live in Seattle.) Then, Neato and Serenity move to Cleveland to open a general goods store, and live happily ever after, until the sequel where they’re recruited by Nick Fury to fight Thanos’ evil little brother, Kyle, who has seven Infinity Stones now, one more than his older brother because he’s more evil. The End.

Overall, I would recommend “The Matrix Resurrections” to anyone looking to get a good night’s sleep, to anyone who is a fan of Microsoft Excel, or to anyone who has seen either “Firefly” or the original “Matrix” movies. I would think that having any idea who Neato and Serenity are instead of just imagining it in their heads will get a lot more enjoyment out of this movie than I did. I would like to warn anyone watching this movie, however, that the ending is kind of bad. Like the Orvile Redenbacher thing makes no sense, and seems completely thrown it there at random, and the Imperial Star Destroyers blowing up the city around Neato and Serenity seemed really contrived. Overall, I’d give the movie a 7 out of 5, which is an improper fraction, a testament to the improper way I felt this movie treated its source material, if it has any, as I do not know – I have never seen any of the other “Matrix” movies.

There you go. Final score, 7/5. I will now return to playing Pokémon and/or napping until my next review. Don’t wake me until then. (Unless you want to trade Pokémon.)

~The Gatekeeper

(Click here to see The Watchman’s review now.)

[REVIEW] “The Eye of Zatara” Reviews – THE MATRIX: RESURRECTIONS — The Normal Review (Red Pill)

Review By: “The Watchman”

“The Matrix: Resurrections” is a genuine, thoughtful attempt to reboot “The Matrix” trilogy in a way that doesn’t feel like simply another tired rehash of a once interesting story for a quick corporate payout like we see so often today in creatively bankrupt Hollywood. This is quite a monumental task when faced with the challenge of adding on to a trilogy with as much history and love as “The Matrix”, but, for the most part, I’d say the writer’s attempt at creating something interesting and new is successful. “The Matrix: Resurrections” is in no way on the same level as the original “The Matrix” movie, but I’m not sure that it even intends to be. The writers of “Resurrections” seemed to be genuinely concerned about the effect of adding on to the closed loop of their original trilogy. They tried their best to capture as much of the original magic of the first three films as they could, but also made sure to tell a new story that stands soundly on its own merits, not as a faded Xerox copy of the original movies, but as something unique and new, albeit something which is more than a little bit flawed at times.

After finishing “The Matrix: Resurrections”, I have to say, overall, that some of my least favorite parts of the entire movie were the times they seemed to be trying too hard to callback characters and scenes from the original Matrix movies (including the first 20 minutes which felt very rough), whereas I thoroughly enjoyed a lot of the new characters and concepts introduced in their place, with the antagonist of the movie being one of my all-time favorites in the entire film (behind Keanu Reeves, of course).

Like the original “Matrix”, the film does its best to keep you guessing for a while about the nature of what is really going on in the film – what is real and what is not – and how can you even know? What is the difference between facts and fiction, where is in the line between them? Are memories facts or fiction? Can they be both? What really happened in the span of time between “Revolutions” and “Resurrections”? Did the events of the original three movies as we know them even happen at all?

Even once things begin to gain a certain degree of clarity, I found it hard to ever figure out what was going to happen next in the movie, or even how major scenes were going to play out. For 2 1/2 hours, the film had my full attention, as I genuinely watched each and every minute to see how the story would go, wanting more and more to see the unpredictable ending that it was building up to. (I say this, but my mind may have honestly drifted a little during the action sequences, although I’m not the biggest action guy, so that’s not saying much. Still, even to me, they did seem like a notch down from the action in the original Matrix. How can action scenes be both over-the-top, yet also bland? Some of the action scenes in this movie were exactly that. Sorry, action lovers.)

Like with the original “Matrix”, I feel compelled to watch the movie again in order to really understand it. Will it grow on me with each successive view like the original? Or will it lose its luster over time like with “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”? Can the interesting premise started in this new (possibly?) trilogy of movies be continued with the same originality and sparkle as “Resurrections”, or is this the Star Wars sequel trilogy all over again? Only time will tell. For the moment, I cannot be certain.

What I can say is, as a fan of the original “Matrix” trilogy, I found this movie genuinely enjoyable and will likely watch it again before it leaves HBO Max. If you liked the original movies, I would highly recommend that you give it a try, especially if you have HBO Max. Make sure you are willing to watch at least 30 minutes of it, however, as I feel like the first few scenes of “Resurrections” are some of the weakest in the entire film and are very lacking in any emotional value until you’ve gotten later into the movie and know the characters shown in those scenes. Once you see Neo again, however… I dare you to give up and walk away without a fight. Overall, this movie isn’t “The One” like the first “Matrix”, but it is, at the very least, a Decent One.

Overall Score: 7.5/10

~The Watchman

(Click here to see The Gatekeeper’s review.)