All the films mentioned by name in Kim Newman's definitive encyclopedia of horror films, Nightmare Movies. Well worth a read.…
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…
........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…
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…
Although not quite on par with its' predecessor, Ghostbusters 2 does a good job of retaining most of the elements that made the first so gratifying. The three leads pick up where they left off, and weaknesses in script and an inconsistent tone are bailed out a bit by Peter MacNicol's fantastic performance and Rick Moranis line deliveries. A feel good message does not de-rail the fun, but it does keep it from achieving the level of the previous film.
It certainly is their love letter to New York, and to quote the great Rick Moranis "One time I turned into a dog and these guys helped me". They certainly did. Thank you Mr. Ramis.
We're the best. We're the beautiful. We're the only Ghostbusters.
This is the greatest argument against the making of Ghostbusters 3 and why people shouldn't get so upset over Bill Murray wanting nothing to do with it (most of the time anyways).
You couldn't have asked for a better cast and crew for a sequel. Ivan Reitman returns behind the camera. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis write the sequel to their original comedic masterpiece. Practically the entire cast also returns from Bill Murray to Annie Potts. So what the hell went wrong?
In 1984 they made one of the most original comedy/fantasy/sci-fi films to come out of Hollywood in years. In 1989 they weren't making a sequel to…
That ghost should just be holding his middle finger out. Granted I'm not the biggest fan of the first Ghostbusters, but this sequel just ratchets up everything that is terrible about it, without any of its iconic moments, or even a minimal attention to story. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are clearly unable to think beyond the SNL skit, so they pad the film with near offensive levels of Bill Murray mugging, and shamefully uninspired sitcom antics, especially with a completely wasted Annie Potts and Rick Moranis, who for my money are infinitely better at being funny than anyone else on the cast list. Most egregious is the asinine way it tries to top the original by using the Statue Of Liberty, a true jump the shark moment in a film that desperately wishes it was a television show. The upcoming reboot is going to blow this out of the water.
Caught a double showing of this and Ghostbusters at the beautiful Hayden Orpheum theatre. Awesome and nostalgic.
Solid fun bit first is much better.
Ghostbusters is beloved by many, so it's not surprising that it's sequel seen many disappointed or outright hating! It would have been difficult for any writer or director to try and recreate the magic that made it so unique. The hate Ghostbusters 2 receives isn't exactly justifiable or warranted, sure it's not as good as the original...once you get over that it's actually a fun ride. The chemistry remains the same, the humour is still clever and witty (although arguably not as frequent), Murray remains a riot and the villain, while not as strong as the first, works in the context of the story. Ghostbusters 2 is a lot of fun, which means it has a lot more going for it then many other films.
Weirdly I enjoyed this more than the original, isn't general opinion that the first is better? It's way funnier, has much better writing and more likeable characters, and even though it was only made a few years after the first it hasn't dated nearly as badly.
So, agreeably not an improvement on the original at all, but Ghostbusters 2 isn’t that bad a sequel. The whole cast reunite, once again under the direction of Reitman, to continue the tale of New York's hapless Ghost hunters, who by now have disbanded and are forced back into business when a possessed painting threatens to bring certain doom to the world.
The laughs are still as solid here, as are the action set pieces, but Ghostbusters 2 doesn't bring any thing extra to the fold, just more of the same, although it does have a slightly darker feel to it, with the creepy ancient painting possessing the museum curator.
Once again Murray steals the show, and the influence on…
Valentine's Day. Bummer.
Better than the first ghostbusters if I'm being totally honest, one of the most underrated sequels ever made.
I think it's a solid 4 stars for me, despite rating it just 3.5 last week. My eldest son, Cash, rewatches this one a ton and I'm totally okay with that.
"I'd like to run some gynecological exams on the mother."
well as far as i can tell from these movies they were bc as we all know movies are always…