Rent Ghostbusters 3 (2016)

Weak, Silly, CGI-fest, Unfunny, All-female sequel full of new gender and race stereotyping. - Ghostbusters 3 review by PV

This is a weak pc metoo version of a classic 80s comedy movie. Hollywood keeps doing this now - remaking old movies with all women casts. The results are usually awful and they all flop.

To be fair, this starts relatively well - I enjoyed the first act.

After that, it went rapidly downhill, with silly CGI overload scenes, loads of girly silliness, loads of stereotyped moron and/or baddie men. I almost turned off but decided to yawn it out.

It is true women were stereotyped in the past in films - yes, and so were men. They still are - the only difference is the stereotypes have changed. Now almost every Hollywood movie has to have the obligatory stereotyped sassy black woman (and these 2-d performances even win Oscars). Next time I see a sassy black mama in a Hollywood movie I am turning off.

I just hope Hollywood stops pandering to angry MeToo feminists and remaking all old movies as preachy feminist statements with all-female casts. What next - an all-female Lawrence of Arabia? A man-free Saving Private Ryan with silly Hollywood identikit actresses in pink uniforms defeating the nasty-wasty men AKA nazis? STOP IT. Just STOP IT. End the diversity-worshipping, the box-ticking casting and the preachy polemic and lectures. And the BBC should stop it too (looking at you Dr Who are almost every other UK TV drama).

1.5 stars rounded up.

Drivel - Ghostbusters 3 review by DH

I havent had less fun since the last time I had root canal surgery. You should avoid this movie like a healthy dose of the clap, COVID, leprosy and ebola combined. Zero laughs, zero interest, just nearly two hours of resisting the urge to put your foot through the TV and the injustice of this film even being given the coveted and time-honoured title of 'Ghostbusters'.

Don't be afraid of no ghosts, be afraid of the people who go sooooo angry about this film - Ghostbusters 3 review by Strovey

Who would have thought that in 2022 one of the most controversial films I would have given an opinion about was an all-female-lead remake of 1984’s Ghostbusters? But this is the world we live in nowadays. So let us start with a concise summary, Ghostbusters (2016) is nowhere near as awful as people made out six years ago and ever since. It is entertaining enough. It is not a great film and so flawed it could open a shop to sell the excess flaws it has but equally it has not precipitated the end of the world and Leslie Jones is not the Devil Incarnate.

It is fair to question the wisdom of remaking the original Ghostbusters, but it is likewise fair not to judge it on a film that was 32 years old and viewed through the prism of youth and in various people’s cases childhood. What you remember then and what occurs now are not only different countries but different planets. Clearly people clearly cannot let go of the past and have not really grown up.

Having said this, I am not going to be the champion of Feig’s Ghostbusters either. Using all female leads is well-intentioned and actually a promising idea but it is executed poorly. The main problem? This brings nothing new to the story, other than gender. That is it. If we are going to champion female actors and make films for them, and we should, there is plenty of room in the world of filmmaking, give them something to work with, give them a distinctive voice, say this is what women bring to this world. Too many times, with the best intentions I am sure, producers, writers, directors, even the actors themselves look at a story or film and just replace all the male leads with female leads, put a reference to tampons or other ‘women thing’ in and say, ‘job done’. It is not, it is lazy thinking, pat and doing a huge disservice.

Herein lies the rub, Ghostbusters is a giant Saturday Night Live sketch, with female members of that cast, and somehow what could be a strong point is fumbled.

Considering the extended version of this Ghostbusters is well over 2 hours long we have no real character development and just seem to pop onto CGI ghost set piece to the next set piece. I still could not really work out what suitably weird and creepy villain Rowan North [Neil Casey] was trying to do and in the end gave up trying to figure it out. Watch the ghostly stuff and laugh at any funny bits. This is how you spend your time but it does not necessarily make a good film.

Terrible - Ghostbusters 3 review by Veronika movies

What a waste... embarrassment to the original ghostbusters. It is not a sequel, but feels rather like a low budget remake. Not funny, not engaging, and simply dumb. Can't believe Chris Hemsworth signed up for this garbage.

as above - Ghostbusters 3 review by CP Customer

why are they talking in half sentences??? the script makes no sense. I have never heard conversations like this. fine ,make a film with female protagonists but make a new film! its extremely fertile ground the idea of exorcists in new york , there are a million interesting stories to tell, i could pitch you some now that would be better, so why this boring one and why are they so rude to their (male) secretary. the script writer should be flogged, mercilessly, with a cold wet lettuce!

Ghostbusters are back - Ghostbusters 3 review by CP Customer

Very good movie this is a remake of the original 1984 movie melissa McCarthy is very funny in this movie back to bust out ghosts cameos from bill Murray and Dan ackroyd are also here too

It's fine, better than most remakes - Ghostbusters 3 review by Christopher Chiu-Tabet

To the surprise of no one who saw Bridesmaids, The Heat and Spy, it’s an enjoyable if sometimes scrappy film populated by talented comic actresses whom you’ll definitely want to spend more time with as the credits roll. Leslie Jones was particularly enjoyable, probably because the character she played would have been relegated to bit player in any other blockbuster. (Contrastively, Chris Hemsworth’s secretary is far too dumb to be believable.) The climax is at least far more spectacular and emotional than the original, instilling a sense of jeopardy it could not, and even including a nod to Dan Akroyd’s unproduced Hellbent script. There’s definitely one area the new Ghostbusters trumps the original; like Ghostbusters II, the villain (played by Neil Casey) is far more creepy than Zuul.

Full review here: https://medium.com/@CCTabet/ghostbusters-reboots-and-the-benefits-of-low-expectations-26903c4f3f82