92% Guardians of the Galaxy Aug 01
76% Get On Up Aug 01
88% Calvary Aug 01
0% Behaving Badly Aug 01
38% Child Of God Aug 01

Top Box Office

61% Lucy $43.9M
63% Hercules $29.8M
91% Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes $16.8M
57% The Purge: Anarchy $10.5M
44% Planes: Fire And Rescue $9.5M
18% Sex Tape $6.1M
18% Transformers: Age of Extinction $4.7M
15% And So It Goes $4.6M
25% Tammy $3.5M
90% A Most Wanted Man $2.7M

Coming Soon

—— Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Aug 08
62% Step Up: All In Aug 08
—— Into The Storm Aug 08
—— The Hundred-Foot Journey Aug 08
87% What If Aug 08

Premieres Tonight

—— Hell on Wheels: Season 4

New Episodes Tonight

44% Power: Season 1

Discuss Last Night's Shows

100% The Almighty Johnsons: Season 1
61% Crossbones: Season 1
82% Girl Meets World: Season 1
40% The Killing: Season 4

Ghostbusters Reviews

Page 3 of 1350
March 15, 2012
June 5, 2014
Any movie that thought of a 20 story marshmallow man as the villianous monster deserves the highest of praise. The special effects are superb and the title song is the most catchy and pleasing.
June 3, 2014
What's great about it is how well blended is the dialogue with the great special effects, and the sound design is nothing short of outstanding
April 24, 2014
Quite possibly my favorite movie of all time.
May 17, 2014
Ghostbusters is an immensely peasing interweaving of big-budget special effects and comedy with a performance from Murray, oozing sleazy charm and cockiness that has the ability to steal the scene even when he shares it with a gigantic, stampeding marshmallow man, which is no mean feat.
Jackson W

Super Reviewer

May 15, 2014
A film about laid off psychologists who hunt ghosts for a living is, surprisingly, one of the rare near-perfect films in all cinema. As far as comedies go, this is one of the strongest out there. The theme song is only half of what is memorable about the movie.
Good: First off, there's a lot of quotable lines in here from "That's a really big twinkie" to "There is no Dana, only zule". The humor is all situational in this way and never does it come off forced, and it's well acted. Akroyd, Ramis, and Murray all lend their efforts to make this as serious a film as it could ever be. The effects are also nice, in that they've been upgraded for sure by now but much like Back to the Future they still look good. It's a simple plot of trying to capture ghosts before they supernaturally terrorize the city which is tied together very well.
Bad: I honestly have no problems with this movie at all. It might not be for everyone, but I certainly enjoyed it.
Review: Ghostbusters is a classic, case and point. There's really no need to say anything else.
Seth S.
March 22, 2014
In memory of the late Harold Ramis, I decided to give one of his most famous movies a spin. Before this, Groundhog Day was the only Ramis movie I had seen. And while that movie was not without a flaw or two, Ghostbusters is almost entirely a flaw. I didn't like the movie. At all. Possibly the most disappointing thing about the whole endeavor is that it made me feel absolutely nothing. Satisfied, happy, impressed - nope, nope, and nope. On the flip side, it also didn't make me particularly upset or mad. It just left me utterly and disappointedly indifferently. I should have just re-watched Groundhog Day instead...

After being fired from their jobs at a college, Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz, and Egon Spengler start a paranormal extermination business called the Ghostbusters. They gain popularity. Then when all paranormal hell breaks lose, who's humanity gonna call? The Ghostbusters!

There is a laundry list of flaws in this movie. Starting out with the characters. Well, lets start with the positives: Bill Murray completely saves the movie from being totally insufferable. He's not given the best of lines, but he is at very least likable in the role. Also in the positives, Rick Moranis has the most outlandish and comical lines of the entire movie as a nerdy accountant! And thats where the praise stops. Every character in this movie (including the Murray and Moranis characters) provide for zero emotional attachment. I couldn't have cared less about every single one of them. The supporting cast members like Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis give their characters absolutely nothing to make me care about them. And then there's Sigourney Weaver in the love interest-ish (?) role of Dana. She doesn't have a substantial role in the movie at all. Sure she's sort of the damsel in distress by the end, but even then ... her only purpose seems to be to add some sex-appeal to this otherwise goofy, male-character centric movie.

The story itself never rises above mildly entertaining. I knew what was going on. I could follow the plot just fine. But I just couldn't make myself care one bit. What shocked me the most was how boring this movie turned out to be. The reason why I watched it was because I wanted to watch a fun and enjoyable film that was also considered a classic. But instead, I found myself on the verge of mentally clocking out on numerous occasions. The predictability on display here is rather staggering.

The "special" effects were probably very good for their time. But nowadays, everything in this movie looks entirely archaic and cartoony. I guess it kind of helps the movie, now that I think about it. Archaic and cartoony special effects for an archaic and cartoony movie.

But literally all would have been forgiven on one conduction. If this movie was funny, if it kept me laughing, I would have given it a pass on its flaws. But what do you know, I didn't laugh out loud at all. Not one time. I smiled a couple of times. I think I might have snorted out one or two chuckles. But that's it. I thought this was a comedy classic!? I mean, I could see the moments where they were going for the big laughs, but in most cases, the corners of my mouth didn't turn up in the least.

The musical side of things stays in tone with the rest of the film: dated. I'm sure the theme to this movie is a power anthem for a lot of 80s kids, but nowadays ... ehh.

I can already feel myself forgetting Ghostbusters as I write this review. This one really didn't strike a cord. And honestly, I'm felling pretty generous with that 4. Let me put it this way: If there was a movie called Ghostbusters that was actually good, this feels like the cheap parody of that movie.

"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes!" 4/10
January 12, 2009
Three New York oddball scientists begin investigating paranormal activity in the tri-state area in this comedy action film written and starring several Saturday Night Live alumni (intended originally for Blue Brothers Dan Aykroyd and Jim Belushi with Eddie Murphy as Winston Zedmore!) Balancing the funnies with the scary, the film entertains with deadpan Bill Murray getting the pick of the 'busters one-liners and allowing room for his infatuation with Sigourney Weaver's Dana Barrett. The chemistry between the leads makes the movie and the special effects of the iconic spooks (Slimer and Mr. Staypuft) helped attract the action crowd who enjoyed their destructive attacks on New York buildings. "This is Casey Kasem. Now, on with the countdown".
January 4, 2012
Classic, one of my faves.
April 9, 2013
The best comedy ever....
September 20, 2007
An undeniable classic and a comedic masterpiece!
April 22, 2014
A quand męme un peu vieilli. Mais j'adoooore !
April 21, 2014
Ghostbusters 3 would be great.
Edward  N.
April 19, 2014
Science-Fiction, humour and ghosts all wrapped in one big ball then spat out to create the 1984' film ' Ghostbusters '. Ghostbusters is one of the best films I have ever seen and remains to be one of the best. I don't think it could've worked out better with the cast it has. Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson - they're the GHOSTBUSTERS! Sigourney Weaver also stars as 'Dana Barrett' whose apartment is haunted by an eerie and demonic spirit, Zuul, a demigod that's worshipped.

Praised by critics and fans, and released into positive reception, Ghostbusters remains as one of the 80's biggest and most positive films. I love it too. Genuinely, the film has: great acting, great sound, great cinematography and great directing. Superb film. 9.5/10.
J M.
April 14, 2014
"A very entertaining classic comedy film that will appeal to both adults & kids alike."


Making their first break thru with the supernatural at the 5th avenue public library: 3 scientist return to Colombia university to find that their break thru did not come in time... expelled from the university the 3 go into business for themselves in paranormal investigation & elimination.

Call it luck call it fate call it karma: their timing was impeccable. They get off: to a rocky start, but that will soon change, when they get their first client, & learn that the city & state of New York is on the verge of having a P.K.E fold of incredible too dangerous proportions; proportions that only they can fix.

This was a very entertaining classic comedy film that will appeal to both adults & kids alike. It will go into my top 20 list as one of the best comedy films of the twenty first century.


I give the film an A + (Amazing)
April 17, 2012
Continua uma obra-prima
May 18, 2010
A classic, one of my all time favourites.
April 11, 2014
Probably the movie I've seen the most times.
March 13, 2014
Possibly the most popular comedy-horror hybrid around, 'Ghostbusters' is an extremely enjoyable blend of humour and special effects featuring laugh-out-loud performances from Bill Murray and the accompanying cast. A fun-filled hilarious classic, 'Ghostbusters' is truly one of the greatest comedy films to have ever graced the screen.
May 9, 2009
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.
Page 3 of 1350
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile