‘Ghostbusters’ opened at the box office with $46 million: did you love it or hate it?


I was looking forward to seeing the lady-version of Ghostbusters, mostly because I love the combo of Melissa McCarthy + director Paul Feig, and I think Kate McKinnon is one of the funniest people working today. I went to see it on a lazy Sunday afternoon, and about half-way through the film, I realized that it really wasn’t that funny. Ghostbusters has some giggle-worthy lines and some charm and McKinnon in particular was really trying her damnedest to bring some lightness and quirk to the movie, but even the combined talents of these funny women couldn’t save a clunky script. Those were the biggest issues: pacing, and a script that needed a few more rewrites. They spent too much time earnestly building the world of the “modern” Ghostbusters and there were so many opportunities for some tongue-in-cheek cultural references, anything to shorthand the process and move along the action, but it just didn’t happen.

Which isn’t to say that I think it’s a bad movie. It’s not, and if you’re in the mood for something light and silly, I would recommend it. It’s harmless and there are some funny lines and good moments. I feel like Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy’s comedic talents were oddly underutilized as they both tried to play the straight-man to varying degrees. Leslie Jones’ Patty was brought into the story too late (pacing issues, I’m telling you). Chris Hemsworth’s character was the victim of messy writing too, and it felt like they couldn’t decide how stupid they wanted him to be, so his level of intelligence kept changing scene-to-scene.

I’m well aware that there is a Battle of the Sexes happening around this film and around the reviews of the film. I was prepared to go to war and rip apart the misogynistic criticism of the film. But after seeing it, the most feminist thing I can say is that the leading ladies were trying and the film’s flaws are not their fault. The fault lies with Paul Feig and Katie Dippold, the co-writers of the clunky script.

As for the box office, Sony predicted that it would make between $40-50 million opening weekend, and it performed as expected. Early reports on Sunday put the figure at something like $46 million. It came in second behind The Secret Life of Pets, which… let’s face it, is a massive, crowd-pleasing family film. The problem was that Ghostbusters was TOO scary for really little kids and not funny enough to have box office longevity. It cost $144 million to make Ghostbusters, and I’m sure that the film will break even and likely make the studio some money. But as many analysts pointed out, that might not be good enough. Ghostbusters didn’t need to perform at expectations, it needed to exceed expectations to be considered a “success.” You can read more analysis here.




Photos courtesy of ‘Ghostbusters’.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

102 Responses to “‘Ghostbusters’ opened at the box office with $46 million: did you love it or hate it?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lisa2 says:

    I’m going to see it later in the week. Will be curious to hear what others thought. I loved the first Ghostbusters.. the others as most sequels were MEH..

    • WingKingdom says:

      I took a big group of ten year old boys and we LOVED it. Packed theater- we had to delay seeing it because earlier times were sold out. The audience was so into it, applauding at cameos and hooting at Hemsworth’s antics. It’s a really fun summer movie. Enjoy it! My kids are begging to see it again.

    • meh says:

      I’m a 26 year old woman and my friends and I LOVED it. I’m planning to see it again before it leaves theaters.

    • BamBam says:

      It was just ok. Melissa and Kristen not given the good lines, bickering. Kate was pretty funny w that silly grin all the time, Leslie pretty funny too. Every guy in the movies was made to look like an idiot or loser, not just Chris H. Story line lumpy. Nice cameos.

  2. Goats on the Roof says:

    I didn’t go see the film because it just didn’t look funny to me from the previews. I’ll wait until I can watch it from home.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Same. I want to support them, but it just looked mediocre to me from the trailers. I feel sort of bad about it.

    • LadyMTL says:

      Yep, I’m right there with you. I saw the previews and didn’t laugh once, as much as I wanted to. I’ll wait until I can get it for $6 on PPV.

    • Naya says:

      The consensus from people who have seen it is that the trailers did it no justice. The trailers dont forget are cut by the marketting department not the director and are usually created before the movie is complete. I am saying its smarter to go with the critic ratings and the audience reviews and its done pretty well with both these groups.

    • Trillion says:

      The movie is MUCH better than the trailers, I’m happy to say. My 9 year old son declared it his “favorite movie of all time” (knocking out 10 Cloverfield Lane). The chemistry among the cast is outstanding, the pacing is good, best use of 3D I’ve seen yet, Hemsworth is hilarious and the cameos from original GB are great. Sold out theater. Lots of spontaneous applause. My husband and I thought it was much better than original GB (which I had no attachment to) Such a fun ride.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I saw it in 3D, and I thought it was funny. It is different from the original Ghostbusters – which I am old enough to admit that I saw it in a theatre – but I did not feel this update “ruined my childhood” or anything like that. Plus, I watched the original on AMC on Friday night and saw the new one on Saturday, so I feel I had the ability to compare and contrast better than someone who has not seen the original movie in years.

      In my opinion, Chris Hemsworth’s character is an excellent sendup of the “dumb blonde bimbo” trope and there are some slyly subversive scenes involving him that likely went over many people’s heads. (E.g., the “sandwich” scene at the end.) I also felt the strong women characters are great for girls to see. Indeed, as I was leaving the theatre several tweens were walking ahead of me and chatting excitedly about how neat the film was – probably because they don’t see women like these on screen all that often.

  3. Nicole says:

    It was good not great. They needed to tighten up the script for sure.

    • pwal says:

      IA. I never saw the original, but this version was fun. And I have to say that the camera loves Kate McKinnon.

      • Esmom says:

        I highly recommend seeing the original, such a classic. My teenage boys love and quote it all the time.

  4. Trixie says:

    I didn’t see it because the trailers weren’t funny to me and I never see comedies in theatres.

  5. Saraya says:

    Considering the movie cost about $250 million to produce and market, I’d say it doesn’t even come close to breaking even. That’s Sony’s fault, though.

    • Trillion says:

      pretty sure this movie will have legs.

    • Twodollars says:

      That $250mm is highly inflated. I hate when people use these inflated marketing numbers and only take into account box office receipts as if that is where most of the money is made for a movie like this. They are going to make a ton of money with merchandise and commercial tie-ins. Plus, the rental/streams.

      • Saraya says:

        Sony spent at least $100 million to market the movie. Everyone from Daily Variety to The Hollywood Reporter has reported as much.

        As for the ancillary revenue streams, they don’t bring in all that much – particularly when the movie isn’t a huge blockbuster hit at the box office.

      • MC2 says:

        If they spent that much on marketing this then someone, or a whole team, should be given pink slips. The marketing for this movie has been terrible.

      • lucy2 says:

        Whoever marketed it should be booted, period. The marketing was terrible from the start, whereas the film itself was highly enjoyable, saw it tonight with a group varying in age from 12 to 80. We all loved it.

  6. Mgsota says:

    I enjoyed it, as did my husband and teenaged daughter. We all laughed a lot. I’m a huge fan of the original. I thought this version was fun and very satisfying. All the women were great but Kate stole the show!

    • Jess says:


    • I Choose Me says:

      Agree with every word you wrote. Did you stay post credits for the dancing scene? Hemsworth looked like he was having soooo much fun.

      • Mgsota says:

        Yes! Loved that part. There was more after that! Did you see it? It alludes to Part 2.

      • I Choose Me says:

        I did Mgsota. I’m actually looking forward to a sequel.

        Also, Kevin is only pretending to be that dumb right?

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I really enjoyed it. It was entertaining and I loved the combination of characters. Wow, special effects have come so far since the original!

    • mia girl says:

      We enjoyed it as well. Not an “A” movie but a solid B for sure. The four leads were great, and Hemsworth was hilarious.

      If I had one critique, as another poster mentioned downthread, it is the villain. He wasn’t a particularly interesting villain, that is until he inhabited another certain persons body (no spoilers), That was good.

      Sign me up for the sequel.

  7. Palar says:

    I really want to support female led movies, but I just love the damn original so much I don’t think I want to ruin in.t.

    • Trixie says:

      Honest question: How is seeing a remake of a movie going to ruin the original? The original still exists, you can still watch it, it hasn’t changed.

      I’ve never seen a remake that ruined my love for the original film. If anything, it makes me appreciate the original even more.

    • Betsy says:

      How would seeing this ruin that? Would all copies, digital and real, burst into flame?

      • boredblond says:

        I think maybe palar meant she knew it wouldn’t be as good as the original. .maybe not..but they rarely are..I thought the people who remade the classic The Women should’ve been banned from filmmaking.

      • LAK says:

        I’m still fuming about THE WOMEN’s Meg Ryan remake.

        The Joan Collins/ June Allyson remake of it ( THE OPPOSITE SEX ) isn’t horrible and is actually charming, but it was adapted to fit the times.

        The Meg Ryan version was so messy.

      • Amide says:

        @LAK – That movie was TERRIBLE

      • lisa2 says:

        Regarding The Women…

        I don’t understand why they just destroyed what made the film so great. I also think the cast had a lot to do with it. The original had a lot of flaws for me. The way women were regarding marriage and men. But it could have been such an interesting concept and if they had gotten the right cast. I can’t bare to watch that again. ever

    • Josie says:

      I’m a big fan of the original, too, and this reboot felt both like an homage to the original and a fun take on the concept. I liked the movie more than my kids did, and I think it was _because_ I remembered the original and got some of the ‘in jokes’ about that.

      I think it’s probably spoiler-y to discuss cameos so I’ll just say vaguely that they’re pretty much perfect from top to bottom and leave it at that.

      Movies are expensive but if you can catch this one in the theaters, I don’t think you’ll regret it or feel that it takes away from the original.

      It’s definitely NOT Meg Ryan’s The Women remake!

    • 0neNonBlonde says:

      I saw it and loved it. While it pays tribute to the original, it’s a totally different story and doesn’t take away from what Murray and crew did in the least.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I grew up doing theater, so the idea that the original version of anything is a sacred cow which can not be touched is so odd to me. I am so used to multiple versions existing of any piece of work, and the idea that some versions will be better, worse AND some different versions might be equally as good just in their own unique way. I can like both version A and version B, and not have them cancel each other out in some sort of cosmic artistic vacuum.

    • Adrien says:

      Not a remake but a reboot. The original casts were in it as cameos. Wonder what these lost childhood ranters feel about those neverending Spiderman, Tarzan, and Batman remakes?

    • lucy2 says:

      I loved the original too. LOVED. I could probably recite every line along with the movie.
      I loved this movie too. It didn’t feel like a remake at all, and in no way dinged the original in my eyes. It was a great companion piece to it, if that makes any sense.
      Great cast, amazing special effects, a highly enjoyable film. I would really recommend giving it a chance.

  8. lilacflowers says:

    Not great but a fun way to spend a few hours in an air conditioned theater on a really hot day.

    • Secret squirrel says:

      And what about me sitting here in -2 degrees Celsius?

      • Amberica says:

        They probably will heat your theater? I mean, either way, it’s certainly a preferable alternative to being outside.

  9. Jegede says:

    It’s done OK business in the UK too, which was a surprise.

    As I thought it would do gangbusters here tbh.

    Not sure if I’ll see it though. Takes a lot for me to bother going to the cinema.

  10. Jenns says:

    They had great chemistry together and the action scenes were well done, but the script and editing was a problem. Plus, a really bad villain.

    I still hope that they give them another shot at a sequel, because with a better script, those four women could kill it. And honestly, if you can do three Hangover movies, then there is no reason that they can’t do another Ghostbusters

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      The Hangover movies were successful from the first. That’s the difference. This Ghostbusters reboot is not very good, apparently, and also in danger of not making back its production and promotion budgets.

      • lucy2 says:

        The movie was very good, but I’m a little worried that if it doesn’t make enough, they won’t do a sequel. And it was set up BEAUTIFULLY for a sequel.

    • Lisa says:

      I agree that I hope they get another shot at it. This was sortofa set up movie. With a better script they could kill.

  11. Luca76 says:

    I enjoyed it. Loved the cameos from the original cast and how NY it was. I completely agree about Leslie zones coming in too late. I also wish Kristen Wiig was just a little less of the straight woman but overall I enjoyed it.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Well, that NY part is quite an accomplishment since it was filmed in Boston’s Chinatown, Financial District, and the Citi Wang Center.

      • Luca76 says:

        Lol that’s funny they did a good job then recreating the buildings and the feel.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        They did. The overhead shots and Times Square were real but most of it was shot on Boston streets I walk through every day

  12. Louise177 says:

    I’m sure the movie will get slammed for being a female cast but I think it would have had mediocre box office even with a male cast. I don’t think there was a huge call for this movie to be re-made. I also didn’t think the trailers looked good. I don’t think the anti-woman campaign hurt the film.

  13. Josie says:

    I went with my teenage kids last night and two of us thought it was really good (pacing issues kept it from being great) and two thought it was fine. I really enjoyed it and thought the leads looked like they were having a blast. That combination of personalities really worked for me. And a couple of the cameos just made me grin. I feel like it’s been a bad summer for adults and teens who want to see movies and finally there’s something in the theaters that isn’t too young or actively bad.

  14. Mia4s says:

    It was OK, I laughed. Really a minor film overall, why people wasted their time on viritol and outrage is beyond me. Go outside, get a hobby.

    It really was a cute movie but I’m not interested in a sequel.

  15. MrsBPitt says:

    I rarely go to the movies anymore. The last few time I went, people were talking through the whole movie…not whispering…TALKING. I politely asked a lady to please “be quiet” and she started yelling at ME! Now, I just wait for a movie to be on demand, and watch it in the quiet of my own home!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I still enjoy seeing certain types of movies at the theatre, but I agree, people around you can ruin it. I can’t believe she yelled at you! I guess the universe revolves around her. B.

      • MrsBPitt says:

        Just last summer, our local theater was playing Jaws. My son loves that movie, but had never seen it on the big screen. The theater was very crowded and we sat next to a mother and her son (around 12 years of age)…The mother proceeds to explain to the kid every thing that was about to happen. In her OUTDOOR voice! I was very polite when asking her to please stop talking and the psycho starts yelling at me “I WILL TALK AS MUCH AS I WANT AND AS LOUD AS I WANT”!!! Since, most seats were taken, my son and I got up and left. We told the manager on the way out and got a refund, but I was bummed my son didn’t get to see his favorite movie on the big screen. In this day and age, she could have had a gun in her purse, (In the old days, I may have gotten into a pissing contest with her). I will still see certain movies at the theater….big movies like Star Wars…but that’s it….

      • Trillion says:

        GNAT if you ever get a chance to see a movie in a town with an Alamo Draft House, DO IT. It’s a game-changer.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo_Drafthouse_Cinema

      • Secret squirrel says:

        I went to see the latest Captain America movie a few months ago and someone brought their 8 month old baby along to the screening. Ruined the movie for pretty much everyone. I don’t blame you for choosing to stay home.

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      Ugh, I went to see Tarzan (not my choice) with my brother, his wife, and another friend recently, and they would not shut up the entire movie! Other people kept shushing us (so embarrassing!) and they just kept talking. After it was over, my brother was pissed people kept telling him to be quiet. I tried to explain to him that no one paid $15 bucks per ticket to hear his commentary on the film. People can be so discourteous these days.

      • Marie says:

        I feel you. When I watched The Force Awakens last year, there was this couple behind me who would not stoo talking. The guy was explaining everything to the girl, in relation to the previous trilogy. When I shushed them, the guy actually kicked my chair and said in a loud voice “Excuse me?” Ruined the movie for me.

      • lucy2 says:

        OMG I hate when I’m with someone who is the talker! It’s so embarrassing.

  16. mellie says:

    It was a cute film, I don’t know that I’ll watch it again, but I enjoyed it.

  17. Marie says:

    Joining the Kate McKinnon love train. If there will be a sequel, it should focus on her character. She stole the show.

  18. Ninks says:

    I think you nailed it. It’s a decent film, but nowhere near as funny as The Heat or Bridesmaids. It spend too long world building, and I think they played it safe. I really hope there’s a sequel because without the need for world building, and tightening things up a little, I think it could be really great. It’s like seeing the pilot for a TV show, the potential is there but it needs more episodes to flesh out the character and for everybody to get comfortable with their characters.

    I also think the gag reel would be hilarious. I’m sure it’s about ten times funnier than the movie itself.

  19. Lorn says:

    Did you guys think it was appropriate for kids elementary school age? They’ve seen the original. I didn’t know if this would be too scary (they’ve seen Jurassic Park…Harry Potter movies) or if it had bad language/ crude? Those of you who’ve seen it, what do you think?

    • Josie says:

      Common Sense Media says 11+ but I would have said 10+ and I know my cousin will take her 8yo. Also, Common Sense Media tends to err on the side of caution. They suggest that Avengers and Batman v Superman are best for kids ages 13+.

      Here’s the text from their review:

      “While the film has some pretty scary spirit baddies and intense ghostly battles — as well as gross-out slime scenes — it’s so over the top that it’s likely to be more engrossing than chilling for most tweens and up. Language is infrequent but includes “s–t” and “damn,” and one character ogles a character she finds attractive and makes some comments about his hotness (but things never get too racy, and there’s less romance/relationship content in this one than in the original). There are also some fart jokes/a hit to the groin, and adults drink beer to relax. It’s a lot like the original (watch for cameos from some of the original stars!), but also different in many ways, especially with its underlying theme of female empowerment.”

    • magnolia says:

      I took my 5 year old who likes the original Ghostbusters, but she kept telling me she wanted to see “the girl one.” LOL! She covered her eyes for two ghost scenes that were kinda scary (loud music and skeleton faces). But she was fine otherwise – even the climactic battle scene at the end. That freakin’ scene with Kate McKinnon kickin ass – brought tears to my eyes ladies! Other than the last star Wars movie, I don’t know the last movie I saw with ONLY WOMEN kicking ass while NOT wearing booty shorts!!!!

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “That freakin’ scene with Kate McKinnon kickin ass – brought tears to my eyes ladies!”

        I loved that scene. At the time I felt it was odd how much it….moved me, but looking back, it is just that she was being so powerful and kickass and she wasn’t being sexualized while doing it.

      • I Choose Me says:

        That freakin’ scene with Kate McKinnon kickin ass – brought tears to my eyes ladies!

        Highlight of the movie right there. I actually got goosebumps with how much I loved that scene.

      • lucy2 says:

        Kate’s scene was so FANTASTIC. There were quite a few moments where I actually felt a little choked up at how awesome and kick ass they all were, especially when they fought side by side.
        It has such an effect on me, I can’t imagine how it would feel to watch it as a young girl.

        Also, Jurassic Park was way scarier IMO, so if they were OK with that, they’d be fine with this.

    • Amberica says:

      I took two 4th graders and a 5th grader. I mean, you know your kids, but the dirtiest if jokes (which are more weird than super dirty), went right over their heads. They all enjoyed it. Honestly, there was more questionable material in the trailers than in the movie.

    • deadnotsleeping says:

      We went as a family and saw it Friday night. My kids are 10 and 8. They both loved it and thought it was the funniest thing ever. They both jumped a few times, but no one got scared. This is definitely more family friendly than the original. My kids are already asking if we can buy it when comes out on bluray.

      Honestly, we all thought it was great and at our showing, which wasn’t more than half full, the entire audience kept cracking up.

  20. Marty says:

    I saw it in a packed theatre Sunday morning. It was an enjoyable movie, definitely not a great one though. But considering all the hate surrounding it, you would it was a ‘Glitter’ remake, not a ‘Ghostbusters’ remake. Dudes got way too invested in unnecessarily hating on this movie.

    • magnolia says:

      IMDB is filled with trolls giving it zero stars and they probably haven’t even seen it.

  21. K says:

    I hated the original ghostbusters I just thought they were so stupid, so when I heard they were doing remake with women I was disappointed. I want to support female driven movies because I think they should be made but at the same time I really don’t want to go to movies I find stupid and pay a bunch a money just on the off chance one day these women will get to do a truly good original film.

  22. Zeddy says:

    I liked it a lot. I thought the original sucked, so this was definitely an improvement.

  23. prince says:

    but I said it and many of u feminists here called me all sorts of names. this movie is a stinker. a big turd. I have no problem with women at the center of movies . I enjoyed blue jasmine, the help, mad max, etc but this is a terrible movie.

  24. lucy2 says:

    Going tomorrow with a big group of friends. I’ve heard good things, I hope it’s fun and funny.

  25. Josefina says:

    I hope we can all just leave this to rest now. This movie just got exhausting after a while. From the neckbeards acting like the making of this movie was some kind of monstrosity, to the SJWs acting like this movie would put an end to misogyny around the world and everyone who wasn’t excited for it was a rampant women-hater. How can people make such a big deal out of an admitedly silly, light-hearted movie?

    My parents went to watch it with my sister. They all said the same. If you catch it on cable later on, you can leave it. But it’s not a movie worth paying to watch in the cinema. It had some funny scenes, but it wasn’t a funny movie (they aren’t exactly movie people so they didn’t talk much about script and acting). My dad was also bothered by the CGI ghosts. He said they tried to make them more modern-looking but they just looked silly.

  26. Brittney B. says:

    I saw it Friday night and LOVED it. Lost the opportunity to sleep before a red-eye cross-country flight but it was all worth it. Now I wish I’d seen it twice.

  27. Rebekah Dunbar says:

    I loved it. Silly not hilarious but entertaining. 3-D and special effects are definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

  28. Amberica says:

    I’m proud to say I took my son and my 2 nephews and they LOVED it. On the way home I casually commented to my son (who’s 9), “I think you enjoyed that just as much as you would have if they were all men”. He says, “More so” (he legit talks that way. Lots of reading). I asked why, and, slightly annoyed at mom’s stupidity, he replies, “Mom, men just aren’t as funny”.

  29. Pandy says:

    Saw it yesterday. I thought it was just okay. Not great, okay. 3 stars out of 5, maybe even 2.5. And I thought Kate McKinnon was trying a little too hard.

  30. Darlene says:

    I loved it.

  31. Ruyana says:

    I saw it last Thursday. My son loved it. I thought it was “meh”. A couple of funny moments, but mostly just bland with overheated moments. Yeah, and Kate McKinnon was just weird rather than funny.

  32. nicegirl says:

    We are heading out today for the big guy’s 18th birthday (my son my son my son!!) and bringing a group of his amigos along for the movie as part of the festivities. Go Women lead films!!

  33. SamusAran says:

    My husband and I saw it. He liked it and I loved it, mainly because of the ass kicking. Kate McKinnon was AWESOME all around and I loved her action scenes. 💪 I’m an action movie lover and I like these types of movies. Looking back, I do agree with the pacing issues (Patty should’ve come into play sooner) but overall it was still a good movie. Oh, and nothing about this movie “ruins” any other Ghostbusters movie. 😤🙄

  34. karen says:

    I took my 11 year old son to see it and we both really liked it. Personally, it seemed like Kate McKinnon was in a different movie. I like her a lot, but thought they went too far with trying to make her seem quirky.
    That said, overall I thought it was a lot of fun. Glad we stayed tthru the credits to ssee Chris Hemsworth busting a move !
    There was a grown man that stood for the entire movie (off to the side) and full on danced every time the Ghostbusters song came on.

  35. PoliteTeaSipper says:

    I gave it a chance, but I thought it was awful. I guess I have to hand in my feminist card and start attending misogyny classes now.

  36. Kelly says:

    The movie was fantastic, saw it in 3D. I’m surprised it did not do better.

  37. miss c says:

    I saw it on Saturday with my best gal friend and we both thought it was a cute and funny update of the original.

    Could it have been better? Sure. As mentioned, the script needed tightening and there were some weird loose ends (erm…why was the debunker guy secretly filming in the ghostbuster lab??)

    I’m not sorry we didn’t wait for it to come to cable, and am ALWAYS glad to support a movie with female leads.

  38. Liz says:

    I want to see it with my 12 year old science and sci-fi loving daughter. So I guess I will have to wait until she is home from camp. I was around her age when the original was released and at the time, I loved that one – I’m curious to see this one with her and to see what she thinks. As far as I know, she hasn’t seen the original, yet.

  39. TotallyBiased says:

    My friends and I LOVED IT!!! Plus 3D is totally worth it.
    We couldn’t stop laughing, loved the meta -humour as well as the blink-and-you’ll miss them subtle jokes. Probably need to see it a few more times to catch everything.
    Loved the insistence on the Scientific Method, Patty’s particularly interesting and specialized knowledge base, and of course HOLTZMAN!!!!!!!
    Loved that everyone in the cast contributed, no-one phoned it in. And Hemsworth should just do a lot more comedy.
    Overall, 8.75/10!
    (And there ARE jokes we are laughing at that most of the guys aren’t getting, or don’t think are that funny. Well, welcome to my world at the Hangover movies, boys!)

    As for box office:
    Highest opening for a live-action comedy in over a year.
    Opened at #1 in UK and AUS.

    • Kate says:

      Wouldn’t Deadpool count as a comedy?

      Also Australia hasnt got Secret Life yet, and the UK got it weeks ago, do Ghostbusters had a clear run.

  40. what's inside says:

    Disappointed and bored. I actually slept through part of it when I ran out of popcorn and my Icee.

  41. Tig says:

    Saw it today and really enjoyed it. The cast’s chemistry is great! I would totally go see a sequel. Watch the Graham Norton episode featuring all four women- their comments on Chris H are hysterical.

  42. HurricaneK says:

    For me, the laughs were few and far between. It had great potential but an R rating would have been better perhaps, allowing Wiig and McCarthy to shine. I think they are at their best when they don’t hold back. Also, their characters were poorly written, cast more often as the “straight men” to the other two actresses than as funny women. I wish Feig et al. had spent more time on the script and plot, maybe less on the backstory. I wanted to love it but it didn’t really work for me. Then again, I don’t enjoy Big Bang Theory or Two and a Half Men either. Maybe my love of Arrested Development and Veep has tainted me as far as comedies go… Although I loved the right scene with McKinnon and also the scene where she was standing among the mannequins in the wig and hat.