Columbia Pictures

Despite what your sexist, salty man-baby of a friend might have told you, the new female-led Ghostbusters is a fantastic movie that raked in an impressive $46 million over the weekend.

To listen to some of the things people have said about the film, it'd be easy to assume that the reboot somehow managed to ruin the franchise while also insulting the original film.

"It doesn't work as a comedy targeted at adults; many of the jokes are beyond worn out and predictable. The effects are cartoonish," Metacritic user Ablemood wrote. "Throughout the entire film, I sat there wondering: 'Who exactly was the target audience for this?'"

Advertisement

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions about a movie, and comedy, like all forms of art, is highly subjective. It's interesting, though, that many of the problems that people have with the new Ghostbusters were actually things that critics loved about the original.

In his now infamously bad review for the Chicago Sun Times, Richard Roeper takes issue with the new movie's writing, acting, cinematography, and special effects.

"Ghostbusters is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary," Roeper lamented. "How could so many talented, well-meaning artists, who clearly loved and respected the original, produce such a raggedy-looking, thuddingly unfunny, utterly unnecessary reboot?"

Sponsored

Thirty-two years ago, Roger Ebert, Roeper's former colleague, also felt the need to comment on the VFX in the original Ghostbusters:

No matter what effects are being used, they're placed at the service of the actors; instead of feeling as if the characters have been carefully posed in front of special effects, we feel they're winging this adventure as they go along.

Interestingly, Ebert came to the sensible conclusion that a movie about people fighting and capturing ghosts required a fair amount of CGI. Similarly, issues with plotting—which so many detractors have held up as proof that 2016's Ghostbusters is no good—were mysteriously forgiven by reviewers of the original.

"The plotting may be primitive," The Hollywood Reporter said in 1984. "But it's all carried off with far more style and finesse than one might expect from the creators of Animal House."

For all of the critiques that have been leveled at the new film's treatment of its sole lead of color (Leslie Jones), most of the reviews of the original Ghostbusters don't even bother to mention Ernie Hudson's Winston Zeddemore, the black, fourth Ghostbuster whose role was significantly downsized to give Bill Murray more screentime.

Advertisement

There is hard data that on average, men are far more likely to negatively comment and review television shows and movies that are led by women. The only real mistake Ghostbusters, like so many other solid films before it, is guilty of making is that it dares to revisit an old property coveted by immature meninists.