Thirty years ago, the Ghostbusters saved new York from an invasion of ghosts, but now the city is again threatened. Past heroes can't be on his defense, but there are other brave people, who dedicated his life to the study of paranormal phenomena. Abby Yates is teaming up with Erin Gilbert, perhaps the best expert in quantum physics, and together they collect a team of new Ghostbusters, which take a great engineer Jillian Holzman, a subway employee Patty Tolan, who know the city inside out, and the Secretary — of the handsome Kevin. Together, they begin the struggle with the evil force terrorizing the metropolis...

  • Paul Feig

Release Date: 2016-07-15
IMDb icon 5.2/10
  • Country: AU, US
  • Language: English
  • Runtime: 1h:56m
  • Budget: $144,000,000
  • Revenue: $128,344,089
Reeva Kopple
30 May 2017 | 01:55

Going to film I was expecting something average. Was hoping for a good adaptation of those most Hunters, but actually got THIS movie.

The cast picked is good, that's just playing stupid characters. In the time view, you receive a lot of questions. One of the questions: Where did they take money for rent new equipment, if the whole film they  caught 1 cast. And second question: What the hell are they kill the ghosts? It was created by a bunch of weapons for murder and because the ghosts and already dead.

All say that the film reveals the theme of feminism, but he is very sexist. Male characters, all like the one shown blunt or clogged. And their background, the main character needs to seem just samples of adequacy, but even does not smell.

Of humor too much for the film. One and the same joke can be heard twice, but and three times for a short period of time. The only joke on which you can laugh — this is a joke, and Holzmann, but and not on all.

In General the film more for fan of comedies than fiction.

Zahara Carleton
15 August 2016 | 02:40

I am aware that as a reviewer, I now write callout, but at a ratio of 14 18 this site needs.

Start with that the film "hunter of Ghost" is good. It is not a masterpiece, not innovation not something else. It is a good summer blockbuster entertainment that is pleasant to watch with friends. He no better and not worse than others strong, no what not applying, entertaining summer blockbusters.

It does have strong points and there weak points, such as at start and a little helpless in some places the soundtrack. There's moments in all the films of this genre. Because they are made to in order to be a masterpiece. And made for entertaining.

But at this time happened so good, strong, spectacular blockbuster entertainment this summer entertains not a male audience. Not need to shout "I don't chauvinist (sexist in this case, chauvinism is not about it), you just need to sit down and admit it. That is why you are boring, that's why you don't like, just because in once, the movie took off not for you. And out that little girl, which is the trailers before the movie yells, "Boo!" on seeing the screen of a stereotypical heterosexual couple. For these four girlfriends who, after watching the film, I'll drink a Mojito, remembering how someone they probably interviewed the same Kevin. For that girl who loves to play in the Team Fortress for Piro on the stage where Holzman gets the the well-known "main output weird guy" at her heart skipped a beat because it now see the screen is something that 100% about her.

Hunters are also good that it just to those not the notorious "strong women". That there are women who put on the masculine hero and make all his stereotypically-masculine job, simultaneously pleasing the male gaze. As and the original hunters, the hunter is not endowed with outstanding qualities attributed to representatives of their floor. As and the original hunters, today's hunter absolutely ordinary. Therefore, to empathize with them easily, easy to put yourself on their place. In boy I had a bunch of examples of really cool and strong women, Princess Shi-RA, Wonder Woman, Storm, but they were so good, me, little girl, it seemed that I've never going, so I easier to associate themselves with Marty McFly or Han Solo. They were common. Just like the current hunters. And that is what I missed.

The movie very accurately follows the structure of the original. The team managed to pass even the theatricality inherent in the old film because of what the picture looks nostalgic, despite the fancy special effects. Cameo the original cast of well-written in the canvas paintings and also pleasing to the eye. Perhaps as once because of too deep curtsey in the direction of classics in 2016, the painting was misunderstood young audience (especially Russian). Now is not accepted to shout replica face to create images that can now be found only in superhero animation. And if all listed in the hunters original or classic trilogy "Back to the future" looks a nice chap, in the new movie found cool from the lack of habit.

In the end I want to repeat: this film girls. Girls, girls, women and ladies, who are always satisfied with what tried to themselves of the male characters, hunters treasure, ghosts, and the captains of starships. Hunter of Ghost is a movie you about you not spare his money, because is a movie you need to support. To see our daughters grow up with same big dreams, like for centuries grown sons.

Kathy Farmer
23 September 2016 | 08:32

Another example of parasitism Hollywood on his own past. Instead of creatively enrich the validity of different new original concepts, the viewer slips product that plays on nostalgia.

"Hunters ghosts" are exactly what you can expect from a remake of the original paintings in 1984 after more than 30 years. In the modern remakes and restarts are more common than the withered leaves in autumn. And not first not the least of them. The Internet literally destroyed the painting even before the premiere: a lot of fans felt that they desecrate the Shrine. Not have to be so categorical, but many of the attacks are quite fair. The original work was a good family film, so the revival of "Hunters" should be approached with great care and attention to detail. Here "family" component was buried under the base action. Paul Feig, according to all translated most of the budget for fights between hunters and supernatural enemies. Hell Yes all campaign at this was built! But 2016 — it's not a time when computer ghosts could inspire awe. Good special effects have are the standard, so the lawlessness of ghosts in new York expected. Therefore, relying on the effects component of the story pushed.

The plot is crude and painfully familiar. At large, it is simply copy the original; even the characters are left with almost no changes. The only thing that can be considered for the innovation — the addition of the antagonist that creates the whole town cars, generating paranormal activity? But who is this villain? Some guy who is so boring that I don't even remember its name. Of course, not to say that the negative characters in old paintings Shine with originality, but they would remember, had at least some background and could be able to catch up with fear. Here villain just scary and not funny, but and simply uninteresting. Also in the picture has a lot of plot holes (they are here hundreds).

For a humorous component. Is it possible laugh viewing time? Yes. Most of the scenes with the fool, played by Chris Hemsworth, funny enough. Perhaps in the first because not exactly what you can expect from the performer of the role of the Torah. Kate McKinnon also raises a smile, although its strangeness, for large, annoying. Comedy itself is not so funny, how could be, but not worth it to carry in down and ashes.

In addition, there are several negative aspects. First, it is aggressive product placement pizzerias "Papa John". Secondly, it is ridiculous cameo. If we ignore the completely pointless cameo by Dan Ackroyd (obviously, scene it failed to failing; could think of a hundred better jokes in this moment) and Sigourney weaver, the bill Murray do no place to same not funny.

The last remark. I agree that the new version of the song "Ghostbusters" is horrible. Perhaps added solely for soothe the fans.

Conclusion. After watching, I asked a single question: "How interesting was the film, though he came not under the iconic brand beloved predecessor?". The answer to this question is disappointing: a mediocre Comedy, which doesn't deserve praise. But do not blame the new "Hunters haunted" more than they deserve. In the end, it just low-quality picture, created on the wave restarts.

PS Many accused people that the film is not like in the sexism. Say, basic attacks related to the change of the sexes of the characters. If the creators of the so I wanted to restart the franchise, based on the total conversion of the characters, then why would not to take the basis of the hunters of the animated series of the 90s? There is certainly no cheated: there were a hipster, and woman black and even people with disabilities. Most it for 2016.

4 and 10

How long is Ghostbusters?
2h 36m
How much has Ghostbusters made?
Commercial tv-show fees worldwide today are $128,344,089.
How much did it cost to make Ghostbusters?
According to various sources, the cost of producing the tv-show was at least $144,000,000.
Who is the director of the movie Ghostbusters?
This tv-show was directed by Paul Feig.
What is the genre of Ghostbusters?
The tv-show belongs to the genres of Action, Comedy, Fantasy, Best Comedy Movies 2016, Best Fantasy & Sci-fi Movies 2016.
Who starred in Ghostbusters?
Many famous actors starred in this tv-show, here are the names of the most famous: Zach Woods, Kristen Wiig, Ed Begley Jr., Charles Dance, John Milhiser.
What is Ghostbusters IMDB Ranking?
At the moment, the rating is 5.2.
When was Ghostbusters released?
The start date for this tv-show on USA TV is 2016-07-15.