First the good news - the new GHOSTBUSTERS isn't any appreciably worse than the 80s originals. The bad news - I don't think the '84 original (nor sequel) are all that great, either. The original is a classic example of a film where people of a certain age remember all the 'good parts' and forgive the fact that much of it is a clunky big budget comedy action horror flick. They repeat the quotable lines over and over and are convinced it's some kind of great film.

The remake/reboot won't have that repeatability (but, McKinnon does stand out in the 'Bill Murray' role here). There are some bright moments and decent gags, but, much like the 80s films, the new one eventually becomes yet another bloated summer vehicle. The cameos are ok (save for Ackroyd's), and it's nice to see that Ernie Hudson's ends up being the best of them (he got a large cheer at the screening I went to - the biggest of the whole movie). Criticize the original all you want (as I have), but, it was memorable, which is more than can be said for this one - which I have largely forgotten already.

I liked it quite a bit, although I think it suffered from the weird compulsion these back-to-the-beginning movies have to explain every little thing, from the logo to wearing coveralls , even when they don't matter a bit.  It's been long enough since seeing the first that I'm actually not sure where I stand on it, but I liked the new one well enough, and I'm glad it's there for my nieces.

I do worry for the potential sequel, which the mid-credits sting sets up as even more mining of the first; I hope that with all the cameos and checkboxes out of the way, anyone drawing a sequel assignment will feel free to make the series its own thing.