The new Ghostbusters has received a mixed reception from critics

Ghostbusters review round-up

To say that Paul Feig’s reboot of Ghostbusters has been met with a mixed reaction since it was announced just over a year ago is an understatement.

Fans of the original 1984 blockbuster – which starred Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson – have taken to social media over the last year flaming the film for everything from its all-female cast to the fact that Feig has dared to attempt a remake of the beloved classic in the first place.

It’s safe to say that for many people, Ghostbusters 2016 is one the most hated remakes of all time, which is nuts seeing as how most of the people hating on the film couldn’t possibly have seen it by now.

The film sees release (both here and abroad) pretty soon and already the reviews are flooding in. The reception has been decidedly mixed; the film is currently sitting on a 6.3 on Metacritic, with some reviewers giving it a positive thumbs up and others slating as severely lacking.

Ghostbuster 2016 Reviews: The good

Drew McWeeny, Hitflix: “If you’re a fan of the 1984 original (as most comedy fans are), one of the things that’s interesting as you watch this one is the way it echoes off of that film. It is no simple remake, but neither is it a radical reinvention of the core idea. It’s simply a different riff on the same idea, with a solid dose of fan service thrown in to help make the transition from the old to the new.”

Robbie Collin, The Telegraph: “Ghostbusters ’16, for all its subtle innovations and advances, feels a little too in thrall to the past. Its jokes, effects and sparkler-bright cast chemistry need nothing to fall back on.”

Nigel M Smith, The Guardian: “The mean-spirited reception to the film before anyone had seen it does not seem to have put a dampener on the movie itself. Fun oozes from almost every frame; likewise the energy of a team excited to be revolutionising the blockbuster landscape. Let’s just hope everyone will enjoy the view.”

Ghostbuster 2016 Reviews: The bad

David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter: “Those expecting a clever feminist spin or any other sharp 21st century twists will be disappointed, and the upgrade to new-generation VFX yields nothing remarkable.”

Melissa Anderson, The Village Voice: “Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence — or, more specifically, from the fear of not wanting to alienate the fans (Gen X’ers and others) of 1.0.”

Richard Lawson, Vanity Fair: “[The film is] largely an uninspired slog, everyone doing their best to get to the end without screwing things up too much. It’s a real bummer that these filmmakers felt they had to be so careful—with beloved I.P., with a female-driven movie.”

Ghostbuster 2016 Reviews: The ‘Meh’

Jonathan Pile, Empire:  “The film works for the most part, and even though the laughs notably dry up as the CGI spectacular kicks into gear, its feelgood vibes will most likely have already won you over.”

Stephen Witty, The New Daily News: “This new “Ghostbusters” isn’t worth hating. I just wish it was worth watching.”

We at haven’t seen the film yet and are reserving judgement until we do. Still, while it sounds that the new Ghostbusters isn’t to everyone’s taste, it also sounds like it isn’t the unqualified train smash the haters predicted. As soon as we see it, we’ll have a review up.

In the meantime, let us know what you think. Are you planning to watch the new Ghostbusters? And if not, what’s putting you off? Let us know in the comments below or on social media.


About Author


Related News

Subscribe to
our newsletters

Select the newsletter you would like to receive: