http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html

Oh, wait, because whatever else you can say about the new “Ghostbusters,” it’s a lot like the 
old “Ghostbusters,” except that it stars four funny women instead of, you know, four funny 
men. In other words, it doesn’t have a lot of XY chromosomes and basso profondo voices, though 
its token hottie, played by a game, nimbly funny Chris Hemsworth, pulls his weight on both 
those counts. Otherwise, the redo is pretty much what you might expect from Paul Feig, one of 
the best things to happen to American big-screen comedy since Harold Ramis.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/dont-blame-women-star-for-the-ghostbusters-near-194317462.html

With a $181 million worldwide take (so far), the film has recouped its production costs and 
would be considered a modest hit … if it weren’t for the fact that it was really, really 
expensive. Thanks to its astronomical effects budget, Ghostbusters needed to clear $300 
million worldwide for Sony to declare it a hit. And outside the U.S., the movie was always a 
dicey proposition: Comedies generally don’t do well overseas; the Ghostbusters movies aren’t 
an internationally beloved franchise, and the film couldn’t even open in the biggest foreign 
market, China (likely because of the nation’s ban on “supernatural themes” in films).

Basically, if the movie had been made with director Paul Feig’s usual budget of under $100 million, it would have been an unqualified success. (Ghostbusters had a bigger opening weekend than any of his previous films, including Bridesmaids.) Audiences turned out, even with the noxious online backlash, which weighed down a fun summer blockbuster with unnecessary baggage. But it’s no surprise that Hollywood is so quick to declare the female-led reboot a failed experiment. It has done this before.