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…

66/100

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…

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…

Just a quick note: if you really wanna know why so many people don't think much of this movie, watch the short series "Why Are You So Angry?" on YouTube. It will at first seem unconnected, but just wait til he starts talking about people who don't drink and people who don't eat meat.

This movie has a message that you have a responsibility. Your attitude and the emotional energy you put into the world has consequences and impacts so many people you won't even know most of them. And a lot of people really don't want to hear this. Well, yeah, they have the freedom to be toxic, but it is going to effect people and it is going…