Ghostbusters 2 Reviews

Page 1 of 491
cosmo313
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2006
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.
CloudStrife84
Super Reviewer
½ April 10, 2007
For a sequel to a masterpiece it couldn't possibly live up to, this is quite an underrated bit of fun. Not sure why so many hold it in such low regard, because I think it successfully maintains the spirit of its predecessor.

Sure, the plot isn't as exciting and the main villain is kind of lame, but the wonderful wit and interplay is still very much intact, which is what counts in my book. I suppose Bill Murray is chiefly to thank for that though. You can't help but love his sarcastic, cynical and hopelessly womanizing character. His lines are so perfectly timed that you're wondering if he's not making it all up on the spot.

At any rate, we can only hope that the intended third film (which now, perhaps for the best, looks doomed to become a non-event) won't ruin any of that. I mean, Hollywood has already managed to defile other 80's gems like Star Wars and Indiana Jones. If the same thing happens to the Ghostbusters franchise, I don't know what I'll do, but it ain't gonna be pretty. And by "not pretty" I mean something along the lines of Vigo's morning face.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2010
The Original Ghostbusters set a new standard for comedy, horror and Sci Fi. The first was a big hit, and is one of the best comedies with Sci Fi and horror elements. It's only naturally that they would make a sequel to the first one. The question that one who's never seen the sequel will probably ask the age old question, is it better than the first one? Unfortunately no. The film feels more silly than fun, and the characters here are more irritating. What made the original so good was the witty originality and the use of many genres to create a terrific, memorable film. With Ghostbusters it acts more of a comedy as the aspects that made the original so good, are almost entirely absent. The film is very tongue in Cheek, and while the first had a bit of seriousness to its brand of comedy, the comedy shown here is almost frustrating and not original. Ghostbusters was an effective film due to the simple fact that it blended Comedy, sci fi, horror and mystery in to it's well written script. Ghostbusters 2 is an inferior sequel but definitely has good enough elements going for it that it's still a average film to watch. The film may make you divided in the sense that you either don't know if it's good, bad or awful. But if you loved the first entry, and I mean really enjoyed it, then you might be disappointed with this film.
But with this one, it seems a little tired out. But it's still a good film to watch, and has some good creative elements, and despite all its faults, in the end who you gonna call?
Super Reviewer
November 20, 2011
Though not at all on par with the first, this sequel is still entertaining and satisfying.
michael e.
Super Reviewer
December 28, 2010
Several years after the success that was the first Ghostbusters, a sequel was made, and it is a film that often is considered by many people as a mixed bag. Me personally, I love it, sure it isn't as big of a fresh air or as funny as its predecessor, but the effects are still great, the comedy works well, the acting is still spot on, and the epicness factor is cranked up massively in this film in the last 25 minutes. Sure it does have some dumb moments, like Peter MacNicole turning into that ghostly Mary Poppins freak, but it still does work great, and Rick Moranis really seems to steal the show in terms of comedy and goofiness. In the first film he is just a forgetful nerd character, but in this film he has a much bigger role. The film isn't as big of a breath of fresh air as the first, but it is still very funny, and it is entertaining enough to keep you watching.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
September 20, 2011
Ghostbusters 2 shares the idea of investigating paranormal activity like the original and it still isn't anything you didn't see in the first one. Despite this the film is still funny enough to keep itself on its feet and worth a viewing.
MANUGINO
Super Reviewer
March 3, 2009
The Superstars of the Supernatural are back. And this time, it's no marshmallow roast.

Good movie once again. The first film was better but this one was good also. 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 bottom line is this: Don't try to compare the two films. If you enjoyed the first, you'll like this.....period.

It's 5 years after the battle against Gozer. A restraining order has forbidden Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Winston Zeddemore, and Egon Spengler from working as Ghostbusters, and as a result, they've had to find other jobs. Ray owns a book store called "Ray's Occult" and performs at children's birthday parties with Winston, Egon conducts experiments at the institute for advanced theoretical research, Dana Barrett broke up with Peter some time ago before marrying another guy, and Peter now hosts a local TV show called "The World of the Psychic". Dana, who is now the divorced mother of an 8-month-old baby named Oscar, works in the restoration department at the Manhattan Museum of Art. Strange things start happening when Oscar's baby carriage takes off by itself with Oscar in it, and it stops in the middle of 1st Avenue. While Dana's boss, Janosz Poha, is restoring a painting of a 16th-century tyrant named Vigo Von Homburg Deutschendorf, the painting comes to life. Vigo wants to live again by taking over Oscar's body. Vigo takes complete control of Janosz and orders Janosz to get Dana to cooperate. Janosz also has his own agenda. He wants Dana because he's in love with her. When Peter, Ray, and Egon try to help Dana, they are arrested and put on trial for violating the restraining order. When the ghosts of the killer Scoleri Brothers show up at the court room, the judge is forced to remove the restraining order against the guys so they can put the Scoleri Brothers in a ghost trap. After this, Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston re-open Ghostbusters, and mayor's assistant Jack Hardemeyer tries to slow them down any way he can, because he believes the Ghostbusters are frauds who will hurt the mayor's chances of becoming the governor of New York. The Ghostbusters and their lawyer, Louis Tully, refuse to be stopped by Jack. When Jack has the Ghostbusters put in the Parkview mental hospital, there is an eclipse and Janosz kidnaps Oscar for Vigo. The mayor wants the Ghostbusters on the job, and when the mayor hears that Jack had the Ghostbusters put in the Parkview mental hospital, he fires Jack and has the Ghostbusters released to try to rescue Oscar from Vigo, and Vigo intends to make it as hard as possible for the Ghostbusters.
Super Reviewer
September 10, 2010
An awesome sequel to an awesome movie! If you loved the first Ghostbusters, you will love this one as well. I highly recommend it, it's hilarious and fun.
movieguru12
Super Reviewer
February 19, 2008
This sequel was every bit as good as the first. I loved it and I can watch these movies again and again :) I love it :)
sanjurosamurai
Super Reviewer
½ January 8, 2007
an incredibly fun movie that is just littered with unfortunate script material. the characters were all still enjoyable and the ghostbusting was solid although not as good as the first, but the direction that ramis and aykroyd took the characters in the 5 years between the first film and this one was very disappointing. instead of allowing the results of the first story to build, or at least leaving the ghostbusters as friends. the film begins with so much conflict that it isnt fun at all until about half way through when all of that conflict finds some resolution. no one likes bill murray, the ghostbusters are oddly discredited and out of business despite what everyone saw in the first film, murrays girlfriend married someone else and they had a kid together - it was all just too much to overcome and be worthy of the glory of the first film, which is one of the best comedies of all time. fun to watch, but should have been much better.
ScoopOnline
Super Reviewer
December 12, 2009
The Superstars of the Supernatural!
Super Reviewer
November 18, 2009
It's not as good as the original, but still a very descent sequel. It tends to get a little corny, but I blame that on the baby. Bill Murray is still priceless and the rest of the cast made decent efforts. The main problem with this is the fact that it's less important than the first. You don't get as much of an epic feel to it. Still, I could watch Ghostbusters movies all day and not get tired.
Super Reviewer
September 24, 2009
Inferior sequel, quite shoddily directed in places but still fun. I?m actually glad their making a new one but it had better be good!
Super Reviewer
September 10, 2009
The Ghostbusters return in this follow-up as out of business workers who aren't so popular to begin with the general public because a lot of people think that they are fakes. The baby of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) becomes the target for a ghost who wants a son, and who else would you call other than the Ghostbusters?
"Ghostbusters 2" is a fairly decent sequel to the original blockbuster, but I didn't think it was as good as it could've been. For one thing, I didn't think it was nearly as funny as the original, and some of the things such as the idea of a painting coming alive and wanting to steal a baby, and making slime come to life with music and then using the statue of liberty to destroy part of the main enemy was a little too much for me. On the other hand, "Ghostbusters 2" does have good special effects, the soundtrack is great, and it was mildly entertaining.

If you liked "Ghostbusters," I would recommend getting "Ghostbusters 2." Most movies don't have sequels that can even stand up next to the original, but "Ghostbusters 2" isn't bad when compared to the normal sequel. NOTE: That was my Amazon review from the year 2001. I was being nice, cause this movie was the sucks.
Super Reviewer
January 2, 2008
I actually kind of prefer this to the first one. More lighthearted.
Super Reviewer
½ May 30, 2006
Prosecutor: So, you're saying that the supernatural is your exclusive province?
Peter Venkman: Kitten, I think what I'm saying, is that sometimes, shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?

A decent sequel that was rather unnecessary, but at least not a waste of time. It has a few good moments and many jokes hit due to the camaraderie of the guys, but I have problems with the basic setup and bigger doesn't always equal better.

Its a few years after the events of the first and the Ghosbusters have somehow been put out of business, despite the good that they done and the clear acknowledgment of paranormal activity existing. Now, some are doing kids parties, Egon has a job in the lab, and of course Venkman, Bill Murray, is getting more exposure than ever by hosting a TV show.

An event involving Venkman's past love, Dana, played by Sigourney Weaver, brings the boys in to investigate, resulting in their uncovering of some spooky slime activity in the sewers. Eventually the guys get their ghost busting license back and try to tackle the slimy situation.

As I've stated, the main guys do what they can to keep this all working, but it just doesn't have the same energy as the first. Its known that all involved were pressured by the studios to do this movie, so its still written and directed by the same talent, but the heart just isn't in it as much. Also, Peter MacNicol is annoying in this movie as the underling for the villain.

I did like the Statue of Liberty sequence though.

Ray: Well Mr Mayor, I would like to start by saying its great to see you again. And I'd like you to know that almost 50 percent of us voted for you in the last election.
Super Reviewer
½ August 23, 2007
Not as good as the first and a slight rerun but still very enjoyable. The cast work really well together and the effects are still nice. It was a huge hit when it came out due to the first and it does deliver. The update of Slimer and Ecto 1 are nice along with the story line but the main baddie doesn't quite hit the mark. Still fun and the Bobby Brown rap as the tune for the film is pretty cool yet dated.
Super Reviewer
July 16, 2007
A disgrace to the hilarious original.
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
January 12, 2007
A worthy sequel that does go a bit too far at some points, particularly character.
Super Reviewer
September 14, 2008
Giant Marshmellow man in the first one and now we have a walking statue of liberity and a pink slime with emotions. The ghost never got any better and the plot still remained pretty cheesy..

However, I personally think it was better then the first. The storyline was a bit more established (thanks to the first) and the characters were also more put together with better backgrounds in this one.

Overall while the creative edge did not really get no better the developement in areas where the first one was lacking equals it out to be just about as midiocre as the previous. Fairly good, worth watching, amazing for the 80s, but I dont feel as deserving as being a 'classic' as it is.
Page 1 of 491