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.

No Escape (1994).

Review #2043: No Escape.

Cast: 

Ray Liotta (John Robbins), Lance Henriksen (The Father), Stuart Wilson (Walter Marek), Kevin Dillon (Casey), Kevin J. O'Connor (Stephano), Don Henderson (Killian), Ian McNeice (Tom King), Jack Shepherd (Dysart), Michael Lerner (Warden), Ernie Hudson (Hawkins), Russell Kiefel (Iceman), and Brian M. Logan (Scab) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - GoldenEye, #220 - Green Lantern, and #285 - Casino Royale)

Review: 

Honestly, the only reason I picked this movie is because of the confounding elements that come from its director and stars. How does a movie that features Ray Liotta as star and Martin Campbell as director one year before GoldenEye (1995) slip by under the radar? The most noted film that Campbell made as a director came considerably late in his career, you know. Born in New Zealand, he moved to London to become a director for softcore sex comedies and action TV in the 1970s, as represented by The Sex Thief (1973) and The Professionals, respectively. His most notable television project, however, came with the six-part serial he directed for BBC Television in 1985 in Edge of Darkness (incidentally, he would direct the feature film remake in 2010). Campbell's first film away from his initial start was Criminal Law (1988), which was as successful as his next in Defenseless (1991), which is to say not very much. At any rate, No Escape may have been a ineffective hit with audiences, but GoldenEye, the first James Bond film in the 1990s, was a major hit that he followed with The Mask of Zorro (1998). The film is based on the novel The Penal Colony by Richard Herley, with the screenplay written by Michael Gaylin and Joel Gross.

Technically, the movie does look like the cost to make it was $20 million, because it is a decent-looking "sci-fi action film", but the plot has the rumblings of something unearthed from decades ago in the B-movie realm. Think about it: a man is dropped into a totally inescapable situation and finds either savages or a slipshod attempt at community that has his own reasons to escape. Set in the then-future year of 2022 involving a lead character that suffers PTSD from his experience in Benghazi, the result is something you can see coming right from the very get-go. I really wished I liked the film better, but the only thing that may stick out for you beyond the name actors is the odd distinction that it has no women in the cast (what zero interactions with women does to a person, heh). It just seems too ordinary as a dystopian film (even with a for-profit prison depiction), so stop if you've heard this before: a loner rogue ends up leading people off to safety, an elder that is secretly dying ends up sacrificing oneself, a greedy authority (and/or traitor) figure gets what they deserve, and so on and so on. Liotta is at the very least a solid presence to give the movie some sort of attempt at a redemption story, one where he simply cannot escape being with people despite his traumas and desire to run. Henriksen certainly has a knack for playing authority figures for a handful of his roles, but it is merely too little for him to really lean into for anything meaningful (perhaps it is dwarfed by having Hard Target (1993) on my mind). Wilson seems to be having a nice time playing the heavy, even with the makeup done to portray "the law of the jungle", but yea, we both know that the conflict between him and Liotta isn't exactly the stuff that compelling duels are made of. Dillon is in the most obvious of sacrificial lamb roles and it has very little to trot in meaningful interest, which slips by more than Hudson, who comes and goes with little to no distinctions. Hell, the "rat" character and the "eccentrics" aren't exactly ones to write home about, the movie just seems a bit too plaid to do anything that would stick out that could threaten the serious time the film aims for that ends up for not much when you realize it is a B-movie with nowhere to go but the middle because you don't really know these folks that much or feel like you want to know about them for 111 minutes. As a whole, it is a movie that comes and goes without anything really meaningful to say about people beyond the mildest of conflicts of "decent" and "very bad" that can only go one way when you already know where the cards are stacked to escape. It is a decent-looking movie with decent-seeming people that just can't find that extra ingredient to carry it over the finish line, but maybe you might find something to notice for yourself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters II.

Redux #031: Ghostbusters II.

Cast: 

Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Peter MacNicol (Janosz Poha), Kurt Fuller (Jack Hardemeyer), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), Harris Yulin (Judge Stephen Wexler), with Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo the Carpathian [voiced by Max von Sydow]), and Janet Margolin (the Prosecutor) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters)

Review: 

"I’m really proud of the second movie — I just saw it again and I really liked it. It didn’t get particularly good reviews. It was successful, financially, but less successful than the first one. I pushed it into a much more personal story."

Look, the original Ghostbusters (1984) made oodles of money. Obviously, there was a movement to make a second movie, but timing really is everything when it comes to movies. You had to make a movie that Reitman, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Murray all wanted to do, since they were reluctant to do a second movie to begin with, although Columbia Pictures was pretty much on board. Murray had not acted in a movie for a couple years (in a starring role anyway) after the release of the movie, since he believed that the success of Ghostbusters would forever be his biggest accomplishment. Aykroyd and Ramis return to do the script, although it was the former who wrote the first draft, as was the case with the original. Aykroyd apparently wrote his initial script involving a kidnapping to Scotland with fairy rings and underground civilizations (even he would admit that it was really too far out), but the part about things happening underground was retained. It was Ramis that contributed to the idea of negative human emotions having consequences (i.e. mood slime) alongside an idea he had once had for a horror story involving an infant who suddenly woke up with adult agility and focus. While the movie took five years to finally come out, Ghostbusters did find its way onto television first with The Real Ghostbusters, which ran from 1986 to 1991 (which is why one sees a bit more Slimer, since that character was apparently a big thing on that show). Naturally, there were re-shoots. Reitman noticed when watching the test version that the last 25 minutes apparently seemed like "a horrible death". Test audiences thought that the associated elements of the slime alongside Vigo the Carpathian weren't really connected or that the conflict was, well, a conflict hard enough for the Ghostbusters. Reshoots were done to try and strengthen the climax alongside cutting certain sequences. These added scenes include: a ghost train scene that goes through Winston, a scene with severed heads, and a fire that nearly takes down two of the Ghostbusters after they try to develop photographs of Vigo. The movie was released on June 16, 1989, to moderate but not spectacular audience results; Aykroyd tried to make a script for a third movie (one idea sent them to a hellish version of Manhattan), but Murray was not particularly interested, and multiple scripts came and went before plans to just do a reboot came in 2016.

 

I'll be honest, I have only seen the movie three times (once in 2011, the other one in 2019, and today). There just has to be a reason beyond just saying "it's just not as good as the original" for this. I can't say that the movie has exactly warmed further in my heart when it comes to looking at a movie that was released on June 16, 1989 (Reitman wanted to release it on the 23rd but decided to ask for the week beforehand because a certain movie was being released that same day). You may remember that the original 1984 film was a capable comedy that just happened to have good effects and a solid cast that (pardon the cliche) had heart to its proceedings with a well-developed story. Now, one has a movie that thinks its first best conceit it to throw the Ghostbusters right in the dump and build themselves up again, especially considering the whole "we saved your sorry asses from Gozer and you just decided to sue us like a bunch of losers" that sticks in my mind. Hell, I would have gladly accepted a plot-line that sees the other looming threat to a business besides authorities: competition. Hell, forget "restraining orders" for two seconds, who wouldn't want to try and improve what had been done? But nah, let's just take the skeleton of the original and take out a few parts to reincorporate at will, right down to a scene midway through the movie that takes the jail sequence from the first one and just replaces it with a mental institution. Dennis Muren was tasked to supervise the special effects as Reitman was not particularly happy with the work of Richard Edlund's Boss Film Studios for the first film. It didn't help make the process of doing Vigo faster, since it took them months to find a design likable enough to shoot. The effects do take a bit more of the show, for better or worse. On the one hand, the 108 minutes do pass pretty well in building interest for the aspects of slime and Vigo in the slightest of creeping terror. I did roll my eyes a tad less during the Statue of Liberty sequence and I did at least think the resolution with the crowd helped contrast the fact that one has to see a floating head for the final final shot of Vigo before he hits the dust. On the other hand, it is clearly not as funny as the original in general lines because of the fact that the filmmakers wanted to soften the image of their title characters to seemingly match the cartoon series, which results in a sitcom hodgepodge that a cynic would say has "castrated" the characters; I'm not saying, "screw you, kids", I just think it is a little silly to try and balance the needs of a movie and an animated series designed for kids when just making a balanced movie is a bit less convoluted. True, Murray is still the undoubtable highlight of the movie, one that has some of the same wit and spontaneity from before, even if he finds himself paired with Weaver (and a baby, ha ha ha) just as much as with the main group (the TV show scene is probably the highlight). Weaver does fine with the material provided in warm timing. Ramis is still the same wry guy from before, which goes with the energetic Aykroyd, which generally works out for a few chuckles and exposition that varies in engagement. Hudson, the sentimental favorite in audience surrogates and underrated presences has probably the same number of things to do as compared to from before (marginal), but he carries well among the scenes he usually is part of with Ramis/Aykroyd (this is one of those movies where you only see all four of a group for select moments until the end). I did appreciate MacNicol more than I had remembered, since he plays a stooge worthy of all the chuckles in offbeat quality that makes an interesting pairing with Weaver or for the climax. It should be noted that Von Homburg (a German boxer-turned-actor with a split lip) didn't know his voice was dubbed by von Sydow (who did his stuff in a day) until the premiere of the movie - at least he looks the part in off-putting terror, and von Sydow provides the right voice for it. Fuller may be playing an imitation of William Atherton from the first movie, but he at least makes a go of it in smarmy attribution to pair against the beleaguered and sorely lacking Marguiles (of course, Yulin gets to ham up a judge for a time, so all's even). As a whole, it comes together as a weird prediction of future movie sequels/reboots of the current age that take certain aspects from the original to include references that may or may not do anything particularly new with things (kind of like Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in how each are average).

Reitman blamed the movie not being as successful on the climate of films released around the time of June 1989...such as Batman (1989), released one week after this movie; Reitman described his movie as a "friendly, more personal, sort of character-based Ghostbusters" as one that seemed like a disappointment to audiences toned to something different; of course, his movie features people being so negative that they turn New York City into a cesspool of slime along with a Rasputin pastiche getting a guy to kidnap a baby to get out of a painting and possibly become a great terror. 1989 was an interesting year for sequels: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, you get the idea. As a whole, the movie is fairly average in all the ways you never would have seen coming five years ago from a movie as beloved as the original was, one is carried heavily by effects and a little bit of cast magic that proves it is hard to capture the best essence of moviemaking twice. It is average and a disappointment, but it is far from being a complete waste not worth watching at least once, which means that Reitman and company did at least succeed somewhere down the line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Ghostbusters (1984).

Redux Review #026: Ghostbusters.

Cast:
Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), William Atherton (Walter Peck), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), and Slavitza Jovan (Gozer) [Paddi Edwards as the voice of Gozer] Produced and Directed by Ivan Reitman.

Background:
Review #26, December 28, 2010. Originally, I described it as "this film is a load of fun, pure and simple", while giving it a 10 out of 10 stars. The original review was less than 100 words, so I figure I owe you readers at least some statements about the movie more substantial than the old review.

Review:

"By watching Ghostbusters, there's a sense that you can control this, that you can mitigate it somehow and it doesn't have to be that frightening. It became this movie that parents liked to bring their kids to—they could appreciate it on different levels but still watch it together."

The summer of 1984 was a beautiful time, and Ghostbusters ended up being one of the biggest hits of its time when it was released on June 8, 1984, serving as the second-highest grossing movie of the year behind Beverly Hills Cop. The development of the film from its initial idea to the final result is fascinating to consider. Dan Aykroyd had a long fascination with the supernatural due to his family upbringing that spanned three generations, complete with his father writing a book detailing the history of ghosts. At any rate, Aykroyd had become notable for his writing/feature role on the first four seasons of Saturday Night Live alongside The Blues Brothers (1980), and it was around the 1980s that he had developed a script that he wanted to make into a movie with his good friend John Belushi that had them travelling through time and space fighting ghosts, but Belushi died in 1982. At any rate, Aykroyd wanted to make a movie reminiscent of the ghost movies of the 1930s and 1940s (such as The Ghost Breakers), and he approached Bill Murray (also a SNL alum) to join in with his (half-finished) script and then approached Ivan Reitman, known for Meatballs (1979) and Stripes (1981) to direct. Reitman saw the potential in a sprawling script on levels that would have required a substantially higher budget by 1984 standards (incidentally, the Marshmallow Man was included in the script), and he talked with Aykroyd about grounding the plot down in a way that made the business akin to like pest control rather than an intergalactic ghost police, with Harold Ramis (writer of Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes) being asked to co-write the script; by the time the movie was finished, it had been done on a budget of $25-30 million shot in the span of a year, complete with the help of Richard Edlund and his effects team with Boss Film Studios had to do a wide array of effects from practical to puppets in a span of ten months (it also did work on 2010: The Year We Make Contact at the same time), and some effects shots were done in one take. 

It is the PG-rated comedy that generations grew up with and cherish, what more can really be said? A bit, really. What is it about Ghostbusters that works so easily and so effectively? Is it the quick wit? Is it the way the effects and comedy mesh without overriding each other? Is it the performances? The simple answer is all of the above and more. It is obvious to note the chemistry between Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis, who exchange lines and wit together that permeate into numerous memorable scenes, with lines that are effective and still memorable even after over three decades since its release; neither actor intrudes on each other, with their characters being easily distinctive. Sure, there are other versions of these characters (the cynic, the heart, the brains, the surrogate) in other movies, but nothing makes it work so neatly and so fruitfully as this one. Stating one's favorite scenes or lines could be a marathon with films like this, but the important thing to remember is that the timing and execution is exquisite, one with offbeat charm that keeps interest high without selling anyone short or riding a joke too long in a 105-minute run-time. It goes without saying that this is Reitman's best effort as a director, showing his effectiveness in arranging actors and spectacle in a New York love-letter, and it might be a top-3 highlight for each of its main castmates, top to bottom. Murray is the deadpan highlight, one who glides through the movie with wise-ass charm that he had honed with films like Meatballs, but he does it here with no sense of repetition. Aykroyd had the knack for writing amusing situations in his days back at SNL, and he continues that stroke of energetic effectiveness that seeps into his character to useful results. Ramis and his stoic nature work exactly to perfection, just as seeped into the ghost mumbo-jumbo with conviction. Hudson (introduced 40 minutes in) is the appropriate everyman required with select amusing moments that make him just as important as the others. Weaver has the knack for comedy with charming grace and useful chemistry spent with Murray, while Atherton makes a quality foil, and Potts & Moranis make suitable pieces to end the puzzle. Elmer Bernstein's musical score proves distinctive in balancing interest in comedy alongside the mystical parts, while Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" song proves quite hard to get out of one's head, for good reason (so good that Huey Lewis sued him for plagiarism). The effects for the movie work just enough to lend credibility to what is going on around us without becoming a distraction or the entire package to focus on, since the script glides along with careful timing that develops its story gradually to go along with its gags. In short: it is one of the most entertaining movies of its era.

Of course, the film would inspire a handful of follow-up material, none quite as striking as the original but memorable. There were two animated shows with The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters alongside a direct film sequel with Ghostbusters II (1989), a "reboot" film of the same name in 2016, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021). Honestly, the best follow-up might have been Ghostbusters: The Video Game, a video game released in 2009 that saw the main quartet return to voice their characters in an action game that Aykroyd and Ramis also wrote, with the former calling it "essentially the third movie". At any rate, everyone and their mother have probably watched the film by now, but it is evident now more than ever that Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies of its time, a blockbuster for all time with success in its comedy and effects that ranks as a high mark for all involved in the best way possible.

Overall, I give it 10 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.

The Crow (1994).

Review #1160: The Crow.

Cast: 
Brandon Lee (Eric Draven/The Crow), Michael Wincott (Top Dollar), Ernie Hudson (Sergeant Albrecht), Rochelle Davis (Sarah), Bai Ling (Myca), David Patrick Kelly (T-Bird), Angel David (Skank), Jon Polito (Gideon), Tony Todd (Grange), Sofia Shinas (Shelly Webster), Michael Massee (Funboy), Laurence Mason (Tin-Tin), and Anna Levine (Darla) Directed by Alex Proyas (#086 - I, Robot)

Review: 
The Crow is based off a 1989 superhero comic book series of the same name created by James O'Barr, which soon became an underground success. Tasked with writing the screenplay adaptation is John Shirley and David J. Schow, who were each known for their work on writing novels (cyberpunk and splatter-punk horror, respectively), with un-credited rewrites being done due to the tragic accidental death of Lee on March 31, 1993, which occurred a few days before production was set to end. Narration (along with a few new scenes) was added to accompany stand-in actors (such as Chad Stahelski) and CGI digital superimposition. The resulting product is a movie that is pretty entertaining, mostly due to its style and some fair performances, starting with Lee (in his fifth and final appearance in a film). He shows a good deal of charm and compelling nature (complete with a nice-looking costume) that dominates the screen for most of its 102 minute run-time. Wincott, although not having as much time to make up much of a villainous presence, proves entertaining enough. Hudson is enjoyable in pulling some watch-ability out of the cop role without feeling hollow, having a bit of humor to him. Davis does a fine job as well, going along well with Lee and Hudson. Although the supporting cast of adversaries are a bit routine, they aren't detrimental to the film's credit. The climax (complete with rain, naturally) is satisfactory to help cap the film, having a decent showdown that tries to make the final result a little less than easily predictable (for a vigilante hero, anyway), which works okay to a point. After all, this is a movie with a guy back from the dead who is accompanied by a crow that flies around, but at least there isn't some sort of shoehorned explanation of the origins of the title hero. The film is dark and moody with its approach, particularly with its cinematography by Dariusz Wolski that sure makes the setting come to life with plenty of fine shots to look at, reminding me of Batman (1989) and Blade Runner (1982). The film doesn't have too much in the way of a great story at times, and it can fall prey to some cliches, but I found that there are enough enjoyable moments to make this a entertaining experience. It makes for a fine vigilante film that has some fine action sequences to accompany a movie that certainly earns a cult following and at least one watch for people curious for some style and action.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.