Ghostbusters II (1989)

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.

Fmovies: 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, wher

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.

Ghostbusters II fmovies. 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.

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?

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.