The boys are back, and this time they have to save the world from the spirit of a particularly vicious ancient warlord. Needless to say, slime and witty one-liners fly fast and furious.
Not as good as the first flick, but still entertaining (Bill Murray, as usual, steals the movie).
This one is a sentimental fave for me because I happened to catch them shooting a scene for it in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC on a very chilly night in the fall of 1988. Great memories!!
1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.
Brittany W. from LOUISVILLE, KY Reviewed on 6/30/2012...
not as good as the first but good in its own right.
2 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Chad B. (abrnt1) from CABERY, IL Reviewed on 1/7/2012...
This is one of the worst sequels ever made. It's a tired & pointless rehash of the first film that fails to be at all funny. This film was a badly thought out attempt to cash in on the success of the original and is insulting beyond belief.
1 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
adncjs3 | Fresno, CA. United States | 11/20/2000
(4 out of 5 stars)
""Ghostbusters II" recieved a fair amount of bad press when it was first released, but it is a charming, well produced and yes, funny sequel to the first blockbuster. The film picks up five years after the original. We find the Ghostbusters out of business and broke, Bill Murray is hosting a bizarre cable access show called "World of the Psychic" and Ackroyd and Ernie Hudson are performing at children's parties. Aren't the parents nervous about the GB's wielding their proton packs around thier youngsters??The story speeds up when the Ghostbusters reunite and discover the soul of an ancient tyrant resides in a portrait in a museum. The tyrant, named Vigo has decided to take possession of Sigourney Weaver's child so he can live again to rule the world. This plot seems more disturbing than the plot in the first film, but director Ivan Reitman gives us plenty of humor to counter balance.While not as funny as the first film, "Ghostbusters II" proves to be an entertaining follow up to the first classic film. After years of viewing, "Ghostbusters II" reveals itself to be a classic in it's own right."
I honestly prefer 2 to the original
William | Michigan | 08/01/2007
(4 out of 5 stars)
"I'm going to go against the crowd here and say that Ghostbusters 2 is a superior film to the original, and here's why: While it is true that the original GB was an original surprise hit, beating out Indiana Jones, Gremlins, and other big movies in the summer of 84, Bill Murray was coming off of Stripes and was playing the same smarmy guy he always played in the early 80s. In GB 2, Murray is way more likable and he allows his great costars to have more fun moments, like the discovery of the river of slime, Rick Moranis gets to be the Ghostbusters' lawyer and "suits up" as an honorary Ghostbuster this time. Anne Potts, Harold Ramis, Dan Akroyd, and Ernie Hudson ALL have better material and seem more interesting this time around. I like the way both Ghostbuster films make use of New York locations. Ghosts and undead beings walking around New York is a fascinating sight that never gets old because the special effects are really top notch. This movie is just less cynical than the original. In fact I love that the overriding message of the film is that people sort of created the river of slime by being so cynical and that New Yorkers could pull together and change that outlook. That interesting theme gives this movie a heart that the original lacked I think. But all of that aside, I just think it is a funnier movie. In the courtroom when the Ghostbusters put on their proton packs and sing "Doe," Ray," "Egon," and the look Harold Ramis flashes Murry is priceless. Anyway this is probably the best movie ever inspired by Saturday Night Live cast-members, at least in my book. So give it another try."
A. Pierre | Somewheres | 06/15/2007
(3 out of 5 stars)
"This movie is not as good as the orignal but still isnt too bad. The thing I dont get is you can get both Ghostbusters 1 and 2 on dvd for $13. Why would you want to buy this seperate for the same price. I will admit the first Ghostbusters on the first dvd release had an amazing main menu."
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF SLIME
Michael Butts | Martinsburg, WV USA | 04/13/2005
(3 out of 5 stars)
"In all likelihood, a sequel to the enormously successful and entertaining GHOSTBUSTERS was not necessary. In this whimsical, but often tedious, sequel, the ghostbusters are back, after being banned from ghostbusting! Which makes no sense as everyone hailed them as heroes after the defeat of the Marshmallow Man! But for plot purposes, that's what they decided to move this movie. Although the original cast and director are back, they don't seem as inspired or "in to it" like they did in the first. Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver seem to be going through the motions; Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are pretty much what they were in the first; and Rick Moranis & Annie Potts, who were so much fun in the original, don't seem to be a part of the story as much in this one. Peter MacNicol as the crazed museum curator is excellent in his role, and we get some fun support from Harris Yulin as the Judge and Janet Margolin as the prosecuting attorney. The effects this time are fairly similar to the original, but the use of the Statue of Liberty in the climax is a little too far-fetched even for this kind of film. We also don't know how they get her back in the harbor after the cataclysmic ending. I enjoyed watching the movie, but I can see why they never went for any more entries. Sometimes you should just leave well enough alone."
"What are we supposed to do, stick our heads in the toilet?"
Larry Bridges | Arlington, MA United States | 08/04/2006
(2 out of 5 stars)
"Imagine for a moment that in 1944 MGM decided to make a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz". They managed to reunite the entire original cast: Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Bert Lahr, Frank Morgan and Billie Burke. The production values were as high as in the first film, and Victor Fleming once again provided capable direction. There was only one problem: the script was deeply flawed and far inferior to that of the previous film.
For those of us who remember the original "Ghostbusters" as an all-time classic from our childhoods, "Ghostbusters 2" is the precise equivalent of that hypothetical "Oz" sequel. For an hour and forty minutes we get to see the characters from one of our favorite movies, played by the same actors, in another movie. The only problem is that it isn't a *good* movie. "Ghostbusters 2" is painfully derivative of its predecessor; it's far less well structured; and Randy Edelman's score can't hold a candle to Elmer Bernstein's for the first film.
As a child I avoided seeing "Ghostbusters 2". I knew it would probably be painful to watch, given my love of the first film, and I was right. As an adult I can now derive some degree of enjoyment from the film. I love the characters, and I love seeing them again. But if you ever find a DVD of "The Wizard of Oz 2" that has dropped in from a parallel dimension... you know who not to call."