Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Review #2195: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

Cast: 

Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Kumail Nanjiani (Nadeem Razmaadi), Patton Oswalt (Dr. Hubert Wartzki), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), Logan Kim (Podcast), Emily Alyn Lind (Melody), James Acaster (Dr. Lars Pinfield), Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), and William Atherton (Mayor Walter Peck) Directed by Gil Kenan.

Review: 

Admittedly, Ghostbusters (1984) was basically a perfect comedy movie that is hard to replicate when it comes to the successors that arose in its wake. The best thing to come out afterwards from this "franchise" probably depends on one's age, but it is pretty safe to say the 2009 video game was probably close to or, well, the best one of the lot, which now has five films (you remember: 1989, 2016 [don't know], 2021, and here), with the latter being enough of a hit to generate the idea of going further in busting (sure, this is the third of these films that like to brand themselves as "Ghost Corps", which I maintain is a silly name). I do wonder what folks care most about a film involving people that are probably a bit nutty enough to have to commit to fighting beings that play havoc with random things from time to time. The original 1989 sequel was light in the idea of strife when it comes to maintaining teamwork in the face of doubt while Afterlife presented a solid adventure of growing back the family that just happened to have ghosts in Oklahoma. Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman, who wrote the script for Afterlife, return to write the script for this film.

Oh hell, Frozen Empire was fine. Granted, there are plenty of caveats to go with that statement, but it takes a lot of wasted goodwill to make an intolerable sequel, particularly one watched in theaters, and this movie is useful enough as a ride to justify most of its surroundings. There are probably one too many people in this cast, that much is for certain. I think at a certain point "passing the torch" really should mean what it says, because it seems almost amusing to have enough busters to make up a baseball lineup, but since one is here for 115 minutes, one does aspire to not see any significant weak links among the groups (familiar, older familiar, new). This is pretty much true here, although it is clear that Grace shines the best among the group (of course with Aykroyd, we know his spirituality is right into it). It is the kind of curiosity that is charming in terms of the frustration that arises in not-quite-ready-for-adulthood (this case: bureaucracy). This results in a few interesting moments of connection beyond hunting when it comes to scenes spent with Lind (after a previous film of playing it close in quiet interaction on one side). Nanjiani seems to be having fun trying to play it off as a goof ripped from a cartoon (he cited The Real Ghostbusters animated series as an inspiration for the filmmakers with this film, so this may check out), which can be hit or miss from scene to scene. Well, it is nice to see Atherton again, who has managed to retain the certain kind of smarm that one would hope to enjoy in established character actors. It goes as such for the criminally underrated Hudson when it comes to neat charm in quasi-exposition dialogue (as opposed to Oswalt, who might as well have his role rendered by a PowerPoint presentation but with less snark). Murray and Potts may be shuffling in and out with brief attempts at dry cracks, but familiar comfort does suit some more than others. When it comes to the paranormal, I suppose sorcerers and astral projections is not the silliest bridge to cross when talking about fear-sucking ghosts that like ice. I'm fine with the threat presented here in the sense that being frozen or corralling fear is at least a semi-interesting idea seemingly cobbled from too many binges into paranormal things without becoming insulting. Oh, it is silly, but it is the kind of silly that I can at least throw my hands up rather than slap them down in derision. In general, Afterlife is a bit better when it comes to the overall jokes and the exploration of people working in tandem as a family. If you have had fine times with the previous Ghostbusters follow-ups since 1984 (forty years ago, so...), you will be fine with what is accomplished here for a stuffed ride that delivers exactly what one imagines it to be for shades of adventure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Review #1769: Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 

Cast: 

Carrie Coon (Callie Spengler), Finn Wolfhard (Trevor Spengler), Mckenna Grace (Phoebe Spengler), Paul Rudd (Gary Grooberson), Logan Kim (Podcast), Celeste O'Connor (Lucky Domingo), with Bill Murray (Dr. Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Ernie Hudson (Dr. Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), and Bokeem Woodbine (Sheriff Domingo) Directed by Jason Reitman.

Review: 

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there never needed to be a follow-up movie to Ghostbusters (1984). I say this as someone who watched the original film countless times as a kid with a DVD player, of course. I am sure you all know the great success that came from that movie as a cultural phenomenon, one that sprung from Dan Aykroyd and his fascination with the paranormal (along with his interest in updating old ghost movies he saw as a kid), with Harold Ramis serving as co-writer (of course, it was really a collaborative effort between them and Bill Murray to go along with director Ivan Reitman), which I'm sure you all know featured Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Ernie Hudson as the main quartet. Ghostbusters II (1989) was made because Columbia Pictures (after a bit of stalling) really wanted to make another one, and I think we all know that it proved to be "okay", although Reitman has defended it as one that just didn't compare well to the film released six days after it in Batman (1989), which he referred to as "kind of the flavour of that year" (no, they just wanted something funny without rolling their eyes at seeing the Statue of Liberty move). The idea of trying to do a sequel to Ghostbusters II came and went for decades, with one idea sending the crew to hell; some aspects of that script would eventually be utilized for the video game that was released in 2009 that featured the main quartet, which Aykroyd has stated was "essentially the third movie". Oh, right, this isn't the first time that someone tried to make a new Ghostbusters movie, since there was a reboot in 2016. Honestly, while the polarizing reactions to the idea of rebooting the series certainly was a bit weird, I just didn't have the spark of interest to really go to that many movies in a theater back in 2016 (which I saw just thirteen new movies, as compared to nineteen the next year). At any rate, that movie also featured appearances by the original cast and had I. Reitman as producer (made on a budget of $144 million, which led to a flop; this film was made for essentially half). Well, that and it also featured at least one Ghostbuster that fit the "everyman" type, but here we are. Truthfully, I don't think it should matter which movie you see, because one is here to watch a movie about folks going around catching ghosts - anybody that likes to prioritize some sort of agenda instead of overall quality for a film should probably seek a therapist (besides, "reboot", "remake" and "re-imagining" are all just words to roll one's eyes). The film was written by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman (son of Ivan Reitman), the latter of which is known for features such as Thank You for Smoking (2005) and Juno (2007).

The funny thing is that it ends up being more interesting as a look upon a family slowly coming together again rather than its ties to Ghostbusters nostalgia. I will re-iterate that I am completely fine with the movie, but there really doesn't need to be an entire franchise of these kind of films, as the "Ghost Corps" logo at the beginning states (which was also present on the previous film). I think this is the case of trying to balance the tightrope of nostalgia: either one ends up making a movie that seems a bit too familiar to the original experience (with or without original cast-mates) or one makes a movie that doesn't quite seem interesting enough to the folks that cared about it to begin with or possibly even other folks. To me, there are probably a few too many attempts to call back to what had been done before, and yet I found the movie successful with making a useful and riveting adventure in the ultimate shape of things. If it is good enough to show the kids, you should be fine with the rest. It might run neck-and-neck with the second film in okay joke delivery, but as long as one doesn't find themselves cringing over its 125 minute run-time, you should be fine here. The tech certainly looks right when it comes to updates (such as a RC trap), so that helps. Sure, Coon and Rudd are meant to be the adult anchors of the cast, but Grace proves to be the overall highlight, one that manages to have charm and fair-enough timing to keep the film rolling in its attempt at layering itself (i.e. not simply throwing kids at the hands of effects and yelling, instead relying on a few bad jokes done on purpose that are up my alley). Wolfhard and O'Connor share a fair rapport with each other, while Kim proves useful levity as the final piece of the make-shift quartet. Coon might not have as much to really do as one might expect, but she does fine with the material, which also applies to Rudd, who brings a bit of energy when it is needed. Well, I suppose there is something to say about how they go about using Harold Ramis in CG. Maybe, but we are not even a decade removed from when Rogue One (2016) did CG to re-create Peter Cushing and use a sound-alike for scenes, so I throw up my hands and say, "interpret for yourself." If I am not thinking "would the family be fine with this?", then it is fine with me. It delivers a sendoff to Ramis without turning maudlin. At any rate, the main cast has a few lines that prove alright for what is needed, in the sense that this isn't too much of a "paycheck role" or "oh dear God, what happened?", one to enjoy seeing old faces at least one more time; sure, Murray is always the main curiosity, but it was definitely just as interesting to see Potts and Hudson again (particularly with the latter, the most underrated actor of those two films). Honestly, I would hope that any future Ghostbusters film of any kind would find time to create a new threat to deal with, if only because two of the four feature films (and the video game!) have now had the same kind of threat for its climax. That isn't to say I did not enjoy the climax as a whole (because, hey, it is worth it), but there surely should be something out there with ghoulish curiosity worth looking into next time pertaining to running a business with un-licensed nuclear accelerators and ever-growing traps. If relying on the familiar is a crime, the film certainly would fall guilty of it, but it at least looks like it is having fun doing so without becoming a shell of what it means to make a useful family adventure worth watching.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Widows (2018).

Review #1166: Widows.

Cast: 
Viola Davis (Veronica Rawlings), Michelle Rodriguez (Linda Perelli), Elizabeth Debicki (Alice Gunner), Cynthia Erivo (Belle), Colin Farrell (Jack Mulligan), Brian Tyree Henry (Jamal Manning), Daniel Kaluuya (Jatemme Manning), Jacki Weaver (Agnieska), Carrie Coon (Amanda Nunn), Robert Duvall (Tom Mulligan), Liam Neeson (Harry Rawlings), and Garret Dillahunt (Bash) Directed by Steve McQueen.

Review: 
I admit that this film came as a surprise on my radar, being something that fell right into the middle of November (right before Thanksgiving) with a bit of buzz but certainly one that probably would've benefited from being released in a different (and less busy) month, although at least it isn't one of those films that fall under limited releases. In any case, I was surprised to hear that Widows is based off a British prime-time television crime drama of the same name (written and created by Lynda La Plante), which aired as a six-part series each in 1983 and 1985 (along with a sequel series named She's Out in 1995). The show was remade previously in 2002, although the main plot dealt with theft of a painting. In any case, the film (with a screenplay from McQueen and Gillian Flynn) takes bits and pieces from the show while mixing in a political aspect (in this case, a robbery during a debate) that certainly make this film seem busy for its 129 minute run-time. Whether or not the film is fine entertainment relies on how much you invest into these characters and its buildup into its heist. For me, I thought the film worked just enough to make for some fine entertainment, having the right amount of capable thrills and a few moments of grimness and character moments to make for a solid winner. Davis pulls in a capable performance, showing strength in regard to what her character must go through with sudden events with a capability that makes her interesting to follow along with, whether when dealing with loss or dealing with having to set up a heist. Rodriguez is fine, but Debicki stands out quite well as the third arm of the heist, being charming and entertaining to follow along with as well. Erivo, the last arm of the team, does pretty fine with her time on screen, not having as much to say but doing her role without too much of a hitch. Farrell is effective in his plot-line, showing charisma alongside ooze in the fiber of his virtues, particularly when played off with his power broker on-screen father in Duvall, who plays his brief time to play it with such rude effectiveness. Henry also showcases his own degree of ambition that plays off fine, particularly when he and Farrell share a scene together involving an election for alderman. Kaluuya plays his ruthless enforcer role fairly effectively. Neeson is decent for his brief time on-screen. It has a fine deal of twists and action sequences that make for some entertaining execution, building up its characters and respective plot with a fair bit of juggling that makes for consistent (if not gradual) enjoyment. The film works better more often than not when dealing with the widows than the parts involving the election, although at least the two parts do feel natural enough to not seem too much like two different movies. I wonder how the film would have gone with a different length - would it have served better with a trim or lengthening in run-time? In any case, the movie serves its purpose of entertainment well with a fairly dynamic cast and a good amount of execution in the right places to make it something worth checking out.

Welcome to December. I meant to have this written prior to my birthday on the 1st, but time had to be spent to make sure that at least one review was done before November ended. Hopefully there will be a good amount of reviews to go around for the final month of the year, which is shaping up to have just as many (if not a bit more than) reviews as the year before.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.