---
title: "Ghostbusters"
year: 1984
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/ghostbusters"
fi1m_id: "ghostbusters"
imdb_id: "tt0087332"
tmdb_id: 620
wikidata_id: "Q108745"
fi1m_score: 80
critics_score: 72
critics_reviews: 14
published: "2026-09-15"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:02.770268+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Ghostbusters (1984)

Directed by Ivan Reitman · 1h 45m · MPA PG · Comedy, Fantasy

## Identity

Ghostbusters

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/ghostbusters
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** ghostbusters
- **IMDb ID:** tt0087332
- **TMDB ID:** 620
- **Wikidata ID:** Q108745
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/620, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108745

**Fi1m score: 80** · Critics 72 from 14 reviews

*In a sentence:* Bill Murray makes ghostbusting look like a job he took because nobody checks his references

> Ivan Reitman’s ghost comedy earns its laughs through Bill Murray’s deadpan and the team’s easy conversation. The plotting is slight, and some effects get too much attention, but we recommend it for the company.

## Synopsis

Dr Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Dr Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) take up ghostbusting in New York. Treating supernatural trouble as a business, they bring a working team’s practical concerns into the city’s more expensive surroundings. Venkman leads the operation with an irreverence that sits awkwardly beside his professional title. The story combines ghostly encounters with the day-to-day demands of the team’s enterprise. Sigourney Weaver plays Dana Barrett, Rick Moranis plays Louis Tully, Ernie Hudson plays Winston Zeddemore and Annie Potts plays Janine Melnitz.

## Review

*Ghostbusters* is a funny, assured supernatural comedy with a story that sometimes gets by on the charm of the people telling it. Ivan Reitman understands how much amusement there is in giving a haunting to men who treat it as a line of work. The ghosts can be alarming, but somebody still has a business to run. The film is most enjoyable when it lets the team talk, and occasionally too eager to interrupt them with effects.

Bill Murray’s Dr Peter Venkman is a dubious person to put in charge, which helps considerably. Murray gives him a deadpan assurance that makes professional competence seem almost beside the point. We laughed at the way his casual delivery unsettles the exchanges with Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis; a supernatural emergency cannot quite persuade him to sound impressed. Aykroyd’s Raymond Stantz supplies eager conviction, while Ramis’s Egon Spengler gives his replies a pleasing exactness. Even when the conversation wanders towards the supernatural, they sound like colleagues accustomed to one another.

Ramis and Aykroyd’s screenplay is less attentive to what holds those conversations together. The plotting is thin, and some of the people around the central trio feel useful chiefly because the next stretch requires them. Rick Moranis makes Louis Tully funny enough for this not to matter whenever he is present, but a good supporting performance cannot do all the writing. The weakness is noticeable because the central partnership is so comfortable: it invites an interest in the characters that the script does not consistently reward.

László Kovács’s cinematography gives the ghost story a welcome air of everyday life, so that the people remain interesting even when something unnatural is sharing the image. John DeCuir’s production design makes particular use of the contrast between the team’s working manner and its upscale New York surroundings. These are places where a grubby practical problem is especially unwelcome. That helps the jokes, and gives the effects a setting worth looking at before anything supernatural happens.

Editors David E. Blewitt and Sheldon Kahn keep this mixture moving without rushing the actors. The exchanges have room to find their rhythm, and the action rarely breaks the comic momentum. Elmer Bernstein’s score gives the supernatural material enough weight to make the team’s lack of ceremony amusing. The music helps sustain the ghost story through the comic interruptions.

As a horror comedy, the film gets an important thing right: the jokes do not require the ghosts to be harmless. Reitman allows the supernatural spectacle to hold our attention without insisting on a gag every moment. Occasionally he lets it hold that attention too long. The larger effects passages can crowd out the quieter exchanges, which are where this cast is most enjoyable.

There is a satirical pleasure in watching these men turn supernatural disturbance into paid work, though we would not ask the film to provide a thorough account of capitalism. It is much more interested in keeping the company entertaining, and at 105 minutes it seldom tests our patience. The slight plotting is a real limitation, rather than something affection should oblige us to overlook. See it for the actors, and allow for the occasional stretch when the effects get more attention than they deserve.

*Fi1m score 80, published 15 September 2026.*

## Straight answers

**Is Ghostbusters worth watching?**

*Ghostbusters* is worth watching for anyone who enjoys a comedy that lets its actors talk, and we scored it 80. Bill Murray's deadpan and the easy conversation between him, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis carry it; the plotting is thin, and the larger effects passages occasionally crowd out the exchanges we most enjoyed. See it for the company rather than the story.

**How long is Ghostbusters, and what is it rated?**

*Ghostbusters* runs 1h 45m and is rated PG by the MPA in the US. It is a comedy and fantasy film.

**Where can I watch Ghostbusters in the US?**

*Ghostbusters* is streaming on Netflix in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. It leaves Netflix on 1 October. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How does Ghostbusters compare to Ghostbusters II?**

*Ghostbusters* is the better film, and [*Ghostbusters II*](https://film.one/film/ghostbusters-ii) is a quieter repeat of it with a baby added. The original earns its laughs through Bill Murray's deadpan and the team's comfortable talk, and its ghosts are allowed to be alarming; the sequel is amiable and occasionally funny, with Peter MacNicol's possessed curator the one new thing in it. Start with the first and treat the second as optional.

**Do you need to have seen the other Ghostbusters films before Ghostbusters?**

*Ghostbusters* is the first film in the series and needs nothing seen before it. It stands entirely on its own, introducing Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz and Egon Spengler as they set up their ghostbusting business in New York. It is the natural place to start, and the later titles assume you have seen it rather than the other way round.

**What order should I watch the Ghostbusters films in?**

Release order is the safe choice for Ghostbusters, and it is the order [our collection page](https://film.one/collections/ghostbusters) lists them in. *Ghostbusters* is the first of the 4 Ghostbusters titles on Fi1m; after it [*Ghostbusters II*](https://film.one/film/ghostbusters-ii). [The full order.](https://film.one/collections/ghostbusters.md)

### Reviews we read (14)

- **Empire**, Caroline Westbrook (90/100, inferred): Ghostbusters succeeds because it's charming in its own right, with sparky chemistry from Murray and Weaver, a constant stream of cracking one-liners and the appearance of the Marshmallow Man, which is as absurd as it is hilarious. A hugely entertaining reminder of how good blockbusters used to be that hits the target every single time and remains as entertaining today as it ever was, a classic to be treasured by all. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/ghostbusters-review/)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (90/100, inferred): The film succeeds as both a special-effects blockbuster and a sly dialogue comedy where characters banter like smart graduate students in on the joke. It preserves its comic vision amid a big budget, with effects serving the actors rather than overwhelming them. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ghostbusters-1984)
- **Radio Times**, John Ferguson (4/5): The often dazzling special effects-driven slapstick tends to overshadow some slyer, more sophisticated laughs in this blockbusting family comedy. Bill Murray is terrifically deadpan and sleazy as the dubious leader, with strong support from the cast and spectacular set pieces from director Ivan Reitman. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-2t19qv/ghostbusters/)
- **The AV Club**, Alex McLevy (80/100, inferred): The critic highlights the film's deliberate gross-out humor and body-horror elements as central to its enduring appeal for young audiences, emphasizing its anarchic and repellent tone over easy sentimentality. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/ghostbusters-became-a-generational-touchstone-partly-be-1848059240)
- **Vulture** (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the film holds up well for its genre-mashing comedy-horror blend, strong performances from Murray and Weaver, and clever lines, while noting some dated effects and underdeveloped characters as minor flaws. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2011/07/nostalgia_fact_check_ghostbust.html)
- **Slant Magazine**, Eric Henderson (70/100, inferred): The review highlights the film's satire of 1980s New York capitalism and class distinctions through the Ghostbusters' blue-collar hustle amid upscale settings. It notes how the movie captures the era's shift toward commercial optimism while delivering calculated consumer appeal. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/ghostbusters/)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Arthur Knight (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a relaxed, stylish ghost story mixing comedy, action, and effects from the Meatballs team. He praises the sustained pacing, inventive production design, and score while noting the primitive plotting is carried off with finesse. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ghostbusters-thrs-1984-review-748028/)
- **The New York Times**, Vincent Canby (40/100, inferred): The premise of unleashing Bill Murray in an Exorcist-like setting is promising but the film stays at the idea stage with wispy jokes, characters, and story. It is another messy near-miss from Murray, kept afloat mainly by his anarchic slob persona. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/08/movies/film-ghostbusters-with-murray-and-aykroyd.html)
- **The New Yorker**, Pauline Kael (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the premise promising but faults the execution, noting that the script gives Murray strong lines while leaving the other leads underused and that Reitman’s direction feels amateurish and the images overly rigid. She singles out the logo and a few comic moments for praise amid broader disappointment. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1984/06/25/the-pop-junkpile)
- **Consequence**, Michael Roffman and Ben Kaye (90/100, inferred): The critics hail the film as an essential rewatchable classic whose world-building, sound design, score, and aesthetic details make it the most pleasing movie ever made. They single out its scrappy DIY ethos, memorable characters and names, and enduring immersive atmosphere for praise. [Read](https://consequence.net/2019/06/classic-film-review-ghostbusters/)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (90/100, inferred): The piece celebrates Ghostbusters as a trailblazing, perfect movie that invented the expensive VFX-driven comedy blockbuster and remains a pop culture touchstone. It singles out the blend of Aykroyd and Ramis's script, the cast chemistry, and Reitman's direction for praise while noting its lasting influence on modern blockbusters. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters-invented-vfx-driven-blockbuster-comedy/)
- **/Film**, Joshua Meyer (90/100, inferred): The piece celebrates Ghostbusters as a landmark that successfully blended comedy, horror, and sci-fi elements in a way few films had before. It singles out the commercial and cultural impact of the proton packs, ghost traps, and the film's effects-driven humor as particularly innovative for its time. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/766891/ivan-reitman-rewrote-the-rules-of-genre-cinema-with-ghostbusters/)
- **Digital Spy**, Ben Rawson-Jones (85/100, inferred): The 1984 blockbuster remains a timeless classic that is still as funny, spooky and marvellous as ever upon its re-release. The critic singles out the winning camaraderie between Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis as the ghostbusting trio. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a347658/ghostbusters-review/)
- **Collider**, Elisa Guimarães (35/100, inferred): The critic finds the 1984 film boring and unfunny on a first viewing decades later, with a clunky script, underdeveloped characters, and a reliance on nostalgia that fails to engage. She singles out Rick Moranis's performance and the charming wonky special effects for praise amid the complaints. [Read](https://collider.com/ghostbusters-1984-review/)

## Details

- **Director:** Ivan Reitman
- **Director:** Ivan Reitman
- **Screenplay:** Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd
- **Cinematography:** László Kovács
- **Editor:** David Blewitt, Sheldon Kahn
- **Music:** Elmer Bernstein
- **Production design:** John DeCuir
- **Costume design:** Theoni V. Aldredge, Suzy Benzinger
- **Producer:** Ivan Reitman, Bill Damaschke
- **Cast:** Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman; Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Raymond Stantz; Harold Ramis as Dr. Egon Spengler; Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett; Rick Moranis as Louis Tully; Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore; Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz; William Atherton as Walter Peck
- **Runtime:** 1h 45m
- **Certificate (MPA):** PG
- **Release (the US):** 8 June 1984
- **Genres:** Comedy, Fantasy
- **Part of:** [Ghostbusters](https://film.one/collections/ghostbusters.md) · 1 of 4
- **Also in:** [Golden Globe Best Musical or Comedy winners](https://film.one/collections/golden-globe-comedy.md) (Nominee, 1984)
- **Budget:** $30 million
- **Box office:** $297 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msq0hZSgZdM

## Where to watch in the US

- Netflix: streaming, leaving 2026-10-01
- Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, uhd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $14.99, uhd

*Checked 2026-09-15.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, ES, FI, FR, GB, IE, IN, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 1985: Best Visual Effects (nominated)

## If you liked this

- *Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein* (1948): The monsters keep their dignity while the comedians struggle to keep theirs.
- *House* (1977): For stranger haunted-house comedy, with handmade effects allowed to run riot.
- *The Frighteners* (1996): Another supernatural business venture, with a nastier streak beneath the jokes.
- *Attack the Block* (2011), Fi1m 84: A more abrasive British creature comedy, grounded in neighbourhood loyalties and teamwork. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/attack-the-block.md)
- *What We Do in the Shadows* (2014): Supernatural creatures discover that sharing a house requires more patience than immortality.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/ghostbusters