Frankly speaking, I did not expect the Heirs and did not expect anything. I didn’t like the concept of a “new generation” of hunters in the form of schoolchildren. Seriously, why can't you bring Extreme Ghostbusters to the big screen? However, to my surprise and joy, the film was very good.
The main characters are the descendants of Igon Spengler - his daughter, Kelly, and her children - Trevor and Phoebe. And if neither Kelly nor Trevor are of particular interest, then Phoebe, who clearly inherited her grandfather’s talent, shows a penchant for science in all its manifestations. So formally, despite the large number of conventionally the main characters, Phoebe is the star of the narrative.
Again, to my surprise, the young caste is not irritating. The characters are spelled out well, played by talented guys, so the characters do not cause any rejection. You quickly become attached to the protagonists, and it becomes even interesting to watch how they comprehend the legacy of the past.
By the way, it should be noted that before this very legacy, the viewer will have a fairly long introductory segment of acquaintance with new heroes. And here he is nothing special - a smooth narrative, revealing each hero and giving each his own personal storylines. Again, the introductory segment is quite average, introducing the characters to the level of any stamped horror film, where the family moves to a new house in the wilderness.
After that, all the fun begins. Of course, in the film a lot of references to the original “Hunters”, and the entire central plot is essentially tied to the very first film. There is a lot of fanservice in The Heirs, but it must be admitted that the film uses it skillfully, with great respect for the original. The first ghost chase on "Ecto-1" causes no less delight than the characters themselves.
Separately, it is necessary to note the cameo of the original Hunters - here the heroes of childhood were treated with all respect, paying tribute to the memory of Harold Ramis. The whole film is essentially dedicated to him, and the final segment of the picture at some point really breaks into tears.
As for the ghosts themselves, they look quite cartoonish, but not because of bad graphics per se. All the paranormal in the film is stylized, and in general it is probably logical. Given the children’s rating, making ghosts more realistic would be somewhat inappropriate, and would be out of the mood of the original paintings.
In general, “Heirs” is good fiction, which, although it comes out largely thanks to the fan service, is still a high-quality and interesting project. I recommend it.
Seeing the old guard in the new Ghostbusters movie is great, great, cool. To watch those who follow them is beyond all strength. Seriously, how could you even think of a scene in which a minor moulded boy drives a branded car through the streets of a small sleepy town, and Richie, according to his smart younger sister, also failed the driving exam three times. Meanwhile, this very sister, thanks to the idea in the transport, falls out and shoots proton weapons for a decent time, bringing chaos. Hell, why wasn't there an intelligible chase from the cops, they were sitting in the same diner as their mom. Yes, then the children were caught and put in a terrible monkey house, even released, but this scene still does not fit into my head. To present part of the new Hunters in this form. . .
In general, the impression of the film after watching is more or less decent. It's not as bad as it seemed before getting to know Jason Reitman's legacy. In a separate story, it might look interesting, but when you add a lot of elements from the classics of the 80s, it doesn’t work. So why would that older generation look at what they saw in 1984 and 1989, in a new wrapper, only with naughty children instead of experienced men? In addition, these incompetents do not particularly care that after opening the trap released something. The kids can be justified, the authors will say, knowing nothing about the Hunters and their methods. Then why not follow in the footsteps of Extreme Ghostbusters? Of course, there are also doubtful participants in it, but at least not children, and, as far as we remember, a gloomy atmosphere.
Yes, the success of "Stranger Things" and the dilogy "It" has turned the heads of producers of other projects, they almost want to do something similar, forging iron, as they say. Just as for the cult Ghostbusters 1-2 experiments with neither women nor children as the main characters do not work, they are not suitable for adventurous action comedy with ghosts. Although McKenna Grace, Finn Wolfhard and Logan Kim are still charming, they are certainly not annoying types. It’s nice to see them, you can’t deny it. In the end, we come to the opinion that "Heirs" and fresh "Chilling horror" are very weak against the background of their predecessors, toothless and too fabulous. They have an atmosphere, yes, but does it appeal to today's kids with teens? The box office says otherwise. But the trilogy needs to be finished, so it remains to be endured.
I didn't look very carefully. In principle, the film is not bad, but absolutely straightforward, without trying to bring some zest. Completely predictable and without even the slightest twist. You can watch if you have nothing to do. But you can watch. .
At the cemetery of the film franchise replenishment: with an unprecedented crack and creaking brakes ecto-1 in the heavenly cinema arrived ghost hunters. Gan Solo, Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones (add more to taste) – familiar from childhood names, mediocrely ruined by modern writers and directors.
As a rule, when reviewing a movie, it is customary to note at least some positive points, but not in this case. The film is not to be praised.
The script is boring: for 2 hours the characters talk, suffer, dull and find out the relationship. The conflicts of parents and children, the libido-suffering of a single mother raising two children – all this is exactly what you expect from this franchise. Any action on the topic begins exactly 15 minutes before the credits.
The plot is very weak and literally repeats the first film, just instead of New York, they took the scenery of the American outback with local rednecks in addition. And the saddest thing is that there are no ghosts in the film at all, there is no humor associated with them, but there are cheap references for fans.
Characters are flat cards. It feels like you’re watching the first season of Stranger Things, because the whole thing is about kids. Cameo, how to put it mildly, there is, but once charismatic hunters are shown to be aged, decrepit and forgotten. Looking at Aykroyd just hurts, Murray tries to joke, but it looks about the same as Harrison Ford aki Jones tries to jump in the fifth part, that is, with sadness.
No exposure at all. In the world there is a local YouTube, where the events of the first two parts are presented in the form of numerous videos of eyewitnesses, but no one believes in ghosts. How does it work?
With special effects, the same problem as in the movie “Alien”.
Covenant. With all the development of CGI-graphics, a picture from the 80s is suddenly better perceived than in the works of the 2020s.
It is quite understandable that Sony tried to squeeze the money of the remaining fans out of the cult franchise, but did it dirty and very modern.
Stay away from this product because it has no soul. Revisit the original parts.
To make worse that terrible reboot with the hunters, filmed in the distant 2016, I think, simply impossible. Therefore, the “Heirs” were easier. Last time the bar was lowered so that the bottom is not visible. But how good it was this time. I had no idea!
I am well aware that having children in this story as protagonists is partly aimed at engaging young audiences with the story of hunters. But, honestly, only partly to look away. In fact, this picture is built solely in order to accelerate the nostalgia machine in the souls of fans to maximum speed. So many cute references, so many familiar characters (although to the end of the film) – they all make you rejoice like a child and squeeze your heart from tenderness at the same time. Honestly, on the frame, when the badge of hunters on the car get drops of water and wash away the dirt, as if throwing off the dust of time and all the abomination that was defamed by real hunters previous film about hunters, I almost let a tear! And the scenes after the credits (there are two) will simply twist old school to anyone who is now over thirty.
The plot of the film is that now catch ghosts will be teenagers. They find themselves on an old farm, where they find artifacts of hunters. In this sense, the film fulfills childhood dreams. Personally, I really wanted to someday find guns and ghost traps to jump into that very machine with the logo and to the immortal soundtrack to rush to meet adventure. Otherwise, this tape is, in fact, a repetition of the first part.
Whether the creators will succeed in making this beautiful story have new fans – I am not sure. The thing is, there's not much explained in this movie. Take the same marshmallow men. Here, again, more focus on those who were once aware of what is happening. And from those viewers, thank you very much. New fans can and will not work, but the old with this film definitely pleased!
It so happened that I decided to write this review only now, in January 2023, although I went to it for the first time with my son when the premiere screening was held. And today I re-watched this film, and, as they say, on fresh tracks decided to share my impressions of watching.
By tradition, I will begin with the background, or rather my story of acquaintance with the four ghost hunters, who undoubtedly became heroes of those years, along with the heroes from the Batman franchise, star warriors and similar films. And still the first and second parts of Ghostbusters are classics of world cinema in the genre of fiction with elements of mysticism. My acquaintance with ghost hunters began as a child. I’m not sure how old I was, but I remember being in middle school. I also don’t remember which part I watched first, and I don’t think that’s particularly important because I’ve watched the movies a couple of times since then. I rarely watch movies, especially old ones, but in this case I decided to make an exception. Apparently, this whole topic hooked me, although I am not a fan of cinema, I am not a polymath in this field, but I love cinema in general and, if possible, I try to visit cinemas regularly. Looking back, I realize that it would have been great in the late 80s and early 90s not to watch these films on black and white TV, but in the cinema and in color, but, unfortunately, we did not have a color TV in those years, and I saw films on television in those years. Fortunately, I was able to watch the hunters on color TV. I don’t want to describe in detail who these hunters are, as any information about the franchise is open, and it will not be difficult to find it now. I'll just say one thing, ghost hunters left only good emotions in my memory. I don’t know movies very well, but I have a general understanding of them. I remember the main characters: Peter, Winston, Egon and Ray. I also undoubtedly remember the Ecto-1 car, photonic emitters, traps and a lot, a lot of slime from ghosts, as it turned out later, green. And in those years there were video games, toys, gum, animated series about ghost hunters and many of the guys were fond of this topic.
And now, two decades later, a new film about wrestlers with ghosts in our modern world and time, more precisely in 2021. Of course, the topic of ghosts, the other world and evil is not new and similar films are many, but it is ghost hunters, and not ghost catchers, for example, everyone has long heard of, and they are still remembered. Yes, of course, there was another film in which women were in the role of hunters, but to perceive it as a sequel or a prequel is extremely undesirable, and it is not a bad performance of actresses or low quality of the script, no. It’s more about people not accepting that it’s a female version of movies. But the fact that there was an attempt to revive history is not worth denying. Only this film is still only indirectly related to the original story, I would say that this is a look at ghosts and fight with them through the eyes of fans of the film, in general, something based on motives.
But let's go back to our rams, the new movie. 'Ghostbusters. Heirs, directed by Jason Reitman and Gil Keenan, are a continuation of the dilogy and are dedicated posthumously to Harold Ramis, the actor who previously played Egon Spendler. Here, the actor appears before the audience in the form of a virtual image created on a computer. A controversial moment, of course, but in general in the plot it is well and correctly played. You will find out when you watch this movie.
Now the actors. Young actors McKenna Grace and Phil Wolfhard, I think, played just fine. As for adults, there are comments and questions to them, but in general their efforts and skills were crowned with success, they coped with the task they set, although they overplayed in places, I think, and in places, on the contrary, they fell short. Well, the undoubted plus of the composition is the appearance of old actors, albeit briefly. True, the Russian voice of James Belushi leaves much to be desired, I think, but perhaps I watched this time in a different voiceover, because a friend of Spendler’s granddaughter was called Podcast, not Podcaster, as I heard in the theater.
As for my overall viewing experience, I will say this. Great sequel! But there were some things I was missing, like more destruction, more ghosts, more colorful special effects. Disappointed and the main villain, or rather the villain of the film. Anyone who has seen it knows what I mean. I really hope that in the next film, which was supposed to start shooting in 2023, filmmakers will change something for the better.
And then we come to the question: What did I like about the movie? I really liked the overall atmosphere of the film, references and Easter eggs, and the fact that the film has a low threshold of entry and understanding of the plot. That is, even those who have not seen any previous film before will be thrilled to see the original movies from the 80s, wanting to know and see more than we were shown. And those who watched will undoubtedly enjoy learning familiar objects and sounds from childhood, especially the sound of turning on a photon emitter. Am I calling it right?
In conclusion, I would like to point out one fact that I discovered by accident when I was looking for general information about the old films in the franchise. The first and second parts have a rating of 16+, while the new film in 2021 is only 12+. Of course, not always then, and now it is observed, but I think it is good that the cinema became available from an earlier age, and therefore is focused on a wider audience than before. This is undoubtedly another plus. Although on the other hand, someone will say that the film became boring and softer due to the presence of a certain censorship.
7 out of 10
3 points subtract for weak by the standards of 2021 special effects and almost no main villain.
And the title song in the film, sounded timely, gives it even more charm and special style.
This sort of reboot did the right thing in terms of respecting the original, keeping the storyline believable and having stunning cameos. It's nice to see old, familiar faces, if you're a fan of the original, you'll really like the atmosphere of nostalgia. A tribute to Harold Ramis, one of the creators of the original concept and the only actor to have passed away, is beautiful.
The script is not finalized, the middle sags. The beginning is not bad, but after the first third of the story begins to gallop, jumping over the chapters. New characters are gradually rolling into the film. But then suddenly, from the middle, they sharply delve into everything at the level of professors from the first films and the chase begins with the shooting of blasters. At the same time, the audience does not explain anything that this is in general and where the legs of ghosts grow. Like watching old movies and you'll understand. In this regard, the characters of the heroes are not disclosed. They just started to open up in the beginning, and then spit on this case. Like we have a blockbuster, we need tricks and special effects, and the dramatic component is sideways, and the characters remain undisclosed. As a result, it becomes uninteresting, on the screen just mindless special effects. At the end of the kin there are old hunters. But what is the artistic meaning of this is completely unclear, pure marketing. As a result, this movie is not like an independent work and not even an official sequel, but some kind of fan fiction. That doesn't make it meat. New viewers will not understand, and the old will not go, because unlike the first films, this movie is absolutely childish, with a rating of 12+.
The son of the famous director, screenwriter and producer Ivan Reitman Jason from adolescence showed remarkable cinematic talent. Due to this, he began to receive offers of a commercial nature, but Jason Reitman chose the path of authorial and independent cinema, where there is space for creativity and studios do not have such an influence on the filming process. After a series of short films, Jason Reitman directed his first feature-length film ' Here Smoking' (2005), it was followed by 'Juno' (2007) and ' I Wish I Could Sky' (2009), and each of them collected a heap of awards and nominations, which allowed to call Jason Reitman one of the best young independent filmmakers. In the period from 2011 to 2018, he shot five more films, of which stood out ' Labor Day' (2013) and 'Tally' (2017), and all of them did not have a high budget. The most expensive project of Jason Reitman was already mentioned film ' I would be in the sky' with a budget of $ 25 million. But the year 2021 came and Jason Reitman beats this conditional own record exactly three times: for $ 75 million he puts the film ' Ghostbusters: Heirs'.
And this ' economic growth' there are a number of reasons. First, who else could film the continuation of the legendary dilogy ' Ghostbusters' (1984 and 1989), if not Jason Reitman, because they were filmed by his father and are considered the best works of Ivan Reitman, long ago became a classic? Secondly, the triquel was conceived in the 90s of the last century, but was never launched, but in 2016 it was released if you can call it a feminist reboot ' Ghostbusters' which performed well at the box office, but was defeated by critics and received many angry responses from the audience. Thus, we can say that the restart justified itself financially only through marketing and the use of a high-profile name, knowingly attracting the viewer to view. Thirdly, the genre of science fantasy with elements of mysticism, fiction and comedy for production requires solid infusions, because without visual special effects here can not do. And I must say that the film Jason Reitman, called 'Ghostbusters: Heirs', more than two and a half times justified its budget.
The plot of the film centers around single mother Callie Spangler (Carrie Coon), raising her eldest son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and younger daughter Phoebe (McKenna Grace). Due to the turmoil, Callie and the children are forced to move into a dilapidated house on the periphery - the only thing she got from her father, with whom she has not communicated for a long time and knew almost nothing. Children, of course, are not happy with what is happening, but they are forced to accept it and find new friends. Trevor meets a nice girl named Lucky (Celesty O'Connor), and Phoebe is followed by a boy nicknamed Podcast (Logan Kim), who literally shoots everything he sees and accompanies it with catchy and definitely creepy details of his emotional perception. And the Spengler family meets a kind of teacher Mr. Gruberson (Paul Rudd), who felt a romantic fascination with Callie. But the most unexpected discovery is that the house contains many artifacts that directly say that the father of Callie and the grandfather of Trevor and Phoebe was none other than a famous ghost hunter who disappeared from view after the events of more than thirty years ago.
Further to go into the details of the plot does not make any sense, because the fame ' Ghostbusters' does not extinguish, so that the audience they have a huge audience and everyone will want to see the film of Jason Reitman, who continued the work of his famous father. But it is worth saying that in 'Ghostbusters: Heirs' there are many references and explicit takes from the classical dilogy, which can be called an homage that causes a certain state of nostalgia. However, with the overall atmosphere, the triquel did not come out as we would like. If Ivan Reitman’s films were characterized by dynamics, amusing scenes, diluting the main storyline, exciting novelty and talented visualization, then in Jason Reitman’s film these characteristics did not reach the level of their predecessors. Perhaps that affected the little experience of Jason Reitman with the technology of the genre of fiction. And yet it cannot be said that the film does not attract the eye: some scenes are really colorful and correspond to the original, especially falls into the memory of the scene when an ancient creepy creature appears in the seductive performance of Olivia Wilde, who did not get into the credits.
It is likely that all conditional problems 'Ghostbusters: Heirs' comes out of the straightforwardness of the film. But let’s pay tribute to Jason Reitman, who tried very hard and wanted to make his film, his new Ghostbusters & #39, without being in the shadow of his father. Jason made it so that each character contributed something to the film, making it so diverse. For example, Phoebe inherited the genius of her grandfather, and the young actress McKenna Grace very convincingly conveyed this complex image. Trevor turned out to be a modest and hard-working young man, ready for adventure, which Finn Wolfhard, who played him, quite succeeded. Carrie Coon as Callie is certainly not the new Sigourney Weaver, who starred in the original dilogy, but she is quite bright, pleasant and attractive woman. Paul Rudd, in his own way, took on the functions of the main supplier of humor, and at times he succeeded gloriously. But what euphoria causes the final segment 'Ghostbusters: Heirs' when Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson appear on the screen, who were the striking force of the first two films. And when the rays from the blasters break out, and ghost traps are opened to the song of Ray Parker Jr., then you are seized by a strong desire to immediately revise the Ghostbusters & #39; 1984 and 1989 release. . .
7 out of 10
P.S. And be sure to watch the two post-credits scenes and if you know and love the first two parts of Ghostbusters & #39, they will bring you deep nostalgic pleasure.
An hour and a half very strange things for the lamp ending with real hunters
And the feeling of either the crossover, or the remake of the continuation did not leave the entire hour and a half before the most touching finale. Did they call the movies hunters? It was quite strange to see children abuse the symbols of the original films. Maybe a hearse and a cheerful car, but this is a Cataphallus with a successful weave in the original films to refer to the other worlds. Immediately this hearse for some reason screwed the physics of armored cars from the Need for Speed series of games. But come on. Next, they show how a single proton pack weighing at least 15 kg is famously worn by a 13-year-old girl. It's a proton wound!!! It's not a school backpack. This is a portable nuclear power plant!! What Reitman is going on here??? Moreover, the characters have a kind of unhealthy obsession with what is happening to the devil, as if they have ghosts eating metal every day, and the night lights copy their fellow Evil Dead. . .
I wanted to remind you of the original. Yes, there were some crazy scientists who knew what they were doing and didn't make intellectual trees. In those films, even the Roman father (!!!) came to examine the showdown with the otherworldly. The village lives in a spherical vacuum and there is no one within a radius of 1000 km. You have here, for a moment, the Sumerian Tomb in the middle of the village!!! Why are the locals so indifferent? And this hour and a half of mockery for a true fan of the original parts will be torture. Although it is foolish to expect from teenagers a qualitative study of characters for their characters. But it was an extremely depressing sight... There is nothing to remember and nothing to say. In addition, the plot canvas painfully resembles a mediocre tracing from the first film, even the villain is the same. Nothing original can be imagined. And the next sequel will be a reimagining of Viggo of Carpathia with its rivers of mucus?? Why are these self-repeats?
And only the lamp ending turned out really touching and more or less worthy of the original from Ivan Reitman. Very qualitatively showed the ghost of the aged Igon. It was filled with warmth in its own way. It was nice to see the original, albeit already aged, hunters again. And when the old guard appeared, the heirs finally lost.
Also, the biggest mistake of this film is that there is no continuity. A lot of time has passed since the release of the second part and it was possible to tell these first hour and a half about the lives of the original characters, and in the end to show these indistinct heirs. It is not clear where the ghosts went from the vault in the former fire station. We could also get more actors from old movies who lived to see such a long-awaited sequel.
So for fans of the original films, a warning that they will miss the finale for an hour and a half. Also left quite funny scenes after the credits, which could still leave in a full meter without such a poor wait for the end of the film. Unpleasant quality, for some reason taken from the adaptations of comics from Marvel.
Only thanks to the finale is a neutral rating, but it is too little for such a long film is essentially about nothing. I don’t remember any of the heirs from the game.
We live in an age of sequels, rethinkings, adaptations and interquels, so the question of when the raking hands of producers will get to the cult classics, not even stood. Some superintelligences a few years ago already made an attempt to vulgarize and spoil the case of Wenkman and Ko female version ' Hunters' It was raw and ridiculous. In pursuit of the agenda, the creators forgot that feminism is about equality, and not a curve on the screen in principle not talentless actresses. But, fortunately, the female version failed and has long been put on the shelf next to the same dead who have sunk into oblivion. And now, a few years later, very talented and powerful in humor Jason Reitman took up another attempt to revive the ghostly car, this time putting behind the wheel not women, but children. What can be said here... Approved!
The first thing Reitman did absolutely correctly was not to rivet another remake or a new vision. He made a direct continuation of the familiar story, introducing the usual plot moves and familiar situations. 'Heirs' like the recent 'Scream', built on fan service, and therefore it can not be viewed by those who are not familiar with the original. The writer takes quotes from the original, and the director does not hesitate to rip a couple of scenes, copied almost frame-by-frame. But it's not annoying. It's no fun watching Spengler's granddaughter do the same thing as her late grandfather. But again, this is only for those familiar with the source.
However, there is a small disadvantage. Based on the cheerful trailer, I was hoping to see a typical struggle ' ghost people'. They say that careless schoolchildren accidentally dig up some ancient spirit and now scavenge. What was my surprise when I saw the usual marshmallow man, a trumpet eater and heard the name Gosar. I understand that the goal of the director and the producers was to make old women like me nostalgic and to interest young people, and this requires as many familiar pictures as possible. But why not create your own, new? Take the concept of hunters as a basis, but build a plot with new ghosts and perhaps a hint of a sequel? The course with the revival of legends, of course, good, but it lacks a breath of fresh air.
The script, let’s say, is childish. Jokes level ' It' according to King, and even more smoothed. For adults not funny, for children - quite funny. The movie is designed for the audience that is stated on the cover: 12+, so homeric laughter here is not worth waiting. More like a condescending smile. But for children, there is space: the main role is the sex symbol of the current schoolgirls Finn Wolfhard (the boy you whose, I recently saw you in the series very tiny) and the insanely talented McKenna Grace, who in her 15 years sometimes gives out such a game that older viewers get goosebumps. Here the girl has nowhere to turn, the role is quite clear and direct, but even Phoebe shows what potential lies in the actress. In general, it is not for nothing that she joined the caste 'The Handmaid's Tale' and works there along with famous colleagues.
In 'Heirs' Graphene, as they say, finds new applications. The picture is beautiful, nice to see. Ghosts are more alive and do not resemble cute clouds, as in the original. Olivia Wilde was tuned in such a way that I only recognized the brave Dr. Thirteen towards the end (funny that she was not even credited). From a visual point of view, it is impossible to find fault with the film: everything that children need, explosions, there is boom, here is bang, Wolfhard has lipstick, which makes it even more attractive in the eyes of schoolgirls. Beauty, in a word.
What the adults needed in the last 20 minutes. Looking at the return of legends, I could not resist, and a stingy tear slid down my cheek. All right, two. Maybe ten. I can’t say for sure that tears covered my eyes. It was made so sweet, heartfelt and touching, with great respect for Harold, that I was ready to forgive the film. And the post-credits scene finished off my already shattered heart. What are you doing, damned?
Bottom line: nice, kind movie. Without vulgarity, rudeness and stupidity. It's as simple as a Siberian boot, that's good. It performs the main function: entertaining, and what else is required from a simple family movie?
7 out of 10
Fearless youngsters struggle with the paranormal, experiencing unrestrained fun
For a long time I could not start watching this film, because I was afraid that I removed a fierce thrash. But the fears were in vain with small but...
The beginning of the film looks atmospheric and easily draws into the narrative. The development of events is quite predictable, but no one expected script miracles from the film. Questions arise exactly at the moment when the characters face the paranormal. Why are you so calm? Why is no one afraid of ghosts? You're fucking kids!
This decision kills most of the atmosphere of the film. It's understandable. I want to attract a young audience. Therefore, everywhere there is excitement, fun and inappropriate humor. But the authors are not that simple. They filled the film with a good bunch of references to the previous parts of the series, apparently to lure and loyal fans.
As a result, the desire to sit on two stools leads to what seems to be fun, but seems to be indistinct. This is not the romance of ghost hunters. It's just an entertaining middle-class movie.
And by the way, why does Finn Wolfhard play so badly in this movie?
6 out of 10
There are movie franchises that should have been left alone a long time ago. Ghostbusters is perhaps the most striking example. Even the second part, released in the same decade as the first one, already looked secondary and a little underwhelmed. For obvious reasons, the third part was not in a hurry to release, but we all know that it is impossible to avoid this fate in the age of continuations.
And now the moment has come: “Ghostbusters: After Life”, released in Russian hire under the adapted name “Heirs”. The most tasteless, dull and unoriginal part, filled with such strong toxicity that after watching you will surely feel doused with dirt. Worse than the one in the second movie. The caustic dialogues, in which there is not a drop of respect, are seasoned with flat jokes, among which - prepare to roll your eyes - there are jokes about virginity. It's as if these problems are still relevant to first-worlders. This is compounded by the fact that all toxicity is concentrated on children and adolescents who behave in a completely different way.
Following the rules of any sequel that came out many years after the announcement, “Heirs” show familiar characters only in a couple of scenes, as an Easter egg, so that the most loyal fans do not get offended. Very unoriginal, if not mocking technique, but it works, judging by the fact that year after year we encounter it again and again. However, even with Easter eggs, the “Heirs” manage to hit the mud with their faces, since familiar heroes talk about such nonsense that at least grab your head. I don’t know what fees Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson agreed to stand in front of the camera for a short time, but it would be better if their pride remained unassailable. But what really hurts is that the director was Jason Reitman, the son of the late Ivan Reitman.
The plot is as bad as everything else – solid borrowings from the first part and playing key scenes, only the events take place not in New York, where to shoot too expensive, but in the outback, in the middle of fields and foothills. Is this all the imagination of the new director? There are so many cultures, so many gods, and Ghostbusters are trampling in one place. It's boring, you know. There are a lot of things you don’t want to see.
A typical film surrounded by flounder. In other words, at the bottom.
I am quite a fan of the original 'Hunters' 1984. Even took place a video game, which embodied the ideas originally prepared for the triquel. During the rental 'Heirs' I seemed to magically stumble upon only rave reviews, and even I almost went to the movies, but still reason prevailed over emotional impulse. With such reviews, it was strange to observe meager box office figures, which everyone justified the pandemic, but soon came the third new & #39; Spider-Man' and no pandemic prevented him.
One of the 'chips' original 'Hunters' were New York locations. In the new story, the creators decided to find another entourage, and now it is an American backwater. The choice, I think, is not bad, because there are a lot of movies, TV shows, animated series, video games, books, etc., where the characters arrive in a small quiet town full of mysteries and mysteries, and in this direction you do not need to reinvent the wheel. But to realize its capabilities, the creators for some reason could not.
The dynamics of the plot are very slow. Everything happens slowly, with unnecessary scenes. As such, there is no plot. To put it bluntly, the kids are just exploring their new place. There were some funny episodes though. All this to one of the famous tunes of the first film, but I thought it was not quite appropriate here. And closer to the finale, the characters suddenly discover that they urgently need to save the whole world. It's very stupid if they were planning a sequel.
In general, instead of fully revealing the potential of a good idea, all the accents are shifted to fan service, which leads to the dumbest plot moves, kills the originality of this film, which he could have, negates the solid ground for sequels. I have a feeling that neither the creators nor the studio, having released the first film in 1984, did not understand what it was, and now they are stupidly pushing everything that was in it in each new sequel.
Strangely, the film itself does not cause negativity, but when I sat down to write about it, I found nothing to praise. It is parasitic, but very neat. 'Heirs' could have been a hundred times cooler than the entire franchise 'Hunters' but the story is that there is no Kevin Feige for this franchise. . .
It's really cool. Straight atmospheric like Back to the Future. But later on, the childish thing begins. Children react to the beyond, as if it is something, though amazing, but everyday. Maybe it's part of the plan, so that the little ones who will be watching don't get scared. I turned it off, I'll check for fishlessness.
'Let's get off the shelf, clean it and put it like new' sometimes works.
After the nightmarish 'Ghostbusters' 2016, stuffed with nauseating political correctness and idiotic jokes, I didn't expect anything good. However, in recent years, there has been a reversal in Hollywood. Apparently, analysts of large companies analyzed, analyzed and analyzed that everyone is sick of the PC and it’s time to return to pulling out movies and TV series at the expense of... you know, the plot and the Actor’s Game, and not indulging in the disgraced youth social trends that are today, and tomorrow not.
Absolutely magnificent play of the main character, amazing for a 15-year-old actress. In second place I would put Carrie Coon playing the mother of the main character - a very convincing game, very emotional: passion where passion is needed, tears where tears are needed, confusion where confusion is needed. Everything is very natural and natural. Paul Rudd always looks good, there is nothing bad to say about him, although a small sludge of slightly misplaced dorkiness in a couple of places still flashed. Olivia Wilde as Goser is a bombshell, not just as an actress, but as a woman. I looked at her without taking my eyes off, she was wonderful. The acting is really at a very high level, I believed every tear, every scream and laugh. Yes, some young actors felt false, but they can be forgiven because of their youth.
I would like to note the decision not to make innocent and incompetent Red Book seals out of children’s characters, who must be protected and rescued all the time. This is another sickening politically correct cliche that Hollywood seems to have finally begun to get rid of. The children in this film are brave, competent, confident. Characters are not afraid of experimentation, are not afraid to go straight into danger, and in some moments even obscure adult characters. In my opinion, this is a much more successful example of the very empowerment that left-wing sleepwalkers in the West are so trying to achieve than green hair, banning comedians and desecrating historical monuments.
Very, very successful color reproduction. The animation retained its color scheme and sound effects from the original film. In some scenes, computer graphics were not very well combined with real shooting, but such trifles can be forgiven for the film for $ 75 million.
Someone might find fault with the plot and say, 'It's like Star Wars: The Awakening of the Force is simply a New Hope with a new wrapper.39 Yes, we've seen Goser, as have the Keyword and the Gatekeeper. But it’s like I’m seeing them for the first time, and not for the first time at the same time. Somehow, the director managed to convey the old characters so that they feel fresh.
The film has all the classic and beloved arches - and the transformation of an insecure ugly duckling into a swan, and the arch of forgiveness of his parents, and the reunion of the disintegrated team, and pleasant nostalgia.
And most importantly, I felt something watching this movie. There was surprise, and shock, and scary moments, and humor, and sentimentality, and sometimes even the film almost knocked out of me a tear. After all, that’s why we go to the movies – to feel something or to think about something. The movie did that, so I think it was a success.
Honestly, at first he was quite cold about the film, especially after 2016, but after learning that Harold Ramis was not alive, I realized that the movie should be worthy, and it turned out to be very heartfelt, with humor, with great respect for the cult film of 1984. I enjoyed watching and felt a great sense of nostalgia, especially at the end.
Jason Reitman made a very soulful movie, where you are equally high from both the younger generation and your favorite old people, the latter though in the film got little time for obvious reasons, but there are tears from just their appearance in the frame. It's tears of happiness that we can see Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson back together.
- After all these years?
-Always.
The love for them has not gone anywhere, they are still a pleasure to watch, and they are already at such an age that I have to say thank you that they can still play. Bill, for example, is the same cheerful person.
As for the digital copy of Harold, there were doubts at the beginning, but in the course of the film, you can not say that he is no longer with us. It turned out very emotionally. With great love and great enthusiasm. Something reminiscent of the cult film Ghost with Patrick Swayze.
The post-credits scene as an addition to nostalgia. That was great.
Paul Rudd played by Mr. Gruberson added fun to the film, he tried to show himself, especially I was impressed by his trip to the Supermarket, I love this moment.
But most of all I liked 15-year-old McKenna Grace her game begins to delight from the first appearance. I really liked the image of Phoebe, the girl in her years is fond of neither gadgets, nor blogs, but science, which is a rarity in our time. Her love of science captivates her attitude to her grandfather when she finds out who he is even more conquering.
Her anecdote about Pascalia was very happy, it seems not funny, but how she says it looked funny and fun. Great part. Phoebe and I don't look like ghosts. Old people can rest peacefully.
Logan Kim, his character Podcast is a very funny hero, delighted throughout the film.
I will single out Carrie Kuhn as the mother of Trevor and Phoebe, she has a difficult time.
Olivia Wilde at first did not recognize at all, very different from her usual heroines. I like it.
I got a tremendous pleasure from watching, let a stingy male tear, pleased with the soulfulness, fun, entertainment. A movie that you want to watch. Which I did yesterday. It was very dignified. With great respect to the original.
The right game on nostalgia and a tribute to the source
Direct sequel to the original film 'Ghostbusters' 1984, and, judging by the plot, ignoring even the second part (which is generally even good and allows you to focus on one topic and confrontation with one returning villain).
I'll tell you right away, I liked the movie. It’s not a blockbuster with a half-billion-dollar budget and a never-ending attraction of action and special effects, no. This is imbued with nostalgia and references to the original story of his beloved grandfather about ' former times' over a cup of tea.
At the same time, it cannot be said that the film is parasitic on the source, since we are not poked in the face with every little hint of the original, do not copy scenes and make cameos for cameos. However, the atmosphere of the original feels very good at times. This is facilitated by a carefully selected soundtrack, including sounds and samples from the first film.
Of course, we can say that this film came out more childish, but it is important to remember that the picture of 1984 was not the most serious character, and the characters there, despite the fact that they were already accomplished scientists, behaved sometimes very childish. In this case, on the contrary, children behave very adult.
Well, let's take a closer look (I'll try to do without spoilers):
Plot.
The film is dedicated to the memory of Harold Ramis and is built around the story of his character - Egon Spengler, as well as his ' heirs ' Here is a little stretched inscribed family drama and the conflict between father and daughter, which is not particularly disclosed, and by the end is completely sagging and solved by walking. But this serves as a backdrop for another conflict - the next generation, namely a mother (not too lucky and experiencing a persistent dislike for science) and a daughter (an antisocial and introverted fan of science). Yes, the character of Finn Woolhard here somewhere passes by and somehow his mother does not pay attention.
Mostly, the plot will revolve around Spengler’s granddaughter Phoebe and the old villain’s attempt to return to finish what he started. Here the film deliberately copies some of the moments of the first part, but adjusted for the new setting. Ecto-1, proton backpacks and traps are available, but heroes are brought to them neatly, not in the style ' Ray, here's a lightsaber for you, now you know how to wave them'.
The budget does not allow the film to turn towards epic scenes and limits the number of ghosts that occur for the film (there are very few...), but the scenes look more natural and nostalgic (animation & #39; old acquaintances' imitates animatronics and time-lapse shooting of old films).
The hole in the plot ... a lot. In particular, a complete information vacuum, in which, apparently, the descendants of Spengler lived, if the Hunters and events in Manhattan had not previously been heard. At the same time, in a remote town in Oklahoma, there is a local geek who is aware of events, and the Internet immediately dumps a bunch of videos on request. But such moments are finally forgiven. In the end, and in the original many closed eyes (for example, a group of people who are running around New York in a car with a special signal and armed with proton emitters capable of doing a lot of destruction ... and where is the army looking?)
Further without spoilers in no way, and therefore about the plot no more.
Characters:
The characters are a fun attempt to collect original types, but with new and much younger faces. We have Phoebe, Spengler’s granddaughter, who becomes practically his reflection, both in science (the girl is a genius, to be like her grandfather) and in social life (or rather her absence). Next comes the kid with the nickname 'Podcast' which he chose for himself. A blogger with a tiny number of followers (or rather, as it turns out, one, but very important), who with his irrepressible energy and enthusiasm associated with the supernatural becomes a reflection of Ray from the first part. The brother of Phoebe, whose name you do not even remember (in general - Trevor), the whole film, like Wenkman, tries to roll up to the girl she likes and, like the character of Murray, is not friendly with exact sciences (but a smart auto mechanic).
And yes, remark, I didn't watch 'Stranger Things' and that's why Finn Woolhard didn't arouse any emotions in me. Well, here and his role in the plot is such that it could and extras perform.
Well, the fourth in the team becomes the daughter of the local sheriff, as well as the character of Ernie Hudson - far from science and the supernatural. All right, full set. Not everyone gets the same amount of time and attention. So Phoebe and the Podcast come to the fore (which is also evident because their names are remembered, but the rest of the time they sound twice per film), and all the interaction, adventure and humor, mainly built on this couple from ' nerds' and ' geek'.
A special mention deserves cameos of the cast from the film 1984. It is there, it is very touching and emotional. (especially when you remember that Harold Ramis died in 2014, and his image was created with the consent of his family, as a tribute to memory and respect). And yes, don't forget the two post-credits scenes, Aki in Marvel. One is funny and again plays on nostalgia, and the second is a seed for the continuation.
I am afraid that without spoilers and detailed analysis, there is nothing more to say. This is not a masterpiece for 10 out of 10, but it works on a solid 8.
My opinion is subjective and you may disagree with it. But before you judge, look at this picture. Maybe the child in the shower will move and begin to sing a familiar motif:
If there' something strange
In your neighborhood
Who are you gonna call?
Pascal enters the bar, a & nbsp; in the bar one hundred & nbsp; a thousand Pascals
'Ghostbusters: Heirs' is a new film by Jason Reitman featuring a younger generation of actors, as well as an explicit bid to attract audiences by introducing a number of nostalgic moments.
The plot of the picture takes us straight to the state of Oklahoma, to a small town - a place where nothing happens, yes, and in general, should not, however, one day a family moves here in the hope of somehow staying afloat by receiving an inheritance from an unknown father. Since then, events begin to gain momentum, albeit very slowly, and sometimes completely from afar, but still confidently. The head of the family, Kaylie, as well as her children - Phoebe and Trevor are forced to spend time on an old farm and try to learn more about the new area and about each other.
I consider the unambiguous plus picture to be a tribute to the original series of films. Although the current ' Heirs' and can not be called impeccable, they have many advantages, the main of which are the bet on the right actor and, of course, the correct, although very banal and unpretentious introduction of those characters, which was waiting for any viewer whose childhood or youth passed under the track "Ghostbusters".
The cast of the film I would characterize only one person — McCain Grace. It is possible that earlier you had a chance to see the picture ' Gifted' with her participation. If this is the case, then everyone was able to fully appreciate her acting qualities, non-banal performance and a considerable share of the effort invested in any of the projects listed above. In this situation, her role as Phoebe is almost the decisive link in this chain and, of course, it was McKenna who was able to do what even adults did not pull for about two hours - to attract absolute attention to the hero. I believe that it is the character of Phoebe that is fully disclosed, we know the brief background of her life, we observe how her character changes and self-confidence gradually grows, and, of course, the boundless curiosity and sharp mind of the filled heroine eclipse all the dull characters by standing colleagues in the shop.
Finn Wolfhard played the role of Trevor and, perhaps, the best description of this character will be ' not a very smart brother of a very smart sister'. I’m not sure that I can fully judge the talent of the actor, because I previously watched 'It' and its sequel featuring Finn, but nevertheless, his performance in 'Hunters' leaves hope for the best. Sometimes I forgot about his existence for the period of viewing, which is quite strange, given the memorable appearance of the actor and the importance of his character in the film. In any case, I sincerely believe that in the future he will have much more interesting roles and detailed characters.
Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd although diligently attracted attention to themselves, but they could not fully fulfill their plans. Their roles, although they are significant for the picture, still did not withstand the sudden onslaught of nostalgia and the more persistent characters of young actors.
Let’s talk about the film’s shortcomings that I would like to highlight. Undoubtedly, it is worth noting the fact that the film is built quite linearly, which can bring a clear simplicity to the plot, depriving it of all the highlights, sometimes lacking dialogue, drama and even some obvious emotional component, since the story, once very progressive, smoothly flowed into an extremely ordinary 'popcorn' The plot is in a sense crumpled, although it is very comical in moments. In addition, the new 'Hunters' I can confidently call the solo work of McKenna Grace, because thanks to this actress, or rather her character - Phoebe, this picture managed to stay afloat and fully pull out all the work. Perhaps, dragging this cinematic blanket on itself played into the hands and gave certain fruits in the form of a decent rating and a large number of views of the film. And finally, the last aspect is the insufficient study of the characters’ characters, which largely deprived the audience of the opportunity to directly rejoice and empathize with the characters of the stated story.
'Ghostbusters: Heirs' is a light family movie that is filled with notes of fun, mischief and unobtrusive modern humor, but nevertheless, having a number of insignificant, but still obvious shortcomings. Undoubtedly, this cinema is the platform where children rule the ball, win the trust and sympathy of the audience, show the lion’s share of courage and desperately try to find their calling in this world.
7 out of 10
P.S. Quite a few scenes after the credits, do not miss.
The film, which tries to go on the popularity of Fin Wolfhard, from the series - 'Stranger Things' and does not try to stick to the spirit of its original films, only occasionally throwing the viewer a little fan service.
The new film was directed by Jason Reitman, the son of the director of the original Ghostbusters film dilogy with Bill Murray, and this film is a direct sequel. At least that’s what the filmmakers say.
Behind the director, quite strong paintings, which are somehow nominated for various awards.
For example, the drama - ' Here smoke', deserves a separate conversation and analysis, I advise everyone to see who is interested in ambiguous situations and well-written characters.
What do you need 'Ghostbusters'? !
A series of films, animated series, terrible sequels, games, one of which, by the way, is based on the script of Bill Murray himself and the game reveals the plot of the third, not released part of the film, could not just go nowhere! Because in the U.S., they still love both classic films, and they're very much in pop culture. The film must receive a worthy continuation in our days, with our realities.
Plot:
At the very beginning of the film, we are shown, of the four hunters, only one more in the ranks, this is Spengler and fights ghosts, but unfortunately dies in a couple of minutes, this is the beginning of the film.
We are shown a family consisting of a single mother and two children, a 15-year-old son with a transitional age, and an engineer girl who all went into her grandfather. They are evicted from the house for non-payment and they go to another city, to live for some time in the house of their grandfather, which, by the way, they do not know anything at all, they have not even heard of the Hunters.
Further, the plot develops too quickly, taking into account the fact that the film is a little more than 2 hours, there are too many events in the film and there are things that do not affect the plot at all, like the same Fin, he is there for an advertising campaign and because, he played great in the TV series SDD, oh yes, even for the number of people in the team, because of this film, at least 3 films should also come out of the franchise.
Children say that they do not believe in ghosts, then after the appearance of some strange things, for example, the lamp moves and the doors open themselves, the children behave as if it was so it should be, there was no fear, surprise or denial, just consent and that’s it.
There is humor in the film, it is of medium quality, mostly more childish, the most fun scenes, of course with Paul Rudd, personally in my opinion.
Children play well, but in places kringe, all the same, when a person puts on a drama, it is difficult for him to direct a comedy, and we as the audience it is difficult to watch.
The actors from the original film appear at the end, fans have been waiting for this for more than 30 years, and I would certainly like to see more of them in the film.
The plot itself, by the middle of the movie, tells us -- well, you get it, you get it. . .
For then come phrases like: 'Save the whole world', etc.
The most banal and unrestrained continuation of the plot that could be imagined.
Goser. The Goddess of the Gods, the main villain of the film, poses no threat, looks absolutely unafraid of the characters... nothing happens but total domination of this villain. Most of the destruction in this city was caused by the children, ghosts and spirits in the film are not even remembered. There were cameos, if you can call it that, Lizun and the marshmallow man, but this is only a fan service.
The film pleases, only the ending and only because of the presence of the main characters from the previous parts of the original film.
If the film continues, I hope we will have a more elaborate plot, sharper jokes and main characters will appear more often in the frame, but for now.
6 out of 10
It is no secret that in recent years there is an amazing craving for nostalgia of filmmakers for blockbusters and folk hits of the past, which results in their “soft reboots” and sequels. “Bad Boys” received the third film, “Jurassic Park” and “Halloween” received sequels that ignored previous sequels, the second “Top Gun” looms over the horizon and there are many such examples. One of them was this film directed by Jason Reitman.
The film revolves around a single mother Callie and her two children, Trevor and Phoebe, who settle in an old farm in Oklahoma, inherited from Callie’s deceased father, who abandoned her as a child. One day, Phoebe discovers strange devices in the house and realizes that her grandfather was one of the Ghostbusters. Meanwhile, another threat hangs over the world, the source of which is located in this very small city.
Like most of the above films, The Heirs gives the impression of a kind of symbiosis of a “soft restart” and a direct continuation. On the one hand, building the plot on a huge amount of fan service and quoting individual details of the previous parts. On the other hand, in my opinion, the most correct (of all possible ways) and moving continuation of history, the heart of which is the idea of continuity of generations. What is only fixed against the background of the fact that the director and one of the screenwriters of the picture was not an outsider “man from the street”, but the son of the same director who gave us two previous favorite paintings.
“Heirs” can boast a very easy and perhaps even predictable, but no less interesting, touching and personal story that looks literally in one breath. Especially due to the interestingly written and most lively characters, as well as excellent and subtle humor, which successfully dilutes the events taking place on the screen.
The appointment of Jason Reitman to the post of director can definitely be called one of the main successes of this tape. The naked eye can see with what trepidation, respect and love Jason Reitman approached the creation of this tape, the previous parts of which were filmed by his father. Moreover, as an author director, Jason Reitman was able to bring something special and profound to the picture. Which turns the "Heirs" into something much more than another attraction blockbuster.
Reitman managed to preserve the spirit, atmosphere and mood of the original tape. But at the same time, Reitman managed to noticeably and “painlessly” modernize the franchise. What is observed not only in the presentation of history, but also in the spectacle itself. Unlike the previous parts, the picture holds much more for the genre of a certain horror than comedy. The spectacle turned out to be very interesting, original and does not turn the picture into a meaningless stream of CGI effects and completely “painted on a computer”.
Happily pleased with the film and a wonderful cast. McKenna Grace is definitely the heart of this film, gives a very sincere acting and once again cemented in the position of one of the most promising actresses of modern cinema. Carrie Kuhn, Paul Rudd, Finn Wolfhard and Logan Kim demonstrated an equally worthy game and watching them throughout the screen time is really interesting and pleasant. Separately, I want to note the veterans of the original tape. Let their appearance “merged” themselves in the final trailer. Let their role be limited to a cameo. Nevertheless, it was really nice to see them and their appearance had the same effect on me as the “star cameo” from the last “Spider-Man”.
8 out of 10
Ghostbusters: The heirs are a truly worthy “revival” of the cult and folk franchise. The authors of this film created a film that literally blows love, awe and respect for the previous two parts. Moreover, the picture boasts excellent humor, live characters, decent acting and author's directing, which distinguishes this film beyond the usual pop-corn blockbuster.
Alas, big cinema has stopped giving us new pop culture artifacts. All the scripts are written, all the stories are told, there is nothing more interesting to come up with. On the third round, the same franchises spin, and the rating falls.
But damn it, I do. It is necessary to earn money, housing in Hollywood is expensive.
I will say right away, this film can be watched, it is at least watchable, unlike aunts-hunters, there are generally nauseating reflexes, and Toru should be ashamed of participating in that project.
The plot is banal and boring, he dances on old bones and tells nothing new. A single mother with two children goes to the farm of a hermit father (it is immediately clear who this hermit is), with whom she has never communicated. They find old devices and accidentally release everything that hunters have so fondly collected before.
Heroes are flat and not interesting, jokes look like learned (they are learned). I think there are stars in the movie. Paul Rudd probably wasn't happy. His hero is not remembered, although he really wants to be a village fool. Anyone could play that role, no matter what. A single mom doesn't remember either.
Stranger Things laurels haunted producers, and they added children. Of course, with oddities, as without them.
Finn Wulfhard became a clunky teenager and lost his charm. That's too bad.
Cool couple Phoebe and Podcast. But frankly, it's already so boring - strange teenagers, strange circumstances. We are told that Phoebe is not like everyone else. Look at her, she's having a hard time.
But there are also problems with logic in this movie. Children easily activate old equipment, hold in their hands heavy equipment that weighs at least 10 kg. How?
This film is only for fans and connoisseurs of the original franchise, the rest of the film will not touch. The director intentionally wants to make us feel nostalgic and remember how cool the first movie was and revisit it. Every loyal fan from the first frame recognizes “Zulu”, lizuna and will wait for the appearance of Gowser.
We would come up with new villains, a new interesting story with these heroes, why go back to the old one and copy the old story?
But there is a bright spot, the one for which I want to see this film is the finale, where the director throws four trump cards on the card table. It was sweet, touching, but only that.
Trying to raise money again is understandable, but it causes only sadness.
6 out of 10
The target audience is 16-18 year olds who want tension.
I didn't like the movie. Too much tension. It's more horror and thriller than a Hollywood high-budget blockbuster. I was really excited about Ghostbusters (2016) starring Melissa McCarthy. There was humor, there was action, and here there was tension and horror. I was upset about watching. The film is very dark and heavy. There's no jokes, there's black humor. These Hunters are a 2021 movie event, but the film is very dark and heavy. Melissa McCarthy brought in “Hunters...” (2016) humor and a fresh stream of female strength. There are horrors here. Yes, fans of dark series on video-internet platforms will be delighted with this film directed by Reitman. The film is very tense, very rude, instilling blackness in the soul. It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, it's an Internet horrific project.
For actors Murray, Aykroyd, Hudson, Sigourney Weaver can be put 100 out of 10, but the film is boring. Too much tension. The age limit is 12+, but I think its viewer is 16+. Director Reitman tries to scare the viewer with his intense music and an unexpected plot twist. There is no lightness in the film that Hollywood carries. There are no powerful digital special effects. There is tension and there is fatigue from the Hunters franchise. The film is psychologically heavy. Trevor (played by Wolfhard) and Phoebe (played by Grace) are teenagers who want more independence. Money, knowledge, a provincial town, the ambitions of teenagers – all this is Ghostbusters: heirs.
You can see that the producers (there are 15 people) flirt with the Internet audience. They believe that the more depression, horror, dark tones, tense music, the more this film will be praised by Internet viewers.
The movie is very heavy. The picture is 4K, but the main target audience is teenagers 16-18 years old who want the surprise and intensity of the plot.
First, the dealers abused the Terminator, then over Indiana, then over Star Wars ... it was the turn of the Hunters (although they were abused in the previous sequel). . .
'Ghostbusters', in addition to the successful first two films, managed to acquire a successful animated series, comics, fan-merch, games, etc., in general, everything that is supposed, albeit a small, but cinematic universe. And this movie universe had its own rules and its own logic. But all these rules and logic are completely swept away by the cheaply made craft of 2021. Already at the moment when a twelve-year-old girl shoots a blaster from her hand and easily packs ghosts into a trap, I wanted to turn off ' it'. In the original films, healthy men worked hard with these blasters! In addition to violations of the laws of the universe and simple logic, of which there are many, there is also an absolutely primitive plot, passing heroes and secondary characters, and, of course, the stupid appearance of the original team of hunters in the final showdown (watched the film only to see the old men in the case). Just so it was: the plot is not necessary in the film.
If the sequel were made simply about old robbers, but with respect to the previously created films, it would be much better than what turned out: a ridiculous B film about teenagers fighting monsters, with references to '. ' and to 'Stranger Things' (not only as an actor, but also in places plot), and even references to ' Friends' (Paul Rudd's hero in ' Friends' marries Phoebe).
Not a masterpiece, but definitely worth seeing. Tributes to Ramis
I've been waiting for this movie. And since he's out, we need to see. I will say right away, I liked the film, there are some disadvantages, not without this, but there are also advantages, about everything in order.
Pros:
- Throughout the film, you're immersed in it completely (at least I'm immersed in it). It is very important to take the attention of the viewer, the director did it. This is one of the few films that have so closely occupied my attention throughout the viewing.
A concise, kind story, I would say 'friendly' without rivers of blood, ' dismembered', erotic, etc. looks very easy. Ideal for watching with family, which was the focus of the Director.
- This is a direct continuation of the second part of the film, with the appearance of many actors of the previous series. The film contains a lot of references to previous films of the franchise, which further warms the soul.
- Not a bad plot, an interestingly thought-out story that does not fit well into the continuation of the franchise.
- Interesting ideas and chips regarding the development of technology of hunters, made in my opinion in the topic (not quite realistic, but you do not think much about it).
- Normal special effects, it does not feel cheap.
- The most emotional and one of the main ones is how the film paid tribute to Harald Ramis, very well done. They did exactly what I think Ramis himself would have approved (sorry, I think he left very early, but this is life).
Now about the disadvantages, unfortunately, they are (in my humble opinion), but they are not so much, and they are not very significant.
- A lot of pathos scenes, not without this, not to say that they are just a lot, but there are. Mostly small jokes, or pathetic dialogues, which in my opinion spoil the stage (but in the opinion of the director add more towards the children's audience (in some scenes, Venom 2, the king of children's pathos, was remembered).
- Unrealistic behavior and actions of some characters, the reaction of the authorities to what is happening. It doesn't cut your eyes much, but you still think, seriously, and that's the whole reaction to what happened.
- Behavior of secondary characters, but here still took a course on 'friendly' audience, so the behavior and script was written with an emphasis on this. But still, you wonder, seriously, everyone is so friendly and ' nice' to the new ones, which doesn't look natural.
In fact, these are my main personal faults with this film.
To sum up, the film is good, not a masterpiece, the assessments in my opinion on Kinopoisk are justified, on imdb are not much overstated. If you remove all these disadvantages, the film would not be a masterpiece like the previous two parts. It would be more serious, but not a masterpiece.
Should I watch this movie or not? I recommend to see, will not regret the time spent, and if you are a fan of previous films, then watching is a must.
My verdict is not a masterpiece, but a very good and good movie for the whole family.
7 out of 10
When came out in 2016 the film 'Ghostbusters' from the director Paul Fig, I rather emotionally accepted this picture is extremely positive, although now radically changed to her attitude - negative.
Most likely, the first impression was due to the fact that in the first two parts I, like many children of the 90s, grew up watching each of the parts of the original dilogy with great pleasure and was looking forward to the appearance of a marshmallow man or the Statue of Liberty walking around New York. And for me, the release of a new film about the adventures of ghost hunters was one of the most desired and anticipated film events since the 90s.
It is a pity that the continuation of the original paintings came out 32 years after the release of the second part. It's been too long. The actors have aged (although they have not lost their charm and charm), someone like Rick Moranis has finished his acting career, and Harold Ramis has been dead for seven years.
And at first, when the rumors about the new film began, there was a feeling = fear: this film is also unlikely to get anything good. But 'Heirs', fortunately, gave the opportunity to plunge again into the good old atmosphere inherent in the original 'Hunters'.
Events ' The Heirs' revolve around the daughter of Egon Spengler, as well as her children - Phoebe - a girl who inherited from her grandfather the desire to do science and Trevor - an ordinary teenager whose hallmark is kindness and responsiveness. They come to the old farm, where Igon lived until his death and gradually learn the history of his ancestor, and at the same time encounter our old friends: the Gatekeeper and the Keykeeper, as well as Gozer!!
The film was directed by Jason Reitman, the son of Ivan Reitman, who directed the first two original films. Jason himself, incidentally, appeared in a cameo role in the second part. He, like no one else, knows all the nuances of the first parts, his father produced 'Heirs' and certainly completely helped his son to recreate the very atmosphere that would allow fans of the dilogy to nostalgize and enjoy watching a new film.
The restart or continuation of the franchise - here everyone can choose the most suitable word, in my opinion, correctly used the theme with the main villains from the first part. First, it tied the sequel even more closely, 32 years after the second part and 37 years after the first one! The theme of Goser and his servants became a strong link, both from the script point of view and from the position of fans of the dilogy, for whom this very connection was extremely important, especially after the release of Paul Fig’s bad film.
Secondly, the use of villains from the first part is also a logically correct decision in terms of the release of further sequels. And they certainly will, especially since 'Heirs' have proven themselves on the positive side.
In addition, a lot of references (obvious and not so) to old films, did their job. Many people, including myself, have waited too long to see Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stanz (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) back in business.
We waited for them to pick up their proton packs again, for Ecto-1 to give its painfully familiar signal, and a crossed-out ghost to flash on its doors. That day has come, and it’s good that the film came out while three of the original four hunters are still alive. Still, Ernie Hudson is 76, Murray is 71 (though he looks even older than Hudson), and Aykroyd is 69.
Returning to the theme of the connection of the old films with the Inheritors & #39, some moments (such as the return of Goser or marshmallow men) turned out to be a clear reference to the original film, while some moments were a kind of Easter eggs hidden in the plot. Like a coin held by Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) at the end of the picture or experiments with cards and current. Or the tracksuit of the hero Rick Moranis from the first film, which can be seen in the hypermarket where Paul Rudd’s character was attacked, or a short dialogue when Gozer asks Wenkman if he is God – there is a similar dialogue in the first part, but there Wenkman answers differently.
Personally, I was touched by such moments as the shooter’s seat in Ecto-1, which existed before, but was not involved in any way, and the fact that probably for the first time proton packs were shown very large (in a scene with a training shooting), which allowed us to consider them clearly in detail. It is funny that Jason Reitman not only brought Goser back, but also added additional references to the first film in the form of selenium beams, which were well conducting current and which served as a design feature of the building where the final fight with Goser developed. Here, this topic of selenium is also reflected, as well as a reminder of the company that was engaged in the construction of a house in New York.
And of course, it is cool that the deceased Harold Ramis found a place in this film and Ivan Reitman, along with Bob Gunton, participated in creating the image of Egon Spengler due to their movements and the technology of their capture used in the film.
But despite the large number of advantages that the Olds will find in 'Heirs', there are certain 'white spots' in it. So, it seems too strange that the children immediately understood the complex technique and were able to effectively test it in the first place. I remember that in the first part, adult men took time to learn how to use fashionable proton packs. It is possible that some episodes were cut at the editing stage and not all reached the theatrical version and if additional training of children with weapons was given more time, it would have delayed the picture.
Or the scene in the mountains, when Phoebe begins to sprinkle innumerable jokes - it looks like it is too crudely glued compared to those scenes that precede it. But this is my impression, again, it may be all about what was eventually cut in the editing.
But anyway, 'Ghostbusters. Heirs' is a good curtsey to the original dilogy, a good opportunity to see the quartet of hunters in action after many, many years and a chance for the viewer to plunge again into the good old atmosphere with the siren Ecto-1 and the legendary track Ghostbusters.
Therefore, some plot inconsistencies can be forgiven and just get high from immersion in that very atmosphere.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Another 30 years late sequel. There are a couple of good jokes, but the sane script was not brought in. Instead of the climax - a series of nostalgic cameos, which are also a piano in the bushes.
The creators, creating the film, decided to hook a new audience, and please the old bunch of references. It was neither of those nor the other.
A family moves into the old house of their grandfather, who was a ghost hunter. Mom immediately goes to establish a personal life, and curious teenagers find the technique of his grandfather and go to explore the mines.
The film has a very cozy and kind atmosphere, a leisurely narrative. Mysticism is mixed with a moderate dose of humor, which makes the film fascinating and enjoyable to watch. A great cast, which is noticeably younger, so the film reminds something ' Very strange things'. The characters are well written, and the calm pace of the narrative gives us a closer look at them. At the same time, the action scenes are really exciting! The style of the first part has been preserved, which cannot but please the fans.
The main problem with this film is also the desire to look like the first part! 'Heirs' began as a cool, independent picture, but then slid into a reshoot of the original part. Monsters, scenes, even phrases! It's secondary. This completely kills all the merits of the film.
The film is well shot, the characters are pleasant to watch and want to empathize. I think fans will love this number of references.
In December, except for the premiere 'The Matrix: Resurrection' (not 'Resurrection'). Wrong translation. Also in cinemas was shown the film 'Ghostbusters: Heirs' which was directed by the son of the famous director Ivan Reitman, who together with actor Harold Ramis and created the first film 'Ghostbusters' in 1984. It seems to already give the viewer a sense of a good film, unlike the idiotic film of the same name shot in 2016. The film itself is very similar to the Marvel product, where there is no respect for either the viewer or the characters of the first films and vulgar American humor in the female team. But the most distasteful difference of this film is the complete absence of science fiction, which was strictly observed in the first and second films ' Ghostbusters', which served as a hit for both the viewer and the box office. It was later surpassed only by the film 'Back to the Future' Part 1.
Returning to the fresh film of the entire franchise, which, according to his statement, the director does not fully recognize, allegedly his filmmaker is the very first about characters long known to us since childhood.
A similar phenomenon can be found in the film ' Terminator 7' to which James Cameron agreed only because he did not recognize all films after Part 2. As you can see, this practice is becoming fashionable at the franchise level, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens with other Hollywood hits.
The heroes of the film themselves are stupid teenagers 12-13 years old, and already in the first minutes you can see completely stupid actions - they do not know who these are ' Ghostbusters' Have you ever seen these famous movies? Plus, the main character in glasses arrives at the farm, where one of the hunters once lived, and is her grandfather, however, and even this she does not know, and not particularly worried about it.
And when the teenagers discover the weapons of hunters (in the plot of the first film, it was a homemade product of the characters), then the car, and judging by the number, it is a car from the first film (ECTO-1). If you recall, the 2nd part was released, where the hunters slightly updated the car and gave a different name. Does the director just skip 'Ghostbusters 2' or didn't watch either? And so are young teenagers. Nonsense!
Naturally, it is not surprising that once again there is no science fiction in the film and a lot of scenes are simply copied from an old film from 1984. For example, a column of books, folded to the ceiling, remember the same scene in the first film of the franchise, minutes in the library?
I will not list all the stupid and copied scenes only from the first part (where the director did Part 2, because his father, the creator of the 1984 film, was present at the shooting), which already reduces the quality of the product. For example, a teenager calmly and easily with the first attempt takes the weapons of hunters and easily ' shoots', as if already before, and many times used. I would like to remind you that there is a mini nuclear reactor created by scientists in the first film. They were even afraid to start when they first used it. And there's a 13-year-old girl who's free to use a nuclear weapon in pursuit of a ghost.
As a result, the film can be assessed as another failure in an attempt to continue the franchise, as happened with the stupid film of 2016, where generally a solid comedy with humor below the plinth. I would not even write a review of this film.
P.S. Very strange, but some reviews watch the film 'Ghostbusters: Heirs' as a drama, even cry in the cinema, especially at the scene when the film suddenly appears old actors Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Dan Aykroyd (Harold Ramis is no longer with us, in honor of his memory and this film was shot) at the very end.
But why show old actors? Because teenagers have never heard of hunters in their lives? That would be nonsense too.
Then the legendary characters had to be shown from the very beginning!
The old lineup of hunters no longer plays a major role.
I can’t call myself a fan of the franchise 'Ghostbusters' but the fate of the work was somewhat scary. Already released in 2016 nightmare, which by some fateful coincidence bore the same name as the cult film about a team of scientists struggling with manifestations of paranormal activity. Fortunately, the modern reinterpretation of the picture absorbed the spirit 'Very strange things' almost completely ignoring the agenda in the West, which went only to the benefit of the work.
A single mother with two children is evicted from the house for systematic non-payment. The family has no money, the only relative - his own father - just recently died, and therefore the only option is to move to his crumbling house. It turns out that he was one of the legendary ghost hunters who saved New York, and maybe the whole world, decades ago. It has been so long that people have practically ceased to believe in spirits, although there is all evidence of their rampage. But now the new heroes will have to again scatter the plasmopushki and blow the dust from the trap to the ghosts.
The cast here is very organic: Finn Wolfhard, known to us for 'It' and 'Stranger Things' fits in wonderfully. It is a pity that his role is clearly secondary, and if it were not for him in the film we would not have lost anything, but even better, although it looks like McKenna Grace. The image of an awkward nerd, constantly weighing down unfunny jokes to the right and left, is wildly hilarious, it is difficult not to laugh at her next mathematical idiom. Of course, Paul Rudd. As always in his role, which, again, definitely matches his character.
The only drawback that can be seen in the new film is excessive childishness, which is present in everything: dialogues, plot, characters, screeners. You just have to put up with a 12+ rating, which establishes similar conventions. However, to some viewers, some of the heroes’ naivety seemed truly blasphemous. That's just the original tape is truly an adult film could be called with a very big stretch.
As a result, we have an almost perfect remake: pleasant to the eye and hearing Easter eggs, a small dose of old hunters and new heroes who perfectly correspond to the spirit of the time. Perhaps the best rethinking of the classics of late.