This reboot of the classic Ghostbusters film tries to be an improvement, but falls short in terms of script and characters. It has a good production, good cinematography, crazy action scenes and dazzling digital effects. The design of the ghosts is amazing and gives them a very cartoonish look. The rest of the movie leaves a lot to be desired. It has a fascinating story with an interesting villain, but it's not fully exploited. The female leads that replace the original cast show some grace, but their characters are not well written. There are moments that, instead of being funny, the characters end up giving pity to others, like much of the comedy in the film. Chris Hemsworth's character is too clumsy and silly. He can make people laugh at times, but unfortunately his character is so goofy that he doesn't make for good comic relief. The script is pretty mediocre and that ends up making the movie far from a good reboot. Even the cameos by the actors from the original movie don't help much. This Ghostbuster movie is sadly a failed reboot and because of that it is the most inferior installment in the entire franchise. My rating for this movie is 6/10.
Add a Review
-
Elvis-Del-Valle21 March 2023
-
jgesselberty-114 October 2022I reluctantly gave this a 6 star rating, but could easily have gone lower. This is a perfect example of what happens when you insult women by plugging them into the roles of near iconic male characters, and then give them little quality material to show off any comedic talent. The funniest line for me was when the ghost got on the train to Queens and the black lady says "that'l be the third scariest thing on that train." See what I mean? Then, you complicate matters by plugging Chris Hemsworth who is not really known for his comdeic talent, as the receptionist, resident hunk, stupid man (because in a movie with all women leads, you know the man has to be studpid). Above all this movie relies completely on CGI special effects so much that the story, if there is one, gets lost in the shuffle. The closing credits almost had more entertainment value.
-
The first "Ghostbusters" was a classic American comedy film from 1984. Written by actors Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and directed by Ivan Reitman, it was about three parapsychologists (Venkman, Stantz and Spengler) who ran a ghost hunting outfit in New York City. This year, a reboot of this film with an all-female main cast written and directed by Paul Feig is released.
Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) have been interested in ghostly phenomena since they were in high school. After a period of estrangement brought about by differences in career paths, they are reunited when they were called to investigate a ghostly sighting at a local museum.
Together with nuclear engineer Dr. Jillian Holtzmann and her prodigious talent for inventing weapons and New York subway employee Patty Tolan, they formally launch a ghost hunting business, later dubbed by media as "Ghostbusters". For their first major case, they track down a mentally-disturbed janitor of a local hotel who had been causing malevolent spirits to appear all over New York City. Never would they have guessed that this case would actually lead to a city-wide ectoplasmic apocalypse.
Melissa McCarthy was not annoying here as Abby, unlike her early films. She continues her winning run following "The Heat" and "Spy" (also by director Feig). Kristen Wiig is so geeky, so self- deprecating, so delightfully funny as Erin. It took time for me to warm up to the unorthodox comedy styles of Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, since this is the first movie I have seen them in a film. They eventually do hit their stride as the quirky badass Holtzmann and the loud excitable Patty. coming up with their own comic highlights.
The scenes with their pretty but dumb receptionist Kevin were so awkward and cringe-worthy. But only because he was played by Chris Hemsworth, the against-type casting actually worked to make this character hilarious. In addition, I found the scenes accompanying first part of the closing credits featuring Hemsworth were so embarrassingly funny. You won't see Thor the same way again. While this Kevin character could also be seen as feministic male-bashing, but I did not take offense because of the good-natured comic treatment.
Being a reboot of a beloved film, comparisons, fair or otherwise, will be inevitable. Most evident would be that the comedy in the original film was more subtle and mature, while the comedy in this reboot can be gross and childish. The disparity of male and female team dynamics and interactions are very clearly noted. There was none of the sexual innuendo and smoking which were prominent in the first film. The ghosts of this reboot had the same colorful and cartoony style as the first film, but the technological advance of 30 years is evident to make them look polished.
There was no mention of ever having a previous Ghostbusters, which may bum out loyal die-hard fans. However, I enjoyed seeing many references to the first film, like the logo, the old firehouse, Dana's apartment building (now a hotel), Ecto-1 (now a hearse), Slimer and the Marshmallow Man. I had fun seeing the original cast members (Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver) in cameo appearances, though too bad that they were not as their old characters. The late Harold Ramis was cited in a dedication at the end of the closing credits.
There was also a very short extra scene at the very end of the credits when the song faded out. There was a mention of a name which can be recalled from the first movie. Was this just another nostalgic throwback or was it hinting a possible sequel?
My sons and I had so much fun watching this light-hearted and happy- vibed film. I was actually laughing out loud so much at some pretty side-splitting silly gags. The interaction between the four ladies started off uncomfortable and rough. But as the movie got on, they really hit it off very well, and their individual comic styles gelled very well as a group as they spouted all their pseudo- scientific jargon and wielded their sophisticated proton-pack weaponry. 8/10. -
flowerstardust19798 April 2021There was no need to make this. It was diabolical in many ways and after just viewing the trailer for Afterlife this pops back up with a 6.6 star rating. How?! Ghostbusters 2 has a 6.6 rating. You're telling me that people think this crap is equally good?! No! The only good thing about this disaster was one particular scene in 3D. Hopefully Afterlife will be far better.
-
Michael_Elliott18 October 2016Ghostbusters (2016)
1/2 (out of 4)
Wow, what on Earth were they thinking? I will freely admit that I love to see films remade. I mean, it gives the original some attention and in the best cases you end up with another good movie. In the worse cases, hey, you've still got the original film there. If anything this 2016 remake of GHOSTBUSTERS just makes the original all the more impressive because it's amazing how bad this thing is. And no, I'm not sexist or racist. I'm just being honest. I was okay with this film being made but it's really shocking how awful it turned out.
I'm not even sure where to begin in regards to the bad stuff. I guess we can start with the story because there really isn't a story. There's pretty much a bunch of stuff ripped off from the original movies and toned down here. The horror elements are all toned down. The sexism is toned down. There's really no "story" here outside of four women trying to capture ghosts. I kept watching this expecting something to happen but it just never did. Even worse is the fact that the film didn't make me laugh a single time, which gets us to another problem.
The four female leads here are just downright awful. I'm not going to put an awful lot of blame on them since I'm sure they'll all talented actresses but the screenplay pretty much gave them no characters. In the case of Melissa McCarthy, she's pretty much playing the same type of annoying character that she plays in all of her movies. Kristen Wiig was downright annoying, Leslie Jones was even more annoying and Kate McKinnon didn't even register on the screen.
Even the ghosts are downright pathetic and lazy. I use the word lazy because there's just nothing creative about them and once again it just goes to show how wonderful the original film was and they even make the stuff in the sequel seem better. I could go on and on about the awful stuff in this movie. I honestly had no idea the movie would turn out as bad as it did and it really makes you wonder why Bill Murray would refuse to do a sequel for so many years yet he'd sign up for this thing? I'm hoping he and the other cameos were paid quite well.
GHOSTBUSTERS is a film that could have worked and should have worked. I'm really dumbfounded as to what went so horribly wrong with this but just changing the sexes of a character certainly isn't enough to make a film work. -
drew_atreides25 July 2016I am a 38 year old male who grew up on the first 2 Ghostbusters, and the original REAL GHOSTBUSTERS animated series. Always loved the first movie and the cartoon, merely found the 2nd movie to be "okay", though as an adult i find it is better then i thought it was as a kid.
I took my 7 year old daughter to see the new Ghostbusters. Seeing normal women doing cool things is just what the doctor ordered for someone trying to raise a confident, self-assured girl in the current day. My daughter thought the movie was fantastic. First thing she said as it ended was "when can we buy it on Blu-Ray?"
I thought the 4 leads had a decent chemistry. Kate Mckinnon is the standout, stealing most scenes that she is in with her mugging-style that she has perfected on SNL.
I also felt like this was one of the better examples of 3D visual effects that I have seen. There are multiple scenes where the ghosts seem to come right out at you which are very effective.
Finally: Who knew that Chris Hemsworth could be so funny? His jock- ish, jerkish nimrod of a secretary is actually quite endearing.
Is it a great movie in-line with the original? No. This is not a classic by any means. I think the original relied so much on the comedic timing and brilliance of Bill Murray, and no one in this cast can match that.
However, i don't think it is an awful film. It serves as a decent origin story and a solid girl-power effort that is not as disparaging to the male species as some people claim.
I would go see a sequel. -
Leofwine_draca9 June 2018I admit from the start that I'm a massive fan of the original GHOST BUSTERS, although the sequel isn't so hot. Both films look like absolute classics compared to this ill-advised reboot of the series, recasting with an all-female ghostbusting team. Although the film looks similar to the original movies, it feels absolutely NOTHING like them. Gone is the character interplay and genuinely funny and droll performances that could be enjoyed by kids and adults alike; it's replaced by the kind of modern-day sarcasm and idiocy that I always end up hating. The new cast members are all unlikeable, and the likes of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy seem to be competing as to who can be the most irritating of the lot. Yes, the new-fangled CGI effects are very colourful and pretty, but they don't have any of the character and finesse of the old effects, which you knew were hard to do thus all the more impressive. The plot is as predictable as they come, and the only person who raised the occasional smile was Chris Hemsworth. I'm afraid the new GHOSTBUSTERS should never have been made.
-
lasttimeisaw23 August 2016The rebooted GHOSTBUSTERS is a reinvention out of the original story written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, with a vital and relevant gender-swapping. And each member of the foursome posse has passed the appraisal as genuine comedienne thanks to their Saturday Night Live stint, not to mention Melissa McCarthy is presently THE most bankable US comedienne in the movie business, which has been kick-started by director Paul Feig's BRIDESMAIDS (2011).
In the remake, Erin Gilbert (Wiig), a tenured-to-be physics professor at Columbia University rekindles her passion for paranormal activities when she has to confront her school-day bestie Abby Yates (McCarthy), now a maverick researcher, for publishing the book which they wrote together about the existence of that particular subject matter years ago, behind her back. They meet a real ghost in a haunted house which thrusts them to form a "Ghostbuster" team to catch ghosts, with the participation of the technophile Jillian Holtzman (McKinnon) and the street-smart subway worker Patty Tolan (Jones, not a latecomer like Ernie Hudson in the original, she is a loudmouth and her presence is ubiquitous), who offers them a hearse-revamped automobile, plus a dimwit eye-candy Kevin (Hemsworth, who is amazingly good in his goofy and flippant dash) as their inept secretary, whom, Erin has a crush on (and who doesn't? Maybe only Holtzman, but unfortunately the lesbian undercurrent never catches on).
Pristine-looking in present-day New York, the reboot seems rather expensive, and its visual grandeur rightfully gives enough credits to the Special Effects advancement between the whopping thirty-some gap, with highlights like a green reptile ghost which is a mixture of dragon and Baphomet, running amok in a heavy metal concert, and the ultimate boss, a gigantic glowering form of Ghostbusters' trademark logo based on an unthinkable concept that a human being can be changed into an amorphous ghost simply by electrocution, that is what Rowan North (Casey), a withdrawn sociopath, manages to pull off after successfully building a portal to a ghost world.
The dutiful cameos (Murray, Aykroyd, Hudson, Weaver, Potts and even the son of the late Harold Ramis) from the original franchise are less than surprising, the real deal here is McKinnon's Dr. Holtzmann, a unique incarnation of both flamboyance and geekiness, she is in effect the life force behind their enterprise, which makes Wiig and McCarthy look rather amateurish in this peculiar line of business, although it does seem to be pretty easy for her to constantly ply the team with updated ghost-capturing weaponry.
Labelled as a faithful remake, this fantasy-comedy crowdpleaser doesn't deserve all the backlash, especially those sexist and racist ones, the problem seems to be - Paul Feig and his female- enpowering team ruefully pick a safe route to retread the old path, instead of going off the beaten track, at least for the sake of its comedic fodder, like he did in SPY (2015) last year with McCarthy, especially we are all fully aware what a superlative one-liner and deadpan impersonator Wiig is, alas, the entire project eventually settles for an unambitious aim which has been aptly executed, but, if they hope to reboot a new franchise, the first step is a middling one, and according to the financial turnover, a sequel is a long shot at this point. -
BA_Harrison12 February 2017Three scientists (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, and Kate McKinnon) and a subway worker (Leslie Jones) form Ghostbusters, a team dedicated to ridding the world of unwanted spooks. The foursome have their work cut out for them when weirdo janitor Rowan North (Neil Casey) puts into motion his plan to unleash malevolent spirits on New York.
I'm not a huge fan of the original Ghostbusters, so I wasn't at all outraged when they announced the remake/reboot, with—God forbid—a female cast. Despite the trailer not boding well, and terrible word of mouth on the film's release, I was willing to go in with an open mind. However, I'm sorry to say that the film is every bit the total (ghost)train wreck that I had heard it was, well deserving of all the hatred and scorn thrown its way.
A terrible script loaded with extremely lame gags, four leads who share zero chemistry and who are not in the least bit funny (but very irritating), an extremely embarrassing supporting role for Chris Hemsworth (as dumb hunk receptionist Kevin), pointless cameos from stars of the original Ghostbusters (all of whom should have said 'No!'), and waayyyy too much CGI: Ghostbusters 2016 didn't have a ghost of a chance of succeeding. -
Gambitt23 December 2016Ghostbusters is a moderately amusing action comedy, starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones as an all- female team of haunter huntresses.
How much you enjoy the movie (assuming you can get over any predispositions) depends mostly on whether you like Director Paul Feig's style and writing. I personally like the cheeky sense of humor intermixed with gags and visual humor.
Having said that, the movie becomes a bit too heavily dependent on slapstick towards the end, and forgettable CGI action sequences do little to enhance the experience. Which is a shame, because the introduction and build up of the team is pretty well done.
All in all, Ghostbusters is not going to win any awards or birth a beloved new franchise. But much to the disappointment of its many detractors, it's not nearly as bad of a movie as they hoped. It's certainly fun enough for an evening's entertainment. -
What's to say? At this point the movie is so mired in controversy that any opinion on it seems like a political statement more than a movie review. But here we go anyway - I didn't like it. It feels less like a movie with an idea (in this case a recycled one) and more like one of the many subpar comedies we have today where a few comedians who are friends in real life get together and give us two hours of smug back-patting. It offers nothing memorable of its own, just a few reworked things from the original movie, which was a classic with many iconic images and scenes. The only thing anyone will remember about this is the controversy surrounding it. I don't care much for Melissa McCarthy or Leslie Jones but I do like Kristen Wiig and I'm trying very hard to like Kate McKinnon (perhaps too hard). None of these women are impressive here. Chris Hemsworth's character is used too much. It's an obvious joke that doesn't get funnier the more you tell it. Ultimately the problem with this movie isn't that "women aren't funny," so much as comedy writers today are very lazy and uninspired.
-
kailomonkey16 July 2016This film doesn't take itself too seriously or follow the original in any serious way, but is instead a beautifully funny homage to the original that is done SO well. I really can't see how anyone coming out of this movie could have anything bad to say about it.
OK if I think about mainstream taste versus alternative taste perhaps this film was just too happy and tongue in cheek for the general populous. It's not even a remake, it's more of an addition to the series and it's so humorous. The effects are awesome and colourful like joy in a can and the changes are crazy. The only other reasons I can see for not liking this movie is an expectation of seeing the original redone in the exact same way with new effects.
That or some people can't stand to see the jarring difference of women actually playing great roles for a change. Which while I'm on it, I do enjoy the recent bouts of chick comedies so maybe that explains why I got the humour. I love it. Balls to the wall crazy.
I will admit there were a couple moments that missed the beat for me for a moment, basically when things had to get serious for a moment and I didn't want to stop laughing or when they had to stick to a moment from the original film and not play it for laughs. But those moments were rare and very soon put back on track.
One other thought is that I don't like most remakes of late, so if you do like remakes maybe this is the wrong kind of remake for you. Rather than making everything darker and more serious as most become, it does the complete opposite. Don't see it as a remake or reboot, but a lot of fun. Also yes the villain is a bit scooby doo but I can let that go. -
fraser-simons6 December 2016I really enjoyed this movie. They intentionally subvert some of the tropes from the original, which, frankly is not that funny. Especially when you remember how sexist they are towards their own secretary -- oh wait, it's always like they flipped that on it's head. And guess what, it works and I found it very funny.
I sat in a theater ahead of two little girls with their dad going to see this movie and both they and him were laughing out loud often, and it only made me enjoy the movie more. At one point the daughter asked her dad if she could be a ghostbuster for Halloween, that matters.
Holtzmann was bad ass and cool and funny. The only reason this movie doesn't get a 10 is because I did feel like some of the jokes they gave Leslie Jones were a little too tropey for me.
This film had everything I wanted though, it made the source material relevant as seen in the new comics from IDW (which sold out 5 print runs), it targets more than just adult males and succeeds, it's funny, and the action was just awesome. You can nab this film in 4K for like 20 bucks on Amazon.
in short, IGNORE the goddamn trolls. This is worth your time and an open mind. -
johnspringer-9544015 February 2023Contrary to the original, 2016's Ghostbusters is broad and lowbrow with pratfalls, bodily-function gags and buffoons mugging for the camera. Broad and lowbrow doesn't necessarily mean bad - even Blazing Saddles had the bean scene. What sets GB 2016 apart is its pervasive sense of desperation. The people making this movie clearly realized their loud, dumb, goofy approach wasn't working; and like a flailing stand-up comedian their only recourse was to become louder, dumber and goofier in the hopes of garnering a few pity chuckles. It's not just unfunny, it's downright uncomfortable and cringe-inducing.
-
xiaoli737720 December 2022I don't know, even after many years this one is still controversial. I think it's cooled down a lot with another "Ghostbusters" film being released since this one. The original 1984 movie is kind of a "lightning-in-a-bottle" type deal. The sequel with the original cast altogether wasn't that great. The "Force Awakens" style Hollywood nostalgia money grab wasn't pretty mediocre. This remake is awful. You can make a movie like "Ghostbusters" or "Back to the Future" that just has a very original plot and concept, and no matter how badly you want the dollars that came with it, it's always gonna be a hollow attempt.
Man, this one is very bad though. Like almost insufferably obnoxious and stupid. It's disappointing because I honestly have nothing bad to say about any of the people who worked on the film. I liked a lot of the cast members in other projects like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Office." Chris Hemsworth is really funny, but they didn't even try to give us any chemistry between him and Kristin Wiig like they were teasing throughout the whole film. Not even anything like a funny joke. Just short little jokes about how sexy she thought he was or something.
The story is more or less a retread of the original's plot points, but I can at least give them the complement that it's a different one? Like at least not a beat-for-beat remake? Kristin Wiig's character is the only Ghostbuster that I liked, all three of the other ones really got on my nerves and the actresses all seemed like they were trying way too hard to just force jokes that didn't come naturally. I was laughing at some points, but at most of the others they just fell completely flat on their face.
Really terrible special effects and awful jokes mixed with extremely obnoxious forced attempts at poop and queef humor (yes there was a terrible queef joke in this that obviously went over like a wet fart) made this one incredibly hard to watch. And for that reason I would only recommend this movie to those with a very high level of curiosity or if you're a "Ghostbusters" fanatic, which I guess by this point most of them have already made up their minds on the 2016 version. It gets relegated to a footnote in movie history, like "hey remember back in 2016 when they tried to remake 'Ghostbusters' with an all-female cast?" That's really all there is to it. -
GilsonIV1 September 2023It's a sad reality when a beloved movie is resurrected only to be mutilated by a misguided attempt at relevance. The remake of Ghostbusters is a prime example of how Hollywood can take an iconic property and reduce it to a soulless, pandering mess. This feeble attempt to recapture the magic of the original movie falls flat on every conceivable level, leaving fans and newcomers alike utterly disappointed.
From the outset, the movie's biggest flaw is its painfully contrived script. The weak plot feels like a sheer afterthought, serving as a mere backdrop for desperate attempts at humor. The "jokes," if they can even be called that, are painfully unfunny and rely heavily on crude humor and slapstick gags. This shallow and lazy approach to comedy lacks the wit, intelligence, and subtlety that made the original Ghostbusters so memorable.
The casting choices, touted as a progressive move, only further contribute to the movie's downfall. While the original movie had a dynamic ensemble that oozed chemistry and charisma, the remake feels like a jumbled mess. The main characters are nothing more than cardboard cutouts. The lack of depth and development in their roles is astonishing, making it impossible to connect with or care about their journey.
Moreover, the movie's blatant pandering and gender-swapping of the main characters is a disservice to the legacy of the original. Instead of focusing on crafting a compelling storyline and well-rounded characters, the movie relies on hollow gender politics as its primary selling point. This misguided attempt at social commentary only serves to overshadow the movie's flaws, and it feels like a cheap marketing ploy rather than a genuine creative choice.
Even the visual effects, which should have been a redeeming aspect, are lackluster. The CGI-heavy spectacles lack the charm and practicality of the original movie's effects, feeling more like a soulless video game than a cinematic experience. The iconic ghosts and paranormal encounters lose their mystique and become nothing more than flashy distractions.
In the end, the remake of Ghostbusters is a painful reminder of the consequences of Hollywood's obsession with cashing in on nostalgia. It fails to capture the spirit and magic of the original movie, instead opting for a shallow, derivative attempt that tarnishes the franchise's reputation. Fans of the original should steer clear of this abysmal remake, as it serves as a disservice to the legacy of the original and the beloved characters that once captivated audiences worldwide. -
ivan201219 August 2017It deserves better than a 5.3, which is the average user rating on the day I am writing this. Maybe fans of the original Ghostbusters films are trashing this because they don't think it measures up to the original. I have a different view. I think this female version is actually a little better. This one has more funny moments IMO and the four ladies are all likable. Wiig and McCarthy have most of the funny moments as you would expect. Kate McKinnon's character was over-the-top and a bit annoying at first but she grows on you. Leslie Jones did a fine job as well, but she's about a foot taller than McCarthy and McKinnon so it looks a little awkward when they're standing next to each other. Jones' motivation for joining as the 4th member also wasn't explained very well in the film.
I'll give this film a low 7 rating. Definitely deserves a second viewing at some point. -
AlsExGal14 December 2019.... to quote a good Columbia (Sony) film from the classic era, trashing the fans before the film even comes out. But that was what Sony did when they got a negative reaction from their trailers and could see the train wreck that was coming that would be the release of this film.
The humor in this film is very forced, broad, and silly, where the original Ghostbusters film featured dry intelligent humor often coming from just who the characters were and how they interacted.
The villain was just awful. He seemed like he was yanked straight out of a cartoon or comic book. The scene at the rock concert - which is shown in trailers - is just goofy. It was like I was watching live action Scooby Doo. Throwing a story into the middle of a concert never really bodes well unless you want to conjure up images of rubber suited turtles doing the 'ninja rap'.
And last but not least, this film has absolutely zero problem defying the rules that are established. Proton beams hold the ghosts, the traps capture them until they're ready to be shoved off into a containment unit. They follow the same rules throughout most of the film, but then near the end, the Ghostbusters start using proton beams as if they were able to destroy ghosts, gunslinger style. What the??
Because there are fans of this franchise going back 35 years, history matters. And this installment just destroyed all of that. This is not the worst film ever made, but it is definitely not worth your time. -
davispittman16 July 2016Ghostbusters (2016) is enjoyable and entertaining reboot of the original 1984 film. First of all, the casting is so great here! I absolutely loved Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, and Kate. I feel like Leslie jones deserves a special specific praise for her hilarious and likable performance, she was just so hilarious. "I don't know if it was a race thing or a lady thing, but I'm mad as hell!". That line is just comedy gold to me, and Leslie has sooo many more lines just that funny or even funnier, loved her staunch New York character Patty! The movie isn't perfect or like the best reboot ever made, yes, some of the jokes fall flat, but luckily the jokes that do work and succeed at making you laugh outweigh the ones that don't. Chris Hemsworth, while amazing to look at and drool over, didn't bring his best here I feel, but I feel like that was the scripts fault, his comedy didn't really work that well, but once he became the somewhat villain, he worked, I believe his villainous performance. And I LOVED how they gave all the old ghostbusters main actors roles/cameos in the movie at some point, Sigourney weaver is even back. RIP Harold Ramos. So all in all, no, it's not a 10, no not ALL of it works, but the good very much outsides the bad in my humble opinion, 7/10 for Ghostbusters 2016. Oh and CGI effects worked VERY well, very cool looking and didn't appear fake at all.
-
josephbarros-1640712 February 2023When news of a Ghostbusters movie hit in 2014 I was buzzing for it, finally a ghostbusters movie, finally a conclusion to GB 1 and 2 and a continuation with the old gang passing the torch to the new recruits. Oh how I was wrong, instead what we got was a slap in the face to the fandom, slap in the face to the mythology and a slap in the face to the movies that came before it. What was show was a complete reversal of what was expected and wanted which got rectified with the awesome and true sequel Ghostbusters Afterlife.
The fact that it had women has nothing to do with how bad this movie is....its just plain and simply a bad movie and rubbish storyline.
This movie deservedly thrown in the same category as Batman & Robin 1997 which nearly crippled a loved franchise, same can be said with this, the hate is justified. -
Mr-Fusion16 July 2016(Updated 10/22/16)
Three months after the fact and "Ghostbusters" (sadly) isn't as funny as it was in the theater. It's absolutely not as bad as the Internet would like you to believe, and (again, sadly) has become the most politicized thing I've seen in a very long time. But there's also something very bland about the movie, from the four main characters right down to the soundtrack. And this is speaking strictly as a moviegoer. It didn't have to take any chances, but a lot of the jokes are also very obvious. And Murray and Aykroyd got the shaft in the cameo department.
But my wife very much enjoyed the movie, regardless of these reasons; and my daughter got to the end credits and asked, "Aww, why does it have to be over?" They've really taken to this, and that's really who the movie's aiming for anyway. I like that my kid has a movie where women are Ghostbusters, and my appreciation for it brightens as a result. So there's no pretense at objectivity here, but . . . I dunno, I guess in my house, it's a source of happiness.
And I do think it's kinda sad that there won't be a sequel.
There should be.
7/10 -
The original 'Ghostbusters' is still enormously enjoyable entertainment, that fares even better from an adult perspective. The sequel was a step-down and not as good, but it has enough to make it watchable.
'Ghostbusters' (2016), coming from somebody who has seen the film and saw it with an open mind, was a complete and utter mess. To be honest, expectations were extremely low, it was a terrible idea from the start, it had some of the most terrible advertising of any film in recent memory, the practical war-zone online from both sides but especially defenders was reason alone to put me off seeing it and hearing the theme song was enough to make one squirm.
However, there are plenty of films out there that are badly advertised but actually turn out to be good to great films (for example, was expecting to dislike 'Lilo and Stitch' and 'Galaxy Quest', for examples, but ended up really liking and loving them respectively). Plus Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Chris Hemsworth have given good to great performances in the past. So this reviewer gave it the benefit of the doubt and made a real effort to judge it as its own entity.
It turned out to be every bit as awful as the advertising made it look. It's a disgrace to the original film but is a truly bad film on its own as well. Other than the spirited and reasonably entertaining performance of Cecily Strong, there is next to nothing about 'Ghostbusters'.
Visually, it's not pleasing at all, with the incomplete-looking editing and very artificially cartoonish special effects particularly standing out in a bad way. The music is generic and over-bearing, the theme song also has to be down there as one of the worst theme songs in film history.
Whereas the original 'Ghostbusters' has a great blend of comedy, horror and action, the reboot completely fails at all three. The horror is practically non-existent, there's too little and it's severely diluted by heavy overload of unintentional comedy, increasing predictability and lack of suspense and such. Action, if any, is barely noticeable.
Especially pitiful is the comedy, which suffers from being continually forced and contrived jokes-wise and a severe lack of wit in the script. The references to the original could have been affectionate, but felt thrown-in and forced. It's not for the easily offended either, the backlash against the film has veered on misogynistic admittedly but with its subtlety-of-an-axe, obnoxious and racist and sexist stereotypes (especially Leslie Jones' offensive, irritating and out of date character and the depiction of men) the film is every bit as guilty.
Story is paper thin, and when there is any it feels so rushed and incomplete that sense is next to zero, charm, heart and fun are all in the minus figures and the incomprehensibility factor is high. The direction is lethargic at best and inept at worst, chemistry between the actors is barely there, you couldn't have asked for a more pathetic or lamer villain and apart from Strong the acting is poor all round. Hemsworth has been described by some as a bright spot, but to me his scenes do slow down the film and the character is so much of a dumb dope with no likability that Hemsworth's easy-going charm, comic timing and swaggering charisma do not come through and he just grates. What a shameful waste of talent.
The four leads either phone in (especially a bored-looking McCarthy) or over-act, particularly Kate McKinnon. The less said about obnoxious Leslie Jones the better. Wiig fares best, but isn't enough to save it. Don't rely on the cameos or the supporting roles to give an entertainment or nostalgia factor, they are just an excuse to cram as many as possible and nearly all of them consist of wasted talent actually looking as if they were bribed into taking part, while they are placed very clumsily most of the time too. The return of some of the actors in the original 'Ghostbusters' add nothing, they have screen times too short and look miserable.
Overall, a pointless and awful reboot that improves nothing on the idea, that screamed of disaster from the get go, or the terrible advertising. 1/10 Bethany Cox -
viva_la_dube17 July 2016I took my 4 year old to see this movie and when It was over he told me it was the best Ghostbusters yet, and I honestly felt the same way.
The plot was good, the effects looked amazing, it has some parts that are actually scary, it had plenty of good comedy, and the Leads did a great job. The story and action comes at the right pace as well, the movie never seemed pushed or dragged on.
The only thing I didn't like about this movie was how dumb they made Kevin the secretary, it was too over the top. There are plenty of trolls on here giving this movie bad reviews. I'm glad I went to see it and gave it a chance despite reading the reviews. I really feel like the is the best reboot I've ever seen.
When I was young I loved Ghostbusters and I've always hoped they would make a third installment. Now as an adult I've got the privilege to continue to spread that love to my children. -
pariah-careyhd116 July 2016The Ghostbusters reboot was exactly the kind of lighthearted fun I want in a summer flick. I really enjoyed it and have seen a number of posts on Facebook from friends both male and female who saw it and really liked it, too. There were so many laugh out loud funny moments. The "meta" moments were really fun, too, such as the nods to the original Ghostbusters and some of the jabs taken at, shall we say, the haters. I want to watch the original again so I can re-watch the reboot and see what I might have missed the first time around. I also particularly enjoyed Kate McKinnon and her deadpan deliveries. The closing credits were also a lot of fun. Make sure you stick around for the added scene that comes after the credits!
-
When I heard that they were remaking the movie Ghostbusters with female cast members, I admit that I was actually looking forward to it, specially considering the four particular actresses they had chosen for the part. I understood that movie remakes are typically the greatest, but considering the fact that 3 out of the four cast members are currently or were once members of SNL, I had some hope. Unfortunately, Wigg's comedic talent wasn't able to shine with her boring character with a lack of personality, McKinnon's character was just upright stupid and unrealistic, Jones's character was just a black stereotype, and McCarthy's role lacked character as well. Many of the jokes just fell flat (Steve Higgins small role and joke with the middle finger, the won tons, Kevin's (aka. Chris Hemsworth's) logo scene, the thing with the hair dye at the end, and so on). Also, the had many references to the original ghost busters throughout the film, and yet I suppose the setting takes place in a universe where the original squad had never existed, it's like a slap to the face to the original cast. Sure they had Bill Murry and few other actors for the older version show up in a few small parts, but they play such tiny roles, and as different characters..
And what's the deal with remaking older movies with female actresses or poc as the main characters. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with Hollywood wanting a bit of diversity in their work, but they're doing it all wrong. While this movie has good intentions when trying to cast female members, I guess either to have more representation for younger girls to look up to or show that women are equal to men or whatever, but when they try to do with a remake of a movie that was already amazing, it only makes matters worse. This movie will be forgotten within a few years from now, unlike the 1988 version, which most people had at least heard of reguardless of age before this one. On second thought, this movie isn't trying to create diversity, they're doing this for profit. They know that with the adults and their nostalgia these days, and with the younger now being obsessed with the classics due to them being conditioned to think that everything from their own generation sucks (which is clearly saying a lot about the older generation ironically, they're the ones whom produce our movies, not us), they can get some quick and lazy bucks by bringing back a film that should've been left alone in the first place instead of thinking up of a new script and story (that of which could also have female and/or poc leading characters), because they know people are more drawn to things that they are familiar with (as was I obviously). Whatever, I'm so done with remakes. There are many movies out there in today's time (yeah they exist) with original plot lines that are currently or were recently successful in the last year or so, so why watch a crappier version of a movie you've already seen before?