I'm a lifelong Ghostbusters fan. That extends to the remake, and it highlights one of the most valid complaints about the original: Venkman really is a dick. It's easy for me, even as someone who loves the movie, to agree with Amy's assessment that the film is deferential to him, as well as the comments calling the movie obnoxious. If you don't like Murray's brand of smarminess, that doesn't leave much to enjoy. Venkman telling Janine to get a better job is especially mean-spirited, and the movie repositions his pursuit of Dana from creepy to charming for no real reason, between him leaving her apartment and meeting her outside the orchestra hall. The jokes that I like from Venkman come from his detached POV and ribbing his friends, but if you like Venkman as a ladies' man, that's absolutely the part of the character that resonates with the part of the fanbase that loathed the idea of the remake. I also don't entirely know how to feel about the sexual undertones in the Keymaster / Gatekeeper stuff through the lens of 2017 sexual politics. Is it not rapey because they were both possessed?
On the other hand, I do think this is an excellent character comedy with a really great dynamic between Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis, as well as Hudson when he shows up. All of the most memorable exchanges are the characters bouncing off of one another (the library sequence, the Sedgwick ballroom, the prison scene, the ending), with the quick but clear establishment of those personalities making dialogue even funnier (Egon has some of the best "left turn" lines in the film -- "That's great, Ray, save some for me" and "I looked at the trap, Ray", for example). The tone created by Reitman is balanced enough to support the fantastic premise and also material like the "Revelations" scene, which is a pretty masterful re-establishment of stakes.
If there's an element of the movie that gets overlooked, it's the really incredible craftsmen behind-the-scenes, which gives the movie a uniquely classic look and feel. In particular, production designer John De Cuir, composer Elmer Bernstein, and cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs help give the movie so much personality that the sequel (and the new one, more understandably) can't replicate. That temple set, the matte paintings, the incredible tone-setting music (listen to some of the unused segments and marvel at how tricky the balance is -- many of them get terribly on-the-nose).
I vote yes. It has flaws, but the influence is pretty incredible (this isn't completely relevant to the movie itself, but according to a study done in the late 2000s, the Ghostbusters logo is second in worldwide recognition only to the Coca-Cola logo), the craftsmanship is really impressive for a 1980s movie, and its particular alchemy of character comedy and spectacle has only been replicated once in the 30+ years since that I can think of, which is Galaxy Quest. (I agree with the person who said The Blues Brothers is the better film, though.)
By the way, the guy outside the concert hall is not necessarily the violinist Dana ends up with. The baby is the violinist's, not Venkman's. The man who played the physical Vigo the Carpathian was the Nazi, but the performance was dubbed by an uncredited Max Von Sydow.
Finally, a positive story for Ernie Hudson which is probably true: one of Murray's conditions for doing Ghostbusters: The Video Game was supposedly that Ernie Hudson get an equal amount of dialogue.