Home   •   Films   •   TV Series   •   Everything Else   •   Store   •   Search   •   Credits/Legal   •   Help   •   E-Mail   •   The Corner Penthouse
« Ghostbusters 2016 Soundtrack Album ReviewGhostbuster's Handbook 2016 Movie Book Review »

Ghostbusters 2016 Movie Review

 By Paul Rudoff on Jul. 15, 2016 at 11:30 PM , Categories: Reviews & Merch, The 2016 Parody Remake
- "I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood.
Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us."

- Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Ghostbusters (1984).
- "Oh, this is just wrong." - Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), Ghostbusters (2016)


The day is finally upon us. The much maligned Ghostbusters reboot/remake has been released upon the world. I caught it at an early morning matinee, which only cost me $3.29, after using the $5.00 off Fandango coupon code stickered to one of the EIGHT Ghostbusters 1 & 2 DVDs I got for "free" (just paid $0.43 sales tax on each) in Target with Sony's other $5.00 off coupon. Point is, I paid to see this film and was not given a free pass or Screener DVD by Sony, nor was *I* paid to see it. A photo of me in the AMC theater lobby, in front of the Ghostbusters poster, can be found here (last image in the gallery). AMC Theaters are giving away little Ghostbusters logo pins to all who see the movie there.


I may not comment on everything in this review, as I already covered a lot of ground in my trailer reviews, most of which is applicable to the final film. So, be sure to check them out, too: U.S. & International Trailers #1, U.S. Trailer #2, and International Trailer #2.

So, what is this movie about? Well, if you read the Reddit spoiler from March, you'll know 97% of the final film. Yes, the spoiler was that correct! Yes, the movie is that bad!

First and foremost, you need to understand that Paul Feig's movie is a Ghostbusters parody disguised as an official Ghostbusters movie. That is the only way to look at it. It isn't a good parody, either. Feig's Ghostbusters will never stand alongside classic parodies as Airplane, Naked Gun, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Scary Movie. I shouldn't even be mentioning it in the same breath as those far superior films. I'm probably getting ahead of myself, though.

After all of the usual film production logos (I was hoping the classic Columbia Pictures logo would be there), and a "Ghost Corps" logo that made me smile, the film opens up with a tour at the Aldridge Mansion. After the patrons leave, the tour guide closes up and spooky stuff happens. I actually found this scene to be very frightening, and thought it was going to be a good sign of things to come. The camera closes in on his screaming face, and I expected for the logo and title to form, as the original movie did on the shot of the frightened librarian. Sadly, this was the moment when the movie started to fall apart for me. From the screaming tour guide, the movie cuts to New York City skyline shots with the "Ghostbusters" title displayed over it in the most plain, boring, generic font you will ever see.


The skyline shots lead us to Columbia University, where Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) teaches. One recurring theme in this movie is an over abundance of callbacks and references to the original movie. I'll admit, these references are one of the few shining spots of the entire film, though they reek of being a desperate attempt to appeal to the fans of the original, authentic Ghostbusters. Although Wiig does an adequate job of portraying Erin, the character is simply too bland for you to care much about her. It is in these scenes where we see Harold Ramis' presence in the film: a bust of Egon sitting on a shelf. That made me smile, as did the dedication to him ("For Harold Ramis") at the very end of the end credits crawl.


Shortly there after, we meet Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). Melissa has been acting for over 15 years (based on her IMDB profile), but you wouldn't know it from watching her in Ghostbusters. Her performance is so stilted, and never once feels natural. The character of Abby is also saddled with this strange subplot where she's constantly complaining about the amount of wontons in the wonton soup she orders from the Chinese restaurant that the Ghostbusters eventually move in above. Why is this even a thing? There's no point to this, other than to make Abby seem like a constant complainer; as if the character wasn't already unlikeable by being a horrible friend to Erin. There are lots of other Chinese restaurants in New York City, and if Abby is constantly unhappy with the product and service from one of them, why does she keep ordering from them?

Jillian is the star of the film. She's the scientist/builder of the group, and epitomizes the word "quirky". You will fall in love with her, and wish she were given her own, better, film without being burdened by this lame duck of a story. There's really nothing I could complain about with Jillian. Katie, you're aces!

Whereas Winston didn't come into the original film until the 41-minute mark, the token black character in Feig's Ghostbusters, Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), appears a mere 20 minutes in. Patty has been one of the most controversial characters based on the footage of her used in the trailers, which even I found racist, and I'm not even black! The good news is that Patty was actually quite likeable in the final film and came off as a much better character than the racist stereotype the trailers made her out to be. The bad news is that the horrendous "Race thing or lady thing" and "The power of Patty compels you" lines are still in the movie. Both could have been easily removed. The race/lady line could have been replaced with the alternate "Pick me up right now" seen in a few TV spots, and the power line is easy to remove with the way the scene is edited. It's a shame that Patty's "It's a Cadillac!" line from the first trailer was not used, as it's a much better line than the overused Oprah "You get a car!" reference that appears in the film.

Although Sony would have you believe that this film is progressive by having female Ghostbusters, it is neither progressive nor the first or even second time that there have been female Ghostbusters. Janine Melnitz donned a pack and jumpsuit on several occasions in The Real Ghostbusters, even having to save the guys a couple of times. Kylie Griffin was a regular member of the team in Extreme Ghostbusters (a short 40-episode series that Sony still has not released on DVD here in the States). Get this: Kylie was working alongside male Ghostbusters! Not replacing them, but working WITH them. Gender equality is progressive, and it's a shame that in the 20 years since Extreme Ghostbusters, Paul Feig, Katie Dippold, and Amy Pascal have not learned that. Oh, and the awesome and fan-respectable comic book series from IDW featured THREE new female Ghostbusters, although they originally worked for a rival company.

(images courtesy of the Ghostbusters Wiki)

As part of the marketing of the film, Sony and the cast and crew chose to belittle the fans, especially those with penises. They conveniently ignored the fact that many female fans hated the film, because acknowledging that fact would ruin their plan of making it look like the internet is filled with misogynists. The film shows that Paul Feig and Katie Dippold (who cameos as a real estate agent) are the biggest misogynists you will ever meet. I swear, not five minutes goes by without some mention of character's genders. The film goes out of its way to bring up gender, even though it NEVER has a bearing on the story.

Feig and company use the movie to comment on many subjects that have no place being in a Ghostbusters movie. Men are depicted as idiots or incompetents (see Kevin, the mayor, Homeland Security). Furthermore, the female Ghostbusters defeat the male villain Rowan by shooting him in the crotch - and even comment that that was where they wanted to hit him. Race and gender are brought up by the aforementioned Patty line, "Is it a race thing or a lady thing?" No, it's a "weight thing" because you're 6-feet tall and a bit over 200 pounds. Nobody wants you landing on them. (Fieg & Dippold - If you're gonna bring up race, then you need to have a racially diverse cast. Three whites and a black may have qualified as racial diversity back in 1984, but it doesn't cut it in 2016. Where's the Latino? Where's the Asian?) The subject of Internet trolls is touched upon when, in response to comments to their online video, Abby tells Erin not to listen to "what crazy people write in the middle of the night online". Finally, and worst of all, Feig "responds" to the perceived misogynistic internet trolls when the group views an online video to which the comment was made, "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts". Stay classy, Feig.

The film makes numerous references to Reddit, YouTube, selfies, and other things that seriously make the film looked dated now, so it'll look uber dated ten years from now. Not that anyone will even remember it five years from now. It'll be quickly forgotten like every other remake/reboot that's come before it. Robocop, A-Team, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of Wax, Red Dawn...need I go on?

The movie plods along, and just when there's something funny or exciting that starts to give you hope, it smacks against the wall of a lame joke, gag, or horrible piece of dialog. The gags stop the film, dead! (Pun intended) A Ghostbusters film, done right, does not rely on joke after joke after joke. It plays it seriously and lets the comedy come from the way the characters react to the scary stuff.

"The reason we're doing it as a comedy is because it's so damn frightening."
- Bill Murray, Making of Ghostbusters featurette (1984)

Paul Feig is known for making R-rated comedies. It seems that he doesn't realize this movie was going to be rated PG-13, because it's filled with a lot of jokes that are more appropriate for an R-rated film; and certainly not a Ghostbusters film. When Abby and Jillian meet with their boss at the school, he does a 20-second (felt MUCH longer) "middle finger" gag that might be a bit humorous (although overlong) in a different film, but comes off as inappropriate for Ghostbusters. The same with a queef comment from Jillian ("fart from the front"). Sure, the original Ghostbusters has risque stuff, and the blowjob scene isn't necessary, but it was mature content, not low-brow. There's a difference. Oddly, the overall tone of the movie feels like it was written for little kids, who don't have a concept of what quality is and will be entertained by anything, as evident by the fart and vomit jokes. So even these R-rated jokes were a stark contrast with the tone of the rest of the film.

The secretary character, Kevin Beckman (Chris Hemsworth), adds nothing to the film, and in fact, ruins every scene that he's in. Janine, the secretary in the original film, appears very fleetingly. You got a feel for her personality, but she didn't get in the way of the film. Kevin gets in the way. He bangs a gong, then covers his EYES because it's too loud. Sorry, Feig and Dippold, but that's not funny. It's stupid, even to a five-year-old. Furthermore, because he's a male character, he doesn't even get the dignity of officially having a last name (he's credited as "Kevin"). We only learn his name from his in-movie modeling headshots. Yeah, he's a stereotypical dumb male model, too. Is he friends with Zoolander?

Kevin isn't the only stupid and unrealistic part of the film. The reason Abby and Patty perform the stage dive at the concert is because they need to get to the back of the art deco auditorium to bust the ghost. Rather than, you know, just pushing their way through the crowd, they do the stage dive. Why would anyone do this with such heavy equipment on? What if they hurt the audience members? They could be sued. Not to mention that it would take longer than just trying to push through the crowd. Thank goodness the ghost decided to wait for them.

I can't believe that I'm still writing about this atrocious film. I'm giving this review more thought than the filmmakers gave the film itself. Okay, let's run though the rest of my notes and hope I can connect them into some sort of narrative - as I hope I've done so far.

The film's villain is a nebbish male named Rowan North (Neil Casey). The character pops up every now and then to remind you that he's there, but you will easily forget that he exists. Vigo may have been stuck in a painting in Ghostbusters II, but you felt his presence throughout the entire film. Not so for Rowan, who's apocalyptic plot is put in motion because he's upset that he was bullied. The character is never fleshed out, and just exists for the sake of having a villain.

Rowan kills himself so his ghostly spirit can inhabit Abby, and then Kevin. Rowan's spirit makes it a point to fly all the way from the Mercado Hotel to the Ghostbusters Headquarters to possess Abby. Why? He had to have passed thousands of New Yorkers along the way that he could have possessed, some more suitable than Abby. Wouldn't possessing a police officer, or even the NYC mayor, have given him more power to complete his task? A short chubby woman wouldn't be MY first choice of a person to possess - and he made a concerted effort to go after her, too! Also, later in the film, Rowan-possessed-Kevin takes control of hundreds of police and military, but never uses them to fight the Ghostbusters. Four Proton Packs do not beat hundreds of guns and assault rifles. The Ghostbusters would be lying dead in Times Square had the villain been written intelligently - but he's a male, so you know he won't be. (In a deleted scene, shown during the credits, the best he could muster is make them dance! No kidding.)

Don't get me started on the scene that follows where the other Ghostbusters find possessed-Abby in the headquarters. The scene has been ruined by almost every trailer, and it's where Patty's worst material is to be found. While I thought that Leslie did a great job is the rest of the movie, her performance here was too ham-fisted and over the top, when it wasn't wooden. Nothing in this scene felt believable. It doesn't help that nobody was given anything good to say. What the hell does, "The Devil is a liar!" even mean?!? There is no devil, nor liars to be found here, and why would Patty say that upon seeing Abby spin her head around? It makes no damn sense.

The movie leads to a showdown between the Rowan-possessed-Kevin and the Ghostbusters at the Mercado Hotel in Times Square. He's floating in the lobby, and he literally floats like Peter Pan (more like Tinkerbell with the musical flourish), even commenting on that fact. As bad as that is, it would get far FAR worse! As the trailers have spoiled, repeatedly, Rowan is transformed into a giant, Stay Puft-sized, version of the No Ghost logo ghost. This is brought about when Rowan asks the Ghostbusters to choose his form. No reason is given as to why he would make such a request. How kind of him to ask? Patty says that she would "prefer something nice and cute, like a friendly little ghost". Then you'll see the most insulting thing about this film. A cartoon of the No Ghost logo appears in mid-air in the lobby, talks to the Ghostbusters, and animates itself into the large three-dimensional version. Mind you, Patty never specified that particular ghost, just something cute and friendly. Wouldn't Rowan have thought of Casper first?!? Click on the image below is see a video clip of this atrocity because my words can not accurately describe it.

Play Video

The epic finale is not so epic. Sure, there were a lot of cool gadgets and ghosts, but those ghosts were obscured in fog for some reason, and the bright green, red, and blue color palettes make them more appropriate for a Scooby-Doo film. The whole Times Square finale looks and feels like a video game. Somehow, the Ghostbusters aquire superhuman abilities (were they bit by a radioactive ghost?). Although they were shown, earlier, to be academic, not athletic, the Ghostbusters are leaping and flipping around like gymnists, all while wearing very heavy Proton Packs. While a visual delight, the Times Square battle sequence truly insults the intelligence of its audience. The events in Night at the Museum 1 and 2 are more believable, and those require a huge suspension of disbelief. A 100-foot marshmallow man stomping down the street is more realistic.

To vanquish Rowan, Erin ties a tow cable around her waist and jumps through a portal to save Abby. Yeah, the final strike did not involved the Ghostbusters' gadgets. There was no crossing the streams; not even a mention of that dangerous act anywhere in the film. Instead of ending on a high note (like the original did), the battle is followed by a scene of the gals sitting in a bar having a conversation, and then another scene where Ernie Hudson makes his cameo. As I'm watching all of this, I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "Why is this film going on? It's over, roll the credits already."

Yes, all of the cameos you've heard about are in the film. Bill Murray (whose performance is stiff and awkward; as if he didn't want to be there) pops up in a brief-then-forgotten subplot as skeptic Martin Heiss. Ozzy Osbourne gets a line as a "famous rock star". Annie Potts asks "Whadda ya want? as the Mercado Hotel desk clerk. Dan Aykroyd is a cabbie who "ain't afraid of no ghosts." Ernie Hudson is Patty's Uncle Bill, who provides the group with their hearse, and whose line about stacking corpses "like flapjacks" (quoted in the Reddit spoiler) provided the film with its working title. Sigourney Weaver pops at the end credits as Rebecca Gorin, a mentor of Jillian's. Finally, we get a voice cameo by Robin Shelby (Ghostbusters II's Slimer) as Lady Slimer. Yes, that's a real thing. I have no idea why she exists, and I absolutely hated Lady Slimer (aka Slimette in the books) when I first heard about her, but I actually found her to be the least offensive thing about the movie.


Stay Puft also gets a cameo. Well, kinda, sort of. Upon getting close to Times Square, the Ghostbusters come across a spectral 1920's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. The generic ghostly balloons attack first, and a Stay Puft balloon shows up behind them. (I guess the Stay Puft Marshmallow Corporation has been in business for almost 100 years.) While they were able to pop the others with their Proton Packs, Stay Puft overwhelms them; crushing them under his weight. Why could Stay Puft not be popped like the others? (It looked more like Erin pegged him. See image at top of this article.) Why didn't the spectral spectators of the parade attack the Ghostbusters, too? Why am I thinking of these things when writers Paul Feig and Katie Dippold clearly didn't?

Two more things I thought of that Feig and Dippold didn't: Who repaired the window in the Ghostbusters' headquarters? Two people are thrown out of the same window, and there seems to have been no time to have it repaired. The portal appears to be outside, but when the ladies are pulled out of it, it's inside the Mercado lobby and the tow cable is going through the hotel's front door. If the hotel were magically "rebuilt", it would have been wise to show it, as well as the change from "night" to "day". As is, the change is just to jarring for the viewer.

During end credits, we get the deleted "possessed Kevin makes police and military dance" footage. It's still groan-inducing, but would have been worse had it been kept in the film proper. Various shots from the movie are shown during the colorful, animated, more exciting than the film itself, end credits. Although called "Ghostbusters" at the beginning of the film, it's titled as "Ghostbusters: Answer The Call" in the end credits. Finally, stay tuned after the end credits for an extra scene giving another callback to the original film. It's the scene mentioned in the Reddit spoiler, where Patty listens to an EVP and hears a voice say "Zuul".


I'm not going to comment on the score or soundtrack, as I will save those comments for reviews of the individual albums, which I will write in due time. I have lots of Ghostbusters stuff still left to review, and spreading it out gives you stuff to come back for :-)

If you're still reading this, you probably have the impression that there are no redeeming qualities to this film. There are a lot of little bits and pieces that I enjoyed, either because they were funny, frightening, or exciting. I loved the scene with Patty and the mannequin in the hallway. If *I* were walking by myself in the hallway of a haunted building, I would be talking to myself and saying the same things she did; and then running for my life when a mannequin comes alive and starts chasing after me! Other scenes, like Jillian lip syncing to "Rhythm of the Night" by DeBarge, and everyone dancing to DMX's "Up In Here", were fun in and of themselves, but feel out of place in the film as a whole.

I've been following this film since the beginning, and have seen every trailer and TV spot, and the behind-the-scenes footage and photos taken by fans during filming. There is a LOT of footage missing from the film. Remember that really great line from Jonathan the Theater Manager (Michael McDonald) used in the second trailer? He said to the Ghostbusters, "It will haunt you every night, what ever *it* is. No one should have to encounter that kind of evil... except you girls. I think you can handle it." I felt that line was perfect for what the tone of this movie should be...so, of course, it's not in the final film. A quick, non inclusive, list of other missing stuff: The scene of the Ghostbusters' watching the mayor's aide calling them "sad women". Abby's line, "We see things that other people can't." Kevin's Jaws reference, "We're gonna need a bigger boat". Kevin's line, "We have to fight these damn ghosts" and Abby's reply. That dumb bit where the ladies were pranking Erin by preventing her from getting in the car. As if the film didn't have enough pacing problems, Paul Feig is putting together an extended cut of the film for home video that "will be a good 15 to 17 minutes longer than the theatrical feature". Longer doesn't necessarily mean better.

I could have easily enjoyed this movie as something different, fun and light-hearted, if it were a good movie. I wasn't one of the people going in wanting to hate it. I actually wanted to love it...or at least like it. It didn't need to be a carbon-copy of the original for me to like it. Of course, we all know that Ivan Reitman's original Ghostbusters film did not need to be remade, if for no other reason, than because the Ghostbusters franchise is set up to allow for multiple groups of Ghostbusters. Since so much of it was filmed in Boston, why not make these ladies the Boston Ghostbusters? Of course, one of the reasons it was remade is because Fieg wanted something to call his "own"...or he didn't have the creativity to write an original story set in a pre-existing universe.

Feig's puerile Ghostbusters movie should be remade by a better director and a better writer. There are glimpses of potential in the material, and that's the reason why you do a remake. Not because an exec at Sony wants to push an all-female agenda. Gender equality is what we should be striving for, anyway.

It pains me to know that the future of Ghostbusters rides on the success of this horrible movie. If it doesn't do well, the world will not be given the chance to have better Ghostbusters films and TV series. I know that Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd, bless their souls, want more Ghostbusters for the fans. They created the Ghost Corps production company at Sony to achieve that goal. Sadly, it looks like Paul Feig is going to be largely responsible for killing that dream. RIP Ghostbusters, 1984-2016???

You know, Paul Feig, if you were going to make a mockery of Ghostbusters, why didn't you just do a remake of Filmation's Ghostbusters? That's more in tone with your style of comedy, anyway.


Comment from: [Member]

FEMALE YouTubers Alachia Queen and Zoe/Wrapped Up In Film posted their video reviews. They and I think alike. - Paul

Jul. 15, 2016 @ 11:30
Comment from: Tony [Visitor]  

During the fight with Rowan outside the hotel supposedly in Manhattan. There are several shot of a WOOLWORTHs Store which are defunct in the US, Obviously this was filmed in Australia where Woolworth still exist.

Jul. 16, 2016 @ 23:42
Comment from: Pat [Visitor]

Thank you for the review. :)

Someone once described the movie as feeling like pure fan-fiction: I’d say that sounds about right…

“Only me and my four high school friends saved the day! Everyone else is a DUMMY! I’ll make my boyfriend Jimmy Jr. dumb and the secretary because he broke up with me, that’ll show him!”

Jul. 17, 2016 @ 09:00
Comment from: shizu [Visitor]

i get you! but i personally loved the movie tbh

Jul. 17, 2016 @ 23:08
Comment from: Frankenberry [Visitor]

You are right on the money! While I didn’t hate the movie I felt it was full of missed opportunities. I too felt hopeful during the first scene because it felt like Ghostbusters but then, sadly, the movie went downhill after that. I didn’t have a problem with the plot involving the lay lines. In fact, I found myself actually enjoying the film when it wasn’t derailing itself in attempts to be funny. I also agree that the jokes ran too long even some of the genuinely funny ones. The original and even the sequel didn’t attempt jokes as such just humorous reactions. They wisely played it straight but slightly over-the-top. Venkman’s function was simply to roll his eyes at Ray’s over enthusiasm and Egon’s stoicism as if he wanted the eggheads to think he was the coolest kid in class when in reality he was a fraud that was out of depth and he knew it. Venkman’s insecurity is where a lot of the humor of the original comes from not from comedy setups and payoffs. There was no one in this film to fill that function. It was a quartet of believers with a can-do attitude trying to over come as the screenwriters overstacked the deck in front of them. It’s not enough that they’re dealing with a subject matter that many find dubious but then there’s a villain with a plot to destroy the city and then there’s a city government that would like to shut them down. Talk about belaboring the point! Okay, I get it! But that’s one too many in my book. I found the leads likable enough and I don’t want to get into gender politics and whether this all-female cast is progressive or simply reactive (although it feels more like the latter than the former.) While Holtzmann seemed to be the stand out character I didn’t find Gilbert’s character so bland as she was underwritten. There’s still a need for a straight character in the dynamic just a better written one. Kristen Wiig did a fine job with what she was given but she kind of came across as an accountant rather than a physicist. Also it was a tow cable she clipped around her waist not a fire hose during the climax but that’s a minor quibble and since I didn’t catch that the barrier somehow moved inside the lobby of the Mercado it’s a wash. Anyway well done in-depth review!

Jul. 19, 2016 @ 06:46
Comment from: Frankenberry [Visitor]

In retrospect, I realize the original was also stacking the deck with the inclusion of Walter Peck and the EPA’s interference but considering the titlular characters were operating with unlicensed equipment that subplot seems reasonable and less intrusive than simply stating the characters are drawing too much attention to themselves.

Jul. 19, 2016 @ 07:10
Comment from: Victoria [Visitor]

The Times Square scene was filmed at a hangar outside Boston, so not in Australia. The possessed Kevin at one point talks about Times Square as it used to be, and he and the ghosts transform it into an amalgam of the scruffy Times Square of the 1970s and early ’80s. Not surprisingly, the giant Sony sign of this time frame dominates the set and represents self product placement by the studio.

Hence large movie posters for Bruce Lee’s Fists of Fury and Boris Karloff in Isle of the Snake People, both from the early ’70s. There were still Woolworth stores in the US in that time frame.

This sorta time travel was one of the scenese in the film. The Macy’s parade was neat, too. But as the reviewer pointed out, why were the balloons physical, and why didn’t the parade goers attack?

Jul. 19, 2016 @ 11:23
Comment from: Bc [Visitor]

Does anybody actually know why they didn’t hire industrial light & Magic again to do the special effects work so that at least those wouldn’t have looked so bad? I know that it’s not because Disney owns them as they still do work for other studios, such as the recent tmnt film.

Jul. 25, 2016 @ 02:29
Comment from: Jason A. Matthews (TheJAMMan1988) [Visitor]

Well Paul, I thought that the reboot was pretty good. But not better than the original 1984 movie. And I really do love the opening Ghost Corps logo at the beginning of the film. Nice logo. :)

Jul. 26, 2016 @ 04:24
Comment from: Natasha [Visitor]

Some people took this movie wayyyyy to seriously it was entertaining and funny and a good remake. Graphics were cool.. Its GHOSTBUSTERS ppl. Geezzzz

Aug. 3, 2016 @ 23:59
Comment from: Aggy [Visitor]

Let’s face it: the remake of Ghostbusters is a very bad movie. And I don’t think that there will be a sequel with such a poor box office.

The sequel would have even smaller box office because a lot of people went to see this reboot
“against all odds", to see if it’s any good. Sorry, it wasn’t.

PS. Thank you Paul for the honest review,

PPS. Paul, you said you liked “scene with Patty and the mannequin in the hallway"? C’mon it’s a rip-off from Silent Hill movie!

Aug. 9, 2016 @ 23:44
Comment from: duckofdeath73 [Visitor]

I enjoyed the movie immensely. Actually think it could benefit with an extended cut , as did appear a bit chopped. The f/x had a ‘real ghostbusters’ vibe and thats a good thing in my book.

Answered: ‘He-man’ in the antispam test, thought spook central would allow. (spoilt little yuppie larvae!)

Aug. 10, 2016 @ 10:32
Comment from: Jason A. Matthews (TheJAMMan1988) [Visitor]

Hey, Paul. Did you know that there’s an extended version of the movie, that now available on Digital HD right now? Are you gonna update your review?

Sep. 28, 2016 @ 04:22
Comment from: [Member]

I know about the extended cut. I’ll write about it when I review the Blu-ray and DVD in a few weeks. The physical disc doesn’t come out until October 11th.

This review is about the movie as I first saw it theatrically, so it’ll stay regardless.

– Paul

Sep. 28, 2016 @ 14:09

Leave a comment

Click here to log in if you already have an account on this site.
Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
(Set cookies so I don't need to fill out my details next time)
(Allow users to contact me through a message form -- Your email will not be revealed!)

Who you gonna call?

Please answer the question above.
We ask for this in order to slow down spammers.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please log in to avoid this antispam check.

Established August 1996

Search (Articles Only)

Ghostbusters Merch at Amazon.com

Ghostbusters Officially Licensed Amazon Store

Please be aware that as an Amazon Associate, I earn a very tiny commission from purchases made though the Amazon links on this site.

Want to see your product reviewed here? Click for details.

Official Spook Central Merchandise

Paul's For Sale/Trade List


Ghostbusters Wiki
GB News
GB Fans
Ghostbusters Mania
GB Reboot Facebook
Proton Charging News Archive

GB Fans

Ghost Corps Facebook
Ghostbusters Facebook
Ghostbusters YouTube

In Loving Memory of Joel Richard Rudoff (July 28, 1944 - January 20, 2014)

In Loving Memory of Linda Joyce Rudoff (July 12, 1948 - November 29, 2015)

Doreen Mulman (May 22, 1961 - March 14, 2014)

Build The Ghostbusters Ecto-1 Model
(reviewed here)

Pirate Ship - Cheap USPS Postage

Ghostbusters Ecto-Web

The Art Of Tristan Jones

James Eatock's eBay Auctions
U.S. eBay (Ghostbusters stuff)
U.K. eBay (Ghostbusters stuff)

  XML Feeds


CMS + user community