A investigadora paranormal Abby Yates, a física Erin Gilbert, a engenheira Jillian Holtzmann e a metroviária Patty Tolan se unem para investigar estranhas aparições de fantasmas que começam ... Ler tudoA investigadora paranormal Abby Yates, a física Erin Gilbert, a engenheira Jillian Holtzmann e a metroviária Patty Tolan se unem para investigar estranhas aparições de fantasmas que começam a ocorrer em Manhattan.A investigadora paranormal Abby Yates, a física Erin Gilbert, a engenheira Jillian Holtzmann e a metroviária Patty Tolan se unem para investigar estranhas aparições de fantasmas que começam a ocorrer em Manhattan.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 5 vitórias e 24 indicações no total
Dave Allen
- Electrocuted Ghost
- (as Dave Gruber Allen)
6,8254.5K
Atividade incomum
Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighting calculation has been applied.
Avaliações em destaque
It's a sad reality when a beloved movie is resurrected only to be mutilated by a misguided attempt at relevance. The remake of Ghostbusters is a prime example of how Hollywood can take an iconic property and reduce it to a soulless, pandering mess. This feeble attempt to recapture the magic of the original movie falls flat on every conceivable level, leaving fans and newcomers alike utterly disappointed.
From the outset, the movie's biggest flaw is its painfully contrived script. The weak plot feels like a sheer afterthought, serving as a mere backdrop for desperate attempts at humor. The "jokes," if they can even be called that, are painfully unfunny and rely heavily on crude humor and slapstick gags. This shallow and lazy approach to comedy lacks the wit, intelligence, and subtlety that made the original Ghostbusters so memorable.
The casting choices, touted as a progressive move, only further contribute to the movie's downfall. While the original movie had a dynamic ensemble that oozed chemistry and charisma, the remake feels like a jumbled mess. The main characters are nothing more than cardboard cutouts. The lack of depth and development in their roles is astonishing, making it impossible to connect with or care about their journey.
Moreover, the movie's blatant pandering and gender-swapping of the main characters is a disservice to the legacy of the original. Instead of focusing on crafting a compelling storyline and well-rounded characters, the movie relies on hollow gender politics as its primary selling point. This misguided attempt at social commentary only serves to overshadow the movie's flaws, and it feels like a cheap marketing ploy rather than a genuine creative choice.
Even the visual effects, which should have been a redeeming aspect, are lackluster. The CGI-heavy spectacles lack the charm and practicality of the original movie's effects, feeling more like a soulless video game than a cinematic experience. The iconic ghosts and paranormal encounters lose their mystique and become nothing more than flashy distractions.
In the end, the remake of Ghostbusters is a painful reminder of the consequences of Hollywood's obsession with cashing in on nostalgia. It fails to capture the spirit and magic of the original movie, instead opting for a shallow, derivative attempt that tarnishes the franchise's reputation. Fans of the original should steer clear of this abysmal remake, as it serves as a disservice to the legacy of the original and the beloved characters that captivate audiences worldwide.
From the outset, the movie's biggest flaw is its painfully contrived script. The weak plot feels like a sheer afterthought, serving as a mere backdrop for desperate attempts at humor. The "jokes," if they can even be called that, are painfully unfunny and rely heavily on crude humor and slapstick gags. This shallow and lazy approach to comedy lacks the wit, intelligence, and subtlety that made the original Ghostbusters so memorable.
The casting choices, touted as a progressive move, only further contribute to the movie's downfall. While the original movie had a dynamic ensemble that oozed chemistry and charisma, the remake feels like a jumbled mess. The main characters are nothing more than cardboard cutouts. The lack of depth and development in their roles is astonishing, making it impossible to connect with or care about their journey.
Moreover, the movie's blatant pandering and gender-swapping of the main characters is a disservice to the legacy of the original. Instead of focusing on crafting a compelling storyline and well-rounded characters, the movie relies on hollow gender politics as its primary selling point. This misguided attempt at social commentary only serves to overshadow the movie's flaws, and it feels like a cheap marketing ploy rather than a genuine creative choice.
Even the visual effects, which should have been a redeeming aspect, are lackluster. The CGI-heavy spectacles lack the charm and practicality of the original movie's effects, feeling more like a soulless video game than a cinematic experience. The iconic ghosts and paranormal encounters lose their mystique and become nothing more than flashy distractions.
In the end, the remake of Ghostbusters is a painful reminder of the consequences of Hollywood's obsession with cashing in on nostalgia. It fails to capture the spirit and magic of the original movie, instead opting for a shallow, derivative attempt that tarnishes the franchise's reputation. Fans of the original should steer clear of this abysmal remake, as it serves as a disservice to the legacy of the original and the beloved characters that captivate audiences worldwide.
I'm afraid this is not a good film.
I like some things of it. Some people complain about the CGI but I really think the monsters/phantasm were good and it's the only one thing that is better than the OG (obviously due to tech limitations at that time). I also think some of the scenes at the end work even they are merely a copy of the OG and not better than it. I also liked some of the origin details, like the logo or the song.
However, this film has 4 major issues:
1st, the cast. Leslie Jones is the best one, she knows when to do her thing, when to stop, when to listen, she is funny, it doesn't feel forced. McKinnon is super praised and I get why. Even if I didn't love her role - sometimes it seems she replaced the lack of any substance by weird expressions all the time - she is charismatic and I can clearly see her working very well with a better plot. But then...Melissa McCarthy is so bland here, so insipid, I can't even remember a single take from her. Wigg, on the other hand...I would prefer to forget what I remember. There is one good moment from her (when she met Hemsworth character) but all the rest is super annoying, super unnatural and not funny. Hemsworth's role is funny (in fact, the funniest when it works) and good to see until...it's too repetitive and more of the same.
2nd, the plot/story. I'm still trying to find out how do you want to reboot a classic film with this story to tell. It doesn't make sense. It would work potentially as a stand-alone episode if they decided to create a TV series with 12 episodes per season, as a film is not enough. After 15 minutes, I don't even remember the villain and why he did what he did. I don't understand how things scalated so quickly.
3rd, the editing. What an atrocious thing. This film would work so much better with less 20/25 minutes, with much less stupid (and weak) jokes...sometimes you can even see when they did several takes with scenes not matching from different angles. Yeah, that bad.
I like some things of it. Some people complain about the CGI but I really think the monsters/phantasm were good and it's the only one thing that is better than the OG (obviously due to tech limitations at that time). I also think some of the scenes at the end work even they are merely a copy of the OG and not better than it. I also liked some of the origin details, like the logo or the song.
However, this film has 4 major issues:
1st, the cast. Leslie Jones is the best one, she knows when to do her thing, when to stop, when to listen, she is funny, it doesn't feel forced. McKinnon is super praised and I get why. Even if I didn't love her role - sometimes it seems she replaced the lack of any substance by weird expressions all the time - she is charismatic and I can clearly see her working very well with a better plot. But then...Melissa McCarthy is so bland here, so insipid, I can't even remember a single take from her. Wigg, on the other hand...I would prefer to forget what I remember. There is one good moment from her (when she met Hemsworth character) but all the rest is super annoying, super unnatural and not funny. Hemsworth's role is funny (in fact, the funniest when it works) and good to see until...it's too repetitive and more of the same.
2nd, the plot/story. I'm still trying to find out how do you want to reboot a classic film with this story to tell. It doesn't make sense. It would work potentially as a stand-alone episode if they decided to create a TV series with 12 episodes per season, as a film is not enough. After 15 minutes, I don't even remember the villain and why he did what he did. I don't understand how things scalated so quickly.
3rd, the editing. What an atrocious thing. This film would work so much better with less 20/25 minutes, with much less stupid (and weak) jokes...sometimes you can even see when they did several takes with scenes not matching from different angles. Yeah, that bad.
6.8?!?! How is this rated higher than the 1989 sequel?!?
This movie was awful. Like, really bad. I'm a huge Ghostbusters fan, but this was not it. Such a pointless movie to make, terribly acted and I'm pretty sure the rating was rigged somehow. Either that, or people have terrible taste in movies. The other three movies in the franchise were great, but this was horrible. Only thing remotely enjoyable (if I had to choose SOMETHING) was the cameo appearances by some of the original cast. Other than that... ummm... hmmm... cure for insomnia.
And that's it. Don't waste you time. Watch anything else.....
This movie was awful. Like, really bad. I'm a huge Ghostbusters fan, but this was not it. Such a pointless movie to make, terribly acted and I'm pretty sure the rating was rigged somehow. Either that, or people have terrible taste in movies. The other three movies in the franchise were great, but this was horrible. Only thing remotely enjoyable (if I had to choose SOMETHING) was the cameo appearances by some of the original cast. Other than that... ummm... hmmm... cure for insomnia.
And that's it. Don't waste you time. Watch anything else.....
I passionately dislike this movie as a Ghostbusters movie. Let alone the fact that it's also a bad movie but it's just- no! Rated higher than Ghostbusters II and they call themselves critics!? Its the worst in the series. Not in a sexist way but they might've created some of the dumbest most boring characters ever. Afterlife, though there isn't much development they still had decent characters (Paul Rudd was good but unfunny) It's just really stupid and to corny. I know Ghostbusters is a comedy series in general but this is just brainless and unfunny mish mash of a generic alien invasion film but with ghosts. . Yeah, it's got some alright ghosts and good VFX but it 50% just recycles the plot of the original! I mean if you "critics" are still gonna give Ghostbusters II a what, like 5? Well at least it has a unique story! It's just like your usual horror/science fiction "Oh look the paranormal is haunting all of the city!" Thing. It just tries to be chaotic and cinematic and you know what!? Its just a disgusting monster mess. Bad humor, unoriginal plot, but some cool ghosts and ghouls!
I don't know, even after many years this one is still controversial. I think it's cooled down a lot with another "Ghostbusters" film being released since this one. The original 1984 movie is kind of a "lightning-in-a-bottle" type deal. The sequel with the original cast altogether wasn't that great. The "Force Awakens" style Hollywood nostalgia money grab wasn't pretty mediocre. This remake is awful. You can make a movie like "Ghostbusters" or "Back to the Future" that just has a very original plot and concept, and no matter how badly you want the dollars that came with it, it's always gonna be a hollow attempt.
Man, this one is very bad though. Like almost insufferably obnoxious and stupid. It's disappointing because I honestly have nothing bad to say about any of the people who worked on the film. I liked a lot of the cast members in other projects like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Office." Chris Hemsworth is really funny, but they didn't even try to give us any chemistry between him and Kristin Wiig like they were teasing throughout the whole film. Not even anything like a funny joke. Just short little jokes about how sexy she thought he was or something.
The story is more or less a retread of the original's plot points, but I can at least give them the complement that it's a different one? Like at least not a beat-for-beat remake? Kristin Wiig's character is the only Ghostbuster that I liked, all three of the other ones really got on my nerves and the actresses all seemed like they were trying way too hard to just force jokes that didn't come naturally. I was laughing at some points, but at most of the others they just fell completely flat on their face.
Really terrible special effects and awful jokes mixed with extremely obnoxious forced attempts at poop and queef humor (yes there was a terrible queef joke in this that obviously went over like a wet fart) made this one incredibly hard to watch. And for that reason I would only recommend this movie to those with a very high level of curiosity or if you're a "Ghostbusters" fanatic, which I guess by this point most of them have already made up their minds on the 2016 version. It gets relegated to a footnote in movie history, like "hey remember back in 2016 when they tried to remake 'Ghostbusters' with an all-female cast?" That's really all there is to it.
Man, this one is very bad though. Like almost insufferably obnoxious and stupid. It's disappointing because I honestly have nothing bad to say about any of the people who worked on the film. I liked a lot of the cast members in other projects like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Office." Chris Hemsworth is really funny, but they didn't even try to give us any chemistry between him and Kristin Wiig like they were teasing throughout the whole film. Not even anything like a funny joke. Just short little jokes about how sexy she thought he was or something.
The story is more or less a retread of the original's plot points, but I can at least give them the complement that it's a different one? Like at least not a beat-for-beat remake? Kristin Wiig's character is the only Ghostbuster that I liked, all three of the other ones really got on my nerves and the actresses all seemed like they were trying way too hard to just force jokes that didn't come naturally. I was laughing at some points, but at most of the others they just fell completely flat on their face.
Really terrible special effects and awful jokes mixed with extremely obnoxious forced attempts at poop and queef humor (yes there was a terrible queef joke in this that obviously went over like a wet fart) made this one incredibly hard to watch. And for that reason I would only recommend this movie to those with a very high level of curiosity or if you're a "Ghostbusters" fanatic, which I guess by this point most of them have already made up their minds on the 2016 version. It gets relegated to a footnote in movie history, like "hey remember back in 2016 when they tried to remake 'Ghostbusters' with an all-female cast?" That's really all there is to it.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesAlthough Harold Ramis passed away in 2014 and thus could not make a cameo alongside his fellow castmates, there is a bust of Ramis' head just outside of Erin's university office near the beginning of the film. The bust was later donated to the Harold Ramis Film School at Chicago's Second City, where Ramis began his career.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhen you see the second shot of the outside of the Chinese restaurant/Ghostbusters base of operation (right after the subway train encounter), you can see the Ecto in the garage...this is before they even got the car from Patty. However, this mistake was digitally removed for the Blu-ray release.
- Citações
Patty Tolan: [about Rowan's huge transformation] What part of "small and friendly" did he not understand?
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosIn the post-credit scene after the credits are over, you see the girls in their lab. Patty has on a headset and is listening to an audio tape, repeating one section several times. Erin asks if she has something. Patty answers, "What's Zuul?"
- Versões alternativasExtended BluRay version is 2hs 13 mins long.
- Trilhas sonorasGhostbusters
Written and Performed by Ray Parker Jr. (as Ray Parker, Jr.)
Courtesy of Raydio Music Corp.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Ghostbusters?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Cazafantasmas
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 144.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 128.350.574
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 46.018.755
- 17 de jul. de 2016
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 229.147.509
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 57 min(117 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente