Ghostbusters (2016) Poster

(2016)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,915 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Holloywood needs to quit remaking classics and start something fresh
elizy-3309224 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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?
185 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hollywood in deep crisis
rodrig588 October 2017
In the absence of fantasy and original ideas, the Hollywood producers get out of mothballs old stories and they serve us as new, using this time four women instead of four men. No-one from the four actresses is funny, only Kristen Wiig has just a little bit of something. Actually, I do not understand what this Melissa McCarthy is in the movies business, she has nothing specific, no beauty or talent. She's as boring as it is annoying. After watching this, you'll have to find a real movie to watch...
298 out of 404 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Is The McDonalds Of Movies
p-6015921 September 2017
Awful.darned.awful.

Working on this film or appearing in it is the movie business equivalent of having McJob. It is low quality, bad for you, bottom of the barrel and you will regret it afterwards.

When did it become fashionable for men to have the brains of an algae, for the women to be gross and severely unattractive and for us to pay to watch it all? At least this film proves that it is best to read reviews before watching films even if the film has an attractive pedigree. reboots, sequels, aaarrrghhh
305 out of 422 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I didn't laugh.
Little_C17 September 2017
OK,we're 75 minutes in, and I didn't laugh once. In my humble opinion a movie that advertises itself as a comedy should as at least make you giggle once every 20 minutes. I'm not going into the question if it's feminist agenda movie or not, it's Just Plain Bad. It's a shame IMDb doesn't allow a zero as a grade, otherwise I believe it's overall grade would be so much worst.
229 out of 328 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is terrible
volkshofkindred4 May 2017
I wanted this movie to be decent. But it is absolute garbage. I watch his movie from start to finish without laughing at all, and find myself cringing at the acting that was happening. There is nothing at this movie brings that is worth sitting through an hour and 59 minutes. I'm not quite sure what Kate McKinnon's character is supposed to be she walks around like she's got some lame legs and she cannot walk normally and if you watch closely you see her constantly smirking and laughing at her own stupid lines. Don't waste your time
260 out of 376 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
2nd worst mistake of my life
hbsorensen14 May 2017
Having heard many things about this movie and seen the trailer, I finally decided to watch is.

Thinking back on my life, I believe I've made 2 HUGE mistakes :

1st one was marrying my now ex-wife.

2nd one was watching this movie.

Filled with stupid "jokes", quotes and references this movie attempts to reintroduce us to a newer version of the Ghostbusters movie I loved as a child. Some claim, that this is "empowering women"... sorry, but it does the opposite. It dumbs down the women, and I will teach my little daughter, that women CAN be scientists... They DON'T have to act SO stupid as seen here.
207 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
SEXIST! Travesty to be avoided
armtanker1 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Awful. I love the original Ghostbuster. There was chemistry between all the characters. But this movie is horrible. The 140 million dollars would of been better spent on the homeless that this travesty.

The jokes are dull. The acting is dull. The men are mindless dunces, while the women are sexist brainiacs, that objectify the men.

The black character is a typical stereotype angry, abrasive and rude.

Avoid it. The ghost are all the same green glow. Waste of time watching this on dvr.

The story is a rehash of Ghostbusters II, where an evil man wants to bring ghost to destroy and take over New York.

I enjoyed dental surgery more than this nonsense.
199 out of 290 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
My mom said I looked miserable watching it
Thekeybaldemasterrises13 November 2017
I really tried, I'm a year late I know. I got this movie for free because I connected my Vudu with my Disney account. Even for free, I couldn't get through this movie. I stopped after 30 minutes of the Extended cut. It's painfully unfunny, sexist, and terribly written. The biggest sin of this movie to me is that the actresses here are really talented. I love Kristen Wigg and Kate McKinnon. And I think I laughed at one joke in that first 30 minutes out of all the jokes they were dropping. Nice try Sony but it was dead on arrival. Don't patronize your audience when you want them to like your movie.
120 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What kind of an idiot let Paul Feig and Katie Dippold write this film?
thedisco25 October 2017
This crap is too much. After watching this garbage I felt like someone urinated on my childhood (a safe place where Ghostbusters was admired as fantastic cinema).

Go ahead and search Paul Feig (director and writer) and Katie Dippold (writer) and you'll figure out in two seconds that these clowns should never have been allowed to go near this film.

The acting sucks, the plot sucks, the editing sucks, the effects suck, the casting sucks, the attempt to do role reversal sucks, the directing sucks, the writing sucks, the staging sucks.

The only good thing in this film is the few seconds you get to see Bill Murry on screen.

I'm actually sorry I watched this because now my beloved memory of Ghostbusters is tarnished
114 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Ghostbusters II, you are forgiven.
tuckerconstable-0705518 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The year was 2016 and the movie on everyone's mind was "Ghostbusters Answer the Call". To say that the film was controversial and incredibly divisive is a total understatement. There were wars over this thing, man. It was mass hysteria the dogs and cats living together type.

But, yes, this film was INCREDIBLY controversial. Remaking a classic comedy film is already going to irk some people, but to make such horrible marketing decisions that don't hype anyone up and instead makes them hate the movie on arrival-that's a completely different bag of bones. As for me, I thought the film was poorly marketed. The trailers portrayed the film as your average ensemble cast comedy that comes out every summer and is completely forgotten by Autumn. BUT! I remained open minded. Maybe the trailers were just bad, the film could be good. Right?

WRONG!

The film on its own is very average. It's never "The Room" territory of bad, but it's very bland and forgettable. Let's face it-if the film didn't have the title "Ghostbusters" no one would really care about it. The trailer would drop, a few months later it would make a small profit at the box office and people would move on. But, what made this film stand out is that it's a remake of an absolute gem of comedy. When I think Ghostbusters, I don't think of it as just some dumb eighties comedy about four guys who catch ghosts. I mean it is about four guys who catch ghosts-but the film is near perfect with its blend of comedy and scares and its perfect casting. The dialogue is some of the sharpest, most subtly funny one liners ever committed to film that still hold up to this day.

However, with "Ghostbusters Answer the Call" you get a fart joke, an ejaculation joke and just some dumb "funny face"/mugging humor in the first half hour. Now believe me when I say this, I love low brow humor, when it's good. "Ghostbusters" had some low brow humor, but it was so well written and in tune with the rest of the script it worked-AMAZINGLY! Here, it just comes across as their desperate for laughs and they'll throw anything at the screen to get you to giggle. That's another thing with the film-it never knows when to stop joking around. The original was never afraid to get serious for a moment. Remember that scene where Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson talked about how the end of days seemed near, and it was a genuinely well-made and serious scene. Yeah, you don't get that here. Instead you sort of get shades of that, but the film is so desperate to get good jokes flowing that it won't just hush up and be quiet for a second.

Probably the worst thing about the film is that I usually love these actresses in other films. Kate McKinnon is one of the strongest modern day cast members on SNL, Kristen Wiig has always been a good comedy actress and Melissa McCarthy, while pretty hit or miss in recent years, is decent when she tries hard enough. "Spy", for example, I really liked her in. She wasn't just some walking, talking fat joke that she's been type casted in to being with films such as "Tammy", "Identity Thief" and "The Boss".

Surprisingly, the one person who works in this is Leslie Jones-the person everyone hated from the trailer. She sort of plays the character that the audience can associate with. She's witty, independent and street wise, just like the original Ghostbusters. Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore weren't just a bunch of actors playing themselves. They were full-fledged characters, played by actors who understood their characters. "Ghostbusters Answer the Call" never seems like it truly understands its original source material and it never tries to. Why should it? It's just a dumb 80's comedy that has a recognizable name that can just be plastered onto some shallow attempt at comedy to make a quick buck. Right?
87 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Whoever ya gonna call, don't call the new ghostbusters!
kaptenvideo-8987510 September 2017
Wow, is this crappy or what? Downright the worst movie I have seen in a while. To add insult to the injury, managed to stumble upon an extended Blu-ray version which is 18 minutes longer than theatrical – whopping 134 minutes in all! Yes, this is the all-girls-remake of the 1980's darling "horror comedy" franchise, this time starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, and, er, the other ones. Most of the original cast return with "surprise" cameos too, excluding, of course, the late Harold Ramis. This is just a sad fuckup of a movie where everybody tries and tries for two hours and more, but nothing worthwhile emerges. The only good thing I can think about the movie is that at least they have tried. For a long time, they try to make us laugh with their witty bantering dialogue and good chemistry but none of it materialises and the result is dead on arrival. Alongside "Anchorman 2" and "Zoolander 2", this must be one of the biggest failures of recent times, where they tried to bring back some cult classic and just fell on their asses. "Ghostbusters" is so bereft of laughs or joy that it feels shitty even by movies starring Melissa McCarthy's standards, who's still desperately trying to define and recreate this little magic she managed to create in her breakthrough role in 2011's "Bridesmaids". The same goes to Paul Feig, of course, who has mostly directed McCarthy's movies, the first and only creatively successful one being "Bridesmaids", of course. He should go back to TV world or something. Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritic's reviews are far too kind this time, the most telling would be the latter's user score of 2.9 out of 10. The only bits I at least semi-enjoyed in the movie were original ghostbusters' surprise cameo appearances, and maybe Chris Hemworth as the good-looking but stupid assistant to the girls. He's the closest thing this "entertainment" had to offer to make me smile. The visual effects look cheap too, although this may be some kind of homage to original movies.
120 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hellish.
Victor_Fallon16 September 2017
The original obviously has its fans but even if you try to ignore the sexual politics of the marketing campaign, the movie itself seems to detest its core audience, with the script often striking out at people who love the franchise and hatefully labelling people as 'man-babies' and 'basement dwellers'. A franchise that was loved the world over seems to have spawned a 'reboot' that is fuelled by nothing but hatred, and it shows. It's not a comedy. It's an overly-improvised excercise in bitterness. It's like being punched in the boobs by Paul Feig's angry sister.
161 out of 239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rubbish
dawson16714 September 2017
I am not against remakes because sometimes they can be good like "The Thing" or " A Fist Full of Dollars" or "Little Shop of Horrors" etc But this was a pile of overrated rubbish that was made purely made to further an agenda of feminism and that women are the best and do not require men.

This is purely a man hating film and tanked as it deserved to do.

Some might say it was misandrist.

What a waste of an opportunity to make at least a reasonable modernised version of a great film.

Even the music was rubbish
158 out of 240 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Real Review of Ghostbusters
Roc5577424 September 2017
Let me start by saying this,this new Ghostbusters movie is not the worst movie ever released.With that said, this is not a good movie.This movie is one that the studio involved should have never been given the red light to make.Unless this movie Ghostbusters was going to have the original cast brought back for a third film, this franchise was finished a long time ago.The cast of this movie do mix and gel a little, but the story itself is terrible.I did laugh maybe twice watching this movie,but it was silly humor so that doesn't count.There are many cameos in this movie so that can keep people watching a bit .But without a script and story,I'm never watching this again.
87 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Ghostbuster Movie
AxBw26 April 2017
Crappy story with nothing sensible, utter nonsense ! Graphics look cheap, like some world of warcraft game graphics. Then there is crappy performance from crappy actors spare Chris Hemsworth who has done a good job as always ! Melissa McCarthy is a huge disappointment. This is the worst Ghostbusters movie ever. Don't waste your time over this movie, watch one of the old ones if you must.
131 out of 204 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful, absolutely awful!
jdezenzio20 February 2017
Against all reasoning I decided to watch the full movie remake. Where can I begin. First, Leslie Jones (while sometimes funny on SNL) should hang up her acting career and stick to stand-up. She was horrible! I thought I was watching a female Richard Pryor on steroids. Kate McKinnon must have gone to the same acting class as Leslie. The only female deserving of being on the movie at all was Melisa McCarthy because she at least can hold up the others in the cast.

They should have cut the remainder of the movie 15 minutes in and replaced it with old Godzilla footage. Maybe have Melissa McCarthy stomping on toy trucks and cars.
190 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Separate journeys VS just playing stupid jokes on each other
vargstra1 March 2017
As fan of the original movies it's sad to see the extreme change of direction here. The humor in the original movies were heartfelt and funny, the effects were charming, and I think it even works today, in its way. The effects in this one is more expensive, has more details, but is much more comical, in a bad way. The comedy is about yelling, exaggerated hip hop slang, and fast-paced, waaaay too easy jokes.

In the original movies, Ivan Reitman was the real nerd-scientist who outsmarted anyone in any room; Dan Aykroyd was the doomsday historian who really had some fun lines in his movie-fact-based monologues about evil; Bill Murray was a jerk, but he had a journey about improving himself, that made him likable; And Ernie Hudson started out as this "I don't care about anything as long as I get paid"-guy. This diverse group found something together that created a friendship based on real-felt trust, and they became a good team to hunt ghosts and save people. There was a real journey there. I don't feel the journey on this new one, I really don't.

Because... I want the old comedy, not this lightheaded piece of "refurbished material" (to use a non-angry term). The original movies were about Individuals having believable comedic and heartfelt separate journeys, while I feel this movie is all about characters playing stupid, fast-paced jokes on each other. All the time.. When there are some hints of emotions in this movie I don't believe in it..

So much that I give it a 1. Normally the 1 is reserved, by me, for zero-budget independent movies with actors with incoherent dialogue delivering, and a photo that lacks the technical craft-ship to give us a believable understanding of the surroundings. This one is made by real Hollywood people, but you know what they say:

You can't polish a "refurbished material"!

Mic drop
176 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dead on arrival Warning: Spoilers
As far as the end result... ...the film completely fell flat across the board. I have nothing against the four leads. I more or less blame the writers, director and the studios choice of direction for the new Ghostbusters.

The acting is some of the most stiff and cookie cutter I have ever seen. There were times when it really sounded like they were reading their lines. The actors did NOT mesh well at all and their interaction with all of the blue and green screen effects was lifeless and clueless.

I was just lost with the approach on their attempted humor. I mean, it's bad. I don't know what panel sat around the table reading the script and laughed at it, but I hope they never do again.

The effects were horrible. Every time, which was A LOT, they used a green screen, I found myself taken away from the movie.

The film constantly contradicts it's own established continuity. One minute they can't kill the ghosts, only contain them, the next, they can. Just ridiculous.

They even added a segment to the movie early on that shows the four girls poking fun at all of the hate for the film. I just don't think the studio gets it.

More mocking of the very people they expect to pay top dollar for their product.

Despite all of the sexist remarks towards the movie, the movie itself is EXTREMELY sexist against men and borderline racist. All men are portrayed as fools in the movie and in order to kill the final villain they have to shoot him in the crotch.

It almost seems the team behind the film knew how stereotypical and sexist their movie was, so they capitalized on the sexism against the film in order to hide that.

I honestly recommend wearing a padded glove when you watch this, IF you watch this. I have never face-palmed so many times during a movie in my life. I would not suggest this film to anyone except maybe children under ten years old and even then, it would simply be for a cartooned 3D experience.

I wish I could find positives because I dislike being so negative about a film. I understand completely the amount of work that goes into something like this. Chris Hemsworth was probably the best part of this believe or not. I could see him leading a team of his own Ghostbusters in another version if written correctly.

But I can't help but quote Jurassic Park concerning the very idea of this film.

The filmmakers "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

I really did try to give this film a chance despite all of the negative hype. But, the film was not funny and does not stand on it's own. Honestly, the only thing that intrigued me was seeing the cameos from some of the original cast.

I will add that if you were thinking you had seen the majority of the movie throughout all of the trailers, various clips, TV spots, etc., you would have been thinking correctly. Sony used all of what they considered to be the best material in all of the promotional releases. Let that be your red flag considering how poor the trailers were.

If someone were to ask me if they should go see it, I would say, "No, but if you are curious, just wait for it to become available for Internet streaming."

I don't think people will walk away from this movie afraid of ghosts. I imagine they walk away afraid of the movie and more so, the people who thought it was wise to make it in the first place.

There is some irony here. Ghostbusters 2016 has literally become a ghost. It was dead on arrival.
1,624 out of 2,779 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst movie of all time
ankuragrawal4025 February 2017
Should have given option of zero rating also. I was not comfortable giving even 1/10. This movie sets a new benchmark of height of bad movies. Generally i don't write reviews, but in this case i felt obligated to write one. What a shame brought on the good name of Ghostbusters.
200 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Avoid Like The Plague
StoryIsEverything11 July 2016
I went into this movie with an open mind hoping that it would not be as bad as the trailers and TV spots suggest. It is. I really wanted this movie to surprise me, to make me laugh to make me care for the characters and have some investment in the story, but it failed to achieve any of that. What I saw was a two hour mess of a movie. An unfunny, poorly written, poorly edited, contrived cash-in on a beloved classic which has some of the poorest dialogue and worst performances I've seen in a while. The computer generated effects were like something out of a live action Disney picture. The music, in particular the theme tune was uninspiring and added no impact or energy to the movie. I honestly can't think of any redeeming qualities that this film has. After waiting so long for a new Ghostbusters film this comes as a major disappointment. Some things are just best left alone.
1,848 out of 3,239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Feminist garbage
mgicnick13 June 2017
From the onset this was promoted as a sort of a feminist retake on the original classic comedy, a "women can do better than men" attempt. It is a horrible premise to begin with, attracting a lot of negative publicity before the movie was even out. And it delivered.. badly. Mediocre acting, bad script, lukewarm jokes. It does not deserve a further analysis for being so mediocre, a five out of ten movie that gets one star for promoting a pointless gender competition.

Next feminist projects could be: "The Terminatress" , The Blues Sisters, Beverly Hills female cop, Fay Buller's day of, Iliana Jones, Billie and Tess's excellent adventure , etc, etc..
133 out of 216 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst insult ever to the fans
pennaneac30 September 2017
Normally i comment a lot, i explain my self, i take references but for this i have only one word to say : P.U.R.G.E

Avoid and run away. If you do not know the 2 originals movie RUN TO SEE THEM but in any case don't waste your time with this CANCER.

This movie is a perfect definition How to kill an amazing movie Licence.

I just have the feeling after watching this terrible purge of having been raped. Ghostbusters was for me a reference in so many ways but this one is simply an insult to any fans.
90 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Franchise Reboot Ever Made *SPOILER ALERT*
annilator8611 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was unfortunate enough to see an early screening with a friend and... man, this movie isn't bad; it's TERRIBLE. BEYOND TERRIBLE.

It's getting mixed to positive reviews, but the people liking this movie are the same people who jumped on-board the feminist "everyone who hates this film is a misogynist" train and they don't even mention anything beyond the parts they cherry-picked to like in the movie. Throughout the hour and a half + movie, the movie made a desperate attempt to be good to the point where it just appeared like they were trying too hard. Much of the humor is forced and most of the jokes are basic and can be seen/guessed even before the scene rolls. At times, it felt cheap and lazy. I thought I was watching a failing SNL parody rather than a good movie.

Leslie Jones is another problem; she portrays a stereotypical black woman with an attitude. Yelling? Check. Bitch slapping? Check. Every single stereotype about black woman? Check. Remember Winston Zeddemore from the original film? Was he a stereotypical black man at the time in the 1980s? Nope. Instead, he was an Average Joe who wanted a job and took it at Ghostbusters. Here, Leslie portrays her character in an almost-offensive manner when it comes to playing a stereotypical black woman. It's borderline inappropriate and, had she been a man, this film would've been TRASHED by critics for this portrayal of a character.

Also, it's Reverse Sexism in a film. Instead of treating both genders equally, Paul Feig displays men as idiots or assholes. This is true with Hemsworth's character, Kevin, who is the team's secretary. He's completely stupid, clueless and innocent; but mostly stupid. Janine in the original film was a smart, capable woman who had a lot of memorable moments and wasn't portrayed in a sexist, if not really unattractive manner. I almost walked out of the early screening because of how poorly men were portrayed in the film. And, probably, by now, everyone has heard of the atrocious final resolution to the final battle. SPOILER ALERT: SKIP IF YOU WANNA ACTUALLY SEE THIS BURNING DUMPSTER FIRE.

The final battle is resolved by shooting Rowan in the dick. That's right; four chicks shoot Rowan in the dick with their proton packs. -.- You probably already know this because of the GIF floating around the inter-webs, but, yeah. That's how the final battle ends; a really sexist approach to finishing the film. It sounds mild, but combine this with the portrayal of Kevin, Bill Murray's cameo and a few other male characters who interact with the main characters and you have a feminist film ready to go.

Along with these criticisms come with the really bad script that just acts like imitation crab in the food world; it's just an imitation. In fact, half the plot imitates the original in a distasteful manner that just really turns off Ghostbusters fans. It's unoriginal and it pays little homage to the films. When it does, it does it in lackluster fashion. Like, for example, Stay Puft's official sighting in this film is in parade balloon form, not true marshmallow form. If you were expecting at least one showdown with the destructive Puft himself, think again. He has been replaced by the logo ghost. XD

There's so much wrong with this movie, but these things are just a few of them. Thanks Paul Feig for messing Ghosbusters up. I guess Paul's been Busted and it felt good busting' this travesty of a film that will haunt GB fans for generations.

PROS: -Chris Hemsworth (For the most part) -Complete relief when the film ended

CONS: -Terrible acting -Abismal writing -Huge gaping plot holes (Like the inability to buy the firehouse but the ability to create advanced ghost busting technology and obtain parts and equipment.) -Poor CGI effects -Disrespectful cameos and treatment of original material -Reverse sexist message -A stereotypical caricature of a black woman (Leslie Jones as Patty) -Useless inclusion of Patty into the GB team -Non-existent character chemistry -Disappointing final battle which breaks all GB rules first established in the film -Unmemorable soundtrack -Poor editing -Inappropriate responses to constructive criticism hidden in film -Dull, ineffective, dry forced-humor -Identity crisis (Reboot or Sequel. Choose one, Feig.) -Laughable film effort in general

This film is BUSTED and busting this travesty of a film makes me feel good; better than good... GREAT.

1/10 10/100 1/5 F
1,231 out of 2,299 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointing dross that bored an entire cinema.
heathyheath12 July 2016
I've never seen the original Ghostbusters films, so I went into watching this with quite an open mind. It ended up being incredibly disappointing though, the CGI was terrible and reminded me of the early 2000s live action Scooby Doo films, the girls, who I'd imagine are funny in their own right, seemed to have absolutely zero chemistry between them and oddly enough Chris Hemsworth's character Kevin ended up being the most funny aspect of the film.

That's just my personal opinion however. My boyfriend who I went to see the film with whispered to me 'this is awful,' half way through and he revealed to me that he had felt ashamed while watching the film. I went because he guaranteed me it was going to be enjoyable and I think it didn't take long until he realised that the movie was a disappointment.
1,226 out of 2,292 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is NOT the worst movie of all time.
d-crosgrove11 July 2016
Some people are saying that this is the wort movie of all time. It is not. It is merely a really bad movie with no redeeming qualities, and it insults your intelligence.

And, most of the YouTube videos made slamming it are 100s of times funnier than this movie.

Seriously, the movie is just not funny. In fact Batman and Robin (George Clooney and whoever played Robin) had more humor in it than this movie does, and that movie was worse than this one--that is how not funny this movie is.

Save your money. Read a cereal box. It will cost less and be funnier.
1,197 out of 2,269 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed