stormhawk2018 It's pretty tough for a sequel to best, let alone match it's predecessor, especially when the first one is an undisputed masterpiece. So yeah, Ghostbusters II isn't as good as the first, but it's not a bad film by any means. Unfortunately most people don't see it that way. Me, I really like this one, and think it's still a really decent film, even though it isn't what it could have been. The story begins five years after the first. Following the defeat of Gozer at the end of the first film, the Ghostbusters have actually fallen on hard times. Instead of being hailed as saviors, they have since been slapped with a restraining order and forced to cease their ghostbusting due to all the collateral damage their 'busting' causes. As a result, the four have hung up their proton packs and gone on to other activities. However, they are forced to get back to it when an evil ooze begins wreaking havoc, especially when it possesses a painting of an evil 16th Century Carpathian tyrant named Vigo, causing him to come to life to terrorize all who end up in his way. I think the main issue at hand here is sequelitis. It's just unable to capture the magic that made the first so special. It doesn't have the freshness, nor does it have the same level of laughs, wit, and energy. Ivan Reitman returned as director, and co-stars Aykroyd and Ramis once again wrote the script, and, while they don't do bad in these roles, their performances don't really stand out. I do however, like that they raised the stakes, and showed how actions have consequences. I just wish they could have come up with some more creative and stronger ideas. The music is still good though, and I still dig the effects, and yeah, the performances are fine, if slightly worn, but, even though this one has it's moments, it doesn't have near as much heart as it should. I'm still giving this one a really high rating though, as I'm a big fan, I like these guys and what they do, and it's still a fun and entertaining film. Yeah, some of it is a bit sillier, but I can't help but like it. Without a doubt, my main reason for really liking this is personal. Sentimentality is key here, as the earliest memory that I can recall is seeing this in the theater when I was a mere three years old. I can only recall one scene clearly, but still, it's a memory I want to cherish as long as possible. Bottom line: yeah, this is a step down, but it's still a pretty decent film, and offers a fair amount of entertainment, and, compared to a lot of sequels, it's quite strong, so give it a chance.

MaximumMadness One of the more divisive sequels of the 1980's, "Ghostbusters II" is in many ways a very strange but generally fulfilling watch. Released five years after the iconic original, the film became a minor hit but was met with a lot of apathy from audiences, who were wise to the fact that in many ways, the film was a slave to that classic first film and unable (or unwilling) to try to do much to set it apart. But looking back so many years later, I do think there are a lot of hints of brilliance here beneath the surface faults, and I firmly believe that it's a far better film than most will give it credit for being. It might be a bit of a retread of familiar territory. But it's a very fun and entertaining retread that also boasts a number of very well- constructed sequences of both comedy and pure, atmospheric horror.Five years after saving New York City from a vile epidemic of spirits, the Ghostbusters have fractured following copious lawsuits and public backlash. However, when Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray) former flame Dana (Sigourney Weaver) comes to the team concerned for the well-being of her infant son, the Ghostbusters reassemble to help their old friend and client. And soon enough, Venkman, Egon (Harold Ramis), Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) will discover that a new wave of terror is about to take the Big Apple by storm, and it all ties back to a mysterious haunted painting of an ancient tyrant known as "Vigo the Carpathian", whose spirit is hatching a plan to be reborn at the strike of midnight on New Year's Eve...What salvages the film and helps it to fundamentally succeed is the continued charm of the returning cast and a surprisingly well-constructed and atmospheric tone. There's just an inherent joy to seeing the guys back together, and it's definitely infectious. The one-liners and in-jokes between the teammates makes for a lot of laugh-out loud character beats and plenty of highly quotable lines. I particularly admired Ramis and Aykroyd's banter throughout the film, which supplied much of the heart and humor here. Hudson is under-utilized once again, but he gets a few good moments peppered in to make you feel like he's a worthwhile teammate. And though he seems somewhat lost, Murray is once again gold as Venkman, and his wonderful chemistry with Weaver gives the film a much-needed emotional core. I also really enjoyed Rick Moranis and his somewhat expanded role as Louis Tully, now having become the team's new lawyer. He's got some really great material. New cast member Peter MacNicol is also a blast as a co- worker of Dana's who is entranced into becoming Vigo's familiar in the world.Director Ivan Reitman crafts a much darker tale here, and injects a lot of pure suspense and eerie sequences of horror that give the film a good sense of dread. I've always been fairly shocked by the common misconception that this sequel is more "kid friendly" than the original, because I frankly always found it more mature and frightening. In addition to his trademark wit and sense of character, Reitman seems far more focused on creating and constantly building a sense of tension here in comparison to the original, with a much darker and murkier aesthetic and a bigger leaning on freakish and Gothic imagery. While the original film played it more cool and used the horror more to build entertainment, here it dives full-on into pure suspense with numerous sequences whose existence is predicated solely on scaring you half to death. And I love it because it gives the film a tonality that both compliments and contrasts with the original, which I appreciated as it helped to mask some of the issues with the script.And that script is the biggest hurdle. It's been said constantly, but I do have to echo the most common complaint... it's too focused on re- creating the original film, almost coming off as more remake than sequel. While individual elements may differ, the film follows the first's structure near beat-for- beat, to the point that anyone with any knowledge of the original will be able to guess what's coming and when. It's a massive issue not only because it robs much of the suspense, but also because the film itself has to occasionally contrive nonsensical story developments to justify retelling the same ideas over again. And thus, you have sequences that often make little sense. Why does everyone in the city seem to forget that ghosts were demonstratively proved to be real just a few years ago? So that way there can be doubters yet again for the story, that's why! Why did Dana and Peter break up after the last film? Because we had to have them repeat a similar love story here, duh! It all serves to just rinse and repeat what worked last time, but without that freshness that came with seeing these characters for the first time.Still, I can't help but feel the film succeeds in no small part thanks to its darkly unique tone and for the excellence and entertainment value afforded by the excellent cast. It's just too hard not to enjoy yourself when you have a talented group of individuals on display while the film repeatedly makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up high. Is the film really just a cash-grab redo of what was done better, before? Yeah, more or less. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a ton of fun to behold. And I'll always get a kick out of it."Ghostbusters II" gets a pretty-good 7 out of 10. It may not quite measure up to the outstanding and now-classic first entry. But it's a serviceable and often entertaining follow-up with just enough laughs (and screams) to make it a fun watch.

caseynicholson I rated the original Ghostbusters a perfect 10/10 stars, as I find it to be a near perfect comedy. Today I watched "Ghostbusters II" for the first time since I was a kid, and I found it to have held up very well.This movie is not quite as good as the original, but it's still quite good. So much so that I've gone with 8 stars rather than 7, even though 8-10 tends to be my rating for superb movies. This sequel is cheesy in a way that the original is not, but it's still very good. Both are slapstick comedy, and both have a vibe that appeals to kids and adults. Still, the sequel is just a smidge bit off compared to the masterpiece that began the franchise.One thing that adds to the cheesy factor is the poor soundtrack used. Whereas the first movie played well off the strength of Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" single, this film has some lesser known tracks that just don't have the same appeal as that hit. As for the script and the plot, it's really not bad at all. Very good, in fact. But the climax of the movie is a bit anti-climactic, and there's a scene in the midst of the film that's supposed to be a fight scene between two protagonists that isn't much of a fight at all (they supposedly were trying to "kill each other").All in all, this is a very good film. A predictably weaker sequel compared to the original, but it's still a fun watch, and one that I don't regret seeing again as an adult whatsoever.

kira02bit After the mammoth success of the original Ghostbusters, it was a foregone conclusion that a sequel would be in the works. It apparently took five long years to reunite the original cast/crew. Unfortunately, the results are a real mixed bag.As the film opens, we discover that the Ghostbusters have apparently gone bankrupt and disbanded thanks to various lawsuits and derision from the events in the original. Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson have been reduced to making appearances at obnoxious children's parties; Harold Ramis is doing psychological research; and Bill Murray is the host of a bizarre TV show. When former client Sigourney Weaver becomes frantic that paranormal forces have targeted her toddler son and the guys discover a river of slime building below Manhattan, they reunite to once again avert disaster.Given that this crew had five years to come up with a script and funny material, one can be forgiven for being a bit bereft as to what appears on screen. The comedy is oddly mannered and toothless, and the visual effects are more ho-hum than dazzling. The entire tone of the film seems more like reuniting with a bunch of beloved old friends you have not seen for years and then having the entire reunion coast solely on nostalgia, sentiment and feelings from the past. There are no hilarious moments here and every time the film seems on the verge of letting loose...it doesn't. There is too much time devoted to people fretting over the toddler. I never thought I would see Murray playing unfunny mannered bits opposite an infant. The toddler is apparently being targeted as the vessel to be possessed by Vigo the Carpathian, currently inhabiting a painting at the museum at which Weaver works. All of this has something to do with a river of slime, but the script never really hooks up how or why.The film mistakenly thinks that based on Murray's classic line "He slimed me!" that the slime itself is some fascinating aspect in Ghostbusters lore that can hold its own plot. It doesn't. The whole "mood slime" nonsense culminating in a let-down touchy-feely climax feels really pointless.What does work is the congenial cast. They seem pleased to be back together again and it shows and, sometimes, it is infectious. Murray again gets the bulk of the screen time/material and once again Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson have little to do. Nevertheless, it is still fun to see them back on screen. Weaver has a lot more to do this time around and once again reminds us of what a swanky comic foil she is paired opposite Murray. In a better film, they could really make some magic. Annie Potts returns as the receptionist, garbed in manic outfits and missing her acerbic attitude. The film also mothballs the flirtation she had with Ramis in the original in order to bolster a half-hearted romance with Rick Moranis, now the GBs tax consultant and in a role that feels shoe-horned in here simply because he was in the original cast. The one casting aspect that does not work is newcomer to the films Peter MacNicol as a Eurotrash art restorer with designs on Weaver, who becomes a sort of Renfield to the villainous Vigo. Between his overdone accent and manic gestures, he will really aggravate your nerves quickly.For a Ghostbusters film, there are surprisingly few ghosts (what little there are mostly show up briefly and to minimal fanfare near the end). The brief appearance of Slimer comes out of no where and like too much in this film feels disappointingly pointless. The conclusion is equally a let down. Reitman and company try to offer a half-hearted homage to the original with the "mood slime" and Jackie Wilson music somehow making the Statue of Liberty come to life and the GBs riding her to the rescue in Manhattan. Alas, the effects are so bad that sometimes Ms. Liberty looks huge and sometimes she appears 6-feet tall.The script still seems in the planning mode. The story never links up the slime and Vigo in any conceivable way. Nor does it explain why Vigo must have Weaver's toddler to possess when ostensibly any toddler in NYC would do the trick. Plus it is hard to believe that these guys who saved the world so publicly in the original would have not gotten any credit for it - actually it is a bit depressing. What we do have is an ace cast who seem happy to be back together on screen providing some pleasant, if underwhelming, diversion. We do not have a classic though and we do have the strange sensation that if the screenplay were substantially better, this cast would have hit it out of the ballpark.