The Big Picture

Rick Moranis is hilarious, but underused, leaving a gap in the movie’s humor.
The wonky CGI has a charm that appeals to the nostalgia for the time.
Most of the humor in
Ghostbusters
falls flat and the characters are undeveloped.

There are many movies out there that you don’t actually have to watch to feel as if you have seen them. Movies that, good or bad, are so ingrained in pop culture, such a big part of the zeitgeist, that you end up learning all there is to know about them from references on TV shows or in conversations with friends. These are usually entries in larger franchises, such as Star Wars or The Avengers, but not always. Solo acts like Titanic and Gone with the Wind, for instance, can also be counted among such examples. For me, Ivan Reitman’s 1984 Ghostbusters was always one of those films. Despite having never seen a single scene of the actual 80s classic, I had a pretty good idea of what it was about. I have disjointed memories of the Saturday morning cartoon, The Real Ghostbusters, as well as of Season 2 of Stranger Things. My apartment has a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man decorating one of its rooms. It’s not mine, but it’s there. Finally, I saw the 2016 women-led remake in theaters, bizarrely enough. It was not a great experience. But you know what? Neither was this.

I expected a lot of things from Ghostbusters. A fun, childlike adventure, as well as a funny, albeit kind of dated comedy. Having seen other movies of its kind and of its time, from Little Shop of Horrors to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, I thought I knew what kind of movie awaited me when I pressed play. What a surprise it was, then, to not be entertained a single bit and to check for the runtime somewhere around the half-hour mark. With a clunky script, unfunny jokes, an adventure that is actually pretty short on ghostbusting, and the worst Bill Murray performance I have ever seen, Ghostbusters is a boring movie that mostly relies on nostalgia to keep itself relevant 40 years after its release.

Ghostbusters (1984) Three parapsychologists forced out of their university funding set up shop as a unique ghost removal service in New York City, attracting frightened yet skeptical customers.Release Date June 8, 1984 Runtime 105 minutes Expand

There Are Two Kinds of Nostalgia at Play in ‘Ghostbusters’

Now, nostalgia works in two ways regarding Ghostbusters. First, there are, of course, the loving memories of those who have watched the movie as children and fallen in love with the idea of growing up to play clubhouse and hunt ghosts with a group of close friends. Then there is the nostalgia of the adults who were already fully grown in the 80s and saw themselves transported back in time when invited to fantasize about a more magical job than the one they had. I’m not insensitive to any of that. I’m the first to admit that The Princess Bride might not be the greatest movie of all time if you are not in the right headspace to watch it, i.e., the headspace of a 9-year-old me, and yet I still cherish it more than my own life. However, seeing Ghostbusters for the first time in 2024 with no previous attachment to it is a recipe for disaster. Or, at least, for a good night’s sleep.

The basic plot is simple enough. After being kicked out of the university at which they worked, paranormal researchers Peter Venkman (Murray), Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) go on to found their own ghost hunting – or ghost busting – agency. As they struggle through the hardships of kickstarting a small business, they are joined by secretary Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) and new hire Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson). After going around town and getting rid of a total of two ghosts on screen, they eventually catch the eye of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), a musician whose apartment is being haunted by a malevolent entity known as Zuul – an entity that might just bring forth the end of the world.

Related The Original Script for ‘Ghostbusters’ Was Much Darker Conceived by Dan Aykroyd, the comedy classic was initially intended to be a bigger and darker film.

What ensues is a mish-mash of poorly drafted plot points, all of which feel like an afterthought. While there is a central story – the haunting at Dana’s apartment – most of what surrounds it feels more like sketches than scenes in a progressing plot. This is all fine and dandy when we consider Ghostbusters as solely a comedy, a vehicle for jokes above all else, but it does a lot of harm to the film in its action-adventure vein. For instance, the fact that we see so little of the actual ghostbusting and mostly learn about it from a montage of news stories violates the show-don’t-tell principle and doesn’t sell to the audience that they are actually as awesome as they say they are. That job falls entirely to the final scene, in which they defeat Zuul, which is over too abruptly, to a point where we don’t even understand the stakes properly. How could we, after all, when Zuul only gets about a few seconds to start destroying New York before the action, which takes place entirely over the same rooftop, is over? The overall feeling is that too many scenes were left on the cutting room floor.

On the other hand, the EPA’s harassment against the Ghostbusters, prompted by Venkman’s complete lack of basic politeness when dealing with other people, could have easily been left out. Sure, it is the agency turning off the Ghostbusters’ storage system that eventually leaks out all the ghosts into New York, but it could also have been an explosion. And considering that the only ghost that actually matters in the end is Zuul, I can’t help but wonder if releasing all the ghosts was really necessary. Then there is Venkman’s relationship with Dana, which begins with the parapsychologist creepily harassing her whenever she goes. It’s funny that the movie seems to think that Venkman is somehow different from Dana’s dorky, sleazy neighbor, Louis (Rick Moranis) when they are in fact pretty much the same person.

‘Ghostbusters’ Does Not Bother to Develop Its Characters

Sexist humor aside – this is practically a given when we are talking about 80s comedies -, this could have been corrected with a little character development. Something to make viewers understand why Venkman is supposed to be charming and suave while Louis is supposed to be off-putting. However, Ghostbusters is not the kind of movie to develop its characters. They all suffer from the same illness that makes them little more than forgettable stereotypes. Stantz and Egon are practically the same guy, and Dana could have been replaced by a sign saying “attractive female character”. The most egregious victim of this crime, though, is definitely Hudson’s Winston. With basically no lines and no plot, it’s hard to shake off the feeling that he was merely put there to be a Black guy who cracks a joke to the mayor about having seen things that can turn you white. These elements are signs of an era in which certain prejudices were a lot more normalized than they are now, and many people who still hold on to these pieces of media avoid talking about such topics like the plague. They feel that it violates their memory, somehow. But, bringing back The Princess Bride once again, let’s also not pretend that the greatest damsel in distress story ever told is a great feminist text. It’s fine to enjoy these older movies, as long as we can recognize that they are failed products of their time.

Still, the “it will turn you white” bit is not a particularly funny joke, but, then again, neither are most jokes in Ghostbusters. The vast majority relies on Bill Murray being some manner of rude or scummy, and this can only go so far, particularly when the actor in question is delivering such a sleepy performance. Now, Murray always has this kind of somnolence to his eyes and his manner of speech. It’s a quality that I find much more befitting to dramas and dramedies like Jim Jarmusch’s Broken Flowers and Wes Anderson’s The Royal Tenenbaums, but that has been frequently employed in making him the straight man in comedies. Sometimes it works, and sometimes he simply can’t match the high level of energy required by the plot. That’s precisely what happens in Ghostbusters: Murray cannot sell his part of the more physical scenes, such as when he’s wrestling Dana in her apartment, which makes them a somewhat uncomfortable watch, and the rest of the script has him mostly as an entirely off-putting character, who mistreats women, his colleagues, civil servants, ghosts, and basically everyone that comes in contact with him.

Come to think of it, I think Murray has a lot to do with why the humor in the movie simply did not do anything for me. He was just too good at making himself loathsome, and not good enough at making his grumpiness and constant fatigue funny. I was okay with most of the other performers, but they mostly serve as supporting actors to either Murray or Moranis, who are the real stars of the show. And when Murray is not on-screen, or when the movie is not asking elderly librarians if they are menstruating for seeing a ghost or engaging in bizarre ghost blowjobs, I even found it in myself to laugh. Overall, the jokes that do land are the ones that Moranis, who is by far the best performer in the whole cast, is responsible for. Much like in Little Shop of Horrors, he makes us miss him dearly when he’s possessed by Zuul’s minion or when, right after being saved, he asks the Ghostbusters if they already have an accountant.

Despite Its Flaws, ‘Ghostbusters’ Also Has Its Charm

Indeed, Moranis is one of the saving graces of Ghostbusters. He’s not that charming when he’s harassing Weaver’s Dana, but when that part is over, he gets pretty funny, to say the least. Annie Pott’s Janine is also a great character to watch, whether she’s grumpily complaining about the job or hitting on Egon. It’s just a pity that she’s in the movie for so little. Slightly uncomfortable throughout most of the film, Weaver’s performance when she’s possessed is also fantastic, as well as gorgeous. It’s clear that she’s not there to crack jokes, and yet I laughed out loud when she slams the door on Venkman’s face after he denies being the Keymaster.

The special effects are also something to behold. No, they did not age well, far from it. By today’s standards, most of the computer-generated imagery in Ghostbusters looks campy and even ugly. Still, creatures like Slimer or the aforementioned Stay Puft Marshmallow Man are utterly charming in their wonkiness. It’s not hard to understand how the children of the time became so taken with these beings, and they are definitely a far-cry more pleasant to the eye than some of the soulless, incoherent fully CGI scenes we get in Marvel movies nowadays.

Sadly, though, these elements aren’t enough to make Ghostbusters a legitimately good movie, though the easiness with which toy companies can turn the film’s characters into merchandise sure explains how it became a multi-million dollar franchise. However, the flaws of Ghostbusters aren’t enough to make it a terrible movie either. You know, one of those you have fun watching because of how awful it is or that you hate with every fiber of your being. Overall, Ghostbusters is just pretty mediocre. Boring, but occasionally funny. Contrived, but sort of charming. It is something that will forever live in the memories of those who watched it as children. As an adult, though, it’s hard to understand the hype.

REVIEW Ghostbusters (1984) While it’s not hard to understand where the nostalgia comes from, the film reads as a boring mess 40 years after its release.ProsRick Moranis is, as always, hilarious, and it’s a pity that he’s not around anymore.The CGI is wonky, but full of charm. ConsThe humor is mostly unfunny. There’s just so much that a rude Bill Murray can do for you.The plot is contrived and oddly lacks ghostbusting.The characters are undeveloped to the point of leaving a bad taste in the viewer’s mouth.

Ghostbusters is now available to rent on Prime Video in the U.S.

WATCH ON PRIME VIDEO