Ghostbusters English Movie Review
Cast-;
Mckenna Grace , Finn Wolfhard , Carrie Coon , Paul Rudd , Logan Kim , Celeste O’Connor , Bill Murray , Dan Aykroyd , Ernie Hudson , Sigourney Weaver , Annie Potts , Oliver Cooper , Bokeem Woodbine , Marlon Ka zadi , etc , Sydney Mae ,Tracy Letts , Josh Gad , Olivia Wilde , K. Simmons , Olivia Wilde etc .
Crew-;
Directer – Jason Reitman , Written – Gil Kenan ,Jason Reitman , Based on – Ghostbusters by Dan Aykroyd Harold Ramis , Producer -Ivan Reitman , Cinematography – Eric Steelberg ,Editer – Dana E. Glauberman ,Nathan Orloff
Music – Rob Simonsen , Production companies – Columbia Pictures * Bron Creative Ghost Corps *The Montecito Picture Company & Right of Way Films , Distributer – Sony Pictures Releasing ,Release date – November 18, 20 21 (United Kingdom) November 19, 2021 (United States) Running time – 125 minutes Country – United States ,Language -English , R S V P – PentaganPr – R S Prakash etc.
Story-;
After being evicted from their home, a single mother and her two children are forced to move to a decayed farm house in Summerville, Oklahoma, left to them by the children’s late grandfather, where a series of unexplained earthquakes are occurring despite not being situated on any fault and strange things are happening in an old mi ne which once belonged to the alleged occultist Ivo Shandor. The children discover the history of their grandfa ther with the original Ghostbusters, who have since been lar gely forgotten by the world beyond their fan base. When supernatural phenomena relating to New York City’s “Manha ttan Crossrip of 1984” occur and threaten the world, the kids, along with their family and friends, must solve the decades-old mystery of the reloca tion of their grandfather and use the equipment of the Ghostbusters, and beco me their successors to save it.
Watch The Trailor-;
Movie Review-;
In the lead-up to releasing “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” Sony has played it fairly tight-lipped about what exactly this movie might be: Is it a prequel, a sequel or some kind of spinoff? Pretty much any discussion of the answer will co me as a spoiler to those who like surprises, so be warned that this review is not intended as a marketing tool for the studio (those seeking coy teasers are better off watching the trailers), but as a critique of what this unnecess ary but enjoyable movie actually delivers. The “Ghostbusters” franchise has gone through quite a few permutati ons in the decades since director Ivan Reitman’s original feature was released in 1984. And while the kooky spir it and basic concept of the first film remain unchanged in each iteration, from the two ’90s animated TV series to 2016’s gender-swapped reboot, the property itself is continually in a creative flux. It’s no wonder it’s going throu gh yet another change — and showing marked growing pains in the process. Director/ co-writer Jason Reitman’s “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” hits the reboot button once more, this time carrying a familial cinematic legacy. Yet wi th all the nostalgia packed into the picture, its own refurbished identity is slightly compromised, functioning as a mimeograph of what came before it.
The good news for “Ghostbusters” fans is that “Afterlife” does nothing to tarnish what has come before, over se en as it is by Jason Reitman, carrying on the legacy of his father (and “Ghostbusters” director) Ivan, who played an important behind-the-scenes role in shaping this 21st-century update. The franchise has made the family ric h, spawning a sequel, an animated series, a comic book line and an ill-fated 2016 reboot. After those wildly une ven expansions, the new movie aims to bring things back around, serving to deepen the mythology of the 1984 blockbuster by focusing on the estranged grandkids of one of the original Ghostbusters, who are forced to move to middle-of-nowhere Summerville, Okla., after the old coot kicks the bucket. Rebuilding from the past is the gui ding sentiment of this feature, not only in terms of one family renovating their lives, but also in the way Reitman and co-writer Gil Kenan reconstruct elements foundational to the franchise (like certain props, characters, and story beats). Financially strapped single mother Callie (Carrie Coon) is facing eviction when she learns that her estranged, reclusive father (whose identity they take great pains to obscure at first) has died and left her his dil apidated farmhouse (which metaphorically mirrors their relationship).
With no alternative living arrangements, she and her kids — teen Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and tween Phoebe (Mc kenna Grace) — pack up the car and head out to the quaint rural town of Summerville, Oklahoma.Mom (Carrie C oon) is still sore about being abandoned many years earlier, but intends to sort through the mess her dad left beh ind, hoping 15-year-old Trevor (“Stranger Things” star Finn Wolfhard) and science prodigy Phoebe (terrific youn g actor Mckenna Grace of “Troop Zero” fame) can adjust. Turns out, the kids take it better, adjusting almost insta ntly. Trevor gets a job at the local burger joint — a ploy to get closer to crush Lucky (Celeste O’Connor) — while Phoebe enrolls in summer school, taught by amateur seismologist Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd). There, she mak es friends with a kid (Logan Kim) who calls himself Podcast for obvious reasons (he insists on documenting his lif e, regardless of whether anyone cares). As soon as they arrive at the front gates of the inherited estate, the famil y is greeted by scripture-covered signage harkening the end times. On the surface, it appears Callie’s father went a little loony, letting everything in his life fall into a state of disrepair.
But intuitive intellect Phoebe suspects otherwise when clues begin to unravel secrets about her grandfather’s past life as a Ghostbuster and the pesky paranormal phenomena he was investigating at his time of death. Frequ ent earthquakes have plagued residents for years — all possibly connected to an old mining company with a hau nted past on the outskirts of town. As Phoebe assembles the puzzle pieces, a familiar menace emerges, threaten ing to irreparably fracture her family and bring an end to the world. It takes nearly an hour (51 minutes, to be ex act) for any ghosts to appear, although the movie does tease their presence much earlier with a familiar sight: an ominous, swirling cloud positioned directly above the town’s long-abandoned mine. Now here’s the part where I take a moment to admit that I don’t care for the original “Ghostbusters.” I like the song, the costumes, the car and the cartoony no-ghosts logo, but find myself exhausted by the gobbledygook pseudoscience and bizarro end-of-the-world finale.
What’s more, I blame “Ghostbusters” for decades of lazy blockbuster imitations (including “Men in Black” and mo re than a few Marvel movies) in which we’re meant to fear the worst when some apocalyptic weather patte rn swirls into formation, sending a glowing beam of purple light down from the heavens. (Only “Independence Day” has used that technique well.) And yet, here we go again. Innovation is key and, up until the climax, the fil mmakers deliver a fairly creative and mildly entertaining product. The trope of malfunctioning cell phones dou bles as a clever way to do away with modern tech for a timeless throwback feel. They make full use of the Ecto-1’s capabilities, tricking it out with a swing-out jump seat and a floor hatch to release an R/C controlled trap, in an exciting action-forward sequence where the kids pursue a metal-masticating, corpulent blue ghost named Muncher (voiced by Josh Gad). Reitman doubles down on his dad’s indelible Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, delive ring many delightfully sadistic miniature versions who roast, skewer and melt each other during a hilarious mon tage of mayhem in a Walmart.After the movie’s leisurely, kid-centric buildup,
“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” eventually reveals itself to be a rural, 21st-century rematch of what has come before what remains of the Ghostbusters — both old and new members — reassembled to thwart Gozer’s return. The movie essentially disowns the gender-swapped reboot, though that movie (which featured cameo appearances by five of the original cast) gives a pretty good idea of who’s available and willing to reenlist. Technical aspects be autifully build off the original. Composer Rob Simonsen’s score pays homage to Elmer Bernstein’s classic, unfor gettable themes while establishing its own unique soundscape with similar instrumentation of woodwinds, stri ngs, and heavy brass. Frequent collaborator Eric Steelberg’s cinematography is subtly influenced by László Kov ács’s approach, simultaneously augmenting narrative undertones with his own hallmark grounded, humanistic touch. Plus, François Audouy’s production design and Danny Glicker’s costumes put clever spins on iconic mom ents from the ’84 film.Grace is tasked to carry much of the film on her shoulders and she handles it with aplomb. She turns in an astute, captivating, vibrant performance as the film’s beating heart.
Her droll delivery and natural ease with repartee work perfectly to enhance the comedic overtones. Coon’s wo rk is filled with a palpable sense of vulnerability, soul and dry wit.Whereas Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Ernie H udson projected too much smarmy, oversexed swagger the first time around, it’s fun to see them looking a little more rickety and vulnerable in their old age, while still holding their own against Terror Dogs and whatever oth er demons are trying to break through from the other side. Special effects have advanced light-years since 1984, and yet Reitman (the younger) makes the respectable decision to stick to the look of the original film, opting to use models and practical tricks where possible, but not ruling out CG where necessary. However, other char act ers are awash with confusing creative decisions. Phoebe, who mentions she doesn’t process emotion like eve ry one else (hinting she’s “on the spectrum”), isn’t given much in the way of internally motivated obstacles to surmo unt. She’s treated like the stereotypical “awkward new kid,” though she’s anything but: Her perceived disability is brilliantly used as an asset from the start, and she’s continually spotlit as capable, fearless and fairly confident.
She even becomes fast friends with Podcast (Logan Kim), a gregarious, inquisitive classmate named after his cho sen profession. Her summer school teacher, Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) is passionate about science and seism ology, but instead of teaching class, he plops his students in front of a VCR.In place of Slimer, we get a corpulent computer-animated ghost named Muncher, who gobbles metal and then sprays shrapnel on anyone who tries to wrangle him. And the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man returns in a slightly different (adorably self-destructive) for m. Watching one of these gremlins cozy up between a chocolate-bar blanket and a graham-cracker bed has gotta be one of the year’s best sight gags. And considering how randy the earlier film was, it’s nice to see a much doofi er romance blooming between Coon’s and Rudd’s characters (the “Ant-Man” star continues to prove himself a co medy MVP, earning half the movie’s big laughs).Some years back, there was talk of a possible “Ghostbusters ” but then Harold Ramis died, leaving the team incomplete. “Afterlife” finds an emotional way to honor his legacy, using a combination of technology and creative screenwriting to make his character felt in the run-up to the mo vie’s supernatural battle royal.
In retrospect, there was only one right answer, and “Afterlife” nails it. But shifting the action from the big city to a “dirt farm” in Oklahoma seriously undercuts the feeling that Gozer’s return could spell the end for humanity. It probably would have been just as effective if said demon — liberated like some kind of evil genie from its deca de s of captivity — were content to seek revenge on the Big Apple ghost-catchers who locked it up before. Still, wha t threatens to undermine much of our goodwill takes place in the film’s nostalgia-fueled finale, where nothi ng is sacred and the spectacle culminates in all-too familiar patterns. All the risks taken up until that point to deepen character drive and further thematic profundity on forgiveness, friendship and familial strife are given an entire ly expected safe landing. Add to this a run time of two-hours plus, where every minute is felt, and this new journ ey feels a bit more busted than one would hope.Between “Stranger Things” and the upcoming “Top Gun” sequel, ’80s pop culture nostalgia seems to be at an all-time high, but “Afterlife” tries not to lean too heavily on that sen timent alone.
It’s designed to work for those who’ve never seen any of the franchise’s earlier incarnations, and though the film adopts an unmistakably Amblin-esque vibe — there’s an obvious “what if the Goonies were Ghostbusters?” sen sibility at work here, reinforced by Spielbergian magic-hour shots of kids assembling around a Devils Tower-sh aped rock formation — you needn’t have grown up on such movies to appreciate how they elevate adolescent rejects to hero status.
This IS MY Personal Review So Please Go And Watch The Movie In Theaters Only
Written By- T.H.PRASAD -B4U-Ratting-5 /5
