Table of Contents
Overview
The Ghostbusters franchise has undergone a varied critical journey, with each installment receiving its share of praise and criticism.
The original 1984 film is widely celebrated for its seamless blend of special effects and witty dialogue. Critics lauded Bill Murray’s performance and the chemistry among the lead actors. Despite some minor critiques of the finale, it was largely hailed as a comedic triumph with a laid-back style.
However, its 1989 sequel failed to capture the charm of the original, with critics noting its lack of originality and poor pacing. While some praised Murray’s performance, many felt the film suffered from trying to replicate the success of its predecessor without bringing anything new to the table.
In 2016, the franchise saw a reboot with an all-female cast, which garnered mixed reviews. While praised for its strong performances and standalone comedic elements, it struggled to escape the shadow of the original and faced criticism for its reliance on CGI and lack of originality.
In 2021, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” aimed to blend nostalgia with fresh storytelling, receiving generally positive reviews. Critics appreciated the engaging performances and character-driven approach, though some felt it leaned too heavily on fan service.
Most recently, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” received mixed reviews, with critics divided on its execution. While some praised its fun spirit and nostalgic references, others found it lacking in originality and emotional depth.
Overall, the Ghostbusters franchise has seen highs and lows, with each installment bringing its own unique take on the supernatural comedy. While some have succeeded in capturing the magic of the original, others have struggled to find their footing in the ever-expanding world of ghostbusting.
| Film | Rotten Tomatoes | Metacritic | CinemaScore |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ghostbusters (1984) | 95% (79 reviews) | 71 (8 reviews) | — |
| Ghostbusters II (1989) | 55% (40 reviews) | 56 (14 reviews) | A- |
| Ghostbusters (2016) | 74% (394 reviews) | 60 (52 reviews) | B+ |
| Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) | 64% (308 reviews) | 45 (47 reviews) | A- |
| Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2023) | 44% (254 reviews) | 46 (49 reviews) | B+ |
1. Ghostbusters (1984)
Ghostbusters garnered mostly positive reviews from critics. Roger Ebert lauded its seamless integration of special effects with witty dialogue, highlighting how the effects enhanced rather than overshadowed the performances. Joseph Gelmis compared the Ghostbusters’ headquarters to a dream for adolescents, akin to the Batcave.
Christopher Hicks praised director Reitman for improved direction and the film’s shift towards more creative humor and genuine thrills, although he found the finale excessive. Janet Maslin also critiqued the finale, preferring the smaller ghost-catching scenes. Arthur Knight appreciated the film’s laid-back comedic style and commended the editors for maintaining a consistent pace.
Peter Travers described Ghostbusters as “irresistible nonsense,” likening it to The Exorcist with Abbott and Costello-style comedy. Richard Schickel saw the special effects as a deliberate commentary on other ghost films, praising the film’s grand comic scale. David Ansen enjoyed the film’s teamwork-driven approach to insanity.
Critics unanimously lauded Bill Murray’s performance, with Gene Siskel noting his comedic talent overshadowed any flaws. The interactions between Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis were well-received, with Hicks likening them to the Marx Brothers. However, some felt Aykroyd and Ramis were underutilized. While Sigourney Weaver’s performance was praised, Ernie Hudson’s role was criticized for lacking development.
| Aspect | Summary |
|---|---|
| Positive Aspects | – Effective blend of special effects and witty dialogue. – Ghostbusters’ headquarters likened to an adolescent fantasy. – Director Reitman’s improved skills noted. – Bill Murray’s performance unanimously praised. – Strong collaborative chemistry among the leads. – Laid-back comedic style appreciated. – Consistent pace maintained throughout the film. – Teamwork-driven approach lauded. |
| Criticisms | – Finale criticized for being overblown. – Some felt special effects overshadowed the film’s control. – Underutilization of certain actors, including Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. – Critique of Ernie Hudson’s late addition and lack of development. – Lack of wit and coherence noted in some reviews. – Decision to cast top comedians working alone criticized. |
| Miscellaneous Comments | – Numerous quotable lines praised. – Bill Murray’s comedic talent overshadowed any flaws. – Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis compared to the Marx Brothers. – Sigourney Weaver’s performance as a foil to Murray highlighted. – Some critics interpreted special effects as a deliberate commentary on other ghost films. – Praise for the film’s grand comic scale. – Ghostbusters described as “irresistible nonsense” akin to The Exorcist with Abbott and Costello-style comedy. – Appreciation for Murray’s ability to inject humor into serious situations. |
2. Ghostbusters II (1989)
Critics generally panned Ghostbusters II, while audiences gave it a better rating. Some critics, like Dave Kehr and Mike Clark, felt the sequel lacked the charm of the original by trying to deepen the characters. They believed the first film succeeded by blending childlike fantasies with adult rebellion against authority, a balance they felt the sequel failed to achieve. Roger Ebert also found it disappointing, noting a lack of laughs during a public screening.
Many reviewers criticized Ghostbusters II for closely following the structure and story of the original. Gene Siskel described it as a poor imitation lacking originality, while Richard Schickel noted its lack of innovation and development. Time Out magazine and Desson Thomson felt the sequel mostly repeated events from the first film, with less impressive special effects. William Thomas found the script entertaining but geared more towards a younger audience.
However, Sheila Benson praised Ghostbusters II, particularly its ending, and appreciated its inclusive tone without relying on inside jokes. Hal Hinson described the film as having more personality than the first, but criticized it for lacking tension. Vincent Canby found the film funnier and less extravagant than the original, with a cheerful tone overall.
Some reviewers felt Ghostbusters II suffered from poor pacing and a lack of energy compared to the original. Rick Groen considered it mediocre and faulted the director for lacking visual imagination. However, special effects generally received praise for their appeal to children and witty dialogue.
Opinions about Bill Murray’s performance were mixed, with some critics finding it lacking compared to his previous work. Variety believed Murray’s ad-libbed dialogue was crucial, while Hal Hinson praised his performance for balancing the film’s tone. Critics also noted changes to Murray’s character from aloof to more mature, though some felt it didn’t succeed. Weaver’s underutilized role and MacNicol’s standout performance were also noted by critics.
| Aspect | Critics’ Consensus | Audience Reception |
|---|---|---|
| Originality | Criticized for closely mimicking the structure and story of the first film. Described as a poor imitation lacking originality. Noted for offering little new and shamelessly repeating events from the original. | Generally positive, with an “A−” rating on CinemaScore. |
| Character Development | Criticized for attempting to add depth to characters, with some feeling it fell flat. Murray’s character transition from aloof to warm received mixed reviews. Weaver’s character criticized for being underutilized and disconnected from Murray’s. | Mixed feelings, with some praising the actors’ interactions and MacNicol’s performance, while others found character development lacking, especially in comparison to the original. |
| Humor | Mixed reception, with some finding the film lacking laughs during public screenings. Murray’s performance received mixed reviews, with criticism of his smugness and lack of commitment to his trademark comedic indifference. Some praised Murray’s ad-libbed dialogue and comedic performance for balancing the film’s tone. | Generally found funnier and less extravagant than the original, with a cheerful tone. |
| Pacing | Criticized for poor pacing, with scenes dragging on and few standout moments. Described as mediocre and self-important, with fault attributed to the director for a lack of visual imagination. | Criticized for lacking the energy of the original and being too laid back, though special effects generally received praise. |
| Special Effects | Generally praised, with some calling them impressive, particularly moments like the ghostly Titanic. Slime and visuals deemed appealing to children, with adults potentially enjoying the witty dialogue. | Generally received praise for impressive special effects, though creatures were seen as lacking menace. |
| Performances | Murray’s performance received mixed reviews, with some finding bright moments but lacking his trademark energetic spark. Others criticized his smugness and constant smirking. MacNicol’s performance consistently praised as wickedly funny and a highlight of the film. Moranis also received praise for his comedic performance, particularly in the rewarding romantic subplot. | Varied opinions on Murray’s performance, with some finding it crucial to the film due to his ad-libbed dialogue, while others felt it lacked energy. MacNicol and Moranis praised for their comedic performances. |
3. Ghostbusters (2016)
Ghostbusters received generally positive reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a 74% approval rating based on 394 reviews, with an average rating of 6.5/10. The site’s critical consensus applauds its qualities as a standalone supernatural comedy with a strong cast, though it may not reach the heights of the original classic. Metacritic gives the film a score of 60 out of 100, indicating mixed or average reviews from 52 critics. Audience ratings were decent, with CinemaScore giving it a “B+” and PostTrak showing a 57% definite recommendation rate.
Manohla Dargis of The New York Times described the film as “a rare gem among big-studio productions—a movie that’s just fun to watch.” Nigel M. Smith of The Guardian awarded it four out of five stars, noting its enjoyable and energetic nature, despite pre-release criticism. Mike Ryan of Uproxx praised the characters but criticized the excessive use of CGI. J.R. Kinnard of PopMatters praised the performances and lack of cynicism but found it lacking in originality. The Village Voice acknowledged the film’s struggle to step out of the original’s shadow but praised the cast. Mara Reinstein of US Weekly rated it 2.5 out of 4, appreciating the actors but criticizing the slow start and uninspired action scenes.
Mark Kermode of the Observer gave the film three out of five stars, expressing disappointment that it didn’t silence its critics. He found it generally enjoyable but inconsistent. Richard Lawson of Vanity Fair felt the film was overly focused on its predecessor, failing to establish its own identity and wasting its talented cast. James Berardinelli deemed it mediocre, citing its excessive length and lack of humor. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times delivered a harsh review, criticizing the acting, script, and special effects, rating it one out of four stars and labeling it as one of the worst films of the year. Roeper’s radio review gave it a D− rating.
| Critic | Outlet | Rating/Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manohla Dargis | The New York Times | Positive | Describes it as “a rare gem among big-studio productions” |
| Nigel M. Smith | The Guardian | 4/5 stars | Despite pre-release criticism, found it filled with enjoyment and energy |
| Mike Ryan | Uproxx | Positive | Praised characters, criticized excessive CGI |
| J.R. Kinnard | PopMatters | Positive | Praised performances and lack of cynicism, found it lacking in originality |
| The Village Voice | – | Positive | Struggles to escape original’s shadow, praised cast |
| Mara Reinstein | US Weekly | 2.5/4 | Appreciated actors, criticized slow start and uninspired action scenes |
| Mark Kermode | Observer | 3/5 | Generally enjoyable but inconsistent |
| Richard Lawson | Vanity Fair | Negative | Preoccupied with predecessor, neglects to establish own identity, wastes talented cast |
| James Berardinelli | – | Negative | Mediocre, excessive length, lack of humor |
| Richard Roeper | Chicago Sun-Times | 1/4 stars, D− rating | Harsh review, criticizes acting, script, special effects, labels it as one of the worst films |
4. Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)
On Rotten Tomatoes, 63% of 306 critics’ reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.2/10. The general consensus is that “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” successfully combines nostalgia with a fresh take on the franchise, resulting in a mostly positive experience. Metacritic gives it a score of 45 out of 100 based on 47 critics, indicating mixed or average reviews. According to audience polls, the film received an “A−” grade from CinemaScore and an 82% positive score from PostTrak, with 69% saying they would definitely recommend it.
Sheri Linden of The Hollywood Reporter praised the film’s cast, noting their engaging performances and skill in delivering comedic moments. She highlighted the characters’ depth compared to the original film, reflecting the director’s focus on character-driven storytelling. Linden also drew comparisons between the film and popular works like Stranger Things, The Wizard of Oz, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Olly Richards of Empire gave the film a high rating, describing it as delightful and successfully introducing a new generation of characters while paying homage to the originals. Peter Debruge of Variety called the film unnecessary but enjoyable, reassuring fans that it doesn’t tarnish the legacy of the previous Ghostbusters movies.
William Bibbiani from TheWrap suggested that Ghostbusters: Afterlife will likely satisfy fans of the original Ghostbusters film, particularly those who enjoy discovering hidden references, but it may disappoint those seeking innovation. However, Bibbiani noted that even those with reservations could still appreciate the film’s polished and predictable craftsmanship. Scott Mendelson of Forbes rated the film 6 out of 10, describing it as a charming and witty coming-of-age fantasy geared toward kids. However, Mendelson criticized its reliance on nostalgic fan service, which he viewed as pandering. Kyle Smith of National Review praised the film as a delightful and heartfelt summer movie released in November, highlighting its ability to appeal to multiple generations. Conversely, The Guardian’s Charles Bramesco gave the film a low rating, criticizing its lack of humor compared to the original Ghostbusters and likening it to a generic “Amblin knockoff” reminiscent of Stranger Things. Bramesco concluded that the film feels like a manufactured nostalgia product lacking in personality.
| Source | Rating / Score |
|---|---|
| Sheri Linden (THR) | Praises cast and characters, notes similarities to other popular works |
| Olly Richards (Empire) | Describes as delightful, successfully introduces new characters while paying homage to originals |
| Peter Debruge (Variety) | Unnecessary but enjoyable, doesn’t diminish the legacy of previous Ghostbusters movies |
| William Bibbiani (TheWrap) | Likely pleases fans of the original, polished craftsmanship but may disappoint those seeking something new |
| Scott Mendelson (Forbes) | Charming and witty, criticized for reliance on nostalgic fan service |
| Kyle Smith (National Review) | Delightful and heartfelt, bridges generations |
| Charles Bramesco (The Guardian) | Low rating, lacks humor compared to the original, feels like a manufactured nostalgia product devoid of personality, akin to a generic “Amblin knockoff” |
5. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)
The movie “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” received mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, only 44% of critics liked it, with an average rating of 5.2/10. Many felt it offered some nostalgia but was held back by too many characters and a serious tone. It’s the lowest-rated film in the franchise on the site. Metacritic gave it a score of 45 out of 100, indicating mixed or average reviews. Audience surveys gave it a “B+” grade on CinemaScore and an 80% positive score on PostTrak, with 64% saying they would definitely recommend it.
Critics had mixed feelings about the movie “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” Robbie Collin from The Daily Telegraph gave it a one-star rating, criticizing it as a desperate attempt driven solely by commercial interests. Wendy Ide from The Observer gave it two stars, saying it doesn’t fully utilize its young cast and lacks originality. Jake Wilson from The Age gave it 2.5 out of 5 stars, highlighting the performances of Aykroyd and Grace but noting a lack of emotional depth. CNN’s Brian Lowry described it as a busy film with the wrong focus on characters, resulting in a cold and lifeless experience compared to its predecessor.
Richard Roeper from the Chicago Sun-Times gave the movie “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” a positive review, rating it three out of four stars. He praised its fun and nerdy spirit, with a good mix of ghostly action, witty lines, impressive visual effects, and nostalgic references to the original film. Jake Coyle from the Associated Press gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars, considering it an improvement over the previous installment and a more enjoyable sequel with a charming 80s-style family adventure vibe.
| Critic | Outlet | Rating | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robbie Collin | The Daily Telegraph | ★☆☆☆☆ | Described as a desperate attempt driven solely by commercial interests. |
| Wendy Ide | The Observer | ★★☆☆☆ | Criticized for not fully utilizing its young cast and lacking originality. |
| Jake Wilson | The Age | ★★½☆☆ | Highlighted performances but noted a lack of emotional depth. |
| Brian Lowry | CNN | N/A | Described as a busy film with the wrong focus on characters, resulting in a cold and lifeless experience compared to its predecessor. |
| Richard Roeper | Chicago Sun-Times | ★★★☆☆ | Praised for its fun and nerdy spirit, with a good mix of ghostly action, witty lines, impressive visual effects, and nostalgic references to the original film. |
| Jake Coyle | Associated Press | ★★½☆☆ | Considered it an improvement over the previous installment and a more enjoyable sequel with a charming 80s-style family adventure vibe. |
