Opening

81% Fury Oct 17
79% The Book of Life Oct 17
8% The Best Of Me Oct 17
92% Birdman Oct 17
97% Dear White People Oct 17

Top Box Office

88% Gone Girl $26.4M
23% Dracula Untold $23.5M
64% Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day $18.4M
31% Annabelle $15.9M
48% The Judge $13.1M
62% The Equalizer $9.7M
8% Addicted $7.5M
63% The Maze Runner $7.5M
74% The Boxtrolls $6.6M
2% Left Behind $2.8M

Coming Soon

100% John Wick Oct 24
No Score Yet Ouija Oct 24
No Score Yet 23 Blast Oct 24
62% Laggies Oct 24
58% White Bird in a Blizzard Oct 24

Ghostbusters (1984)

TOMATOMETER

Average Rating: 8.1/10
Reviews Counted: 60
Fresh: 58
Rotten: 2

Critics Consensus: An infectiously fun blend of special effects and comedy, with Bill Murray's hilarious deadpan performance leading a cast of great comic turns.

Average Rating: 7.9/10
Reviews Counted: 7
Fresh: 5
Rotten: 2

Critics Consensus: An infectiously fun blend of special effects and comedy, with Bill Murray's hilarious deadpan performance leading a cast of great comic turns.

AUDIENCE SCORE

Average Rating: 3.6/5
User Ratings: 1,032,163

Trailer

Photos


ADVERTISEMENT

Movie Info

Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson star as a quartet of Manhattan-based "paranormal investigators". When their government grants run out, the former three go into business as The Ghostbusters, later hiring Hudson on. Armed with electronic paraphernalia, the team is spectacularly successful, ridding The Big Apple of dozens of ghoulies, ghosties and long-legged beasties. Tight-lipped bureaucrat William Atherton regards the Ghostbusters as a bunch of charlatans, but is forced … More

Rating:
PG (N/A)
Genre:
Action & Adventure , Science Fiction & Fantasy , Comedy
Directed By:
Written By:
Dan Aykroyd , Harold Ramis
In Theaters:
On DVD:
Jun 29, 1999
Box Office:
$3.5M
Runtime:
Columbia Pictures - Official Site


Cast



Friend Ratings

No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.

Critic Reviews for Ghostbusters

All Critics (60) | Top Critics (7) | Fresh (58) | Rotten (2) | DVD (32)

On balance, Ghostbusters is a hoot. It's Murray's picture, and in a triumph of mind over matter, he blows away the film's boring special effects with his one-liners.

Full Review… | August 19, 2014
Chicago Tribune
Top Critic

Whoever thought of having evil's final manifestation take the form of a 100-ft. marshmallow deserves the rational mind's eternal gratitude.

Full Review… | October 5, 2008
TIME Magazine
Top Critic

Only intermittently impressive.

Full Review… | May 30, 2007
Variety
Top Critic

Essentially a $30 million version of Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy but not at all a bad time, thanks mainly to Bill Murray's incredibly dry line readings and director Ivan Reitman's maintenance of a moderately coherent tone and plotline.

Full Review… | May 30, 2007
Chicago Reader
Top Critic

The story of a trio of incompetent 'experts' in the paranormal (Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis), who set up as ghostbusters after they are canned from their college sinecures, is less cynical a construction than it sounds.

Full Review… | June 24, 2006
Time Out
Top Critic

This movie is an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy.

Full Review… | October 23, 2004
Chicago Sun-Times
Top Critic

Thirty years later, there are still rumblings of making another sequel, but no one would dare suggest a reboot or re-imagining; Ghostbusters is perfect exactly as it is.

Full Review… | August 30, 2014
MovieCrypt.com

If you've never experienced GHOSTBUSTERS on the big screen, you really need to go see this. If not I'm afraid you'll have to turn in your geek card.

Full Review… | August 29, 2014
JoBlo's Movie Emporium

A fantasy, but with no touches of reality at all, to be enjoyed for its zany humour typical of the "National Lampoon" school from which several of its contributors are drawn.

Full Review… | June 12, 2014
Daily Telegraph

Ghostbusters thrives on the fine line between taking it all seriously enough to be scary, then poking fun at it in the most creative ways possible.

Full Review… | June 9, 2014
Mania.com

GHOSTBUSTERS is a movie that I've seen well over a hundred times and I'm still not sick of it, nor do I think I ever will. It's an iconic comedy that I think has held up very well over the past 30 years.

Full Review… | May 22, 2014
Film Geek Central

If for nothing else, deserves to be fondly remembered for bringing the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man into the world.

Full Review… | March 1, 2014
LarsenOnFilm

An exciting and fun genre hybrid rarely mastered.

Full Review… | October 16, 2013
Cinema Crazed

Director Ivan Reitman keeps the Aykroyd-Ramis screenplay zipping right along, creating something like Abbott & Costello Meet the Exorcist. Aykroyd and Murray make the perfect summer tonic for raising spirits.

Full Review… | July 29, 2013
People Magazine

In both the funny and the (mildly) scary moments, the cast does itself proud.

Full Review… | May 6, 2013
Christian Science Monitor

"Ghostbusters" is a fun romp with a couple of comedy's greatest stars at the top of their game.

Full Review… | February 26, 2012
MediaMikes

As funny, spooky and marvellous as ever.

Full Review… | November 2, 2011
Digital Spy

It provoked huge box-office success in 1984 and is still director Ivan Reitman's defining movie.

Full Review… | October 31, 2011
This is London

The leads' chemistry is almost, well, spooky, Dan Aykroyd's nerdy enthusiasm rubbing deliciously against a persona-perfecting turn from Bill Murray - and there's even the odd surprise.

Full Review… | October 28, 2011
Total Film

The often dazzling, special effects-driven slapstick tends to overshadow the fact that there are some slyer, more sophisticated laughs on offer in this blockbusting family comedy.

Full Review… | October 27, 2011
Radio Times

What's not to like?

Full Review… | October 27, 2011
Guardian

Paranormal fun for tweens and up; some scares.

Full Review… | January 1, 2011
Common Sense Media

A comedy first, a horror film second... but a successful enough hybrid of those things that it would be wrong to try to limit it generically.

Full Review… | August 26, 2010
Antagony & Ecstasy

The movie's tongue-in-cheek (and pre-subprime) satire of surging capitalist hubris is scarcely mitigated by the necessary fairy-tale ending.

Full Review… | August 5, 2009
Slant Magazine

Audience Reviews for Ghostbusters

½

"Ghostbusters" stands as one of the best horror/comedies out there. It is hilarious in almost every sense of the word, even if not in the conventional way, and it never falls short with the cheesy scares. It can be genuinely shocking at times but that is taken away immediately throughout the film, especially due to the lack of seriousness. This all being said, "Ghostbusters" is an extremely unique film that will never be able to be touched by any filmmaker. It's smart, cool, slick, witty, scary, and intense. The only issue this film has is that the title is not explored to it's highest potential. It sets up a great premise but it takes just a tad too long to reach the climax in my opinion. Overall, I loved every minute of "Ghostbusters" and it deserves the fame that it has.

More
KJ Proulx
KJ Proulx

Super Reviewer

Ghostbusters is quite simply one of my most beloved films of all time. The iconic production is a perfect marriage of a special effects extravaganza with spectacular performances to create one side-splitting gem. Bill Murray is the undeniable star and he's in top form as Dr. Peter Venkman a sly, laid back scientist with deadpan delivery that seems more concerned with dating his pretty client Dana Barrett than actually getting to the bottom of her disturbances. Sigourney Weaver nicely straddles the line between exasperated annoyance and charmed love interest. Bill Murray likewise has great camaraderie with his fellow Ghostbusters Dr. Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis). Those two are also responsible for writing the finely tuned screenplay. It zips, it pops and it never lets up. Ernie Hudson joins them later as Winston Zeddemore. He delivers my favorite quip after the group is blown away by the lightening bolts of an evil entity from another dimension. There is a slew of funny dialogue and Rick Moranis' nerdy portrayal of Louis Tully delivers a lot of it. He's hilarious. "Okay, who brought the dog?" he grins after hearing the growl from the long horned beast hiding in his closet.

The spectacular special effects support the story, but they never threaten to overshadow the actors. The technology was state of the art at the time, even earning an Academy Award nomination. But it lost to the mine cart scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Perhaps time has rendered the optics a bit quaint to a modern audience. The sight of that devil dog leaping from the closet and running around the city is the most dicey. But it's the comedic interactions between characters that hold our focus, not the whiz bang appeal of the visual displays. Ok so there's that "monster" near the end that dwarfs everything else. When the Destructor of their choosing threatens the city and their very existence, it's memorable. That's the kind of silly moment of brilliance that make you realize you're watching a work of creative genius. Oh yeah. I adore this film.

fastfilmreviews.com

More
hobster1
Mark Hobin

Super Reviewer

five stars...

More
YodaMasterJedi
MisterYoda ?

Super Reviewer

½

There are a select number of films held in such high regard in popular culture that to even faintly criticise them is considered heresy. Like Star Wars before it, Ghostbusters is a film which seemingly everyone is aware of, and even if you've never seen it you can probably hum the theme tune or quote the script. It's a seemingly iconic work, a high-water mark of American comedy that anyone with a sense of humour should enjoy.

What such an attitude fails to acknowledge is that film taste is inherently subjective, particularly when it comes to comedy. Regular readers of my reviews will already have a fair idea of what my tastes are: I like my comedies on the darker side, preferably surreal but crucially substantial - I like comedies that are about something. It may be, therefore, that I am predisposed to dislike Ghostbusters, being as it is a shallow, high-concept star vehicle. Or, just as probably, it may be that it just isn't funny.

There are a couple of aspects to Ghostbusters which we are able to admire regardless of how funny we find it. Despite being essentially a vehicle for former Saturday Night Live stars, the film is a reasonably literate affair, at least as far as the horror genre is concerned. There are big references throughout to the work of H. P. Lovecraft, including the isolated, academic nature of its protagonists, the slimy nature of the ghosts (such as Slimer himself), and of course the involvement of ancient gods who are at best indifferent towards humanity.

The film also deserves credit for being a mainstream blockbuster which has intelligent people as its protagonists. We've become used to our summer blockbusters being populated by characters who are complete idiots, bound up in plots which can only make sense if everyone involved is either stupid or doesn't care. Ghostbusters, one of the biggest blockbusters in history, bucks this trend: it unashamedly celebrates the cleverness of its male leads, giving us characters who succeed through brains rather than good looks or good luck.

Unfortunately, this bit of praise also brings us onto one of the big problems with Ghostbusters, namely the characters. While Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis made their heroes intellectual in nature, each of the three main parts are severely underwritten. Bill Murray's character seems driven only by a need to be sarcastic or seductive, while Aykroyd and Ramis do little else but stand around explaining the plot. No matter how many dry one-liners Murray gets through, the characters don't feel like real people.

The best way to illustrate this point is the words of Stephen Fry, when he was interviewed about the difference between British and American comedy. Fry argued that the archetypal American comic hero is a wise-cracker who is above those around him, embodiying the belief in American culture that everything can be bettered or improved. While British comic heroes are distinctive characters (and expressions of failure), American comic heroes are "not characters at all, they're just brilliant repositories of fantastic, killer one-liners."

Aykroyd, Murray and Ramis are all essentially playing to type, and there is no real chemistry between them because the types are constantly in awkward competition with each other. Murray's deadpan wise-cracking doesn't gel with Aykroyd's fast-talking or Ramis' forgettable geekiness. The same goes for Rick Moranis, whose socially incompetent accountant is excrutiating: it's played so broadly and unrelentingly that it always grates against the story. Even Sigourney Weaver is underused, with her character existing only to get hit on, first by Murray and then by Zuul.

Of course, it is possible for a film with stereotypical characters to still fire if its script has a strong enough story. The James Bond series is absolutely littered with archetypal characters, with the best films in the series having a good enough story to make them not matter so much. But despite its faithful nods to Lovecraft and its intellectual protagonists, Ghostbusters still manages to make the very least of its material.

The plot of Ghostbusters essentially takes the first half of the 1946 film Spook Busters and then slowly unravels it through a steadily increasing parade of special effects. Like the Beverly Hills Cop series, the story is not so much a story as it is a series of set-pieces; they are linked together loosely by montage, but you could still watch them in any order with the same impact. As for the dialogue, 80% of it is meaningless jargon designed to big up the characters' intelligence. But simply saying a lot of long words doesn't make a character smart, giving us even less reason to bond with them.

As with Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters could have had a much more complex and satisfying story if a little bit more effort had been put into it. The idea of man-made structures being engineered to harness the power of gods is a nice, pulpy idea; it's only a hop, skip and jump from the work of Erich von Däniken, whose writings were a big influence on the fourth Indiana Jones film. When allied to Lovecraft, this could have formed an interesting premise, with a team of scientists seeking to stop an individual driven mad by knowledge of ancient demons, and trying to unleash those demons onto the human world.

Part of the reason Ghostbusters doesn't work on a story level is its indecisive pussy-footing around spiritual questions. Any film or story in which ghosts are involved immediately raises questions about the afterlife - what ghosts are, how they function, where the boundaries lie between different worlds and so forth. But the film either fails to acknowledge such questions or provides contradicting answers; for instance, it accepts the existence of extremely powerful gods, but also believes that humans can conquer said gods with little more than beams of energy. It's another indication of the laziness present in the script, as the film squanders another interesting angle for the sake of a simple, easy-to-follow climax.

The special effects in Ghostbusters were provided by Boss Films, who later provided the effects for John Carpenter's cult disaster Big Trouble in Little China. In both films they dominate the visual landscape rather than adding to the physical sets, to the point where the characters become swamped by them. The big special effects ending, involving the gateway on top of the skyscraper, is a big anticlimax because it doesn't feel physical or like a natural continuation of the narrative. Even the physical effects, such as Zuul's appearance in the fridge, aren't that convincing even for the day.

Then we come to the problems with the film's direction. Ghostbusters looks and sounds perfectly okay, boasting decent cinematography from László Kovács (Easy Rider) and a score from John Landis' long-time collaborator Elmer Bernstein. But as far as its direction goes, Ivan Reitman is every bit at sea with his cast here as Martin Brest was on Beverly Hills Cop. In both cases the camerawork is overly basic and the editing is slack, as though Reitman just left the cameras on until someone said something funny.

In a further comparison with Beverly Hills Cop, there are a number of tonal problems with Ghostbusters. The film doesn't have the uncomfortable homophobic undercurrent running through it like Brest's film, but it doesn't have a great deal of respect for its female characters. The scene where Zuul captures Dana, in which hands come through the chair and grab her, is uncomfortably rapey, and the levitation scene (which rips off The Exorcist) is just another excuse to put the character in needlessly sexual situations. Blockbusters are often accused of being built around the needs of teenage boys, and looking at scenes like the latter, it's not hard to see why.

Ghostbusters is a deeply unfunny comedy which deserves little if any of its glowing reputation. Despite a number of dry laughs and admirable decisions, it squanders most of its potential in favour of cheap stereotypes, sex jokes and special effects, none of which engage to any satisfying degree. It's not the low point in the careers of any of its stars (which is very telling of each of them), but it hasn't stood the test of time anything like as well as we've been led to believe. In short, it's a massive disappointment that's even bigger than the Twinkie.

More
Daniel Mumby
Daniel Mumby

Super Reviewer

Ghostbusters Quotes


Peter Venkman:
I'm right in the middle of something, Ray!
– Submitted by Brian D (3 months ago)
Egon Spengler:
Don't cross the streams!
– Submitted by Matthew D (10 months ago)
Peter Venkman:
Back off, man! I'm a scientist!
– Submitted by Matthew D (10 months ago)
Peter Venkman:
Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown.
– Submitted by Swayamdeep S (20 months ago)
Peter Venkman:
Back of man, I'm a Scientist.
– Submitted by Crispin T (21 months ago)
Peter Venkman:
Alice, I'm going to ask you a couple of standard questions, ok? Have you or any of your family ever been diagnosed Schizophrenic? Mentally incompetent?
Librarian:
My uncle thought he was St. Jerome.
Peter Venkman:
I'd call that a big yes.
– Submitted by Jarryd R (21 months ago)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Ghostbusters on our Movie forum!