108 min
6.6
1989
USA
Having lost their status and credibility five years after covering New York City with gooey roasted marshmallows in Ghostbusters (1984), the city's former heroes and once-popular spirit-hunters struggle to keep afloat, forced to work odd jobs. However, when Dana and her baby have yet another terrifying encounter with the paranormal, it is up to Peter Venkman and his fearless team of supernatural crime fighters to step up and save the day. Once more, humankind is in danger, as rivers of slimy psycho-reactive ectoplasm, paired with the dreadful manifestation of evil sixteenth-century tyrant Vigo the Carpathian, threaten to plunge the entire city into darkness. Is the world ready to believe? Can the Ghostbusters save us for the second time?
Overview
Reviews
tricksy wrote: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.
John Chard wrote:Who you gonna snore?
Ghostbusters II Is directed by Ivan Reitman and stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis & Ernie Hudson. Ramis & Aykroyd c-wrote the screenplay and it's a sequel to the hugely successful Ghostbusters from 1984. Plot follows on from the first film but five years later and sees the Ghostbusters disbanded after being derided as frauds and handed a bill for the damages incurred as they saved the world! However, a new supernatural threat is bubbling down in the sewers of New York and now more than ever the Ghostbusters are back in vogue.
It was probably asking too much for this sequel to be as sparkling as the first film. More so when one considers that there was a 5 year gap in between and a new decade was soon to arrive that firmly had no place for 80s nostalgia. Oh Ghostbusters 2 was a success, very much so, but after the rush of fans wanting some more from the kooky parapsychologists had died down, the feedback was very mixed from fans and critics alike. Understandably so since everything about this sequel is tired. The characters look bored and lack the expresso timing that was once evident, especially Murray who is badly underused here, and more troubling is that his Venkman, the best thing about the original film, is reduced to being a normal type bloke. That's criminal, because the spirited stuff falls to Aykroyd and co and tho they be solid pros, they ain't got Murray's wit and mannerisms.
The story too is weak. Featuring a seventeenth century tyrant and the inevitable rise of spooks unbound. Thankfully, tho, the effects are at least of the high and gloopy standard set first time around. And there's some tight gags in there for the knowing Ghostbuster ear. But repetition hangs heavy throughout, Ramis & Aykroyd seemingly not grasping that what worked in 84 will not totally transfer well to a new crowd who are now older and wiser. There's also the distinct feeling that this film is more about a cast get together to make some easy cash than enticing in a whole new audience. Peter MacNicol is a welcome introduction to proceedings as Janosz Poha, while more of "slimer" (who is now real cool) is never a bad thing. But the magic is gone and Ghostbusters 2 just comes off as shallow and dangerously close to soiling our love of the first picture. 4/10
Peter89Spencer wrote:'They're back!'
I watched this straight after the first one. It was just as good as the first film. I enjoyed it.
CinemaSerf wrote:I can't say that I really loved the first film and this didn't really advance that view much. It was clearly just made to capitalise on that huge success without anyone really bothering to develop the characters or build much of a story. Indeed - all it really does is introduce a baby (aww) and swap the baddies - this time we have the slightly camp Carpathian "Vigo" (the splendidly named Wilhelm von Homburg) - whom our established quartet must defeat to save the world from oblivion (and the poor soundtrack). The visual effects are adequate, but the rest of it is just a rather pale and unremarkable rehash of the 1984 effort with similar humour and scenarios that are predictably slap-stick and dull. Sigourney Weaver pops up now and again but her "Dana" character has little to bring to this and frankly, I was really quite bored by the mundanity of it. Funniest bits are under the credits but sorry, I like my comedy just a shade more sophisticated than this childish stuff. I wouldn't bother.
