Ghostbusters: Answer the Call


Action / Comedy / Fantasy / Sci-Fi

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 73%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 56%
IMDb Rating 5.3 10 170201


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 217,150 times
June 13, 2017 at 04:25 PM



Melissa McCarthy as Abby Yates
Kristen Wiig as Erin Gilbert
Bill Murray as Martin Heiss
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1.78 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 56 min
P/S 2 / 14
983.66 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 56 min
P/S 12 / 79
2.04 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 56 min
P/S 13 / 68

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Lizzy m 4 / 10

Holloywood needs to quit remaking classics and start something fresh

When I heard that they were remaking the movie Ghostbusters with female cast members, I admit that I was actually looking forward to it, specially considering the four particular actresses they had chosen for the part. I understood that movie remakes are typically the greatest, but considering the fact that 3 out of the four cast members are currently or were once members of SNL, I had some hope. Unfortunately, Wigg's comedic talent wasn't able to shine with her boring character with a lack of personality, McKinnon's character was just upright stupid and unrealistic, Jones's character was just a black stereotype, and McCarthy's role lacked character as well. Many of the jokes just fell flat (Steve Higgins small role and joke with the middle finger, the won tons, Kevin's (aka. Chris Hemsworth's) logo scene, the thing with the hair dye at the end, and so on). Also, the had many references to the original ghost busters throughout the film, and yet I suppose the setting takes place in a universe where the original squad had never existed, it's like a slap to the face to the original cast. Sure they had Bill Murry and few other actors for the older version show up in a few small parts, but they play such tiny roles, and as different characters..

And what's the deal with remaking older movies with female actresses or poc as the main characters. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with Hollywood wanting a bit of diversity in their work, but they're doing it all wrong. While this movie has good intentions when trying to cast female members, I guess either to have more representation for younger girls to look up to or show that women are equal to men or whatever, but when they try to do with a remake of a movie that was already amazing, it only makes matters worse. This movie will be forgotten within a few years from now, unlike the 1988 version, which most people had at least heard of reguardless of age before this one. On second thought, this movie isn't trying to create diversity, they're doing this for profit. They know that with the adults and their nostalgia these days, and with the younger now being obsessed with the classics due to them being conditioned to think that everything from their own generation sucks (which is clearly saying a lot about the older generation ironically, they're the ones whom produce our movies, not us), they can get some quick and lazy bucks by bringing back a film that should've been left alone in the first place instead of thinking up of a new script and story (that of which could also have female and/or poc leading characters), because they know people are more drawn to things that they are familiar with (as was I obviously). Whatever, I'm so done with remakes. There are many movies out there in today's time (yeah they exist) with original plot lines that are currently or were recently successful in the last year or so, so why watch a crappier version of a movie you've already seen before?

Reviewed by dawson167 1 / 10


I am not against remakes because sometimes they can be good like "The Thing" or " A Fist Full of Dollars" or "Little Shop of Horrors" etc But this was a pile of overrated rubbish that was made purely made to further an agenda of feminism and that women are the best and do not require men.

This is purely a man hating film and tanked as it deserved to do.

Some might say it was misandrist.

What a waste of an opportunity to make at least a reasonable modernised version of a great film.

Even the music was rubbish

Reviewed by tuckerconstable-07055 4 / 10

Ghostbusters II, you are forgiven.

The year was 2016 and the movie on everyone's mind was "Ghostbusters Answer the Call". To say that the film was controversial and incredibly divisive is a total understatement. There were wars over this thing, man. It was mass hysteria the dogs and cats living together type.

But, yes, this film was INCREDIBLY controversial. Remaking a classic comedy film is already going to irk some people, but to make such horrible marketing decisions that don't hype anyone up and instead makes them hate the movie on arrival-that's a completely different bag of bones. As for me, I thought the film was poorly marketed. The trailers portrayed the film as your average ensemble cast comedy that comes out every summer and is completely forgotten by Autumn. BUT! I remained open minded. Maybe the trailers were just bad, the film could be good. Right?


The film on its own is very average. It's never "The Room" territory of bad, but it's very bland and forgettable. Let's face it-if the film didn't have the title "Ghostbusters" no one would really care about it. The trailer would drop, a few months later it would make a small profit at the box office and people would move on. But, what made this film stand out is that it's a remake of an absolute gem of comedy. When I think Ghostbusters, I don't think of it as just some dumb eighties comedy about four guys who catch ghosts. I mean it is about four guys who catch ghosts-but the film is near perfect with its blend of comedy and scares and its perfect casting. The dialogue is some of the sharpest, most subtly funny one liners ever committed to film that still hold up to this day.

However, with "Ghostbusters Answer the Call" you get a fart joke, an ejaculation joke and just some dumb "funny face"/mugging humor in the first half hour. Now believe me when I say this, I love low brow humor, when it's good. "Ghostbusters" had some low brow humor, but it was so well written and in tune with the rest of the script it worked-AMAZINGLY! Here, it just comes across as their desperate for laughs and they'll throw anything at the screen to get you to giggle. That's another thing with the film-it never knows when to stop joking around. The original was never afraid to get serious for a moment. Remember that scene where Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson talked about how the end of days seemed near, and it was a genuinely well-made and serious scene. Yeah, you don't get that here. Instead you sort of get shades of that, but the film is so desperate to get good jokes flowing that it won't just hush up and be quiet for a second.

Probably the worst thing about the film is that I usually love these actresses in other films. Kate McKinnon is one of the strongest modern day cast members on SNL, Kristen Wiig has always been a good comedy actress and Melissa McCarthy, while pretty hit or miss in recent years, is decent when she tries hard enough. "Spy", for example, I really liked her in. She wasn't just some walking, talking fat joke that she's been type casted in to being with films such as "Tammy", "Identity Thief" and "The Boss".

Surprisingly, the one person who works in this is Leslie Jones-the person everyone hated from the trailer. She sort of plays the character that the audience can associate with. She's witty, independent and street wise, just like the original Ghostbusters. Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore weren't just a bunch of actors playing themselves. They were full-fledged characters, played by actors who understood their characters. "Ghostbusters Answer the Call" never seems like it truly understands its original source material and it never tries to. Why should it? It's just a dumb 80's comedy that has a recognizable name that can just be plastered onto some shallow attempt at comedy to make a quick buck. Right?

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment