Four Ghostbusters fire proton streams before a giant Stay Puft mascot head
Film review

Ghostbusters

1984 · Directed by Ivan Reitman · 1h 45m

In a sentenceBill Murray makes ghostbusting look like a job he took because nobody checks his references

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.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

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.

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.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

72
Positive
11
Mixed
0
Negative
3
Empire
1 January 2000 · Caroline Westbrook
90*

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 the full review →
RogerEbert.com
8 June 1984 · Roger Ebert
90*

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 the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · John Ferguson
80

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 the full review →
The AV Club
17 November 2021 · Alex McLevy
80*

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 the full review →
Vulture
13 July 2011
75*

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 the full review →
Slant Magazine
· Eric Henderson
70*

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 the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

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. It is a comedy and fantasy film.
Where can I watch Ghostbusters in Romania?
Ghostbusters is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from lei 11.99. 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 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 lists them in. Ghostbusters is the first of the 4 Ghostbusters titles on Fi1m; after it Ghostbusters II. The full order.

Part of · 1 of 4

Ghostbusters

4 films on Fi1m · 1984–2024 · average 62 · best Ghostbusters 80

All 4 in order

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1985

Nominated
Best Visual Effects

If you liked this, try…

  1. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) · not reviewed yetThe monsters keep their dignity while the comedians struggle to keep theirs.

  2. House (1977) · not reviewed yetFor stranger haunted-house comedy, with handmade effects allowed to run riot.

  3. The Frighteners (1996) · not reviewed yetAnother supernatural business venture, with a nastier streak beneath the jokes.

  4. Attack the Block (2011, Fi1m 84)A more abrasive British creature comedy, grounded in neighbourhood loyalties and teamwork.

  5. What We Do in the Shadows (2014) · not reviewed yetSupernatural creatures discover that sharing a house requires more patience than immortality.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever