Ghostbusters (2016) – Nostalgia Critic

I ain’t afraid of no reboot! The Nostalgia Critic tackles the 2016 Ghostbusters movie.

Donate to this week’s charity here

About Doug Walker

Creator of 5 Second Movies, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews and more.


  1. And here I was hoping the comments would be disabled.

  2. MidnightScreeningsman2014

    Last place comment :'(

    • MidnightScreeningsman2014

      This review was genius and up there with some of the best clipless stuff you’ve ever done on the nostalgia critic. You can like it or if you don’t like it that’d fine but just remember dont judge other people because they liked a movie when you didn’t (I’ll be looking at you trolls who thumb down this comment)!!!

      Personally I’m on the critics side and Brad too I thought it was average(OK if you will call it that) thought the cast had great chemistry and that the stuff in it that was good was good. Of course it improves on stuff(mainly the action and effects in my opinion) I even loved that Doug pointed out the female slimer cause I thought it was cute that they gave him a female love interest.

      I will point out the movies flaws mainly that it doesn’t explain stuff well but it was a decent one for me and I also think we can all safely say that at least the remake was better than Ghostbusters 2

      Now the next NC review is a film that stars Will Smith and they like it less than Independence Day. I’m betting on it being Shark Tale but any other thoughts?

  3. In the event of a Ghostbusters reboot, get under the desk, cover your head with your hands, and kiss your ass goodbye.

  4. ThatManWithTheHeadband12

    The episode was fantastic, especially its cast and message, even if some of the review fudged certain things. Spectacularly handled

    • Having not seen the movie, I don’t know what you mean by “fudged some things”. But I’m intrigued. Care to elaborate?

      • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

        Switched the order of two scenes (Erin reading Rowan’s copy of her book came AFTER they confronted him and he killed himself), the timing of when Patty told them about her ghost encounter, the inaccurate showing of how Rowan possessed Kevin, and basically ignoring the entire ending, where he assumed that the government would sweep everything away when in actuality they started funding the Ghostbusters’ effort (apologies for the spoiler). And Ernie Hudson didn’t just drop by as implied here, he was Patty’s uncle picking up his Hearse which had fallen into the portal

  5. I’m a woman who hates this movie. I found it to be misogynistic pile of puke. Especially how Erin acts around Kevin. It was also incredibly unfunny. Still miles better than the Star Trek reboots. Or as I call them, Star Wreck.

    People are only giving it a pass cause it’s an all female cast – and frankly, that’s equally as sexist dismissing it for being an all female cast.

    This could’ve been good if they had done it as a Ghostbusters 3, focusing on the Ghostbusters being a franchise and the surviving original cast could pick a team to take over the business. It could still have an all female Ghostbusters, but they could’ve had the torch officially handed to them and have to prove themselves to others in the franchise rather than this reboot crap.

    • You are what makes the fanbase strong and good. I thank you so much! -hugs-

    • Funny thing about you calling Star Trek reboots Star Wreck is that there is fan made Star Trek parody at that name by same guy who created Iron Sky.

    • I liked it. I thought it was funny. I liked the effects, the variety of action, I liked the improv, and I liked the characters. For me this was a solidly good movie.

      Humor is subjective.

      • Nobody in this comment thread is making the argument that humor isn’t subjective. You’re asserting your opinion where nobody is arguing against it, directly or otherwise, in the first place. You must have not actually watched the review, because that’s kind of the point it was trying to make.

      • It’s subjective – yes. But there is no denial that there are different qualities. There are many different tools and strategies on how to create a joke/funny situation. There is smart humor, there is very simple and childish humor, and a lot in between.

        And for me the humor in this movie was the worst thing about it after the shallow characters. I pretty much cringed from the beginning to the end.
        There was not one joke for that you would need more than max. 3 words to describe what it’s punchline was. Not one joke where they dared to risk that even the most stupid person on earth would not be able to get it.

        Compared to this new Ghostbusters movie, the “Scary Movie” movies were freaking genius. (And the humor in those was already so low, it would even make a stoner face palm.)

        ps: “My opinion is subjective!” is no shield that blocks out other opinions and criticism 😉 In the end it’s not about what opinions people have – it’s about what arguments they use to support them. An opinion without argumentation is worthless. It’s like Donald Trump talking about how “many” Americans would feel about a topic, rather than actually referring to some real statistics or facts.

    • The Real Silverstar

      “People are only giving it a pass cause it’s an all female cast – and frankly, that’s equally as sexist dismissing it for being an all female cast.”

      IN YOUR OPINION. Kindly refrain from making snap generalizations and acting like you speak for the public when that’s just how you feel.

      Maybe, just maybe, folks are giving this movie a pass because they legitimately thought it was an OK film, or at least just not worth spewing a ton of bile about. Unless you’re a telepath who’s in constant contact with every sentient mind on the planet, you don’t know how others feel.

      I have yet to hear anyone rave: “Yeahhh! This movie rules ’cause it’s all women!” Sure, it showed girls that it’s OK for them to want to be or play Ghostbusters, but many of them were doing that already; they didn’t need a movie to tell them that. And even if some folks DID dig that this cast was all ladies, well, so effing what? That’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. That’s not “just as sexist as dismissing it for being an all-female cast”, unless anyone is implicitly stating that men suck and they didn’t deserve to be Busters in the movie, and again I haven’t heard anyone say that. What it is is actually MAKING THINGS MORE EQUAL. Hollywood has had numerous opportunities to keep things equal along gender lines, but they haven’t done a spectacular job at that.

      If this flick isn’t you personal cup of tea, then fine, say that, but kindly spare us the soapbox BS, ’cause BS is precisely what that is.

      • you say it makes things more equal, except not only did he erase the original main cast when doing so was completely unnecessary to bring in an all-female team, but the way men were portrayed in this film is far, far worse than how women were portrayed in the original. Compare the secretaries between films, a smart and qualified girl in the original who was hired purely for her qualifications and not her looks vs a super hunk who was clearly hired entirely for his looks as he demonstrates over and over just how unqualified he is for the job.

        • Actually Melissa McCartney and Leslie Jones’s characters DIDN’T want to hire him. Only Erin’s character did. In fact when she quickly said, “Yopu’re hired.” BOTH Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy look at her like, “Are you kidding?”

          Join the discussion

          • That’s not really a good excuse for the writer/director why his movie is so sexist. “Well not all my characters wanted that! Now please go away and let me wash my hands in innocence. Ahhhh…. innocence.”

          • using Kevin as the hard evidence of misandry/sexism against males in Hollywood is really stupid

            in that sense, Lou Dorchen is the king of misandry

        • Yeah, don’t you just hate it when the only central character of your gender is just there to be dumb eye candy. Women have NEVER had to deal with that before. [obvious sarcasm]

          • Yeah, becos it makes sense to make fun out of bad tropes with females in movie by flipping they gender…In a series that lacked those things. Seriously, what kind of explanation is this? This is still Ghostbusters movie, so why are we getting flat characters when in originals, both men and females were cool? If that movie wanted to make fun out of those tropes, then why make it a ghostbusters movie? Oh yeah, money maney green salad.

          • Both genders were portrayed as being flawed in both movies. thus you’re argument makes no sense. Of course Columbia Pictures wanted to make money from the Ghostbuters franchise; it was making too much money in merchandising for them to just sit on it and not doing anything with it. Also, you might want to sit down for this one, but…making money is the goal of EVERY movie!

          • “thus you’re argument makes no sense”
            Making an empty claim doesn’t make you win an argumentation buddy.

            Also you are twisting other peoples words to make your claim even possible.

            Nobody was saying that the characters in the original Ghostbusters movies were perfect or flawless.
            It’s human to have flaws. But they were depicted as realistic, respectable, intelligent human being – unlike in this reboot/remake.

          • Because modern feminism isn’t able to make statements in a smart and cool way?

          • Oh, it’s the classic “But the others are doing it too!” argument, that kids use out of desperation when they get caught by their parents.

            Good parents teach their kids that this can’t be an excuse.

          • yeah, it does suck, which is why I’m against it for both genders. Flipping the table doesn’t help things, it only antagonizes people and comes off as being a double standard.

      • Um, yeah. She said it. It’s her opinion. Just like you didn’t say “In my opinion, you are wrong.”

    • I didn’t get the stuff with Erin either. Feig is Mr. Feminist to the point where is almost a misandrist. I see your treatment of “Erin” and raise you how… Every. Single. Male character in this movie is portrayed. Weak-willed and/or dumb. The guy in the opening pees his pants when scared, the venue owner has a girlish scream, the mayor is dumb and needs his female assistant/vice-mayor to speak for him, Kevin is too dumb to breathe (well to see or hear), Ronin is an introverted asshole, every male character is portrayed poorly.

      But Erin getting gushy over someone as dumb as Kevin is silly. She’s smart woman who was up for tenure at Columbia University, she has a doctorate and is highly respected in that regard (sans the ghost-girl book) why would she have any interest in someone as dim as Kevin? Yeah he’s good looking, but how often are we told as a society not to judge people (particularly men towards women) based on their looks and to look at the person inside? Amazing how in the original movie Janine was hired because her qualifications suit the job and not based on her looks even though all three men are bachelors, one of whom is a shameless womanizer, but here Kevin is hired solely on his looks even though natural growth instincts confused his ears with his eyes (seriously, play a loud noise near an infant and they’ll instinctively know to try and cover their ears) and he has no ability to tell the difference between the sound of a phone in a fishtank on the otherside of the room to his left and a phone sitting on a desk a foot away from him on the right. Oh, and he thinks he can reach through the glass to get to said fishtank phone. Him stumbling over the door jamb was sort-of funny, though.

      Again, just a goofy movie and I don’t see how it’s one women should “get behind” in the name of feminism. I’m a feminist and I don’t see how this movie works to support that cause given that, apparently, the women were only smart and good at what they do because all of the men in the world are idiots.

      • The only genuinely stupid male character was Kevin, and he was supposed to be a parody character. How was the Dean of the Physics department who fired Erin dumb? How was the owner of the museum dumb? Sure, many of the characters were being assholes to the main characters, but I got the vibe that the rest of the world was meant to be portrayed as a mean place full of mean, petty people, and the main characters were supposed to represent the underdogs whom nobody believes in but themselves.

        The Ghostbusters were not brilliant because the other people around them were played as dumber than average. Heck, the main villain was an equally brilliant outcast who was able to create devices that amplified paranormal activity, and opened a portal to the ghost realm. They were brilliant because they literally created and confirmed theories about supernatural phenomena that other people dismissed as humbug, created devices to capture and defeat ghosts, and eventually ended up using all of that to save the world from a ghost apocalypse.

        I know this movie wasn’t a masterpiece, but for what it was, I enjoyed it. I was happy to see an action/comedy that had four female main characters saving the world, and that they were portrayed so humanely.

        • Uhm yeah… I’m sure there was a men in the background for a second when they filmed that huge crowd who didn’t look like a depiction of a total tool. See?! Totally injustice claims about how men are depicted in this movie!

      • I got the stuff with Erin. It’s an exaggeration of a girl who grew up socially isolated and spent all of her schooling as a scientist nerd with little experience with men but lots of private fantasies as she works hard to gain approval somehow other than socially. When put into actual contact with one of those parody fantasies, she turns into a blubbering idiot. I’ve seen that exact thing with plenty of genius-guy-nerd characters, too. I also relate to it on a personal level. 😉

      • Well, Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones’s characters didn;t WANT to hire Kevin, and they always had a look of “Are you kidding?” when he messed up.

        Join the discussion

    • I basically felt the same way, the erasure of the original team was a completely unnecessary move.

      There were many ways they could’ve done it as a passing of the torch, perhaps even having it that ghost activity was so low, and with the passing of Eegon, they shut down the business. Perhaps one of the women was Eegon’s daughter, and when the ghost levels began to rise again, she took it upon herself to rebuild the company, bringing in her friends and colleagues to run it after all the original team is either unable or unwilling to put on a Proton Pack again. Villain perhaps possessed by Zool, explaining his power.

      • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

        The original team wasn’t erased.

        • oh, so Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz, and Winston Zeddmore were characters in this new film? They existed, as those characters, with their full history in this new film? Cause if not, that’s what I mean by “erased” as in a Ghostbusters film was made where, in their story, those characters no longer exist.

          • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

            They still exist. In a different movie. Sorry you don’t understand that

          • sorry you don’t understand the issue with normalizing gender washing. Think people would feel the same if we made Ripley from Alien a man, or made Cyborg or Black Panther white? The point of equality is equal treatment for all, so I don’t think we should celebrate reboots that wash a character’s gender or race.

      • My guess is that the producers may have felt that if they couldn’t get all of the original actors, including Harold Ramis, then they’d rather not do the new movie as a pass the torch type of deal, although I agree that might have worked. Still, this new movie doesn’t taint my memories of the original in any way.

        BTW, there’s only one ‘e’ in Egon.

        • All they thought was “Let’s milk one of our old ips for money. How about ghostbusters? Give it a modern twist for our target audience of stupid teenagers. What do those little idiots like? Dubstep? Nah… that’s almost over again. I know! Make it some feminist crap, those tublr idiots sure will pay for something targeted at them.”

    • Yes, so you’ve crowed on every possible mention of this movie on this site. I don’t see it your way. I think it’s harmless (because I’m not looking for offense) and it was fun. Plus people in the theater laughed and had a good time. Surprise!

      • Yeah I doubt there were many real fans of the original movie in that theater. Nobody is saying “the movie is totally bad”.
        The movie is okay – for the average movie goer.
        For true fans of the original, it’s an insulting, stinking slap in the face.
        But the NC clearly went the road of reviewing it from the average movie goer perspective.

        If you want to see how long time fans of the original Ghostbusters saw this movie, look up the review by Angry Joe, he got a lot of positive feedback by the hardcore Ghostbusters fans for a review from their point of view.

        But that said:
        If we stop talking about Ghostbusters and talk movies in general:
        Whenever I go to the movies, I am shocked by what people laugh about.
        It really makes you wonna leave this planet as it shows you that you are surrounded by a majority of total idiots who pee their pants out of laughter about jokes that are so stupid, that you were already rolling your eyes or face palming about them when you still were in third grade.

    • that would have been good also I find that people hating it because it’s an all female cast to be stupid and I’m male

  6. I could barely recognize Rob with mustache and wig!

  7. I brought the salt. Now who has the popcorn?!

  8. Can you please do “The Top 11 Animaniacs Songs”? Your crew could make a parody song yourself, set to the tune of maybe “Yakkos World” a fast-paced list. I’m not the only one who’s been waiting…

    A charity I would like you to show is “Operation Smile” These people help children with facial surgery. It’s a very touching service. Or maybe “C.A.L.M.” (if they still exist) a haven for abused children. Maybe thats too heavy for your viewers?

    Lastly, an editorial I demand you do is, “Good Memories With Bad Movies?” Sometimes, a terrible film can be watched during a happy time. Based on pleasant or precious memories, we have a nostalgic guilty pleasure. You ARE the Nostalgia Critic after all. You have to point that people who defend bad movies sometimes see something that isn’t there, but that’s how they feel, they get something from that bad movie. And vice-versa, you can see a “Fresh Tomato” film with a despairing memory, which makes it diffuclt to watch. Real people have more feelings than opinions than the internet does. Review nostalgia, Nostalgia Critic!

    • …Or YOU could do all of that stuff yourself instead of asking/expecting Doug to do it. All you need is a camera, a script (or at least some notes) and a passion for the source material. If you have all these ideas and specifics on how to do them and want so badly to see your vision brought to life, then why not just do it yourself and cut out the middleman?

      Seriously, where do you get off demanding someone to do anything? That’s just plain rude. I’m sure Doug’s got plenty on his plate already. He’s not going to drop whatever he’s working on just for some fan’s request(s), especially when said fan isn’t contributing anything monetarily and chooses to make a selfish demand rather than a friendly suggestion.

  9. Your no-clip reviews are kind of hit and miss… This is definitely a hit and felt earnest.
    Also, unlike the cameo’s in this movie, Rachel’s cameo actually was funny and sweet 🙂

    • I really didn’t like the whole “Ugh” condescending, holy-than-thou attitude pretty much all reviewers take with the movie. It’s like everyone has to start by first calling you an idiot for 20 minutes before talking about the movie.

      I could really do without reviewers spewing their bile all over me before a review (ironically about other people spewing bile on each other).

    • Thing with the “holier-than-thou” attitude was *because* of the ridiculous extremes that were out there. It really did seem to be no gray area and that’s more the point. It wasn’t a “holier-than-thou” so much as it was “shades of gray DO EXIST!”

      • And the NC took the stupid routine route of “When there are two sides loudly arguing about something, they have to be both wrong” and then went on to make up bs (like the non-existing meminists) or ignore facts (like the ideology and injustice that is the core of modern feminism) to make this point work and feel smarter than everybody.

        But he really just gave up working himself into the actual argumentation that was going on. He just depicted it as insane extremes so he didn’t have to deal with any of the argumentation that was going on.
        Because GOD FORBID – if he would have done that, common sense and logic may would have forced him to agree with the argumentation of one of those sides.

        But the NC agreeing? NO! He has to be above everyone, as he is our true prophet, the chosen one who gives us simple answers to complex situations, so we don’t have to deal with it ourself and just copy his claims to get an cheap and effortless opinion to feel good about our lazy butts!

  10. Here’s the thing: Yes, I would prefer a Ghostbusters 3….but if it was a passing of the torch. Stanz, Zeddemore, and Venkman are literally too old for this shit and Egon finally drilled that hole into his head or something, so they hire a new team. BOOM, done. You get a nice hand-off, a “soft” reboot that allows a new team to shine, and that’s that. A tribute to the original and a new cast for a new generation.

    Because that was more my problem with the movie: “reboot”. Why do good movies need to be rebooted or remade so damned often? I think history is starting to show that most of the time it doesn’t work. So why don’t the studios go in a different direction, look up some film that tanked hard but had some good ideas that a few edits and rewrites could improve upon, and do THAT instead? Sure it’s a gamble, but I think it’s worth a shot.

    I also didn’t care to see the film because I don’t particularly find Melissa McCarthy funny, but that’s me. Some people think she’s hilarious, good for them. I also don’t particularly care for Paul Feig, some people think the sun shines out his ass. This was *never* going to please everyone, but I think if they’d gone the “soft” reboot route instead, it might have had a better chance.

    • Past a certain point, I’d say once the ’90s ended, I think we didn’t need a third movie. The shape the original cast was in would have made that very depressing.

      • perhaps, but they could’ve used that as part of why the torch needs to be passed rather than the original cast jumping into the fray again. Heck, Bill Murray’s character could even be done to where he simply felt done with the job and refuses to come back.

      • I rather see some old but intelligent men than some young but retarded women.
        Why the director at least didn’t go for “young AND intelligent women” blows my mind. Yeah sure, they CLAIM that those characters would be intelligent scientists, but all the dialog and humor is so painfully stupid, it’s unbelievable they could do that to the Ghostbusters franchise, which was always about intelligent remarks.

    • The right choice would have been “just no new Ghostbusters movie”
      But milkers gotta milk.

  11. A-freaking-men! This review perfectly encapsulates all the rage towards this movie. And in fact, I too think the movie was acceptable. It had its moments when it needs it, but it just relies too heavily on the cameos that they wish it would be just as good as the original.

    Plus, the real reason why this movie stuck out to me the most was Holtzmann. By god, she is sooooooo awesome, she would make Egon very proud.

    • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

      Relies heavily? How? How did it rely on Ozzie, Ernie, Annie, and Sigourney’s cameos?

    • Dude, you really have to see the original again to understand how stupid and insulting this was. I get the impression that many people just forgot about all the smart things in the original if they say this one was fine.

      Of there would have never been the original Ghostbusters movies, yes then this one would have been fine/okay.
      But in comparison? Very insulting to the audience and the original material it’s stealing from.

  12. ThatManWithTheHeadband12

    I did not grow up with Ghostbusters like many did, and I really enjoyed this movie. There are many criticisms of the film that I feel are shallow enough to find that if you dig deeper, the criticism grasps for non-sexism straws and fails. I wouldn’t fall into any Stuff like an “I Ain’t Afraid of No Ghost” utterance, or the theme song and the logo, help it to be Ghostbusters, and really aren’t “callbacks” to hold it back. It’d be like taking away the house of El symbol entirely away in a Superman film

  13. ilovethings andstuff

    i’m surprised he reviewed this shit storm of a film

    • I’m not. His whole personality is built on getting attention by being against whatever the others say. Many people love a classic movie? Aww, totally overrated, doesn’t hold up! Many people are disappointed about how insultingly bad and stupid a movie was? Aww, it wasn’t that bad, it was totally fine!

      Do you see his pattern? Just watch his reviews of the bigger popular or controversial movies, and you can use that formula to 100% predict all his verdicts before seeing the reviews!

  14. “The internet” didnt do it,sony did.Deliberately turning the situation worse because “no press is bad press”.Even though later they decided that “some bad press actually IS bad press” and backpaddled.Basically,marketing people are the worst.

    • Well, that was what then caused the internet to run even more amok xD Sony just had to blow on the flame until it got out of control… Or, well, I don’t even think you can just blame Sony, it seemed more like just specifically the people who worked on this movie. Probably the worst thing imo was when the director started insulting fans of the original movie, because a lot of people was giving the trailer shit on Twitter and such, that was the point where I personally decided that I didn’t want to support this movie with my money.

    • The movie wasn’t just marketed as feminist propaganda – it was written as such too. A fact the Nc totally ignored to keep his “above both sides” attitude alive.

  15. I saw this movie and all I can say is that… I have seen worse. Some parts were funny, some not so funny (I am looking at you Helmsworth, you need to take some Mimbo lessons). Heck my experience with the franchise was, in this order, the cartoon series, the SECOND Movie, the original, Extreme, and the Video game. I am even willing to admit that if given the choice I would watch the second movie first, not because it is better or like it more, but because I have such fond memories watching it as a kid. This version, it was not that bad, if they had trusted themselves a little more it could have been great but as it stands.. I have see worse films and I can honestly say that I don’t feel cheated out of a couple of hours of my life.

    • I enjoyed Chris Hemsworth’s performance. ^_^ He looked like he was having a blast and is a pretty hot/silly dancer. 😉

      • He had some genuinely funny moments and I did chuckle a few times but for every good joke… there was one that made me cringe and those were far worse then the good jokes… I did though like it when he was playing at being possessed

  16. I thought you Doug made “they killed my childhood” into the meme.

    Anyway, Ghostbusters 2016 is garbage because it was made on controversy. Not mentioning actual gender issues but to put blame on something.

    I think THIS movie should be remade with same cast to show real talent those actresses have.

  17. I totaly agree. Yeah Paul Fieg is a disugsting man hater, the feminists fucked up the fanbase along with the dumb men who also pursuaded the war foward…but my niece loves ghostbusters, old version, since I showed her it and the game. I taught her it doasnt matter if your a boy or girl, a ghostbuster can be anyone. I still won’t see the movie, but I do however have some respect for its ideas.

    The gadgetry is neat, but the story and jokes and the way the movie holds up is poor. I think the best way to love a movie is to not let anyone who makes it discrimintive get to us. Half of the fans, the feminists and Fieg almost had all of us at eachothers throats. So to keep it good, I still have the game. That and I love the sequel, yeah its not as good, but it was my first ghostbusters movie.

  18. Bill’s appearance doesn’t symbol the original’s blessing. He was bullied with threats of legal action if he didn’t make a cameo. That’s like holding Jesus at gunpoint to provide a blessing.

    • I have heard that, but I just have a hard time understanding how a guy ho wanders around New York stealing people’s drinks and giving out sage advice like a disguised Odin would be intimidated by a lawsuit. What would they sue him for exactly?

    • Don’t buy it. Sounds like a “I heard…!” playing telephone with tin cans.

      • It was in the Sony email hacks, they were very likely going to sue him and the rest of the original cast who they wanted as cameos.
        “Subject: Ghostbusters/Murray – Litigation Counsel [CONFIDENTIAL]

        In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.]

        Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.

        Can we discuss at some point soon to provide a suggestion or two?


    • Don’t insult Bill Murray by comparing him to Jesus. Bill Murray is real!

  19. ilovethings andstuff

    maybe if the film had actually funny actors, better CGI for the ghosts, better script, it wouldn’t have been so bad. huh, i guess nothing about the film was good,. oh well.

  20. ilovethings andstuff

    they could have avoided this if they had adapted the awesomely dark Extreme Ghostbusters instead of making a shitty reboot with terrible, unfunny actors

    • The Real Silverstar

      Most people barely remember Extreme Ghostbusters; to a casual fan who never saw that cartoon that would’ve been just as bad as Paul Feig’s all-lady cast. The so-called purists would’ve only been happy with Venkman, Stanz, Zeddmore and Spengler, although that was obviously impossible.

      And comedy is subjective. Something’s not objectively bad just because one person says it is. A sizable number of people enjoyed this movie.

  21. Great review with lot of heart at end. Because of all pointless internet rage and drama and trying to force opinions on others around Ghostbusters 2016 voice of reason has been rare so I am happy that as popular internet personality Nostalgia Critic acts as one because it is needed.

  22. Guess it was too much to hope this would be a movie review.

    • There was one in it. The movie itself isn’t worth “reviewing” it’s just so bland and meh there’s nothing there. Besides, the bigger issue around this movie was the polarized fanbase.

      • If the movie’s not worth reviewing then why the fuck is Doug making a freaking clipless review of it?! I don’t understand what the heck the logic here even is! He has a medium for commenting on the fanbase and films in general when it comes to sexism and how we perceive media: His editorials. An editorial would have been perfect but, instead, for some reason, Doug felt like milking another clipless review for views was a good idea. Fuck this shitty format!

      • It’s only “meh” if you review it from the point of view of the average movie goes. Things get interesting if you review it from the point of a Ghostbusters fan, but the NC refused to do so, because he already made up his mind that he rather wants to make fun and insult both sides of the argumentation that actually take a look at why this movie is so insulting for real Ghostbusters fans.
        If you want a good review of this, look up the review by Angry Joe on Youtube, he does a MUCH BETTER job of actually explaining that is wrong with this movie if you compare it with the original.

  23. Black Willie Wonka, yey!
    A…..Welp, he’s sertainly from the same mental institution that the mAlice came from.
    Overall – neat review). Maaaaaybe a bit preachy, but still likeable:D
    Oh, btw – make scissors recurring character! Seems like not only new Ghostbusters have such a problem)

  24. ilovethings andstuff

    i’m confused, at the end is Rachel’s little girl character implying a little girl couldn’t dress up as a ghostbuster before now? bad move critic

    • Coming up to the release of this movie we saw more and more little girls in GB costumes. They could certainly do it before but one could argue there was a “stigma” to it since Ghostbusters was likely seen as a “boy’s thing.” It’d be like a boy before MLP:FIM dressing up as a My Little Pony. But after the release of a series that appealed to both boys and girls it became more acceptable for boys to be into it. So with female Ghostbusters it provided social justification and acceptance of little girls dressing in work coveralls and clomping around wearing bulky equipment.

      Leading into the movie and in the wake of it there has been plenty of little girls seen getting into the fan base.

    • Not at all. It’s just that little girls often don’t have that many heroes to look up to and dress as. Proportionate to male role models anyway. The review’s just saying it’s nice to see the ratio evening out a bit.

    • It´s like saying “the smurf movie has a fanbase, you woudnt critize it”.
      No little girl. You can have bad taste. And forming your identity and social clique around a marketing stunt and a bad movie may be a bad idea. You should not focus so much in a crappy movie with no message made only to exploit controversy.

      It´s a crappy argument to make that treats the entire audience like a child unable to take critizism. Hell, it´s even understimating children.

  25. I love you. The movie was shit, but it had nothing to do with gender or “OMG it rapes my childhood!” It’s just written by some twit who took writing lessons from Adam Sandler, complete with stupid dick shots.

    (Well, let me put it this way. It’s shit, but not this eldritch abomination that destroys everything it touches. It’s just…crap.)

    • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

      “It has nothing to do with gender” *later*
      “THEY SHOT THE GHOST IN A DICK (which the ghost did not have) WAAAAAH!”

      See, this is why the “non-sexist” criticism is so shallow

      • I kinda just take that as a lowbrow nutshot joke. I think it’s pretty far-fetching to think it’s some anti-male subtext.

      • Or lord. I’m not talking about the dick shot as some sort of proof it means they’re against men. I’m comparing it, kind of like Doug did, to all the cheap, easy “durr hurr he got hit in the balls!” jokes that have been done to death and were never funny in the first place. I’m talking about cliche jokes, not sexism. Calm down.

  26. I love that you pulled in the Awesome Comics crew for this. I love them and Aiyanna is quickly becoming one of my new faves on the site!

    • Awesome Comics is tied to Channel Awesome and the “set” is in the same space used to shoot TNC, there’s a couple times you can see the AC-Set in the B/G when they’re in the large warehouse space. So they weren’t pulled in so much as they’re part of Channel Awesome so they were simply used.

      I agree, though, Aiyanna is quickly becoming a fave of mine as well.

  27. Thank you for this episode. It’s one of your best so far. Just a relief to see the controversy behind thus movie taken down a peg on all sides.

  28. Oy, this review is gonna offend sooooo many people….I LOVE IT!!!! (maniacal laugh)

  29. This is probably one of the better clip-less reviews to date, and that’s coming from someone who doesn’t entirely mind the clip-less reviews. The final “solution” mirroring the GB2 ending was just awesome, I was wonder where it was leading and then it showed the Ecto Cooler and it was just too perfect. Because whatever you think of the new movie, it brought Ecto Cooler back!

    I agree with TNC/Doug and that the movie was just “average.” It does have some humorous moments in it, and I did really like the Holtzman character but as TNC points out there there’s some jokes that just try too hard and fall flat. The cameos don’t entirely work, though I thought Hudson’s and Potts’s cameos worked the best.

    I’m flipped on the Aykroyd cameo, I thought the “ain’t afraid of no ghost” line worked better than him citing the classification of the ghost.

    The movie did seem to have a lot of cuts in it that seemed jumble up some of the plot stuff and the the villain weak.

    I disagree on the climax vs. the original. The climax here is indeed really good and comparatively “better” than the original but the two movies are doing different things and you could argue took their realities differently.

    The original movie wasn’t a broad comedy or an action movie, there was no need for a big action sequence and the big deal of them crossing the stream was the sacrifice. It’s supposed to be emotionally strong, not action-packed.

    The new movie, I liked the action sequence but… Where’s the drama in it? The impact this is having on the characters? It’s a cool scene, but these women have only seriously used this bulky, likely heavy, equipment ONCE and they’re doing flips and whipping things around and make pin-point aims with wildly moving streams? It just makes very little sense, it’s trying too hard to be cool and in doing so it sets aside in semblance of “reality.” How can we fear for these characters when after one ghost-busting session they can use their equipment like ninjas?

    And I liked the Slimer stuff. but I think the Mrs. Slimer thing was a bit too much and he a little too conveniently comes back when they need him.

    But, I still end on “meh.” The movie is okay. It’s there and that’s about it.

    Aiyanna Wade is quickly becoming a favorite CA contributor/performing. She did a great job here as one of the Church of Ghostbusters flock and as Holtzman. I was sort of “hoping” that in the clip-less review we’d get Malcolm, Doug and Rob in drag as the other Ghostbusters, but using female “cast” members of CA worked very, very well and all did good. “Patty” did great.

    Anyway, great review.

    Ecto Cooler 4 Life!

  30. Fair point in the end – its important to form your own opinion and not just bandwagon on that of others. Equally so with the point that the originals were much better, to the point that trying to make a reboot was doomed to result in a movie that just wasn’t as good – which IMO is reason enough not to reboot it.

    …though, for all of Doug’s wise words about accepting that other people can have differing opinions, and that you shouldn’t just spew hate at them online, then Doug still uses those strawmen caricatures of ‘meninists’. I guess for all his sage advise he still has to have a bit of SJW virtue signaling in his reviews.

    • That’s because those people do EXIST in real life, real are that fanatical, and really are that entitled in there spewing of meanness in claiming their somehow being brave in being nasty and dismissing anyone use calls that out on said means as being “political correct.” SJW is just a buzz word to dismiss anyone who cares about fairness in my mind. It’s a slur with no fixed meaning and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      • The Real Silverstar

        Agreed. SJW is just a buzzword that xenophobes use to justify their xenophobia. It’s basically nothing more than a whine that amounts to “I wish all these women and minorities would shut up so the status quo can remain unchanged.” Anyone who hurls that tired, juvenile epithet around loses any and all credibility with me.

        • You know you literally just used a buzzword yourself right, and not even correctly? Xenophobe is supposed to mean somebody who fears or dislikes foreign people or cultures for the sole reason of them being a different culture. However it has now become a word used by people in areas of the social justice movement in order to dismiss the opposing opinions as inherently intolerant without attempting to address what they mean.

          The term SJW is used as a catch-all when discussing the ideologies of feminism, LGBT and black rights activists (to name a few movements) which defend their causes but fail to look up to harsh truths or are willing to comprehend opposing points of view. Quite often they will attempt to silence the other side by, as you just did, labelling them as xenophobes, or misogynists, or anything else. Lets try to refrain from doing that and have a conversation, please.

          In truth most of these people are the exact opposite, they support full equality of all people but feel that the social justice movement is deeply misguided, and while the SJWs are trying to do good and make the world better for minorities, they are presenting ways which can, and will, unnecessary harm the majorities. What anti-feminists and these other outspoken people typically want is not things to stay the same but for things to improve but the stupidity to be gone in favour of a dialogue which doesnt hurt anyone.

          On that, the reason why there was such backlash about an all-female cast was not because misogyny, but because it was obvious pandering to the Social Justice Movement. At any other time in history nobody would have cared about this, but since it emerged during a very heated time of these debates, it was very clearly not just a fun idea but as a desperate attempt to push an agenda.

          Honestly, if the cast had been more mixed, it would not have gotten the backlash. If the movie was good, it wouldnt have gotten it either.

        • No it’s a word for self righteous people who think that progress is a straight line to utopia and bully anyone that doesn’t match their culture and moral views.

          The warrior part in the end is to describe how you march around the internet like thugs, thinking anyone else is an unenlightened pleb. And I say you because you just described anyone that disagrees with you as a xenophobe.

          Believe it or not, what you consider to be right, is not any more objective than anyone else. You’d know that by now if you stepped out of that cosy echochamber.

          • The Real Silverstar

            If the above remarks are directed at me specifically (I’m honestly not sure if they are or not), then let me say this:

            I generally don’t give a shit about most people who aren’t me, as I don’t like people in general, but I do try to possess a general sense of fairness, equality, tolerance and respect for all people, and a desire to see a diverse set of people get a fair shake in society and a solid, non-stereotypical representation in popular media, and as a consequence I’m against anyone who tries to cock-block progress, diversity, tolerance and fairness. If that makes me a bully or a warrior or whatever in some people’s eyes, then so be it. Slap me with any stupid label you want, but that’s how I feel. That’s just my opinion, which isn’t hurting anyone or anything.

          • But is gender-swapping actually progressive? Many women that actually work within the industry would say it’s not, including myself.

            Female counterparts to male characters have existed since the days of Minnie Mouse. A character who took 80 years to gain a personality that was all her own. Most female super heroes are or started out as sidekicks to well known male characters. Even those that have manged to surpass their male counterparts, like Captain Marvel, still will always have the male superheroes overshadowing their backstories. (Which is why we’ll never get Janet Van Dyne in the MCU)

            And never in the past 90 years has any of these female counterparts lead to “leveling the playing field”. They don’t challenge creators to actually examine how the write for women or how they interact with women on a daily basis. They don’t change the hiring process to allow more female artists/creators to get a foot in the door. They don’t lead to more original female characters nor female driven projects.

            Executives know that gender-swapping sells and they don’t have to do any more than the bare minimum to satisfy audiences. And if anybody complains or demands more of them they throw up their hands and go “Look we gave you a female lead. Why aren’t you happy like the rest? You’re just a *insert derogatory term here*. Clearly you have no real points and we shouldn’t listen to you.” What’s worst is that fans will join in this defensive line of thinking. Which completely shuts down discussion and perpetuates the real problems behind real representation which is lack of effective communication.

            Executives only acknowledge the demand for something when an original product gains popularity. Yet instead of supporting original female characters, female directors, female writers, and female creators people go out and support tokenism, like this movie, time and time again. And then have the gall to proclaim that those with real feminist issues are “misogynistic” or some crap like that.

          • “No it’s a word for self righteous people who think that progress is a straight line to utopia and bully anyone that doesn’t match their culture and moral views.”

            Incorrect. SJW is a term that was invented BY close minded people who walk through life with blinders on pretending that things such as racism and sexism don’t exist and who perceive any kind of change as a threat to the status quo. These are folks who hate and fear anything that’s strange, new and different to them, which is the textbook definition of xenophobia.

            In their mindset, anyone who suggests or implies that things aren’t 100% perfect the way that are or anyone who points out that any kind of injustice exists is a “social justice warrior”. It’s a rallying cry for the ignorant and immature. Like I said before, calling someone an SJW is the equivalent to calling them a “dummy head’. These people aren’t learned enough to come up with a decent counterpoint, so in desperation, they resort to calling the objects of their scorn by mindless names such as “SJW”. It’s nothing more than ignorant, childish name calling.

          • “The warrior part in the end is to describe how you march around the internet like thugs, thinking anyone else is an unenlightened pleb. And I say you because you just described anyone that disagrees with you as a xenophobe.”

            Kind of like what you’re doing right now by describing anyone who disagrees with you as a social justice warrior. Pot, meet kettle.

          • The Real Silverstar

            “Believe it or not, what you consider to be right, is not any more objective than anyone else. You’d know that by now if you stepped out of that cosy echochamber.”

            I gotta ask, does it get windy up there on that high horse you erected for yourself?

            You might want to re-read my original comment, Sparky; I never said that my views were objectively right or that anyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong. I don’t tell anybody what to think, I only tell people what *I* think. And sorry if I offended you, but I stand by what I said. Based on my experiences, folks who hurl the term SJW around tend to be generally intolerant people who fear change and view ANY attempts at fairness, progression and diversity as a threat to their cushy existence, so they lash out with the inane term SJW. If wanting to see people of all kinds, including women and non-whites, get a fair, diverse and non-stereotypical representation in media makes me a “thug”, then just call me 2Pac.

          • Also, I find it ironic in the extreme that you and your ilk are referring to people who disagree with your viewpoints as “bullies” and “thugs” when you yourselves are the ones who have invented a mindless name for the objects of your scorn such as “SJW”, which typifies schoolyard bully behavior. This not only makes you look like a bully, but a hypocrite as well.

            This is precisely why I can’t take anyone who calls someone else an SJW seriously; they have no fucking clue how to act or what to say, which why they throw around that asinine term to begin with.

          • It’s a description of your actions.

            Look at how you are behaving.

        • What status quo? That we already have equal rights (Name one us law that favors men over women) ?? Yeah that can’t stay as it is !!! So terrible! -_- That tublr idiocy.

    • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

      Virtue signaling is less real than the Meninists, and you have proven as such

    • “I guess for all his sage advise he still has to have a bit of SJW virtue signaling in his reviews.”

      Please don’t say “SJW”. I can’t take the opinion of anyone who uses that asinine term invented by close minded shut-ins who turn their noses up at any kind of progress, change, or diversity seriously. If you’re going to call someone a Social Justice Warrior, then you might as well call them a “stupid head” or a “farty pants”. It’s just as mature and enlightened.

      And sadly, people like the ones that Doug was ridiculing in the video *do* exist. The internet does contain bile spewing, hate mongering, sexist trolls, and these types of extreme fans make other fans ashamed to be associated with them, so how exactly is Doug at fault for merely pointing out that fact that these idiots exist?

      • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

        And the review doesn’t even have the racist shit thrown at Leslie Jones in consideration. Then again this review doesn’t mention anything from the movie after Abby and Erin got pulled out of the portal, like the move into the firehouse, the new gadgets, what Ernie Hudson’s cameo was actually about, or the Zuul message

    • The “meninist” is just another name for something that’s always been there: men who blame/hurt/control women to “prove” they are masculine. When they are just a toxic human being who would blame a rape victim in a heart beat.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.