SOS Fantômes: L'empire de glace

This film is okay. It's not nearly as good as Ghostbusters Afterlife but it's about what you would expect from a follow up. The new ghosts and elements added to the lore are very cool and some of the visuals are very nice. Some of the jokes are very funny and some aren't. The cast is pretty good here but nothing exceptional performance wise. The action scenes are ok but the final battle is pretty short and a little anti climactic. The original crew is just there to be there with the exception of Dan Aykroyd, who actually has quite a bit of screen time. If you're a Ghostbusters fan you'll probably have a good time with it but don't expect to be blown away.

It's a big-budget blockbuster with an extensive all-star cast of both legends and rising stars, a menacing other-worldly threat, and it leverages an iconic intellectual property that brings nostalgia to an audience who grew up watching cartoons that bordered on marketing brainwashing, so hypothetically 'Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire' has all of the elements for a great movie. Unfortunately it just isn't one.

It's not awful, but it's definitely not 'great'. The cast is bloated, so it feels like a series of SNL sketches cut together. The main plot thread, Phoebe, is probably the least interesting character they could have chosen for the lead plot line. The handling of her character was heavy-handed and pandering. Yes there were sex jokes in the old movies, but Bill Murray's romance stories in the originals were one of their least interesting aspects, and apparently my distaste for romance stories in Ghostbusters movies has not changed.

The effects, sound, music, cinematography and general production value are of high quality. The acting is across the board because there're a zillion actors.

'Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire' snatches defeat from the jaws of victory in an effort to appeal to modern audiences, leading to a forgettable middle entry to what is likely a string of movies that are already declining in quality at a predictable rate.

They could have done so much more with this movie, unfortunately the storyline was only wafer thin, the cast were not used to to produce the same performance that they did in Afterlife and the plot holes were gaping.

If they had only made the connection with Afterlife and built upon the story from the start of the movie, then started introducing the new characters and a more convincing plot, they definitely could have made it better.

I certainly wouldn't rush to watch it again, the special effects were good, some of the comedy value was entertaining, some was just plain silly.

I scored it: 6/10.

Wanted to love it, the previous movie was great, had that Ghostbusters feel.

This movie however, even though it has all the parts needed, was well shot and looked decent enough, had plenty of stars and the original cast, was just dull. Felt like an obligation. Comes across like the first draft and they just said "yeah go with that"..it's low energy low fun low everything. You won't hate it, but you'll probably lose interest half way through and you'd never watch it a second time. Maybe it was a contractual obligation that they make one in a certain amount of time or something, don't know, but it's disappointing.

Really bad characters with no substance and a sadly terrible movie. Turning McKenna Grace into some sort of boring Harry Potter character was a big mistake and the plot is full of the usual unbelievable Mary Sue tropes.

It's strange to me how it seems impossible for Hollywood to turn out a decent movie recently. Constant reshashing of old stories or franchises, with the inevitable eye-rolling tropes being added to make it more pc just smacks of desperation.

I could possibly understand the misguided attempts at girl-bossing every movie if it meant interesting plots, good acting, and clever writing, but fails so hard. Whatever happen to story-telling and good complex well-cast characters who are cast for their acting talent rather than immutable characteristics?