Ghostbusters II (1989) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
215 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
No, It's Not The Original, But It's Still Very Funny
ccthemovieman-111 March 2006
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.
82 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
This film shouldn't be panned
MisterWhiplash9 October 2000
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-
62 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
They're back!
dee.reid30 October 2007
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.

29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Good sequel
bat-56 July 1999
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.
48 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Their Number Is Still In The Book
bkoganbing22 October 2009
All the principal characters and then some have been reunited five years later for Ghostbusters II. If you still have an ectoplasmic problem in your home or place of work, who you going to call? Why Ghostbusters II of course.

New York City has a river of ectoplasmic slime running underneath it and its feeding the sick desires of a long dead Carpathian count with delusions of grandeur to come back and rule. But first to find a host body.

Poor Sigourney Weaver, there's something about her that the spirits just can't resist. In the first Ghostbusters she was the target, now it's her infant son. Her's and Bill Murray's that is. If the no account count can get his spirit into the infant, he will be reborn with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Or does someone else have those?

As usual Ghostbusters Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson see the problem, but to convince the rest of New York that their general misanthropic behavior is what the nasty spirit feeds on.

Joining the gang is former victim Rick Moranis. In many ways Moranis is the funniest one in the film. He and Annie Potts make a delightful couple and great babysitters for poor Sigourney, especially since she can't get them to leave.

Ghostbusters II is every bit as funny as the original. And in addition the second film retains that famous and catchy theme that you won't get out of your head for weeks after seeing this film.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Sequel Scares up more fun
BoJangles-33 January 2001
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.
43 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
They're the best, they're beautiful, they're the only Ghostbusters - and they're back!
Old Joe23 October 2002
In the movie world there are a lot of movies that have sequels. It is also a known fact that people talk about a sequel, commenting that it was either better or worse than its predecessor. However when it comes to the sequel for ‘one of the biggest films of the 1980's', that being Ghostbusters II, the fuss was not so big and the talk was not so loud, about it being good or bad. Although it was made a while ago, Ghostbusters II has many nostalgic moments, which makes me wonder why it is was not a hit. When Venkman says ‘Sometimes, weird things happen, someone has to deal with it, and who are you gonna call?!', you know it is time once again to call on the ‘Ghostbusters'.

Five years after waging a war on slime that cost New York City millions, the Ghostbusters find themselves out of business--until an ancient tyrant, preparing a return to the Earthly domain through a river of slime under the city and his portrait at the Manhattan Museum of Art, sets his sights on Dana Barrett's baby as the new home for his wicked soul! With the help of the Museum's possessed curator, he plans to turn New York into a really scary place to live! Now only the Ghostbusters can save New York City, by turning paranormal pest control into an art form!

The surprising part about this film is that almost every aspect from the first, returned to do it all a second time. Director Ivan Reitman does a grand job in directing Ghostbusters II. I am certain that he wanted to make this film as similar to the first Ghostbusters as he could, considering that formula seemed to be very popular with many movie fans. The screenplay was once again written by two of the stars of the movie, that being Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis. They certainly put a lot of thought into the humour being presented, which made this film seem very original and funny. If either of these areas of Ghostbusters II were a failure, than I am sure that this film would not have been anywhere near as good, as I thought it was.

I was glad to see all the cast back for a second time. The way we see the Ghostbusters five years on is very amusing. With two of them doing parties and being a joke, one doing a TV talk show and the other being a psychologist. Bill Murray still added that funny touch to the movie, with his character of Venkman being outrageous, which made the movie funny to watch. All the other Ghostbusters characters were good once again. Stantz, Spengler and Zeddemore are as they were before, smart or as silly as ever. Breaking up this team would for me seem an injustice.

The supporting cast was also good. Dana Barrett was performed well again by Sigourney Weaver. Dana is a woman whose life always seems to be troubled by paranormal pests and a man by the name of Venkman. Joining the cast is ‘Ally MacBeals' Peter MacNichol, who is the zany character of Janosz Poha, Dana Barrett's possessed art boss. I also found it clever to have the characters of Janine (Annie Potts) and Louis (Rick Moranis) return as lovers, as this adds a bit of spice and variety to the story. Furthermore, Dana's baby Oscar was a cutie, and by the end of the movie was an integral character to the makeup of the story. Add in the return of Slimer, which although he was not as funny as I had hoped he would be, put a smile on my face every time I saw him.

There are some very funny scenes and lines in Ghostbusters II. I like how the movie starts, with Dana's baby carriage just taking off by itself. Then you also have the funny courtroom scene, where the Ghostbusters are charged as guilty of their crime, then in the next instant are tackling ghost in the courtroom, by the judge's requests! At the end of this scene the guys remark ‘Two in the box, ready to go, we be fast and they be slow'. Yet when we see a river of slime under the city, which can cause people to turn evil, you know that the fun has returned again. Then for a cop to exclaim that ‘the titanic has just arrived', was a very game scene to create in a movie, but very funny as well. Only the Ghostbusters could get away something like that. Furthermore, to top the first movies ‘Marshmallow man', the scene with the ‘Statue of Liberty' was very ingenious and makes for a hilarious time, as I wanted to see what would happen next.

I can not remember if this was a big movie back when it was released in 1989. I am surprised if it wasn't, as it was everything that you could want from a sequel, and that little bit more. Although it was not as good as the original, I still had a fun time watching the Ghostbusters a second time around and is must-see for fans. With great special effects, funny story and roles from all involved, Ghostbusters II is not as bad a sequel as some would have you to believe. What's more, I was reading the other day that there was talk of Ghostbusters III. Part of me is a little disappointed that this film never made it off the ground, because just imagine all the fun that we have missed out on seeing. Be ready to believe them all over again!

CMRS gives ‘Ghostbusters II': 4 (Very Good Film)
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I'm still ready to call them.
Lee Eisenberg9 August 2005
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?
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Followed the first one too much.
Aaron13757 April 2003
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.
34 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A tepid sequel that should have been much better
Shawn Watson31 October 2000
First of all...where are the ghosts? We have the Scolari Brothers and Slimer but there is an agonizing lack of spooks and spectres in this sequel and the bustings of required. Ghostbusters II should have opened with a huge set-piece (ala James Bond) and then launched the title screen. We have seen these guys set-up, we have had the origin story, they were cheered by the city after saving the world from 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together mass hysteria!

Get the point?

Instead the movie stumbles over the starting line by announcing that they were sued by everyone in New York for blowing-up Spook Central and were labelled as frauds. Yeah, because conjuring up a very tangible Marshmallow Man and Gozer's voice booming all over Manhattan is easy to pull off when you're a conman. Not only that but the team have disbanded and Dana has married someone other than Peter. In five years she dumped him, married someone else, had a kid with him, and was dumped herself when he left to go to Europe. That timeline seems a little tight.

A portrait of a gruesome medieval warlord being brought to a New York museum coincides with a viscous, psycho-magnatheric river of slime materializing beneath the streets. All of the hate and anger in New York has became tangible and is giving Vigo the Carpathian power from his painting. He wants to inhabit a newborn on the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and thus take over the world some time later. He's hardly Gozer. Vigo does pretty much nothing for the whole movie and his motivation to become a 90s baby doesn't exactly frighten us.

Where is the darkness? This movie is far too light-hearted, helped none by Randy Edelman's lame score which is absolutely no match for the power of Elmer Bernstein from the first movie. Lazlo Kovac's is gone, by Michael Chapman does a fine job in his place, with some truly wonderful wide shots and camera blocking featuring up to six characters at once. GBII has great anamorphic photography but the darkness is not there and it is needed.

It satisfied me as a kid, but I can't help but be disappointed at the numerous missed opportunities when I watch it as an adult. It should have been more. It should have been much, much more.

I also find it odd that for a film that has a climax set on New Year's Eve there is not one mention of Christmas. And what's twice as weird, or just plain lazy, is the fact that the real life building that became Spook Central in the first movie is visible during the montage scene. All the had to do was point the camera in another direction or use a matte painting to alter it back to its fictional appearance.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
an incredible movie and a worthy sequel
DoobieKeebler19 February 2000
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.
37 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Why Ghostbusters III never got off the ground
Adam Vandermaelen28 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing about the unfortunate passing of Mr. Harold Ramis, I decided to take a look back at one of the movies that he was best known for... and then a couple days later, I saw the sequel. No disrespect to the man's writing, but by God was it not on par with the original.

It has its moments, though. Rick Moranis did a decent job reprising his role, the scene with the Statue of Liberty was both visually impressive and a bit of a heart warmer, and as "puppety" as he looked in this film, it was good to see Slimer again.

But when this film was bad, it was PHENOMINALY bad. The soundtrack is kind of to blame, in my opinion. The Sinicized tones sound like a 1980's horror film if anything. Scenes like the slime in the bathtub and the baby being kidnapped work with it since they're trying to give off a scary vibe, but when it tries to attempt something more lighthearted, it doesn't even BEGIN to level it out. The first movie managed to take the climax with the final confrontation of Gozer and still manage to deliver some good laughs. There was nothing in the climax of this film that I could bring myself to chuckle to, mostly because it involved a small infant dangling on the wall between life and death with a satanic looking Shakespeare trying to possess his body. I'm sorry, but WHERE in a scene involving THIS would I be inclined to be humored?

If this was how unfunny a sequel in this franchise was back then, I CRINGE to think what would have happened if 3 lived to see the light of day in THIS generation.

Oh, and the remix of Ray Parker Jr. song was terrible and forced. Just thought I'd make that clear.

R.I.P. Harold Ramis November 12th, 1944 - February 24, 2014
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
The courtroom scene truly rocks!
astro_9221 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Ghostbusters 2 is highly entertaining motion for anyone that digs films that are great fun from start to finish. This movie has a vast amount of memorable moments, sequences, and lines. Although the storyline here is very similar to that of the first one, the entire motion picture delivers so much amusement that it is often hard for viewers to keep up on the movie's central plot. Regardless of all these factors, Ghostbusters 2 is easily one of the best sequels ever produced in motion picture history.

This movie takes place fives years after the events of the first Ghostbusters flick. Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston have been given a judicial restraining order by the entire New York community. The order strictly forbids them performing services as ghost busters. You see, even though they saved the world from utter destruction at the end of GB1, they caused a lot of damage to a high-rise apartment building located near Cenral Park. However, the boys reunite after Dana has a scary and mind-boggling experience when her infant son, Oscar, is mysteriously taken away while in his carriage out on First Avenue. After some investigation and deliberation, they decide to jackhammer a hole in the middle of the busy intersection. When Ray goes below like a worm on a hook he discovers a river of pink slime flowing heavily under the city. Later in the movie, the find out that the slime is the living embodiment of the bad vibes and negative feelings that have been generated over time by the citizens of New York City.

Right now I would like to elaborate on what is perhaps the most memorable sequence in the entire movie: the courtroom scene. Following their late-night excavation on First Avenue, Peter, Ray, and Egon are arrested for willful destruction of public property and causing a blackout over the entirety of New York City. The three of them are put on trial in a court of law presided by Judge Stephen Wexler. Wexler's nickname is "The Hammer". This is so because he is a constant gavel banger and screams at other people just for the fun of it. Therefore, Judge Wexler is very sadistic, arrogant, and closed-minded. He also has a very lousy temper. As a result of his hot anger towards the guys, the pink slime in the jar present in the room bubbles like crazy and eventually unleashes two gigantic apparitions: the Scoleri brothers. The judge recognizes them because he himself gave the brothers the death penalty for murder a long time ago. The two ghosts now want to kill him. All this chaos forces the judge to eliminate their restraining order so that the two ghosts can be removed from the courthouse. They succeed and the Ghostbusters are back in business.

Ghostbusters 2 is truly a magnificent motion picture! The courtroom scene and many other moments will have you laughing like a maniac. This movie, like the first one, will forever remain to be a favorite with me.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Here we go again!
DAVID SIM14 June 2007
Warning: 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 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 Aykroyd & 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 Aykroyd 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 Aykroyd 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.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
It just didn't deliver
Century_hades16 March 2014
I re watched Ghostbusters 2, I remember being pretty disappointed when I saw this sequel as a kid. The first film was such a blast for me when I saw it during the summer of 1984. So expectations where high for this one.

It just didn't deliver, and seeing it again as the years have passed. Its faults stand out more and more to me. The lines are no where near as funny, and the story is pretty dull. Combined with the hip hop rap soundtrack is the final nail in the coffin. I remember a lot of movies coming out around this time using rap in their soundtracks. (including rocky 5 which I disliked.) It's watchable but now where near as memorable as the first film. I think the first movie is just one of those things where everything clicked. So it never needed to be visited again.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I had avoided this movie...................
darkwave20006 October 2007
I had avoided this movie until this year when I bought it at Walmart for $5.00. Boy, was I right to steer clear of this piece of sh*t. I can't believe the reviews on hear that say it's good. Are you kidding me? I made it to the toaster on the pool table scene and then I turned it off and literally threw the disc away and recycled the case for a cd without a home. This movie was painful to watch. It was just rich actors going through the motions for a paycheck. The introduction of the baby into the mix was cheesy and the scenes of Bill Murray's character and the baby were unfunny and kind of cruel from a 2007 perspective. I like the original, but this was just a desperate attempt to re-kindle something without the original spark or inspiration. Bad, bad flick.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Ghostbusters II: Why Bother?
ccagle-43 July 2006
Probably the worst sequel since Caddyshack II, Ghostbusters II makes the viewer wonder why they sullied the reputation of the first movie to make this dog. The thin plot centers on some goo that is underneath New York and is somehow causing evil to emanate from it. Dana has a son and he is a necessary part of a long dead prince's plan to come back to life on earth. The Ghostbusters go from being out of business to back in business to stop this evil prince.

The movie is full of filler (the court scene and the obligatory ghosts are absurd to say the least; they don't look like humans yet the judge quickly identifies them?) and is so bad that I would have turned it off halfway through if I had been watching it by myself. Simply dreadful.

Avoid this movie like the plague and enjoy the original for everything that this movie is not.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A lame sequel
Herbest814 November 2009
Five years after defeating Gozer, the boys reunite to fight a new villain and also contend with more unscrupulous mortals. Does this sound familiar? Who wouldn't want this sequel to be good? All the major cast members are back, you have some pretty neat special effects and an interesting plot device...the river of slime. And yet, the film feels empty. There is too much of a by-the-numbers approach and the film isn't very involving. Does that mean the film is bad? No but it's not great either.

The cast does well but they don't have a lot of material to work with. Too much seems recycled from the previous movie and there are no further insights into these interesting characters and the world of the supernatural. It just seems tired. Even Bill Murray is dull here.

Although it entertains, "Ghostbusters II" simply doesn't deliver.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A soulless Hollywood product
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki8 October 2015
This sequel appears to have been watered down for the kiddies who watched the Ghostbusters cartoon show for the previous half decade, while simultaneously selling cinema tickets to their parents for nostalgia (and a soundtrack album).

The now disgraced (after the destruction of Manhattan in the first film) Ghostbusters are called back into action, when a sea of slime is found running under the city, feeding on negative energy, and while a fictitious former warlord attempts to re-enter the world of the living, via a haunted painting.

Goofy and inane, silly plot - at its core, it offers a generic "be nice" message, and it tries to top the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from part 1 by giving us the ghost of Titanic. Seriously?

Film seems like what would now be called cos-play with original film's cast, most of whom return, but none of whom seem interested.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
About As Enticing As A Snot Rag.
Python Hyena2 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Ghostbusters 2 (1989): Dir: Ivan Reitman / Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis: Sequel that cannot claim the success or match the original film's uniqueness. Picking up where the original film left off, the boys with the proton packs are being sued for city damages and are reduced to making appearances at birthday parties for children. A purple slime of physical evil forms underneath the city. A figure in a painting attempts to draw power and emerge but he needs a child sacrifice and Sigourney Weaver's child seems like the perfect target. This obviously puts the Ghostbusters back in business again. Basically a recycling of the first film only instead of a giant Stay Puff Marshmallow Man we are given a walking Statue of Liberty. Director Ivan Reitman returns and does what he can with special effects to boot. He obviously isn't matching previous success with Ghostbusters or with other superb Reitman films such as Stripes or Twins. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis recite what they previously made great in the first film, and Sigourney Weaver returns once again with her kid fixated upon by a demon in a painting. Rick Moranis is also coasting on fumes here as well. The special effects can be complimented but they do not save the film, which is basically a pointless sequel that sinks like the slime in the sewer. Score: 2 / 10
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Block Their Number
thesar-216 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Allow me to take a few moments to come up with at least comedy sequel that was funnier than the original and worked on its own while still honoring the original.

Since I'll never come up with one, let me reflect on this sad and unnecessary mess.

Talk about advertising. So many scenes in this movie were shot looking like the director had the trailer in mind the whole time. The number of one-liners telling the audience they're back and scenes of them lining up and posing for stills made the movie feel more like them giving the preview editor a break plus the audience "a reason" for them to just remember the first one. Heck, even the movie's poster with the ghost's two fingers up is not only all over this movie, but oddly on their uniforms…for no reason other than more advertising.

Admittedly, some jokes worked. I did find myself laughing out loud a few times. But those were so few and far between. Even the comic genius, Bill Murray, didn't phone it in and gave it his all. Sadly, most of his attempts were obvious and fell flat.

The over-complicated plot which felt like a future Spider-Man sequel, involves a bizarre love-triangle, sued and disgraced heroes, a demon magician, the Blob's emotional cousin, Christmas through New Year's anger and a baby in so much incredible peril CPS would report the film ten times over.

It boils down to the same set-up as the first one with no one believing what they should've easily remembered from just five years prior and the Ghostbusters getting everyone to literally stand behind the Statue of Liberty and all-but sing Kumbaya.

Wait. Stop there. First off, this sounds far too familiar: this exact setup was used for 1985's Fright Night and 1988's Fright Night II whereas the same people are now unbelievably back in their comfort-zone in not believing in either vampires or ghosts in a span of 3 to 5 years.

Secondly, this is NYC, so the comparison (now) is easy to 9/11. Not even counting the world or the rest of the nation, how many people just in the five boroughs would forget what happened in their city a mere five years after the attack? I've never actually been to the city, but I doubt one person forgot it. So, why or how would a single New Yorker forget what happened in 1984's citywide ghost attack just five years later. Impossible.

But, then, the writing was lazy. The jokes were almost completely off, but the setup needed a lot of work, as well.

These last couple of days, I re-watched the original and this movie I hadn't seen in more than two decades in prep for the 2016 Ghostbusters "remake?" in a couple of hours. My hope is that the "reboot?" will be more Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade than 2011's Fright Night.

I wouldn't recommend Ghostbusters II even with the random funny jokes or one's curiosity to see what happened to our beloved heroes from the classic original. That's sad because these leads are/can be comic masters and even with this cast that should've struck gold a second time, they couldn't joke their way out of this wet sack of slime.


Final thoughts: Ahhh, back in 1989, that was my year. Actually, beginning in 1988, movies became my life. I saw everything and anything I could ride my bike to and spend my allowance on. When my (to date) favorite summer of all time came up, I relished in all the 1989 summer blockbusters, one right after another. In this case: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Ghostbusters II, Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, etc. etc.

Back then, I wasn't much of a hard-nosed critic as I am today. Maybe because I've seen 10,000 more movies since and the same old plots wear on you after a while. But, in 1989, my mind was fresh and I pretty much loved everything…and still thought this movie was a disappointment. Funny enough, I hadn't even appreciated the original Ghostbusters quite yet. I might have only seen it once or twice by the time I saw this sequel.

At least I got a cool Glow-in-the-Dark Ghostbusters II AMC cup…that still, unbelievably, works today, July 16, 2016. I guess, there's that.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Quite possibly the worst movie ever made.
jak_ras9 July 2004
It's not funny, it's not scary and it's not the least bit entertaining. This movie has everything I hate in a movie...and nothing else. Even "bad" movies tend to have some highlights or at least they're so bad that you just can't help smiling to yourself. Well I didn't smile while watching this.

I remember not even liking this movie when I saw it back in '89 (I was 12) but after seeing it again I'm appalled. The effects are horrible, even for it's age. The theme music is generic 80's pop that you couldn't remember if you listened to it a thousand times. It feels completely out of place. The story in itself is slightly more interesting than the one of the original movie but is ruined by pretty much everything else. The cast is as you'll expect them in a movie like this but the gags and one-liners are just terrible. The ending has to be one of the lowest points in film making history. Disgusting.

And I liked the original ghostbusters... If you haven't seen this yet, don't.

1 out of 10 (my lowest score yet).
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Absolutely Terrible
millikin4 April 2000
Leprechaun 5: In the Hood is such a better movie than Ghostbusters II. What's with these dorky, pointless villains? VIGO, for crying out loud? The ending is terrible: "We can save the city with positive energy!" How stupid. Some of the ghosts and the Titanic are pretty cool, I guess-- but it's not nearly as funny or entertaining as the original. Oh well, ...
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
The sequel that should never have been made
rockchester23 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes I wonder if Bill Murray and Dan Akyroyd are lucky or good. If they were good, they probably would have refused to make this steaming pile of slime. If they were lucky, well, their luck ran out this time. Ghostbusters 2 is thoroughly uninspired, pointless, full of plot holes and is a mere semblance of the original's fine craftsmanship.

The movie makes no sense. For starters, as with a lot of sequels, it starts out with people who were living happily ever after at the end of the first movie. If they were still living happily ever after, there'd be no point to this crappy follow-up, so of course somewhere since the end of the first movie, stuff happened and no one's happy any longer, including the audience.

And, as with many sequels, they decided to take some elements of the first movie and have the audience choke down a ton more of it. Somehow, they got the idea that slime was really funny in Ghostbusters so let's make the slime a star and parade it endlessly across the screen.

The premise seems to be that there's a river of negative emotion, in the form of slime, under NYC that runs towards, for no particular reason, and terminates at a museum with a really big painting of a sixteenth century whack job. So, we have the slime and we have the bad guy and they seem to be related. There's slime, and there's a bad guy... and there's slime… and a bad guy. I give up. Now, the bad guy, rather than come back to life as a full grown evil overlord who will rule the world, decides that he should grab some baby from someone (conveniently, Dana just happens to have one) and manifest his evil presence inside it and in seventeen or eighteen years, he'll be ready to rule the world when he gets out of high school. I smell an Oscar. Heh Heh.

The movie starts out with bold letters telling us: Five Years Later. Uh huh. Five years after, I guess, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man victory that, apparently, turned out to be a flurry of lawsuits and career ending bad vibes when the city woke up the morning after and realized it hadn't gone to bed with Mr. Right. Oh well, I guess when we saw all of the cheering New Yorkers admiring the ghostbusters in the first movie, we were MISTAKEN!

Dana and Bill's character (that's right, I don't even CARE what his character's name is anymore) didn't get married because Bill has problems with the whole commitment thing. Then, Dana married some other guy who we never see and know nothing about who impregnated her about a year before this sorry excuse for a movie begins and then he moved to London. I guess he had commitment problems too. At least the baby didn't pop out of her chest but I digress. The rest of the movie is more like a series of SNL skits that have little to do with each other. A lot of the actors who graced the first movie showed up for this one. The mayor, the accountant, the secretary who just magically shows up and becomes one again once the slime patrol regains its credibility, the slime guy who slimed Bill Murray in the first movie.

The movie is absolutely full of plot holes and stuff that happens for no particular reason. Rick Moranis was an accountant but now he's an attorney who has no courtroom experience. Later, he somehow hooks up with Annie Potts (the secretary) who is interested in him for no apparent reason and they get down in Dana's apartment. It gets worse. At what passes for the movie's finale, he has his own ghostbuster uniform and his own proton pack. Annie packs him off to wander the streets looking for a ride to the museum and finds the slimer is driving the bus. OK, where's the exit?

The original ghostbusters, in the meantime, have commandeered the Statue of Liberty and animated her so that she trudges off to the museum too, with the busters riding in her head. OK, so the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man couldn't do this movie because he had a previous engagement, right? I mean, if they're going to create one ridiculous, nonsensical plot hole after another, surely they could have glued Stay Puft back together, yeah? What other giant thing can we have walking down a busy NYC street smashing police cars inadvertently? Never mind that she's metal and could only manage to waddle incoherently towards the target. We animated her so now she's not metal. Fine, whatever. These two train wrecks converge on the museum. Liberty smashes the sky light. Oh goody, another lawsuit for Ghostbusters 3 if they can talk the studio in to financing it. The overlord shows up, makes some faces. The slime shows up and, well, slimes some faces. In a final bit of stupidity, Rick Moranis's character stands outside with a crowd that has appeared out of nowhere to sing Auld Lang Syne. In an amazing bit of timing, since he's in no way in communication with the actual ghostbusters, Rick shoots off his proton gun at the same time the other ghostbusters do and saves the day, er, night, er whatever. Happy New Year, New York, New York.

At this point, I'm having an out of body experience as this horrifyingly bad movie has sucked the will to live out of me. Oh my god, Bill. I've got news for you, dude, Garfield wasn't your biggest mistake after all! Perhaps drinking heavily before and during the movie would have helped. Anyway, the baby is safe, Dana is in love with Bill Murray's character again and the whole motley crew oozes it's way in to the sunset, er, moonset, whatever, to continue their happily-ever-after-or-not lives. Who ya gonna call? Not Ghostbusters 3.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed