I Know Who to Call Yeah Who Is That Ghost Busters Very Funny
No, It's Not The Original, But It's Still Very Funny
This was another sequel that was fashionable to knock when it came out. It got panned because it couldn't live up to the first Ghostbusters. Well, what could? The first one was so original, so enormously popular than any sequel was bound to fail as far as matching it.
This second Ghostbusters was just fine, very entertaining and it was nice to see all the main characters back. It had a little nicer feel to it and was more family-friendly language-wise, so it even had some things going for it the first one didn't have.
The other major different in this sequel was watching Peter MacNichol, who reprized his "Renfield"-type character from Mel Brooks' "Dead: And Loving It" comedy with Leslie Nielsen. Here, MacNichol plays "Janosz Poha," another wacko with a thick Eastern European accent. He is hilarious, and elevates the enjoyment of this film. Otherwise, the rest of the cast plays and acts just as they did in the first film, which means you'll get a lot of laughs out of them The story just isn't as intense, that's all. No, it can't equal the original, but.....
The bottom line is this: Don't try to compare the two films. If you enjoyed the first, you'll like this.....period.
115 out of 143 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film shouldn't be panned
I say that one line summary not in the meaning you should watch this film in widescreen, but in that this film isn't as bad as some people say. Sure it might not have the ultimate originality of the 1st (of course), but it is still entertaining, one of the best of 1989. This time, we see 5 years later where the Ghostbusters parted ways (Venkman to a Talk show, Spengler to a child psychologist and Stanz as a book store owner) but are put back together because of new activity in the paranormal that could end the world (courtesy of a painting named Vigo). Then, comedy ensues with great visual effects to match. Still pretty funny (the talk show scene with Chloe Webb is utterly hilarious), but maybe just a tad lesser than the first. A-
78 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They're back!
I could lie and say I think "Ghostbusters II" is an inferior sequel to the original 1984 "Ghostbusters," but "Ghostbusters II" is an entertaining film in its own right. Nothing can come close to the gleaming perfection of the first film but damn it, the sequel works in most places. It's chiefly because the movie is just so damn entertaining! It's still mostly watchable despite its flaws and misjudgments about what the filmmakers may have seen as an apparent mean-spiritedness in a lot of people during the late '80s.
True, comedian and star Bill Murray still steals the show whenever he gets the chance and he also gets some of the best lines, and he's just so gosh-darn funny as a leading man. Screenwriter team/co-stars Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are also in top form, and it shows in their wily and hilarious script. Unlike the first picture, though, it seems like they took the family-friendly route and didn't feel like building up to the oh-so-apocalyptic tone of the first film (even though "Ghostbusters" was still pretty funny aside from the occasional dark tone).
And also, director Ivan Reitman knows their material and it looks like the filmmakers made the wise decision of bringing back everybody from the original film, including Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis. It's been five years since the first film (a title card confirms it), and it seems that most of New York City doesn't even remember who the Ghostbusters are and what they did for the city. Everyone in the city is miserable and the opening moments confirm that as well. After being almost bankrupted by countless lawsuits and being unable to practice their trade because of a judicial restraining order, the boys are reduced to moonlighting in other fields, such as catering to the needs of spoiled yuppie children at their birthday parties, a task that neither Ray Stanz (Aykroyd) or Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) take pride in.
Egon Spengler (Ramis) is the only one of the original Ghostbusters who seems to have actually moved on with his life. Peter Venkman (Murray) hosts a television show called "The World of the Psychic," a show that apparently draws in modest ratings but no respected psychic will appear on his show because they think he's a fraud. Anyway, things get underway when the boys discover that nasty pink slime of supernatural origin is discovered building up underneath the city, something that old friend and Venkman's old flame Dana Barrett (Weaver) realizes first hand when the slime attacks her infant son, and it's an investigation they have to do on the down-low because of their current legal situation.
This slime, they learn, feeds off the misery and stress of a downtrodden New York City, and it's only getting stronger as the holidays are approaching. But because no one believes in ghosts anymore, their task is even more difficult. Well, after ghost-busting the two ghouls that crash in on their trial hearing, we have no choice but to be ready to believe them. They're back in business, all right - with cynical Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) answering the phones and Louis Tully (Moranis) on the books - tracing the source of their ghost-busting investigations to a 17th-century Moldavian tyrant named Vigo the Carpathian who wants in on the 20th century, and has possessed museum curator Janosz Poha (a hilarious Peter MacNicol) to go out and kidnap Dana's son so he can have a body so he can live again.
One thing "Ghostbusters II" provides for the viewer is solid entertainment, which is what any good sequel should do. It would be impossible for this movie to any way live up to the original, so you can't blame the filmmakers for at least trying (trying is italicized). It would be pointless to say that the acting is good from our players, but my God, they're good and again in top form. The special effects are still pretty impressive, even from their early ghost-busting capers, to a finale where the boys are actually able to walk down the streets of the city in an animated - yes, animated! - Statue of Liberty (yes, Lady Liberty has sprung to life, and good thing she's on our side!). And even the R.M.S. Titanic (don't ask, just watch) pops up too.
"Ghostbusters II" hasn't been particularly well-received, even despite its more family-friendly tone and message about the folly of mean-spiritedness. But it's just a good sequel, nonetheless, not bad, not superior to the original, maybe on par with the original, but it's just really good fun.
8/10
50 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Their Number Is Still In The Book
All the principal characters and then some have been reunited five years later for Ghostbusters II. If you still have an ectoplasmic problem in your home or place of work, who you going to call? Why Ghostbusters II of course.
New York City has a river of ectoplasmic slime running underneath it and its feeding the sick desires of a long dead Carpathian count with delusions of grandeur to come back and rule. But first to find a host body.
Poor Sigourney Weaver, there's something about her that the spirits just can't resist. In the first Ghostbusters she was the target, now it's her infant son. Her's and Bill Murray's that is. If the no account count can get his spirit into the infant, he will be reborn with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Or does someone else have those?
As usual Ghostbusters Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson see the problem, but to convince the rest of New York that their general misanthropic behavior is what the nasty spirit feeds on.
Joining the gang is former victim Rick Moranis. In many ways Moranis is the funniest one in the film. He and Annie Potts make a delightful couple and great babysitters for poor Sigourney, especially since she can't get them to leave.
Ghostbusters II is every bit as funny as the original. And in addition the second film retains that famous and catchy theme that you won't get out of your head for weeks after seeing this film.
32 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worthy and entertaining, not as good as the first film, but this is a sequel worth watching!
The first Ghostbusters was a feel good, silly and entertaining film. The sequel is certainly a worthy one, and I really enjoyed it, though it seemed a little more serious in tone. Bil Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson all return, and all of them do a very credible job. I especially liked the fact that Ramis, Ackroyd and even Hudson were given more to do. The sequel, set 5 years later, shows that Dana and Peter have had a baby named Oscar, and he was really cute. As I've said already, it doesn't quite have the feel- good nature of the first film,(the ending was a bit of a letdown)due to a rather contrived plot and some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. Peter MacNicol does his best, but he is given little to do, and towards the end, I didn't see him particularly threatening. Aquitting himself better, much better in fact, is Wilhelm Von Homberg as Vigo, creating quite a sinister villain, if not quite memorable. Also there were some excellent special effects, a hilarious court room scene and the spirited performances of the entire cast, making this an enjoyable, if not entirely successful sequel. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm still ready to call them.
I guess that usually, we have to wonder why they make sequels. If nothing else, as long as the sequels aren't boring, obnoxious, pathetic, embarrassing, insulting, or otherwise bad, then they're acceptable. "Ghostbusters II" passes. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Annie Potts and Rick Moranis reprise their roles from the original. This one has the title characters battling a river of hostility-based slime that's possessing a painting. Peter MacNicol plays the man who brought the painting to New York, and subsequently gets possessed by it. "Ghostbusters II" is pretty ridiculous, often gross, but never unpleasant. So who you gonna call?
33 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A tepid sequel that should have been much better
First of all...where are the ghosts? We have the Scolari Brothers and Slimer but there is an agonizing lack of spooks and spectres in this sequel and the bustings of required. Ghostbusters II should have opened with a huge set-piece (ala James Bond) and then launched the title screen. We have seen these guys set-up, we have had the origin story, they were cheered by the city after saving the world from 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together mass hysteria!
Get the point?
Instead the movie stumbles over the starting line by announcing that they were sued by everyone in New York for blowing-up Spook Central and were labelled as frauds. Yeah, because conjuring up a very tangible Marshmallow Man and Gozer's voice booming all over Manhattan is easy to pull off when you're a conman. Not only that but the team have disbanded and Dana has married someone other than Peter. In five years she dumped him, married someone else, had a kid with him, and was dumped herself when he left to go to Europe. That timeline seems a little tight.
A portrait of a gruesome medieval warlord being brought to a New York museum coincides with a viscous, psycho-magnatheric river of slime materializing beneath the streets. All of the hate and anger in New York has became tangible and is giving Vigo the Carpathian power from his painting. He wants to inhabit a newborn on the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and thus take over the world some time later. He's hardly Gozer. Vigo does pretty much nothing for the whole movie and his motivation to become a 90s baby doesn't exactly frighten us.
Where is the darkness? This movie is far too light-hearted, helped none by Randy Edelman's lame score which is absolutely no match for the power of Elmer Bernstein from the first movie. Lazlo Kovac's is gone, by Michael Chapman does a fine job in his place, with some truly wonderful wide shots and camera blocking featuring up to six characters at once. GBII has great anamorphic photography but the darkness is not there and it is needed.
It satisfied me as a kid, but I can't help but be disappointed at the numerous missed opportunities when I watch it as an adult. It should have been more. It should have been much, much more.
I also find it odd that for a film that has a climax set on New Year's Eve there is not one mention of Christmas. And what's twice as weird, or just plain lazy, is the fact that the real life building that became Spook Central in the first movie is visible during the montage scene. All the had to do was point the camera in another direction or use a matte painting to alter it back to its fictional appearance.
31 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good sequel
Ghostbusters 2 is a fair sequel that finds the boys in grey five years later, not doing too good. Of course, it's not long before evil spirits pop up again in Manhattan and they're back doing what they do best. What makes this one work as well as the first is the relationship between the main characters. Bill Murray gets the great one liners again, and his scenes with Sigourney Weaver are just as goods as the first film. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis provide enough silly techno jargon and odd references to slime and ghosts to keep you smiling. Still, you can't beat a 100 foot marshmallow man in Manhattan.
58 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"We're here tonight because a psychomagnotheric slime flow of immense proportions is building up beneath the city."
Tedious retread sequel never reaches the heights of the first Ghosbusters. It just feels like the guys got back together to goof off and get paid for it. Bill Murray seems alternately amused and bored throughout the film. The rest go through the motions. As for new faces, Peter MacNicol is extremely annoying, basically playing the role Rick Moranis played last time. Moranis actually reprises his role but has nothing to do and is shoehorned into things with irritating results. It's not a bad movie. It's enjoyable enough due to the likability of their stars but the story is weak and there's nothing memorable about the whole thing.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Followed the first one too much.
This sequel to the successful movie Ghostbusters was itself, pretty successful. In the end though it did not do as well and just seemed a little flat. The story of the slime was pretty good and it was funny seeing them do kid's birthday parties (though I doubt a kid at that time would have watched He-man cartoons). In the end this movie suffers from the fact that it follows the basic structure of the first movie so there is nothing really different about it. You have them investigating something, you have them dispatching a ghost, then you have the musical interval, then you have them locked up (in a loony bin this time), then you have a building taken over by the head ghost, and finally you have a giant thing walking through New York. It just seems to me that with ghosts and other things, you could come up with a totally original and funny script without having to follow what worked in the previous chapter. It is a shame too, that another Ghostbusters will probably never be made. It would be interesting to see it, considering all the advancements in special effects.
37 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fun sequel
Warning: Spoilers
After the end of the first film, you'd think the Ghostbusters would be heroes for life. However, they've been sued out of existence and are barely able to get back together in time to stop a whole new evil, Vigo the Carpathian, who is trapped inside a painting that Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) is restoring along with her boss, Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol, a bright spot here).
Yes, Dana went from playing the cello at a high level to being an art expert of the same caliber. Obviously, we're dealing with a Buckaroo Banzai level individual here.
This film never lived up to the original for audiences, critics or the people who made it. It took five years of rough gestation to even get to the screen, which needed suits, agents and even a lunch for the stars to decide whether or not they wanted to work together.
Vigo is pretty great though. While his voice comes from Max Von Sydow, he was played by Wilhelm von Homburg, a German boxer, wrestler and weight lifter who also shows up in The Last of the Secret Agents?, Die Hard, The Wrecking Crew and In the Mouth of Madness. This Deadspin account of his life is pretty astounding, telling the story of a man who lived for excess and may have even fathered his own half-sister.
Remember how I said in a past review that Ghostbusters has no hero's journey for its characters? Well, they've done the third - and hardest - act off-screen, as now Ray (Dan Aykroyd) owns an occult bookstore and works a side job with Winston (Ernie Hudson) doing kid birthday parties, Egon (Harold Ramis) works in a lab and Venkman (Bill Murray) hosts a ridiculous psychic TV show.
Luckily, everything works out despite a river of slime. Rick Moranis returns as Louis Tully and Annie Potts comes back as Janine Melnitz, ready to fall for Egon.
Sure, this is nowhere as good as the first, but that Bobby Brown song sure is catchy. Actually, they could make several of these films and I'd watch them all. I even made it through the toss away the past reimagining.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad case of sequelitis
Ghostbusters 2 should have been amazing. The whole team is back, from the actors to the director to the screenwriters. Sure, five years between movies is a tad long so most of the hype had died down, but this could still have worked.
And there are good things in this movie. The world is still eminently intriguing and as cool as frozen hell. It's no wonder that this franchise is still alive and kicking. There's just something viscerally and effortlessly appealing about it.
Furthermore, all the main actors are back, from Murray to Weaver to Ramis and so on. And they're still great actors who give us great performances. Okay, Murray is clearly not bringing his A-game this time around, but he's passable even at 60 percent.
The special effects look amazing, the score is nice and there are cool scenes to be had.
So what went wrong? Well, unfortunately the script and the directing, which seems ludicrous because it's the same guys that struck gold the last time around. But there's just no denying that this is very much what a sequel shouldn't be. It's pretty much the exact same story with the outer layer swapped to create an illusion of difference. None of the characters have grown since the events of the original and in some cases they have backslid right to where they started. Like Venkman (Murray) and Barrett (Weaver). Why these sequels believe we want to see the exact same romance all over again, I have no idea, but it's very annoying. Why can't people just be a couple if they got together in the first film? There's jokes to be had in that as well.
The pacing is also all over the place and it's just not as tight as the first film where pretty much every scene was iconic. This meanders around, wastes a lot of time simply getting the team back together and is simply not as captivating as the original classic.
Still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it. It pales in comparison to its predecessor, but if seen in a vacuum, it more than passes as a fun science fiction horror comedy.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unfairly Maligned Sequel!
Ghostbusters II is the much-maligned follow-up to the 1984 classic that took the world by slime...ahem storm. Contemporary audiences (which obviously includes myself) is kinder on the sequel. While not as a good as the first film, the sequel remains a fun, charming picture. The humor is not as prevalent which I admit was an initial turnoff. But the darker set pieces and the amazing cast elevated the film. It is not without its problems. I already mentioned the lack of humor, but I was not the biggest fan of the villain, Vigo the Carpathian. He comes across as a weaker version of Dracula. That said, his character is enhanced by this cool-looking ectoplasmic slime that feeds off the negativity of New Yorkers (jeez, this slime would elevate any villain these days), so I did like that. I also felt the film lacked the originality and surprise of the original Ghostbusters. The sequel is filmed in a familiar way even down to a mid-film montage sequence set over a theme song. I did like the positive ending despite some people saying it is a copout. And we got plenty of eye candy thanks to the strong visual effects. I mentioned the river of slime. I must also recognize the hard work put forth in animating the Statue of Liberty and giving us a ghastly image of the Titanic. Good stuff!
The behind-the-scenes drama proves how difficult it was to get the film made. Columbia's chairman, David Puttnam had no interest in a sequel. He wanted to produce more adult dramas and world films. Plus, he did like not like Bill Murray as he described Murray as a "talentless taker." To sum up most of the drama leading up to the film, no one truly wanted to make a sequel. Ivan Reitman was not really interested. Bill Murray spent four years away from acting and the original film played a huge part in Murray's decision to do so. Reitman, Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis all had creative control. Then they had to figure out filming schedules. Murray's return to cinema began with Scrooged, and people wondered about Aykroyd because he was coming off a string of failures. You need a book to really get into the details about how making the film was not a fun experience. Aykroyd and Ramis wrote the script and they eventually felt it would be better off if the film had similar beats to the original. Although they did come up with some crazy ideas (mushroom field in Scotland, for example) that I would have been interested in. Also, they had to come up with the correct tone. While the 1984 film was geared towards adults, there was a television show that was designed for the children. They had to find the right balance. Slimer, for example, returned with the design for the television show.
I did like how the sequel believed in accountability and responsibility. Five years after New York was saved from Gozer and plastered with marshmallow, the Ghostbusters lost their jobs and credibility after the destruction of NYC. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) need to take these odd jobs to stay afloat. When poor Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) and her baby are, once again, attacked by the supernatural, the photon pack-wearing ghost hunters are called back into action. Vigo the Carpathian (voiced by Max von Sydow), a sixteenth-century tyrant and his underling Dr. Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol) have plans to conquer the world. Can the Ghostbusters save the world a second time?
The main Ghostbuster cast did a pretty effective job, although I feel like they are not as good as the original film when their characters seemed more fresh. Bill Murray, in particular, acted more like an angry grinch. But he had some good moments. I was more interested in the relationship between Rick Moranis's Louis Tully and Annie Pott's Janine Melnitz. They were hysterical together. I wish it was explained why Janine left Egon for Louis. Moranis also cracked me up during the courthouse scene as he tries to be a lawyer. Peter MacNicol is the standout. I may not have been impressed with villain, but MacNicol undeniably gave me the jitters as he kept creeping on Sigourney and her baby.
Ghostbusters II may have been unfairly treated when released. It was overshadowed by Batman, which was released a week later and took the spotlight away. It has some problems with its story, but that does not stop the film from being a fun sequel. The visual effects are stronger as there is plenty of eye candy to go around. In addition to the Ray Parker Jr song, the franchise gives us another good song. This time from Bobby Brown. There are effective messages in terms of positivity vs. Negativity and it very well matches the cynical times we live in today. Perhaps that is why I felt positive about the ending. Anyway, I thought it was a good sequel that ultimately fails to live up the hype of the original. On its own, a fun time!
My Grade: B.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They're the best, they're beautiful, they're the only Ghostbusters - and they're back!
In the movie world there are a lot of movies that have sequels. It is also a known fact that people talk about a sequel, commenting that it was either better or worse than its predecessor. However when it comes to the sequel for 'one of the biggest films of the 1980's', that being Ghostbusters II, the fuss was not so big and the talk was not so loud, about it being good or bad. Although it was made a while ago, Ghostbusters II has many nostalgic moments, which makes me wonder why it is was not a hit. When Venkman says 'Sometimes, weird things happen, someone has to deal with it, and who are you gonna call?!', you know it is time once again to call on the 'Ghostbusters'.
Five years after waging a war on slime that cost New York City millions, the Ghostbusters find themselves out of business--until an ancient tyrant, preparing a return to the Earthly domain through a river of slime under the city and his portrait at the Manhattan Museum of Art, sets his sights on Dana Barrett's baby as the new home for his wicked soul! With the help of the Museum's possessed curator, he plans to turn New York into a really scary place to live! Now only the Ghostbusters can save New York City, by turning paranormal pest control into an art form!
The surprising part about this film is that almost every aspect from the first, returned to do it all a second time. Director Ivan Reitman does a grand job in directing Ghostbusters II. I am certain that he wanted to make this film as similar to the first Ghostbusters as he could, considering that formula seemed to be very popular with many movie fans. The screenplay was once again written by two of the stars of the movie, that being Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis. They certainly put a lot of thought into the humour being presented, which made this film seem very original and funny. If either of these areas of Ghostbusters II were a failure, than I am sure that this film would not have been anywhere near as good, as I thought it was.
I was glad to see all the cast back for a second time. The way we see the Ghostbusters five years on is very amusing. With two of them doing parties and being a joke, one doing a TV talk show and the other being a psychologist. Bill Murray still added that funny touch to the movie, with his character of Venkman being outrageous, which made the movie funny to watch. All the other Ghostbusters characters were good once again. Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore are as they were before, smart or as silly as ever. Breaking up this team would for me seem an injustice.
The supporting cast was also good. Dana Barrett was performed well again by Sigourney Weaver. Dana is a woman whose life always seems to be troubled by paranormal pests and a man by the name of Venkman. Joining the cast is 'Ally MacBeals' Peter MacNichol, who is the zany character of Janosz Poha, Dana Barrett's possessed art boss. I also found it clever to have the characters of Janine (Annie Potts) and Louis (Rick Moranis) return as lovers, as this adds a bit of spice and variety to the story. Furthermore, Dana's baby Oscar was a cutie, and by the end of the movie was an integral character to the makeup of the story. Add in the return of Slimer, which although he was not as funny as I had hoped he would be, put a smile on my face every time I saw him.
There are some very funny scenes and lines in Ghostbusters II. I like how the movie starts, with Dana's baby carriage just taking off by itself. Then you also have the funny courtroom scene, where the Ghostbusters are charged as guilty of their crime, then in the next instant are tackling ghost in the courtroom, by the judge's requests! At the end of this scene the guys remark 'Two in the box, ready to go, we be fast and they be slow'. Yet when we see a river of slime under the city, which can cause people to turn evil, you know that the fun has returned again. Then for a cop to exclaim that 'the titanic has just arrived', was a very game scene to create in a movie, but very funny as well. Only the Ghostbusters could get away something like that. Furthermore, to top the first movies 'Marshmallow man', the scene with the 'Statue of Liberty' was very ingenious and makes for a hilarious time, as I wanted to see what would happen next.
I can not remember if this was a big movie back when it was released in 1989. I am surprised if it wasn't, as it was everything that you could want from a sequel, and that little bit more. Although it was not as good as the original, I still had a fun time watching the Ghostbusters a second time around and is must-see for fans. With great special effects, funny story and roles from all involved, Ghostbusters II is not as bad a sequel as some would have you to believe. What's more, I was reading the other day that there was talk of Ghostbusters III. Part of me is a little disappointed that this film never made it off the ground, because just imagine all the fun that we have missed out on seeing. Be ready to believe them all over again!
CMRS gives 'Ghostbusters II': 4 (Very Good Film)
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Meh
Perhaps too many things inexplicably turned out so great in the first film that hoping to generate the same emotion next time around was unrealistic.
But I do think that the script needed a re-write.
This is no 'three men and a baby'. This is Ghostbusters. The last person to be a father is Venkman. And no, I don't think that the humour resulting from his inability to cope with marriage is a good premise for the film.
Thus the whole thing started badly. Lucky for us they were not afraid to repeat some of the stuff from the first plot regarding the ghosts themselves, although the whole idea of being able to give slime both a positive and a negative polarity only confused me and was never really explained.
Anyway, the bad guy is pretty cool. Too bad he is not made more prominent and that so much time is wasted on Venkman's crumbling relationship with Dana. Also, there is a problem with the pacing. While Ghostbusters had a wonderful, natural flow, Ghostbusters II is disjointed and comes across as a series of episodes - some funny, some not so funny. The climax is no match for the climax of the first film and the whole thing ends too quickly and through some lazy writing - or perhaps the problem was a limited budget.
In any event, I can't shake the feeling that this was more of an attempt to make some more money than to amaze and please the audience. I did not feel the magic this time around.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sequel Scares up more fun
In this 1989 sequel to the original blockbuster, the storyline picks up 5 years later as Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) is trying to move on with her life and her new baby. Soon, ghostly forces are at work to attack her and her baby, and once again she enlists the help of the Ghostbusters. The film is a strong sequel and is almost as fun as the original, but some plot holes and loose ends make this not nearly as good. The romance of Annie Potts' Janine and Rick Moranis' Louis is funny, but there is no explanation of what happened with her romance with Egon from the first one. A lot of the story and humor is recycled from the original, but fans of the first film will definitely enjoy this above-average sequel.
50 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie that did not really need a sequel
Warning: Spoilers
Like most sequels, this film has a lot to be desired. It simply cannot compete with the original movie, which, while similar to many films, still had that air of originality that this film simply lacks. Ghostbusters did launch a franchise of its own (with T-shirts, toys, a computer game, an animated series, as well as two sequels) but there does come a time when a concept falls flat, and there are movies that simply do not need a sequel.
As can be expected, after saving the city the Ghostbusters have been forgotten and relegated to appearing at children's parties and dodgy TV shows. Dana has moved on, had a baby, and been married and divorced, and basically the city now considers them a bunch of frauds. It is amazing how quickly people forget, especially since ghosts were running about the city, but I guess that as time passes, people relegate these things to delusions and dreams.
However, such is a city like New York, that there are always going to be more dangers, and when some force attempts to steal Dana's baby, the Ghostbusters are called back to investigate. However, during their investigations (which involves digging a hole in the middle of a New York Street) they are arrested and brought to court (and a court that refuses to believe in the supernatural) to face trial. It is then when the ghosts reappear, and suddenly those whom people had rejected are brought back to the forefront.
In one sense, this film continues the theme of science trumping faith, however it also shows the nature of the fickle society, and the Ghostbusters are fools to accept it (or maybe they are simply good hearted people). After being stuffed around by all those who suffered losses after the last event, they are more than ready to come back and help their city in need (and one wonders if they will reject them again once the bad guy is defeated). There is a further concept of the positive and negative vibes of the city. It is mentioned a few times that the city is full of bitterness and hate, however they come with the symbol of liberty to break this cycle and thus dissipate the energy that is driving the bad guy.
It is a bit like that in this world where hatred and bitterness tends to swell up making life ever more unpleasant for people. It takes a life time to build a reputation and a moment to destroy it. However, as anger and hatred build upon each other, forgiveness cuts through it like a knife. I have seen, and even experienced, how the desire for revenge corrupts you on the inside, but an act of forgiving those who wrong you can free you from those chains to enable you to move on and grow.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The courtroom scene truly rocks!
Warning: Spoilers
Ghostbusters 2 is highly entertaining motion for anyone that digs films that are great fun from start to finish. This movie has a vast amount of memorable moments, sequences, and lines. Although the storyline here is very similar to that of the first one, the entire motion picture delivers so much amusement that it is often hard for viewers to keep up on the movie's central plot. Regardless of all these factors, Ghostbusters 2 is easily one of the best sequels ever produced in motion picture history.
This movie takes place fives years after the events of the first Ghostbusters flick. Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston have been given a judicial restraining order by the entire New York community. The order strictly forbids them performing services as ghost busters. You see, even though they saved the world from utter destruction at the end of GB1, they caused a lot of damage to a high-rise apartment building located near Cenral Park. However, the boys reunite after Dana has a scary and mind-boggling experience when her infant son, Oscar, is mysteriously taken away while in his carriage out on First Avenue. After some investigation and deliberation, they decide to jackhammer a hole in the middle of the busy intersection. When Ray goes below like a worm on a hook he discovers a river of pink slime flowing heavily under the city. Later in the movie, the find out that the slime is the living embodiment of the bad vibes and negative feelings that have been generated over time by the citizens of New York City.
Right now I would like to elaborate on what is perhaps the most memorable sequence in the entire movie: the courtroom scene. Following their late-night excavation on First Avenue, Peter, Ray, and Egon are arrested for willful destruction of public property and causing a blackout over the entirety of New York City. The three of them are put on trial in a court of law presided by Judge Stephen Wexler. Wexler's nickname is "The Hammer". This is so because he is a constant gavel banger and screams at other people just for the fun of it. Therefore, Judge Wexler is very sadistic, arrogant, and closed-minded. He also has a very lousy temper. As a result of his hot anger towards the guys, the pink slime in the jar present in the room bubbles like crazy and eventually unleashes two gigantic apparitions: the Scoleri brothers. The judge recognizes them because he himself gave the brothers the death penalty for murder a long time ago. The two ghosts now want to kill him. All this chaos forces the judge to eliminate their restraining order so that the two ghosts can be removed from the courthouse. They succeed and the Ghostbusters are back in business.
Ghostbusters 2 is truly a magnificent motion picture! The courtroom scene and many other moments will have you laughing like a maniac. This movie, like the first one, will forever remain to be a favorite with me.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty Much Just as Good, In a Different Way
The discovery of a massive river of ectoplasm and a resurgence of spectral activity allows the staff of Ghostbusters to revive the business.
While the second film is not as scary as the first and clearly pushes itself to the comedy rather than horror category, it is just as good in many ways. Not better, but just as good. The movie is just such a different animal in many ways that it is hard to compare.
I am still trying to figure out why someone would name their baby Oscar... and it amazes me it took me over 20 years to figure out that Max von Sydow did the voice of Vigo or that the baby was John Denver's nephew... such interesting little facts.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Good Solid underrated sequel!
Disclaimer: If you are a viewer that mainly prefers art-house-type movies, then you might as well ignore this review. In addition, if you're not able to take an underrated supernatural horror flick comedy from the 80's, ignore this review, as well. We'll both be better off.
Ghostbusters II (1989) is very underrated and hated by so many people and fans of the original movie, including Billy Murray him self. After this movie was released Billy Murray was very disappointed and not happy how the movie turned out. I know this movie is not a comedy like was the first one, it was more dark than the first movie it was scary. Bill Murray had a terrible dialogue in here. Which I understand him, why he is upset over this movie and he said he will never make any Ghostbusters movie ever again. Anyway I enjoyed this movie and like it a lot. I still found some fun moments in it. I don't think it is that good as the original! The original will always kick-ass for me. Unfortunately I don't think, I still have the VHS tape anymore in my video collection. I still and lucky have the original flick on Blu-ray. This is the film that introduced me into becoming a fan of the Ghostbusters and the animated series The real Ghostbusters (1986). I am sorry about a lot of fans been upset and Billy Murray, but still I think he could have made a potential in the third sequel, that Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis come up with! R.I.P. Harold Ramis November 12th, 1944 - February 24, 2014. I respect the actor, he wanted to play one more time Egon Spengler, which I think my favorite character of all time.
I was reading the reviews people had left and I think that this was a great movie. Not only did you have the same humor and elements from the first film, you had all the same actors reprise their role. I remember seeing some sequels where some of the good characters weren't back and it was not just as good. I thought the effects were more crisp than the first film as well and I remember this one seemed to creep me out when I was little (see Subway scene). Overall, an excellent film and I will always cherish my proton pack! I think this was more scary than the first one. I remember as a kid I could never get to sleep after watching it. I would always have nightmares of Vigo The Carpathian. I heard Murray crap on it as well which is a shame. This definitely holds up as a solid sequel the same way Wayne's World 2 did.
Things I didn't like in this movie: I think the bigger problem with the movie is it's kinda a reboot/sequel. They have to get their business back, Peter is trying to get with Danna. I kinda wish they just kept them in business but half of what they make goes to paying off the damage they did at the end of the first one since they got sued. This movie shouldn't have been scary, a baby been kidnapped from the ghost. It should have been a comedy like was the first one, I do agree with Bill Murray about it. Because the first one was not a scary movie, it was funny too and it is my favorite all time flick ever! The movie also has parts that kinda leave you scratching my head saying, WTF were they thinking. The "Ghostbusters" are forgotten in this movie, the only, only person that does have a heart in this movie n my opinion is Billy Murray. In my opinion Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson did a wonderful job on acting and playing on their respectful characters. I didn't like that Ghostbusters where thrown in to nut house, Vigo throw the baby on the floor, Ray was possessed by Vigo, the bath tub wanted to eat Dana and Oscar. The movie has a plot holes a lot in and too much slimmer and does not make any sense. Sorry guys those are the problems I just don't like in it.
Things I like: Rick Moranis as Louis Tully I think the actor did a great job, but his role was completely different from the first movie. In the original classic movie he was an accountant, but in this movie he is lawyer who on end of the film transformers him self in to a Ghostbuster and I love that he went there to help his friends to defeat the slime.The courtroom scene is awesome and The Statue of Liberty walking through New York to the tune of Jackie Wilson's Higher and Higher is undoubtedly one of the best scenes in the movie. Despite what people say, the gags in the 2nd film are aplenty. Sure, it wasn't big of a classic as the original film was, but it wasn't that bad! It was very different! It had a new villain that came from a painting, more screen time for Janice and Louis, more funny dialogue, good special effects and a great soundtrack. It was definitely better than it's reputation has gotten from the fans and critics. The movie is good on it is own, but does not beat the original film! 6 out of 10 for me.
Ghostbusters II is a 1989 American supernatural horror comedy film, produced and directed by Ivan Reitman. It is the sequel to the 1984 film Ghostbusters, and follows the further adventures of the four parapsychologists and their organization which combats paranormal activities.
6/10 Score: C Studio: Columbia Pictures Starring: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts Director: Ivan Reitman Producer: Ivan Reitman Screenplay: Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd Based on Characters created by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis Rated: PG Running Time: 1 Hrs. 48 Mins. Budget: $37.000.000 Box Office: $215,394,738
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who you gonna snore?
Ghostbusters II Is directed by Ivan Reitman and stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis & Ernie Hudson. Ramis & Aykroyd c-wrote the screenplay and it's a sequel to the hugely successful Ghostbusters from 1984. Plot follows on from the first film but five years later and sees the Ghostbusters disbanded after being derided as frauds and handed a bill for the damages incurred as they saved the world! However, a new supernatural threat is bubbling down in the sewers of New York and now more than ever the Ghostbusters are back in vogue.
It was probably asking too much for this sequel to be as sparkling as the first film. More so when one considers that there was a 5 year gap in between and a new decade was soon to arrive that firmly had no place for 80s nostalgia. Oh Ghostbusters 2 was a success, very much so, but after the rush of fans wanting some more from the kooky parapsychologists had died down, the feedback was very mixed from fans and critics alike. Understandably so since everything about this sequel is tired. The characters look bored and lack the expresso timing that was once evident, especially Murray who is badly underused here, and more troubling is that his Venkman, the best thing about the original film, is reduced to being a normal type bloke. That's criminal, because the spirited stuff falls to Aykroyd and co and tho they be solid pros, they ain't got Murray's wit and mannerisms.
The story too is weak. Featuring a seventeenth century tyrant and the inevitable rise of spooks unbound. Thankfully, tho, the effects are at least of the high and gloopy standard set first time around. And there's some tight gags in there for the knowing Ghostbuster ear. But repetition hangs heavy throughout, Ramis & Aykroyd seemingly not grasping that what worked in 84 will not totally transfer well to a new crowd who are now older and wiser. There's also the distinct feeling that this film is more about a cast get together to make some easy cash than enticing in a whole new audience. Peter MacNicol is a welcome introduction to proceedings as Janosz Poha, while more of "slimer" (who is now real cool) is never a bad thing. But the magic is gone and Ghostbusters 2 just comes off as shallow and dangerously close to soiling our love of the first picture. 4/10
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Whatever charm or vitality it has is due to Bill Murray...
Sequel to the overrated 1984 predecessor about a team of New Yorkers in the extermination business--busting ghosts instead of bugs--has the same jovial cast, another elaborate production design and some funny jokes. Most of the time, however, the money just sits there on the screen, but Bill Murray's performance provides occasional amusement. Plot has the Ghostbusters discovering poltergeists living underneath the Big Apple, and the final showdown is admittedly full of marvelous special effects. Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson have been made so intentionally straight and low-keyed that they practically hand the picture over to groovy Murray, who wrings laughs out of even the flattest dialogue. Sigourney Weaver, back as Murray's love-interest, is more relaxed here and also has some good scenes. Tolerable, though most audiences decided they had had enough. ** from ****
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It just didn't deliver
I re watched Ghostbusters 2, I remember being pretty disappointed when I saw this sequel as a kid. The first film was such a blast for me when I saw it during the summer of 1984. So expectations where high for this one.
It just didn't deliver, and seeing it again as the years have passed. Its faults stand out more and more to me. The lines are no where near as funny, and the story is pretty dull. Combined with the hip hop rap soundtrack is the final nail in the coffin. I remember a lot of movies coming out around this time using rap in their soundtracks. (including rocky 5 which I disliked.) It's watchable but now where near as memorable as the first film. I think the first movie is just one of those things where everything clicked. So it never needed to be visited again.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny and silly
Not as good as the first one, but with so many memorable scenes, I would be crazy to call it weak or a bad film. Yes, the plot is convoluted, the villain annoying and it's a bit too stupid sometimes. However, the cast maintains their charisma, there is the opening act, there is the trial, there is Titanic, there is the statue, there is the soundtrack, the jokes...nah, you can't take this fun from me. 🤷♂️😂
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ghostbustbusters are back!!!
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time.
Spoilers
Ghostbusters was sure a great movie but its sequel is also pretty good aswell.The story is similar and the special effects are real dandy and the entire cast and writing/directing team is back and so are the ghosts!
You can tell its been a few years since the 1st Ghostbusters was made because this seems just different.The people and how things are in it shows it.Watch out for some appearences by Brian Doyle Murray,Kevin Dunn,Bobby Brown,Kurt Fuller,and Cheech Martin in Ghostbusters II.
I just love the villian in Ghostbuster II,Vigo is such a force to see and when the Ghostbusters brings Statue of Liberty,boy is that a sight to see.
This sequel to Ghostbusters is a very good film,its as good as the 1st one in MY opinion.If you like Ghostbusters and havn`t see Ghostbustbusters II then I seriously recommend you see ASAP!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097428/reviews
0 Response to "I Know Who to Call Yeah Who Is That Ghost Busters Very Funny"
Post a Comment