The original is a movie that shouldn’t have worked but did thanks to Murray’s sarcasm, Ramis’ intelligence, Aykroyd’s…batshit insanity, and Ivan Reitman’s ability to balance tone and comedy.

These new films are going for sincerity and I think that’s why they work for me for the most part, but with Murray mostly absent (and checked out when he isn’t) that leaves the comedy in this one mostly to Aykroyd, Rudd and newcomer to the franchise Kumail Nanjiani. Aykroyd brings the energy, Rudd is the concerned “teacher”, and Nanjiani is wasted. The comedic material isn’t there.

The third act also feels bizarrely rushed, possibly reshot and small scale. Winston says something at the end about worldwide paranormal phenomenons and I had no idea what the hell he was talking about. I think that’s potentially acknowledging a third movie and an in-world expansion of the brand, but how about some shots of ghosts in other countries.

If they’re going to make a third one they have to bring in one or two comedic ringers in lead roles. They also need someone funnier than Kenan and Reitman to help with the script (which this film’s script undoubtedly had to be given to several comedians for punch-up).

Also, how are you going to include Slimer and not have any of the original cast acknowledge him? And how do you have Atherton and Murray face one another again and have the dickless line referenced by some offscreen crowd member who wasn’t even in the room to hear that conversation in the original? And based on Afterlife I thought no one remembered the Ghostbusters even though their existence and ghosts existing would be a world altering event?

And I like Bill Murray, especially as Venkman, but I’d rather he not be there if it feels like he’s being held at gunpoint (or as “community service” for ruining Aziz Ansari’s movie and being a dick).

C+

Edit...

Ghostbusters (1984) - A+
Ghostbusters: Afterlife - B+
Ghostbusters II - B
Ghostbusters (2016) Theatrical - B
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (dumb title) - C+
Ghostbusters (2016) Extended - C+

I've also for some reason been bombarded with seeing Ghostbusters groups on Facebook and Reddit and it's been very enjoyable watching them meltdown over the critical response and trying to convince themselves this is fantastic. I've been there before with Superman Returns and Man of Steel. It's nice seeing it from the other side.

"Not every movie is trying to be Oppenheimer."

No shit. This movie isn't even (and shouldn't be) trying to match the original Ghostbusters and it's barely scraping by on being just amusing.

Pretty meh. Nothing in particular stood out besides maybe Paul Rudd.

why you gotta trigger my ptsd?

This was a snoozefest. It takes a lot for me to give a movie a C but the villain was boring and felt like the best scenes were in the trailer (the beach freezing). I maybe laughed once. The last one was much better but just felt like nothing worthwhile happened during the entire movie.

Really had a lot of potential but a meh reception on this one will probably hit the next film. I think they should do a globetrotting one for something fresh and then of course they come back for a grand finale but need some novel type of idea, character, or angle. Maybe there are European Ghostbusters, and they can go to the catacombs in France or something. Something liike "Ghostbusters: A New World."

Wow this was bad. I liked McKenna Grace in the last one, but here she loses all her personality. The plot doesn’t really begin until 2/3 through. Literally nothing happens in the first 2/3. The freezing stuff from the trailer is less than a third of the movie. The villain looks cool but he’s boring. Really just incredibly lazy and tired franchise slop.