I Still Think The 2016 All-Female Ghostbusters Movie Doesn't Get Enough Credit (For A Few Reasons)

The year is 2025, and I’m still going to bat for the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters movie.

A million years ago (more like 10), I proclaimed that an all-female Ghostbusters was a great idea. And now that we've gotten two more “traditional” Ghostbusters films since then, I actually think that I like the 2016 movie even more. Because even though it’s not perfect, I still think that the best things about it far outweigh the worst.

So, even though I know pretty much nobody agrees with me, I still, to this day, think the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters doesn’t get nearly enough credit. Here’s why.

I Genuinely Find It Funny

Okay, so yes, the 2016 Ghostbusters is packed with jokes, and some of them don’t land. That said, the ones that do land are actually pretty funny. I rewatched it again recently and found that Leslie Jones in particular had me laughing throughout most of the movie (I especially like her “room full of nightmares” line during the evil mannequin scene).

Really, all of the cast members have their own great moments. Kate McKinnon is off-the-wall zany, Melissa McCarthy is the smarty pants (but still funny), and Kristen Wiig plays the straight woman, getting in her own deadpan humor throughout the film.

This really made me think about the first two movies (I’m one of those weirdos who prefers Ghostbusters II to the original). The characters in the first two films are really humorous, I think it’s more a matter of the situations that Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston (the true best member of the team) are in that are funny, rather than the actors themselves.

What I mean is, while yes, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson are funny, I don’t think it’s their humor that carries the film. I mean, it’s a part of what makes those movies great, but it’s not all of what makes those movies great (which might be how it landed on our list of the best horror movies of all time).

However, I think the ladies in the 2016 film carry this movie with their humor. In a lot of ways, the humor is this film's greatest strength. Yeah, the actual ghost busting is fine, but the comedy is what makes it for me. In fact, I actually think this is the funniest Ghostbusters movie in the entire franchise, in that I actually laugh out loud a few times while watching it, rather than just chuckle like I did with the first two films. Make of that what you will.

I Think The Tone Is More Reminiscent Of The Originals Than Afterlife And Frozen Empire

I'm going to be real with you. I did not like Ghostbusters: Afterlife. I thought its follow-up, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, was a bit better (and my son liked it a lot), but honestly, I don’t think either of them really capture the tone of the first two films.

That’s not to say that they’re terrible. I mean, Frozen Empire worked a lot more for me since it actually took place in New York City, which is really important. But, Afterlife just didn’t vibe with me, as the Oklahoma setting felt incredibly off. Not only that, but the whole thing was just way too dour for my liking. In truth, I think it's the weakest entry in the franchise, even though I know it has its fans.

However, the tone of the 2016 movie is more consistent with the first two films. Because, I’m sorry, isn’t a Ghostbusters movie supposed to be fun?

I know there were little Stay Puft Marshmallow Men running around in Afterlife, causing chaos, but the overall movie just felt way too grim for my liking. Frozen Empire tried to be a bit more enjoyable, but it still didn’t match the fun-factor of the first two.

That said, the 2016 movie’s sole purpose is to be enjoyable. It’s not supposed to tug on your heartstrings, or make you nostalgic. It’s not trying to make you weep when you see a ghost version of Egon joining the other boys to finish off Gozer. It just wants to be a good time for a little under an hour and a half, and it succeeds for the most part. Just like the first two films. What more could you possibly want?

The All-Female Cast Is Also A Nice Contrast To The Original Ghostbusters Team, Making It Feel Unique

One reason why some people didn’t like the 2016 Ghostbusters is because of misogyny. Those people may say that that wasn’t the case at all, all I have to say is, I remember when this movie came out, and, more importantly, before this movie came out. Back then, there were a whole bunch of people who dismissed the film before it even released, declaring that they weren’t even going to see it.

I get it. Some people genuinely don’t like this film (our Ghostbusters review proved that we did, though), and the people who hate it will say that it’s just bad.

And fine. I don’t agree with you, but fine. Like or dislike what you want. That said, one thing that I think most people will agree on is that the characters aren’t the same as Ray, Egon, Peter, or Winston. Some may argue that the new characters are pretty much just matching archetypes to the original characters, and I’ll agree for the most part.

That said, making them women genuinely does make them feel different. It’s the whole energy. They don’t have the same rhythm or tempo as Ray, Egon, Peter, or Winston, but I like that about them.

For instance, Leslie Jones’ character, Patty, may be the woman off the street character, sort of like Winston, but she doesn’t feel like Winston (even though Ernie Hudson does appear as her uncle), as do none of the other cast members. They feel wholly unique in their roles, and almost like an alternate reality version of the team. In fact, even Murray, Aykroyd, Annie Potts, and Sigourney Weaver are all in the film, but they’re not playing their Ghostbuster-counterparts, which I love. It feels the same, but different.

The 2016 Movie Didn't Feel Like It Was Trying To Start A New Franchise, Which Works In Its Favor

Another thing I like about this film is that it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to force a new franchise.

Yes, the movie does try to force a sequel (I guess we’ll never see Zuul in this universe), but it also doesn’t trot out legacy characters, or try to connect it to the older films, which is a Godsend.

Because while I didn’t dislike the Star Wars sequels, one thing I definitely did not like about them was adding in Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewie, and Luke Skywalker. It just seemed so lazy. Were these genuine sequels, or were they continuations? Obviously, they were both, but they felt like a half step, which they were.

The recent Ghostbusters movies are like that as well, especially Frozen Empire, where the former Ghostbusters play a much bigger role than they did in Afterlife. However, the 2016 movie doesn’t do that. Yes, they reference things like Zuul, and have the old actors in it (In different roles), but it also doesn’t seem desperate to make this a legacy sequel, which I think works in its favor.

It’s a reboot, to be sure, but it’s just that, which I think is a good thing.

Plus, I Just Like All-Female Teams In General, And This Is A Strong One

Lastly, I just really like all-female teams. One thing that has been one of my favorite things to witness over the years is the broader acceptance of putting women in leading roles to big tentpole franchises.

Yes, we had films like Alien, The Terminator, and other films where a female lead carried the entire film, but what I love to see even more is films with multiple female leads. The Charlie’s Angels movies in the 2000s were fun, and I liked seeing those, but whenever I hear rumblings like a female-led Fast & Furious, I don’t roll my eyes. I look forward to it!

Because I love watching women kick ass and take names. Remember that scene in Avengers: Endgame when all the women in the team came together to fight Thanos? I love that part.

I love this movie, and the female team of Ghostbusters. I think it’s a strong one, and all of the characters are unique, funny, and capable. Now, I don’t just like this movie because it’s female-led, but it definitely adds to my enjoyment. So sue me!

But, what do you think? Are you also willing to finally give this movie its flowers?