Ghostbusters 1984

Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune: On balance, Ghostbusters is a hoot. It's Murray's picture, and in a triumph of mind over matter, he blows away the film's boring special effects with his one-liners. Read more

Janet Maslin, New York Times: There is more attention to special effects than to humor. Read more

Dave Kehr, Chicago Reader: Essentially a $30 million version of Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy but not at all a bad time, thanks mainly to Bill Murray's incredibly dry line readings and director Ivan Reitman's maintenance of a moderately coherent tone and plotline. Read more

Arthur Knight, Hollywood Reporter: The plotting may be primitive, but it's all carried off with far more style and finesse than one might expect from the creators of Animal House and Meatballs. Read more

Kathleen Carroll, New York Daily News: Ghostbusters is primarily a showcase for Murray, who slinks through the movie muttering his lines in his usual cheeky fashion and getting off an occasionally hilarious crack that proves he's thoroughly enjoying himself. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: This movie is an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy. Read more

Richard Schickel, TIME Magazine: Whoever thought of having evil's final manifestation take the form of a 100-ft. marshmallow deserves the rational mind's eternal gratitude. Read more

Tom Huddleston, Time Out: Thirty years on, bustin' still makes us feel good. In fact, few movies have the power to make us feel good-er. Read more

Variety Staff, Variety: Only intermittently impressive. Read more