Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, directed by Gil Kenan, stars McKenna Grace, Dan Aykroyd, Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, Ernie Hudson, Bill Murray, Logan Kim, Kumail Nanjiani, Celeste O’Connor, William Atherton, Emily Alyn Lind, Annie Potts, James Acaster, and Patton Oswalt. The film is the fifth entry in the Ghostbusters franchise but essentially acts as the fourth film when excluding Ghostbusters (2016) seeing as it takes place in a different timeline. The film follows the Spengler family after the events of Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) as they move to New York City to revive the Ghostbusters. After Ray (Aykroyd) purchases a supernatural relic from a goofy customer named Nadeem (Nanjinani), a new ghostly adversary threatens to freeze NYC into oblivion. Meanwhile, Phoebe (Grace) struggles with the fact that although she is the most intelligent and capable member of the family, her age keeps her on the sidelines. Dealing with feelings of isolation, Pheobe meets a seemingly friendly ghost named Melody (Lind). As their situation becomes dire, the Spenglers must gather friends old and new to once again save their city from decimation.

    The cast is decent and a lot of the elements that we like about these characters are carried over from previous films. Mckenna Grace once again leads the film as a likable but realistically flawed teenager. Paul Rudd is once again an absolute riot as Gary Gooberson, playing the ideal step-dad. But it’s the relationship between these two that provides the film with a strong emotional core. Rudd attempts to be a true father figure while Phoebe struggles to accept it. It’s simple, but the relationships within the Spengler family are the film’s biggest strength. Dan Aykroyd has a much larger role than the previous film, and I can’t be happier. Unlike the previous film, he’s given the opportunity to prove that he hasn’t lost a step in terms of portraying the character. Kumail Nanjiani is fun and his back-and-forth with Bill Murray steals the show. The two battle for who can be the biggest clown and I was all for it. The unfortunate thing is that although characters like Nadeem are a lot of fun, they feel a bit unnecessary. The film has far too many characters and this makes it feel unfocused. It’s so overstuffed with different subplots that most of them don’t receive enough time to breathe. The most egregious example of this is the character Lars played by James Acaster, Lars is Ghostbusters maintenance guy and initially appears to be a character who’s only there to dump exposition and then leave. Unfortunately, the character also has almost zero personality but they use him to the point where he even joins the team in the third act. It’s even more annoying considering the previously mentioned problem of the film already feeling overstuffed with characters. I even feel as if established characters such as Podcast (Kim), Venkman (Murray), and Janine (Potts) could have been cut. The fan in me wouldn’t like this, but the writer in me knows the film would run a lot smoother. 

The film works in the sense that it introduces a good amount of new but natural elements to the franchise. For example, the film’s use of ice/cold is a surprisingly creepy visual motif. There is also the idea that the Ghostbusters finally have to deal with the consequences of their ghostbusting including immense property damage and underage labor. The film also modernizes the Ghostbusters’ tech in a way that opens up endless possibilities for future installments. Last of all, the introduction of a more friendly ghost is an element I can’t believe the franchise hadn’t done sooner. 

What the film also does well is carry over arcs from the previous film in ways that feel like it truly expands these characters and their relationships. Speaking of bringing certain elements back, I very much enjoy the fact that this film returns to NYC. The city is synonymous with Ghostbusters and something about the setting of Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) felt admittedly lacking.

Some of the callbacks to the original films are simply for nostalgia, but I still found them to be a lot of fun. I think this is because of the film’s reasonable balance between callbacks and new elements. Speaking of balance, I find that the use of CGI here is extremely unbalanced. The ghosts/monsters look cartoonish and the colorful, candy-shop visual style is more similar to Ghostbusters (2016) and that’s not a good thing. However, the series does seem to be going in a more family-friendly direction. This makes the flamboyant visuals seem a bit more warranted. Unfortunately, It also makes the villain far less intimidating than most other villains in the franchise. My last gripe has to do with the fact that Sigourney Weaver’s Dana Barrett was teased to return in this film, but she is nowhere to be found. This is the second time this series has backtracked on some pretty significant arcs/teases. 

Overall, this is an ok sequel to Afterlife but is still a big step down. The jokes aren’t as strong and the characters don’t feel as if they get enough individual focus. That being said, the film generally succeeds at carrying over Afterlife’s specific kind of charm. Whatever issues I have with the film, I’m excited about how it will influence the series going forward. That being said, I can only recommend this to families, children, and diehard Ghostbusters fans. Everyone else is guaranteed to find it all a bit stale. C+