IMDb > Ghostbusters (2016) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Ghostbusters More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 167:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1670 reviews in total 

1453 out of 2548 people found the following review useful:

Dead on arrival

Author: Stephen Lancaster
10 July 2016

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1649 out of 2961 people found the following review useful:

Avoid Like The Plague

Author: StoryIsEverything from United Kingdom
11 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1109 out of 2117 people found the following review useful:

Worst Franchise Reboot Ever Made *SPOILER ALERT*

Author: annilator86 from United States
11 July 2016

*** This review may contain 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

Was the above review useful to you?

1084 out of 2090 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing dross that bored an entire cinema.

Author: Matthew from London
12 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1057 out of 2075 people found the following review useful:

This is NOT the worst movie of all time.

Author: Crosgrove
11 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1081 out of 2142 people found the following review useful:

Doesn't justify its own existence

Author: Jerry_Sprinkle from United States
11 July 2016

Awful but not necessarily for the reason you would expect.

Despite some early reviews I've read or watched I didn't find the movie to be anti-male. There was nothing offensively anti-man in it that wasn't something I've already seen before and laughed off a million times. Unfortunately that's part of the problem this movie has with humor creativity. There was nothing there to laugh about.

Thankfully Patty Tolan isn't a walking/talking stereotype. They made her a New York City historian instead of a caricature with "street smarts". Sadly, they didn't do her any other favors. Nor were the other characters flushed out at all.

Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy play a pair of old friends who re-unite but I never get much of a sense they were anything but aware they were in a movie. They try to riff and play off each other but it kind of falls flat.

Kate McKinnon's character stands out the most in this movie. The character just seemed too weird in an unrealistic way. She seemed to try chewing up scenery any time she was on a call sheet, even if she didn't have much to say. She didn't feel like she fit into what was happening.

One actress that stood out to me was Cecily Strong. Cecily Strong stood out to me the same way Kristen Wiig first stood out to me in Knocked Up. She only has a very small role in the movie but she's able to be convincing and funny without making it seem like she's in on the joke.

The performances weren't bad per se, they were just very underwhelming all-around. As a result, the film itself does not succeed.

I did like how the ghosts look in the movie. I also like the choice the filmmakers make at the end regarding the classic logo. However I have to be harsh on this movie because it's a reboot that ultimately did not need to be made.

Not only did they attempt to reboot a comedy (tell the same joke twice in a row and see how well it works the second time - comedy is a very very delicate thing and you need to respect the audience) but they went for a movie that originally caught lightning in a bottle. I don't even think Ghostbusters II did enough to justify existing. Maybe the lessons we didn't learn back when the sequel was made are the same lessons we won't learn from the reboot.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 70 people found the following review useful:

Separate journeys VS just playing stupid jokes on each other

Author: vargstra from Norway
1 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

Was the above review useful to you?

49 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie of all time

Author: ankuragrawal40 from India
25 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

Awful, absolutely awful!

Author: jdezenzio from Massachusetts
20 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

79 out of 152 people found the following review useful:

I literally screamed.

Author: (paprikapink-81454) from California
17 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yes, for the first time since maybe Jaws, I was so startled at a suspenseful moment I actually screamed in the theater. It was pretty funny. My kids will never let me hear the end of it. But more importantly, this is a fun and funny movie! Fun to see all the old- timey references to the original Ghostbusters and funny all the way thru. Wiig and McCarthy have tons of jokes of course; Jones is very funny and personable and keeps the whole crew grounded; MacKinnon is just plain funny with every move she makes. The sets and special effects are really gorgeous. We saw it in 3-D which I highly recommend. Jones' character should not be called "subway worker." She's the historian -- a New York City history expert -- and her knowledge is absolutely essential to the plot.

I cannot WAIT for the sequel!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 167:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history