Ghostbusters

Overview

Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

Rating

14 Reviews

• 

  hankster3000

  1 Mar 15, 2017

  This movie is a disaster. The casting is way off. The special effects are mediocre. The story is merely a retread from the original... and they shoot the original logo in the crotch. There is nothing good about this production. What a waste of a perfectly good franchise.

• 

  P Rip

  7 Mar 22, 2017

  As a male nerd who grew up in the 1980's watching both original movies and the cartoon, running around with my toy proton pack and catching imaginary ghosts in my basement, I should be of the demographic complaining about how this ruins my childhood or that a cast of all women is just a stunt in the name of political correctness, or whatever their issue is. But the truth is, I REALLY enjoyed this movie. The four female leads were absolutely hilarious--especially Kate McKinnon who steals every scene she is in. The other three characters have more growth, more of a story arc, and are more fleshed out as people in general. But McKinnon makes the most out of the available material and creates a very fun and memorable character. The comedy of the 2016 version, while equally effective, is completely different from the dry humor of the original. The absence of Dan Aykroyd's and Harold Ramis's ludicrously funny lines delivered with a straight face, and the deadpan humor of Bill Murray has been switched out with a more over-the-top and in-your-face style of humor. It's not as subtle. Ghostbusters (1984) made me chuckle; Ghostbusters (2016) made me laugh out loud. While a lot of the original's comedy came from the ghosts themselves, i.e. that they're funny instead of legitimately scary, the new version reverses that. There is some very creepy imagery involving things like old timey parade balloons, ghosts pushing against mirrors, and other things that seemed inspired by American Horror Story. Plus, there were some good jump scares, boo moments, that actually caught me off guard. Much like a guitar amp out of Spinal Tap, this film turns both the scares and the comedy up to 11 with great results. I haven't had this much fun at a movie in a long time. The trailer is NOT a valid way to judge this film. The trailer seemed to splice together all the ineffective moments and jokes of the film. But those were the exceptions and not the rule. The rule here is fun, entertainment, laughs, and the occasional scare. When the film works, it works remarkably. The only real misstep was Chris Hemsworth's character. While the gender role reversal of the hot blonde ditz secretary was brilliant and long overdue in a mainstream summer movie, he was just too dumb to be believable. The character of Kevin belonged in a cartoon and not a legitimate movie. The best line in the movie references Jaws and Annie Potts' cameo made me cheer. However... If you've already decided you hate this movie without even seeing it, you probably won't like it. That's how these things usually work. But, if you have an open mind and are reserving judgement, I suggest you see it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

• 

  Gimly

  3 Aug 25, 2019

  I didn't watch this for quite a while because I heard so many bad things about it. "What do they know?" I thought to myself. I figured _Ghostbusters_ had already had a bad sequel I sort of enjoyed, a bad remake should be sort of enjoyable too. Besides, you just **know** that so many of the complaints were exclusively because the cast had been of the dreaded ~~fEmaLe VeRsiOn~~ variety. But I just watched it, and... Oh man you guys, this really did suck. I'm devastated. _Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

• 

  r96sk

  6 Oct 19, 2020

  First things first, the following is worth noting: I have no attachment to the 1984 film, nor do I particularly like it; I rated it and its sequel 2½*. I'm not saying it's overrated or anything, I just personally don't enjoy it that's all. With that said, I'd class 2016's 'Ghostbusters' better than the original. However, as you tell by my rating, that's not me saying this is a good film. I don't believe it is. It's incredibly slow paced, with a very forgettable and untidy plot. It felt longer than a 116 minute run time, that's for sure. It's not all bad, though. I actually rate the casting. Melissa McCarthy can be hit-and-miss, but this is one of her more solid performances. Kristen Wiig, great in 'Bridesmaids' alongside McCarthy, is a decent performer too. Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are alright, while Chris Hemsworth is pretty amusing. I, despite not being a fan of it, still enjoyed the callbacks to the '84 film; as well as the use of the superb theme song. As for the special effects, they look good but none of the ghosts stick in my memory; both visually, but also in terms of the story. It would've been nice to have a standout ghost. Likewise with the film's villain, who is ridiculously plain. In conclusion, it does positive things but there are certainly negatives. All in all, I think the latter just outweighs the former unfortunately. 3*.

• 

  Nicola Thrope

  Apr 12, 2024

  This is the worst movie I've seen since Freddy Got Fingered. So much worse than even I was expecting, that despite being a massive fan of Sookie from Gilmore Girls, I can no longer watch McCarthy without nauseating flashbacks of this movie. If you're any level of nerd and fan of this franchise, this will feel like the movie equivalent of meangirls locking you in your gym locker and cackling at you for being a Ghostbusters fan. Devoid of inspiration, creative premise, script polishing with anything other than sewage, or even the simple courtesy of regard for the VAST fanbase of this iconic franchise, this colostomy bag rupture of a movie was SO heavy-handed and awkward, it made me physically squirm in discomfort, and unable to watch more than five minutes at a time without pausing to let the nausea abate. You could be forgiven for thinking this must be a porn parody of Ghostbusters 1, if it wasn't for the conspicuous lack of anything attractive to look at. I can honestly say without a shred of doubt that I would rather be forced to watch Serbian Movie with my eyes taped open, than have to sit through any part of this crime against the Ghostbusters franchise, ever again.

• 

  LadyCuddles

  May 26, 2026

  Having followed the original, II, & this movie for years, I continue to return to them all, after a couple of years. First impression of the original was okay, and entertaining. Second movie was a little less than the original, but it had its moments. First watch, and any returning to this movie, I always start out with a "fresh" eye. Kind of like watching the animated Real Ghostbusters & the "Filmation's" Ghostbusters, they are miles apart, and its like comparing an apple & orange. This movie has its moments, just like the original, both are entertaining, and have a few notable comedic moments; like in the original terrorizing a banquet hall, and in this movie, the first testing of a suped up gun (though I can't watch and not think about the ol' fireman and hose routine). Too many reviews try and compare the original & this movie. Yes, this is more "female" centric, and the original was "male" centric, who cares? Credit where credit is due, its a variation, and has just the same entertainment value, if you don't expect it to be a copy of the original.