Generate a number from 1 to 2999 via:
You can skip movies 10 times but never go back.
Five years after they defeated Zuul, the Ghostbusters are out of business. When Dana begins to have ghost problems again, the boys come out of retirement to aid her and hopefully save New York City from a new paranormal threat.
Wow, this was one of the most bizarre rewatches I've had in quite some time.
When this first came out I had already practically destroyed my VHS player by playing the first film over and over and over again. So when halfway 1990 the sequel finally reached the cinematic wasteland we call the Netherlands, I was first in line to watch it. And boy did I hate its guts. I'll be honest, I really can't remember what my fifteen year old self disliked about it so much, all I know is that I had never watched it again until now.
And yes, I think my fifteen year old self is an idiot.
This film, while never truly recreating the magical…
It's fascinating to watch sequels struggle with their previous successes and how to exactly incorporate them into franchise progression, but I would say that Ghostbusters II is acceptable in its own right because of its open, even frustrated view of itself. Having its cake and eating it too, Ivan Reitman's comedy sequel conforms the first act of the film to its struggling (and successful) band of characters after the events in Ghostbusters, settling into a rhythm which is abruptly abandoned for grander spooky elements and effects wizardry. It's as if the entire cast and crew realized that, either way, people weren't going to take the film on its own merits (it was made 5 years later after all, and…
........here's the thing with "Ghostbusters II".
It's definitely a watered down version of the original with many scenes playing by the same beats. It's not nearly as memorable or quotable. It's not nearly as funny in many areas with more jokes being hit or miss. And it's not as inventive with it's central concept as it should be which is to be expected from most comedy sequels.
And yet.............I still find a lot of fun to be had with it. It's not a GREAT movie or I'd even say not even that good of a film on it's own, but it's a solid enough effort. The cast still work brilliantly with each other (R.I.P. Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd's sanity).…
There were a host of great comedies back in the eighties and Ghostbusters was one of those films that went for that lucrative cash-cow, the merchandise. We got everything Ghostbustery, from lunch-boxes and t-shirts to pajamas and toys. It was done well and probably outshone the movie in the cash stakes.
Harold Ramis's second outing with the Ghostbusters was more of the same. It worked the first time around and with Bill Murray let off the leash more than the rest, this had more gags and a noticeably more fun approach. All the gang returned and with Peter MacNicol bringing his own unique brand of humor to proceedings, this hardly faltered in the comedy stakes. His role as the geeky…
Can you legitimately count it as watched for LB if you made out for half the running time with an amazing adorable person? They even suggested we watch this! Nobody in my life has ever volunteered to watch my all-time favourite movie with me, so obviously I was swooning with excitement. I was also, coincidentally, wearing my Ghostbusters pajamas and T-shirt. Best day ever? Best day ever.
One of the reasons the first Ghostbusters struck such a chord in the early 80's, and as a franchise continues to linger on in the public consciousness despite bringing nothing new to the table in a quarter of a century, is because Ivan Reitman's film knew exactly how daft the whole endeavour was and played up to it, casting gifted comic actors as the heroes involved & taking previously terrifying elements such as ghosts, demons & Gods & making them cheesy, comical and thoroughly beatable by the titular team of ectoplasmic nerds. After the first one, Reitman & writers/stars Dan Ackroyd & Harold Ramis didn't want to do another, they felt it was a definitive tale. Ghostbusters 2 is the inevitable result of great box…
A real stinker compared to the first film. Better if it hadn't been made. The first one was original, and very funny. This one was neither.
Cinematic confession: there was a time when I thought GHOSTBUSTERS II was better than the original.
Thankfully that phase was only momentarily, but that doesn't mean GHOSTBUSTERS II isn't entirely without merit. In fact, most of its script problems are centered around the fact that, five years on, the Ghosbusters are out of business and largely forgotten. I've got no problem with the team splitting up and doing their own things, but wouldn't it make sense if fame and ego are what drove them apart? Maybe even allowing other Ghostbusters to rise up and take their place in the process? (The fact that this series has never expanded upon the "franchising rights" line from the original is such a crime)…
Ghostbusters 2 had no chance of living up to the original, a film which caught lightning in a bottle. And when it released reviews were vicious, tearing into the film as a disappointment and scuttling ideas for the planned Ghostbusters 3. However, I believe that while it doesn't live up the original, there is a lot to love in Ghostbusters 2.
For one, the ghosts and supernatural encounters in this film are much scarier than they were the first time around. Vigo the Carpathian is much more chilling than Zuul or Gozer was, and the Ghostbusters being attacked by the decapitated heads and ghost train is an surprisingly horrifying scene. Additionally the shot of Dana's boss walking down the hall…
I saw this one in the theater with my mom and gradma. So, I have maybe a stronger sense of nostalgia for it. I don't see a marked decrease in quality or anything. I like the idea of the slime, and how it sort of becomes a metaphor for the awfulness of NYC in the 80s.
Divertida y me agradaron los personajes (más el de Harold Ramis); pero no veo por qué es considerada como "una de las peores secuelas en la historia."
I didn't remember most of this movie even after I got done watching it because it's just a rehash of the first Ghostbusters, but less fun. The moments I liked about the original film were redone in a cheaper, less interesting way, and the movie itself is just forgettable and meaningless.
Really the best we could have gotten from a sequel. It's not amazing but it does the job and I've always "just kinda liked it"
I waffle on this movie every single time I watch it. If I saw it and disliked it once, I'll probably enjoy it the next time. If I enjoyed it during one viewing, I'll be underwhelmed the next time.
This is the real curse of Vigo.
I want you all to vote on what you think are the greatest films of all time!
This is going…
Thus, films such as Transformers: Age of Extinction reproduce the mass destruction of other films – which are always…