I enjoyed it. Was it as good as the original? No, but what Ghostbusters material has ever been as good as the original? Ghostbusters II certainly didn't manage it, so why are people getting so up in arms about it? The characters are funny, the effects are actually pretty good and the ghostbusting looks better and feels more exciting than the original. The plot isn't great and the villain is nothing to speak of, but, then again, is Gozer really that interesting? From a meta-fictional standpoint, Gozer is a brilliant stand-in for an ancient, Lovecraftian horror, returning to Earth to consume the souls of humanity, only to be defeated by ingenuity and the powers of science. Aside from that, I would argue that it is Dana, Lewis and Mr Staypuft that give Gozer any real gravitas. As mentioned above, it is the cast that brings the most to the new Ghostbusters, Erin, Abby, Patty, Kevin and Holtzmann are fun characters, with some great on-screen chemistry and I would be keen to see what they get up to in any sequels.
The highlight of the film is a massive fight scene in Times Square, where the new team utilise a variety of new weapons to bust a wave of ghosts released by the forgettable villain. Unlike the original, the action is pretty engaging and takes on more than standing still, firing a Proton Pack at ghosts. Stunts, fight choreography and a banging soundtrack bring the ideas of Ghostbusters into a contemporary blockbuster landscape and make the girls look like superheroes as much as scientists and engineers. Patty feels a lot less token than Winston did, as her knowledge of local history and folklore is pivotal in more than one scene. Overall, Ghostbusters (2016) feels more like a remake of Ghostbusters II than anything else, interesting characters, good humour, crummy villain and not as good as the original. All-in-all, I think that's pretty good, certainly far better than some of the remakes that have been touted over the years.