Watch it at Amazon
45 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :- No, It's Not The Original, But It's Still Very Funny, 11 March 2006 Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States
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.
29 out of 39 people found the following comment useful :- This film shouldn't be panned, 9 October 2000 Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
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-
24 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :- Good sequel, 6 July 1999 Author: Jeff (spoonjef@aol.com) from L.A. Ca
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.
25 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :- Sequel Scares up more fun, 3 January 2001 Author: BoJangles-3 from New Jersey
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.
14 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :- I'm still ready to call them., 9 August 2005 Author: Lee Eisenberg (eisenberg.lee@gmail.com) from Portland, Oregon, USA
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?
17 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :- Followed the first one too much., 7 April 2003 Author: Aaron1375 from Alabama
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.
15 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :- an incredible movie and a worthy sequel, 19 February 2000 Author: Luke-129 from NY
I simply don't understand why so many people have bashed this film lately. "Ghostbusters II" is an incredible movie; funny, entertaining, and a perfect sequel to the original 1984 classic. In fact, I think it's entirely possible that this movie might be better than its predecessor. Anyone who liked "Ghostbusters" should definitely like "Ghostbusters II", why they wouldn't is beyond me. The script is strong and the movie's message is a great one. Plus, the movie can be enjoyed be the entire family, even more so than the original. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. After many viewings, it remains fresh and always enjoyable. This is, in my opinion, the best sequel ever. There is no way that people can say that this taints the name of the first film, as it is just as good and enjoyable. The music in "Ghostbusters II" is great, the comedy non-stop, the adventure enough to keep you on the edge of your seat. There are just not enough good things I can say about this movie, and yet it bothers me that people say this film is garbage. This film doesn't fall into the typical sequel trap by not living up to the original, because it is just as great as "Ghostbusters". It achieves the rare feat, which only a handful of sequels have. ("Back to the Future Part II" and "Toy Story 2" come to mind.) "Ghostbusters II" does not disappoint in any way, even with the high expectations the first film set. If you are not a big fan of the first one, I can see why you wouldn't like this movie (I couldn't understand why, but at least what your reasons are). However, they don't make movies this good anymore. "Ghostbusters II" is a classic, have the whole family watch it next New Year's Eve and see how good it makes you all feel.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- They're back!, 30 October 2007 Author: dee.reid from United States
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
15 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :- Brilliant movie, but not as good as the first movie., 4 June 2002 Author: tangoandcash (rabidwolver830@aol.com) from Shrewberry, England
Ghostbusters II is an absolut ely brilliant movie, it really does pick up where the first movie left off and Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis are brilliant in their old roles, Peter Venkmen, Ray Stantz and Egon Spangler. Sigourney Weaver is back as Dana Barrett and this time she has a baby name Oscar. Rick Moranis is also back as Luis Tully (but now he doesn't get turned in a dog). Annie Potts is back as Janine Melnitz (the Ghostbusters' secretary). Ernie Hudson is back as Winston Zeddemore. Peter MacNicol (Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Movie, Ally McBeal) is really funny as the museum owner. If you haven't seen this movie, then heres a summary of it. Five years have past since the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man stomped through the streets of New York and the Ghostbusters have gone of business. But when they find some purple mood slime in the sewers of the Big Apple, that has been developed by the negative attitudes of the New Yorkers, they have to get back in to business and save New York again. Then they discover that it is all leading to one place, the museum where Dana works. The museum contains a picture that is haunted by the ghost of an evil magician that wants to take over the world and needs a body to do it in, so he chooses Dana's baby. This is a must for the fans of the first movie, I loved it.*****
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- Here we go again!, 14 June 2007 Author: DAVID SIM from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Ghostbusters is a comedy that has worked its way into the hearts and minds of people the world over. And its not hard to understand why. It had a fantastic idea. And matched it with the perfect cast to turn the No 1 box-office hit of 1984 into an enduring classic.Then five years later, the cast and production team returned for this sequel. But unfortunately, as is often the case of most sequels, they seldom live up to their predecessors. Ghostbusters II is lacking in the energy and drive that propelled the original, something that reflected the box-office takings. Part 2 seriously underperformed compared to Part 1. They just couldn't repeat the same magic twice.All the cast are back, and Ivan Reitman is again directing, but there's nothing terribly original about this film. Its just a retread of the first, with only a few novelties thrown in for good measure.There is a bit of poignancy in the early scenes. Time has not been kind to the Ghostbusters. Because there is no Ghostbusters anymore. When they saved the world from the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (the only one who doesn't return for Part 2), they also put themselves out of business.Venkman (Bill Murray) now hosts a psychic cable show for fraudsters. He knows he's a fraud, but at least he's honest about it! Ray and Winston (Dan Ackroyd & Ernie Hudson) are reduced to making appearances at kiddie birthday parties. And Egon (Harold Ramis) has gone back to standard scientific research.But trouble is brewing on the horizon. And again its Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) who brings the team into action. Dana now works at an art gallery, and one of the paintings she's restoring is possessed by the spirit of an evil dictator, Vigo. Vigo wants to return to the physical world, but he needs to possess a child to do it. And he's chosen Dana's baby boy, Oscar.Add to that a river of slime running beneath the streets of New York that feeds off the bad vibes of the people above, and we have another apocalypse on our hands.Its a bit hard to pinpoint why Ghostbusters II disappoints as much as it does. There's just no life to it. Its all perfectly watchable but it never raises anything more than chuckles while Part 1 induced aching sides. The cast are all present and correct, but even they go through the motions.You can tell Bill Murray is coasting his way through the part. Something that's not a pretty sight to see. When Murray is engaged and attuned to material, he can turn in a fantastic performance. But when the material doesn't interest him, his laid-back nonchalance turns sluggish. Something that seriously undermines the film as a whole. Films like the horrendous Scrooged and the utterly tedious The Life Aquatic.Ernie Hudson is once again moved to the sidelines, but at least Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis are given a bit more to do this time. The one thing in the film's favour. The only complaint I had with Ghostbusters was that all the best lines were given to Murray. And Ackroyd and Ramis were a little upstaged. But they're given quite a few witty one-liners here. And Egon is especially funny, who gets some cracking wry observations:"Well Peter was borderline for a while...then he crossed the border."Its nice to see Sigourney Weaver back, but she isn't given much of a chance to shine. She's just reduced to playing the cuddly working mum. And the film could have done without Rick Moranis. He overplays the Woody Allen shtick to the point I wanted to strangle him.And we get a really grating performance from Peter MacNicol as a foreign curator who works at the gallery and gets possessed by Vigo. Shame because MacNicol is usually capable of great things. Just watch any episode of Ally McBeal. But here he's wasted in a part that's beneath him. And that scene where he runs through the night-sky with a pram is just plain silly. The film's best scene is when the Ghostbusters end up in court for blacking out the whole city through illegal drilling (which is a bit preposterous). Its the one scene in the whole film where it manages to recapture the spirit of the original. Everyone is given plenty to do. Quips rebound back and forth like a tennis match. An hilarious turn from Harris Yulin as a fire and brimstone judge. And it all culminates in a dazzling showcase of special effects work when two ghosts from the judge's past return to seek revenge. Classic!But elsewhere the film is thoroughly routine. The effects work is just as good as you'd expect. But the big climax with the Statue of Liberty walking through the streets of Manhattan, an obvious attempt to rehash Mr Stay Puft is not nearly as thrilling as it should have been. And I never once believed it was a statue come to life. Just somebody dressed up to look like it.Ghostbusters II has its moments, but it moves in fits and starts. The two story lines of the painting and the slime never converge. Something it tries to achieve but never quite manages. And Oscar is a McGuffin purely designed to move the plot along. Nice gag at the end with the new and improved painting, but overall Ivan Reitman fails to deliver. Something that would become a depressing habit with him.
Add another comment
