Quote:
Originally Posted by djsFlames
Did you guys like GB due to it doing nostalgic justice or cause it's a genuinely good movie that can stand on its own? This is what I'm wary of with audiences that are fans of the franchise.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTrain
Timun touched on this a bit. It definitely doesn’t stand on its own because you pretty much have to have seen the original Ghostbusters to understand half the plot and to get much of the emotional moments of the film.
|
^What he said about what I said.^
Ghostbusters: Afterlife absolutely does
not stand on its own whatsoever. It makes no bones about being a sequel, and that it is assumed you've seen and remember the first couple movies (especially the first).
Having slept on it, my baseball analogy should be revised. It wasn't a triple; maybe a double...
There are problems with it. The first 75 minutes or so are an interesting mystery. The last half hour or so things... kind of fall apart a bit. The characters other than McKenna Grace's 'Phoebe' aren't fleshed out very well. Finn Wolfhard in particular had little to do.
I think your description, "doing nostalgic justice," is pretty accurate. In retrospect I liked it at first blush precisely because it didn't crap all over everything that came before as the 2016 remake did.