Re. the new Ghostbusters, what do you mean by "not a good film"? Clearly, it wasn't a good film in the sense that it wasn't a deep and meaningful arthouse meditation on the vicissitudes of the human condition - but blockbusters aren't meant to be in that niche. It was a fast-moving action film. What're the appropriate standards to judge something of that genre?
Reasonably fast moving and semi-coherent plot (I've never seen a blockbuster that didn't require some suspension of disbelief from its audience - the question is simply a matter of how much - too much and the audience get pissed off).
Within the 2-d cardboard cutout restrictions of the genre, reasonably likeable characters with a decent amount of interaction and sparking off one another.
A reasonably creepy bad guy.
Judged on those standards, I thought the new ghostbusters did a good job - and I enjoyed it. The female leads were funny and bounced off one another, and I loved Chris Hemsworth asking the question "what would a male dumb blonde stereotype look like?" (I still giggle at the thought of "do you prefer the photo of me playing the sax or listening to the sax?")
So bottom line, you hated it (and you weren't alone in that), I loved it (and I wasn't alone in that). So far, so "de gustibus non est disputandum." And it was undoubtedly the case that there was a misogynistic back-lash against the mere idea of Ghostbusters with a female cast (online abuse way before the film's release). But I can't see that it failed to tick the boxes of a successful action blockbuster (unlike, for example, Batman and Robin, which failed the "plot must bounce along at a reasonable speed" test, and failed it spectacularly, or Tomorrow Never Dies - weediest Bond villain ever, totally lacking in menace).