Five years after they defeated Gozer, the Ghostbusters are out of business. When Dana begins to have ghost problems again, the boys come out of retirement to aid her and hopefully save New York City from a new paranormal threat.
... View More
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
... View More
The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.
... View More
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
... View More
Ghostbusters II is, all in all, a funny movie, with good jokes, good effects and decent acting. It's not bad by itself, but I think it pales by comparison with the original, and that's the main reason there's so much hatred for this movie.The good: The main cast returns, the effects are improved. The performances are all fine, with some exceptions (Murray looks bored), but the jokes work all the same, and it's pretty funny. I loved Peter MacNicol's interpretation, completely, one of the highlights of the movie. If you enjoyed the first movie, you'll find the same witty humor and jokes. It's a fine comedy. The bad: The plot is recycled, and nonsensical. The original movie worked so well, because it felt grounded in reality: a world similar to ours, but with ghosts. This movie exists in a strange universe in which everyone just forgot the first movie, which is a stupid plot contrivance just to recycle the first movie plot. The characters are basically in the same spot than at the beginning of the last movie, and finish the movie in exactly the same spot than at the end the last movie, with the Ghostbusters defeating a paranormal super-villain, and being hailed as heroes. All the previous complaints are not enough to make this a bad movie, or a bad comedy. It just feels like a wasted opportunity to expand the story and the characters. In these respects, the movie feels rushed and lazy. But, I recommend you to see it with an open mind, and you'll have a good time with some laughs here and there. 7/10
... View More
Ghostbusters IIMaybe, if focused less on the sub-plots assigned to the characters and more on the screenplay then it would have come off far better than the first one since the screen time was on their side.
... View More
Don't make me say what I don't have said: GB2 is not a bad movie nor a so-so one. It's a good movie but truly not reaching the classic fun of GB1. For me, there is 3 huge defects in doing this sequel: 1) the soundtrack! Here there is no more inspired score, only songs: some are good (if my memory is correct, it's how I discovered Oingo-Boingo) but the rap ones are really puffing 2) the already seen scenes: the mayor office, their arrest, the big walking thing in the streets, .I just wanted to see something else! 3) The too much auto-centered events: In GB1, the supernatural was believable and serious! Here, a bit like in gremlins 2, it's fun for fun and whatever the credibility: the opening scene with the cradle have no explanation, Slimer is iconic but inappropriate, Vigo is not really frightening and the slime not really convincing . If you can forget all this, the movie is indeed enjoyable: the cast is really excellent and this team is among the best for comedy! Whatever the scene is about, they always find a funny line for that! The movie is also a good depiction to the way of life in a big megalopolis and the beginning when they have new jobs is original. In a way, this movie illustrates the limits of sequels: it's always the same ideas that are played and replayed!
... View More
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.