Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

PG-13

3/22/20241h 55m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ It'll send a chill down your spine. ~

Overview:

When the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second Ice Age.

Director:

Gil Kenan

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$100,000,000.00

Revenue:

$201,967,521.00

Key words:

new york city
supernatural
ghostbuster
sequel
teenage girl
ghost
duringcreditsstinger
research laboratory
evil force
absurd
ancient artifact
cliché

Cast

Mckenna Grace

~ as ~

Phoebe Spengler

Paul Rudd

~ as ~

Gary Grooberson

Carrie Coon

~ as ~

Callie Spengler

Finn Wolfhard

~ as ~

Trevor Spengler

Dan Aykroyd

~ as ~

Ray Stantz

Kumail Nanjiani

~ as ~

Nadeem

Patton Oswalt

~ as ~

Dr. Hubert Wartzki

Celeste O'Connor

~ as ~

Lucky

Logan Kim

~ as ~

Podcast

Emily Alyn Lind

~ as ~

Melody

View full cast & crew

Reviews (4)

CinemaSerf
Written 1 year(s) ago
6
Though it does sort of get going in the last twenty minutes or so, the rest of this is a really slow family discord drama that features hardly any ghosts but is more of a finding herself exercise for "Phoebe" (McKenna Grace) that involves her coming to terms with psuedo-father "Gary" (Paul Rudd) and relating to her very own chess-playing version of "Moaning Myrtle" - only this one's called "Melody" (Emily Alyn Lind). When we do actually focus on things mystic, the story revolves around a brass sphere that is covered with ancient hieroglyphics. This comes into the possession of 'Stantz" (Dan Aykroyd) who takes it to the team for further investigation. Needless to say, that causes quite a bit of mayhem whilst, meantime, the mayor (William Atherton) is after the "Ghostbusters" for causing expensive havoc every time they trap a ghost. That contretemps will question the very existence of their firehouse operation and of their ongoing mission to boldy go... Anyway, as the plot lurches along we get the odd opportunity to see some proton packs in action; the old car gets put through it's paces and the original "Bibendum" ghosts get an outing or two, too, as a sort of bellwether for impending doom. That impending doom is all delivered, frostily, too little and too late to rescue this entirely derivative two hours from the cinema doldrums. The original cast - Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts and Aykroyd really need to stop appearing to legitimise these sequels - they are not patch on the original and really do smell, strongly, of flogging the dead horse. I would recommend a cinema viewing, though - at least that makes the most of the visuals. This will look distinctly mediocre on the television.
MS
Manuel São Bento
Written 1 year(s) ago
6
FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/ghostbusters-frozen-empire-review-a-step-back-that-still-holds-enough-entertainment/

"GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE falls short of its predecessor, but the members of the classic and new cast inject enough energy, charm, and emotion to compensate for the narrative inconsistencies and pacing issues.

Mckenna Grace's remarkable performance carries the film, but putting all the narrative, thematic, and emotional weight on a single character generates inevitable problems.

It's unlikely to become the favorite installment for fans of the franchise, but it's still an adventure with enough entertainment to satisfy families around the world."

Rating: B-
M
MovieGuys
Written 1 year(s) ago
6
Whilst not as awful as its 2016 counterpart, the latest instalment in the Ghost Busters franchise, is hardly noteworthy either.

Frozen Empire tries, in vain, to recapture the vibe of the first film from 1984. There's an earnest effort to re-establish the off the wall, goofiness of the original. Even bringing in old cast members to help things along. Sadly the wry wit and humour that defined the old flick, not to mention the remarkably deep characterisations, is largely absent.

What you are left with is empty mimicry that's none too inspiring, backed by a story and action that's not awful but really feels like its going through the motions. On the subject of the story, I will give kudos to the fact it is, at least, a little original and imaginative.

Regrettably whilst this film is superficially watchable its also instantly forgettable, having none of the blockbuster potential found in the first film, way back when. That said and again, in fairness, society has moved on from Ghostbusters. Its unsophisticated by modern standards and is never going to be the kind of hit it was in simpler, cinematic times.

I think the final question then, is why keep trying? Is Hollywood really so bereft of new ideas, that reinventing the past is all it can aspire to?

In summary, tries to wring the last drop out of a well worn and frankly, worn out franchise, that's long since, had its day. Superficially watchable but also readily forgettable.
T
TheSceneSnobs
Written 1 year(s) ago
6
I have seen both amazing and terrible Ghostbusters films in my lifetime, and this one falls somewhere in the middle. It doesn't reach the heights of the original, nor does it plummet to the lows of the less successful installments. I would rank this film slightly below Ghostbusters II. While it’s fun, it suffers from a messy story and too many characters.

The film's main issue lies in its sprawling narrative. With too many characters vying for attention, the story becomes a bit disjointed. For example, the original Ghostbusters worked so well because it focused on a tight-knit group of protagonists, allowing for rich character development and clear, coherent plot progression. In contrast, this film tries to juggle multiple subplots and character arcs, leading to a lack of focus.

While the movie has its enjoyable moments, the story feels scattered. Key plot points are often rushed or underdeveloped, leaving the audience wanting more depth and cohesion. For instance, a subplot involving a new character’s backstory is introduced but never fully explored, making their motivations and actions feel superficial. This scattered approach detracts from the overall narrative impact.

Despite these flaws, the film does have its charms. It’s a fun addition to the franchise and includes plenty of moments that fans will appreciate. The humor, special effects, and ghost-hunting sequences are all entertaining and Paul Rudd shines throughout.

However, it lacks the nostalgic appeal of Ghostbusters II. The second film, despite its own flaws, managed to capture the magic and charm of the original. This new installment doesn’t quite evoke the same feelings. It feels more like a modern reboot than a continuation of the beloved series. For example, the nods to the original films are present but often feel more like fan service than integral parts of the story.

While this latest Ghostbusters film is not without its faults, it is still a fun watch. It doesn’t quite capture the nostalgia or coherence of the earlier films, but it adds a new layer to the franchise that fans might enjoy catching on TV. It’s worth a watch for its entertainment value, even if it doesn’t fully live up to the legacy of its predecessors.