Ghostbusters (2016) - Rotten Tomatoes


Ghostbusters (2016)



Critic Consensus: Ghostbusters does an impressive job of standing on its own as a freewheeling, marvelously cast supernatural comedy -- even if it can't help but pale somewhat in comparison with the classic original.

Ghostbusters Videos

Ghostbusters Photos

Movie Info

Ghostbusters makes its long-awaited return, rebooted with a cast of hilarious new characters. Thirty years after the beloved original franchise took the world by storm, director Paul Feig brings his fresh take to the supernatural comedy, joined by some of the funniest actors working today--Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Chris Hemsworth. This summer, they're here to save the world!

Watch it now


Melissa McCarthy
as Abby Yates
Kristen Wiig
as Erin Gilbert
Kate McKinnon
as Jillian Holtzmann
Leslie Jones
as Patty Tolan
Charles Dance
as Harold Filmore
Michael Kenneth Williams
as Hawkins, Agent Hawkins
Matt Walsh
as Rourke
Sigourney Weaver
as Rebecca Gorin
Andy Garcia
as Burmistrz Nowego Jorku, Mayor Bradley
Bill Murray
as Martin Heiss
Cecily Strong
as Jennifer Lynch
Ernie Hudson
as Uncle Bill
Zach Woods
as Tour Guide
Karan Soni
as Bennie
Ed Begley Jr.
as Ed Mulgrave
John Milhiser
as Higgins Student
Ben Harris
as Higgins Student
Bess Rous
as Gertrude Aldridge Ghost
Neil Casey
as Rowan North
Dave Allen
as Electrocuted Ghost
Katie Dippold
as Rental Agent
Daniel Ramis
as Metal Head
Pat Kiernan
as NY1 News Anchor #1
Michael McDonald
as Jonathan The Theater Manager
Jaime Pacheco
as Fernando the Janitor
Eugene Cordero
as Bass Guitarist
Ryan Levine
as Rock Guitarist
Theodore Shapiro
as Keyboardist
Matteo Borghese
as Lightboard Operator
Ozzy Osbourne
as Famous Rock Star
Jeanine Ramirez
as Reporter Outside Theater
Jamie Denbo
as Waitress
Toby Huss
as Officer Stevenson
Annie Potts
as Desk Clerk
Cheryl Wills
as NY1 News Anchor #2
Sam Richardson
as Basement Cop
Steve Bannos
as Flasher Ghost
Tom Yi
as Flashed Man
Susan Park
as Flashed Woman
Milana Vayntrub
as Subway Rat Woman
Anthony Viveiros
as Police Officer
Stephen 'tWitch' Boss
as Police Officer
Rosanna Scotto
as Fox 5 News Anchor
Adam Ray
as Lead Singer, Voice of Slimer
Greg Kelly
as Fox 5 News Anchor
Al Roker
as As Himself
Dan Teicher
as Rock Guitarist
Johnny Higgins
as Baba Booey Shouter
Davey Jones
as Ely the Drummer
Robin Shelby
as Voice of Lady Slimer
Nick Austin
as Columbia Student
Joel Murray
as Security Guard
Kristen Annese
as Ghost Prostitute/College Student
London Hall
as Black Tie Patron at Restuarant
View All

Critic Reviews for Ghostbusters

All Critics (390) | Top Critics (91)

Ghostbusters is fun, it's silly, and it doesn't take itself too seriously.

February 11, 2021 | Full Review…

The new Ghostbusters film is a smart, spectacular addition to the series.

August 27, 2018 | Full Review…

Frankly, if you're going to make a new Ghostbusters with a female foursome as the leads and you're facing a backlash from clanging dungeons of the woman-hating internet, it seems like it would make for an epic opportunity to troll them.

September 26, 2017 | Full Review…

The fact that the '84 version became a phenom is as strange, really, as the 2016 version becoming a war between idiot men and all kinds of women.

August 16, 2017 | Full Review…

It aims to be a good family film for the summer movie season, and it fits right in with the buttery popcorn I ate while watching it.

August 3, 2017 | Rating: 3/4 | Full Review…

Those willing to roll with the changes will find an entertaining comedy-adventure full of new characters, new gadgets, new monsters, and new possibilities.

June 13, 2017 | Rating: 7/10 | Full Review…
Top Critic

Audience Reviews for Ghostbusters


The reboot to one of the greatest comedies of the 1980s does not fail because it has an all female main cast. It doesn't deliver the punches and the script has quite a few weaknesses. Wiig is great, Hemsworth pretty funny and McKinnon wonderfully odd, but McCarthy just doesn't have more to offer than the "fat lady getting thrown around a lot" trope. There are short appearances by the original cast and quite a few references to the old film without picking up its chronology, another mistake. The result is still fairly entertaining but actually could have worked despite of the nay-sayers, just with a better script and maybe a different talent or two.

Jens S.
Jens S.

Super Reviewer


Once again the remake train derails into another franchise with Ghostbusters, the 2016 comedy that seems to be made by people who have never seen the original film. The funny thing is that I now am filled with regret after seeing this overtly controversial film of this summer. Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones star as the title characters in this film about the paranormal invading New York City and the recently unemployed small business owners that are here to fight this new nuisance. A bell boy named Rowan (Neil Casey) is expanding ghost activity for some reason, coming to a climax with Times Square full of scares. (Times Scare? Slime Square?) The script is immature at best and bottom feeding at worst. A nice middle finger scene here, a crotch shot there, basic 13 year old humor like that which plays well to kids and the soft headed. The story is like falling from a tree with the plot hitting one branch, then another, then another, and never really landing anywhere to settle except the eventual land fill that this film feels destined for. I can't really say that the acting is bad. You're only as good as your script and we've already established the mess that road map is. The real issue with the main core of the cast is that there is little chemistry between the quartet. This is probably the biggest fault with Ghostbusters '16 especially compared to the chemistry that is exuded in the original film. Even the sequel felt more on point than this film and it shows. This is reason this film didn't click with viewers, too. I will admit that I was very pessimistic when it came to discussing this film and it wasn't because of the swapping of the sexes, though that felt like it was marketed as a gimmick. In all honesty, the film didn't look good from trailers and research that I did pre-release. Even if it didn't have the no ghost insignia stamped on its marketing this film would have been mediocre. This one had to stand up to one of the most beloved films of the last 30+ years. It feels rushed and thrown together into something for the mass quantities to consume instead of that special thing that was the original film. I'm not going to blame the cast because it feels like they actually believed in what they were doing- an honest retelling of a story that they grew up with, just like you and me. No, this is a failure on director Paul Feig's part. He delivers a soulless film that is just empty calories to be purged and forgotten in a day or two. An albatross on a decent career.

Chris Garman
Chris Garman

Super Reviewer

Ghost Corps huh, opening credits and straight away the first sign of a planned, multi-movie franchise...they never learn. Anyway, who ya gonna call? certainly not these guys! (quick pause for my readers sides to stop splitting). Oh shit wait, I meant gals! Oh Christ now I've done it. No but seriously, who are you gonna call here? a better script writer perhaps? better cast, better effects, another director, hell just a completely different movie to this. But how bad could this really be? I ain't afraid of no gaudy, garish, neon, clearly all CGI ghosts...actually I am, shocked and horrified at just how scarily bad they actually were. Right so things start off in much the same way the classic 84 movie did. We are given a brief little vignette that sets up the basis of the plot (its about ghosts) that will eventually lead to greater things. When I say the same as the 84 original, I meant literally, the opening scene is done in the exact same way complete with the legendary Ray Parker Jr theme tune accompanying the films main title card/shot. Now at this point I was actually on-board for the ride believe it or not, the intro sequence was actually pretty creepy. It looked quite good, it intrigued me, a nice tone of light-hearted horror, and when Ray Parker Jr's tune kicked in I actually felt a nostalgic lump in my throat, as if I'd just been zapped back to my childhood. That's as far as it goes though because apparently the supernatural incident we see has no consequences or follow up whatsoever. The curator bloke of this old 19th century stately home seems to get attacked? killed? possessed? Unsure, but after seemingly being doomed he just pops up later, completely fine, and that story arc is never followed up for the rest of movie. Its from this point onwards, when we meet the new characters, that virtually everything spirals out of control in an impressive fiery fireball of failure. You have the chubby McCarthy who I guess plays the Ray Stantz type character because she has the same love, enthusiasm and dedication to science and the supernatural that Ray body shape. Wiig who's the more straight-laced, apprehensive character which could be Venkman? But without the smug, dry humour. McKinnon I'm guessing is a live action female version of the cartoon Egon Spengler from [i]The Real Ghostbusters[/i]. Same technical mind but here she's basically loopy. Lastly Jones presumably would be the Zeddmore type character because she's the streetwise, blue-collar, token black character. Admittedly the female characters are more of there own thing here, there is a hint of the classic quartet of course but generally they're relatively unique, which is good. The main story revolves around one human villain called Rowan, a mad scientist and occultist who wishes to open a portal to the ghost world to bring about the apocalypse. In order to do this he is placing these strange devices along spiritual ley lines in New York City in order to charge them up and create a vortex. At the exact point where these ancient ley lines cross or meet, Rowan has a much larger device that when activated along with the charged up ley lines, will rip a hole into the spirit world. Oh and its where he conveniently works too. Sounds reasonable doesn't it, and it is accept for the fact that nothing is really explained. Rowan is basically a bit nuts right, OK that's fine, but why does he want to do this? Just because he's nuts? Well no, apparently its because he's a bit of a loser, an outcast with no friends and he's depressed...and that's the reason. Secondly, what are these devices he's placing along the ley lines? How does he make them? How does he know how to charge the ley lines? How did he make such a huge single device? How does he fund all this? And of course, how does he manage to get away with making a whopping big device in the basement of the hotel where he works? Then as the plot progresses we discover that Rowan plans to kill himself in order to lead a ghost army when the apocalypse starts. But, the hell does he intend to carry that out?! Why would he be able to come back as a ghost? Does he have some kind of special gift or powers? Why would ghosts follow this guy?? How does he manage to not only come back as a ghost, but a seriously powerful ghost just like Gozer the Gozerian? Around this main premise you have all the standard fare which you basically got in the original. The ladies create their own equipment and develop it over the course of the film, naturally all the gear is strewn with various flashing LED's because that apparently makes it look cooler. They manage to pick up an old hearse to use for transportation which they call 'Ecto 1' because of course they do. They get themselves natty ghost catching uniforms which make them look like garbage collectors (seriously under designed, was that the best production could come up with? Grey jumpsuits with orange go-faster stripes?), and they trap ghosts. When I say trap ghosts I mean one, one single entity with a huge fuck off ghost trap that looks like a torpedo. The film is called Ghostbusters but we only see them trap one ghost, they also have nowhere to store the ghost once caught. This leads me to the finale of the movie where the ladies have developed their equipment so much, they are now able to kill ghosts? I seriously have no idea what happens here, the proton packs sort of lasso the ghosts and enable them to be dragged along the floor...for what reason? The girls are tossing ghosts around, throwing them into each other, sucking them into a ghost chipper type thing, punching them (yes) and generally blowing them up somehow. So is this universe you can effectively kill a ghost of reduce it to ectoplasm (I'm guessing they would call it that seeing as they ripped-off everything else) by punching it and sucking it into a chipper type machine. I won't even go into the awful slow motion action sequence where Holtzmann does some kind of John Woo/Neo shit with two pistol sized particle throwers. Whilst all this slapstick action is going off the effects offer us a mixed result, two sides of a coin for sure. Whilst the general look of the movie is naturally very glossy, colourful and slick, it can't help but look like a cartoon. There are numerous shots that have been blatantly copied from the 84 classic but it still can't detract from the fact the film looks childish overall. This also goes for the general tone of the flick too, it really doesn't know what the hell its going for, light-hearted kids comedy, edgy horror comedy, mainstream comedy, Feig comedy etc...The equipment looks just like I expected it to, plastic and obviously fake, no amount of flashing LED's can change that, but luckily they have kept the iconic particle thrower beam close to what we all know and love. Yes I realise that's me being hypocritical as I've complained about them ripping-off other things from the 84 original, but this was one thing that needed to remain, anything else simply wouldn't do. As for the CGI...well it doesn't help matters at all, that's not to say its bad, it just doesn't fit this franchise. As many have already said, the CGI looks ridiculous and much like some other movies such as 'Haunted Mansion' and the [i]Scooby-Doo[/i] flicks. The large green dragon/demon ghost in the concert sequence actually looked like something from [i]The Real Ghostbusters[/i]. Its virtually all bright neon effects making almost every scene with ghosts look like the interior of a nightclub, why would ghosts be so bright and colourful? This also doesn't help the actors who are clearly standing in front of greenscreens. My only positive is Rowan in logo form who does look pretty good and made me wonder how sweet a modern Mr Stay Puft would look these days. Other than that the 84 original effects still blow this out of the water. The deciding factor in this movies downfall is quite frankly the fact its hideously unfunny. End of the day its a comedy, but it sucks. The ladies try their best to come across as amusing and its just embarrassing to watch, cringeworthy at the best of times. The performances are muted and bland at best, McCarthy is simply McCarthy yet again, Wiig is dull as dishwater and clearly not really enjoying herself, and I've no fucking clue what McKinnon thought she was doing because it wasn't funny in the slightest. Oh but she was so quirky, off the wall and she wasn't, she looked unique but acted like a fool. Lastly we have the mighty walking controversy that is Jones. Amazingly best of the quartet and easily the most relatable and believable, who'd of thought it huh. Although, still have no idea why her character would quit her stable, dependable job on the subway to join a risky venture in ghost catching. That seemed totally unrealistic to me, no one would do that without some form of plan or guarantee. In the original Zeddmore needed a job so he took what he could get, that made sense, not this. So that's the four ladies, anything else? oh yes, Chris Hemsworth, the hypocritical, highly ironic, reverse sexist character that somehow evaded Feig's all out politically correct, all accepting agenda. Or did it? was this a deliberate move by Feig? along with the reshot scenes of meta references to the internet rage and fanboys, and the casual man-bashing we see liberally sprinkled throughout. Well I think its pretty obvious now from what you can read and watch online but that aside, this character was annoyingly shit and an insult to the franchise. Oh yeah, way [b]WAY[/b] too many needless, pointless cameos. Did the movie need a cameo from Ozzy Osbourne? or any of the original cast? They could of at least not made them so bloody blatant, it gave the movie a Zoolander-esque vibe at times for Christ's sake. What was the point of crowbarring in a cameo from Sigourney Weaver in the end credits?? Come to think of it, what was the point of the Slimer cameo other than gratuitous pandering to the fanboys to try and get them into cinemas. But they couldn't even do that right, horrific CGI aside, they gave the spook a female partner! (basically Slimer with lipstick and a wig). What the literal fuck?! Its things like this that truly make you wonder what's going on behind the scenes, who the hell thought [b]that[/b] would be a good idea? So is this movie passable and enjoyable as some professional critics dubiously wrote? Well sort of...if you completely put aside all the Ghostbusters franchise aspect of it and look at it as a completely independent movie. In that case then yes, you could say its reasonably entertaining, or maybe as a live action adaptation of the cartoon at best, but only in those cases. Is the movie as bad as some have made it out to be? Yes I'm afraid it a reboot of such a legendary, iconic franchise as Ghostbusters, yes it is that bad, shamefully bad. The humour is seriously lacking with terrible dialog, there's no real tension anywhere, no real threats, you never worry about the characters safety, you don't really care about the characters, and the entire finale was a huge anti-climax. The film just didn't engage me in any way, everything was simply mundane, no excitement, no thrills, nothing. At one point I did wonder why the film didn't look 'New Yorkish' to me, turns out they filmed in Boston for Pete's sake! I mean seriously, if you can't even do the location justice, how can you expect to do the film justice. This in turn leads to a world that isn't believable because it consists of sets, greenscreen sets and locations that aren't New York. Basically this doesn't really feel like a proper supernatural comedy or fantasy movie. It feels much more like a parody of the genres, and a poor parody at that. The whole thing is subpar, at times shockingly shallow, limited and chock full of tropes, cliches and stereotypes. Whilst at the same time merrily showing complete contempt for the main target demographic, the (dare I say male) fanbase. After all those years, all the speculation and talk, what a completely wasted opportunity which unfortunately looks to have put the kibosh on the future of the franchise.

Phil Hubbs
Phil Hubbs

Super Reviewer

Ghostbusters Quotes

There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.

News & Features