Review: Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse – you don't live on nostalgia | TierraGamer: news and entertainment about anime, series, video games and technology

After a long hiatus, the franchise Ghostbusters found new life thanks to the premiere of The legacy. This film worked as a true continuation of the films that became classics of the eighties. With Egon Spengler's family taking the lead as the new Ghostbusters.

This March 22, Phantom Apocalypse hits theaters, which is a direct sequel to the events of the previous film. Furthermore, all the advances pointed to a meeting between the old and new Ghostbusters groups.. But is this union worth it? Here we tell you.

What is Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse about?

Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse It makes us follow the Spengler family in their new role as Ghostbusters in New York City. After a ghost chase results in several disasters and destruction on the streets, the youngest of the family, Phoebe, must stay out of action.

At the same time, Ray Stantz receives a mysterious orb charged with ghostly energy in his antique store. It's not long before he learns that it is a prison for an ancient and powerful being that threatens to freeze everything in its path if released.

Although the beginning is interesting and promising, especially with the apparent power of the new villain, it quickly falls into monotony. Throughout its two hours of duration we have around an hour and a half of 'preamble' that feels very repetitive. The danger of this orb is already clear in its first appearance, it is not necessary to repeat so much that it is very bad for humanity if its spirit is released.

Worst of all, the entire explanation of the new villain falls flat immediately once the climax hits. Although the title indicates an apocalypse, it is more of a 'small phantom annoyance'. Was just twenty minutes of ice-covered New York what they feared so much?

So in general all Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse It feels like a big 'preview' of what's going to happen so the ending is quite disappointing. Maybe they could have told their story in less time, because several scenes feel like pure filler.

Yes, there is a union of two generations, but not as you expected

Most of the advertising Ghostbuster: Ghost Apocalypse focuses on the union of the 80s and modern Ghostbusters. But outside of the final moments, there aren't many scenes where both groups meet and interact. They practically limit themselves to being in the same room.

In the case of Ray Stantz, played by Dan Aykroyd, we could say that there is an advantage. After all, his research together with Phoebe Spengler is what drives the entire investigation into the new villain. Still they don't give him much to do.

The rest of the Ghostbusters are practically a glorified cameo within Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse. Especially in the case of Bill Murray, who only has two appearances in the film, and Annie Potts who is only there making an appearance in her scenes.

If you were expecting some sort of emotional passing of the baton or at least seeing your favorite heroes in action, you won't get it here. In addition to the fact that with the age of these actors it is likely that this is the last opportunity and they were tremendously wasted.

Ghostbuster: Ghost Apocalypse replaces humor and adventure with mere nostalgia

We know that the original Ghostbusters movies were not action or horror films. Rather, they were an amalgamation of comedy with supernatural elements and touches of action. Even so, Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse falters quite a bit in these aspects, the humor is very little and the action is practically non-existent.

It honestly seems like all the ghost-hunting action is already present in the movie's trailers. Most of the time it's investigating the new bad guy and dealing with a supposed Spengler family drama that feels very lean, undeveloped and forgotten by the end.

What is not missing in Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse They are the jokes and references to 80s movies. However, you can't make a plot entertaining and interesting simply because you give fans doses of nostalgia.

Unfortunately this sequel achieves something that would seem impossible. He gave us a very boring Ghostbusters movie. Which is all the more disappointing when you take into account the comedy talent present in the cast. How can you have Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Paul Rudd in a movie and make it boring?

It was already packed with characters and they still put more

Just by bringing together both groups of Ghostbusters, it was already a titanic task to accommodate so many characters. Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse He decided to take a risk and put in even more. Obviously with such a stuck story she can't focus on anyone.

That's another of the movie's biggest problems. It puts in so many unnecessary characters and focuses on them, taking away valuable time from the ones that really matter.. If the story is already weak and you don't give it the time to concentrate on what it wants to tell, it becomes worse.

We talk about the old Ghostbusters because the advertising focuses on them, but the reality is that practically all of them are relegated. Even Phoebe, who spends the most time on Ghostbuster: Ghost Apocalypse, lacks an interesting journey. She started out as the clever ghost hunter who solves everything and ends up exactly the same. Let's not even talk about Finn Wolfhard who seems to have only returned under contract, since his character does absolutely nothing useful in the film.

Should you watch Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse?

The truth is that Ghostbusters: Ghost Apocalypse is one of those movies that focuses so much on nostalgia that it forgets to create an interesting story to accompany it. Perhaps if you are a big fan of the originals it will entertain you with all its references to the originals, but it is still difficult to recommend.

Obviously no one expected an Oscar-winning film from the Ghostbusters, but at least one would expect a fun and entertaining adventure. Ghost Apocalypse It doesn't give us any of this as it is a film full of unnecessary characters, a lot of explanation, little humor and, above all, almost no action.

If you are curious to see it, perhaps it is best to wait for it to be available on a streaming service. But if you are one of those who were simply not interested, then you can pass on it without any problem. There is nothing to miss.

Don't stop following us on Google news. You can also go to our Discord to talk about movies and other topics.

(Visited 17 times, 17 visits today)