Ghostbusters II (1989) User Reviews (324)

No, It's Not The Original, But It's Still Very Funny

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 11 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.

They're back!

[dee.reid · 8/10 · 30 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.

8/10

This film shouldn't be panned

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 9 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-

Good sequel

[bat-5 · 7/10 · 6 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.

Sequel Scares up more fun

[BoJangles-3 · 7/10 · 3 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.

Worthy and entertaining, not as good as the first film, but this is a sequel worth watching!

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 10 June 2009]

The first Ghostbusters was a feel good, silly and entertaining film. The sequel is certainly a worthy one, and I really enjoyed it, though it seemed a little more serious in tone. Bil Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson all return, and all of them do a very credible job. I especially liked the fact that Ramis, Ackroyd and even Hudson were given more to do. The sequel, set 5 years later, shows that Dana and Peter have had a baby named Oscar, and he was really cute. As I've said already, it doesn't quite have the feel- good nature of the first film,(the ending was a bit of a letdown)due to a rather contrived plot and some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. Peter MacNicol does his best, but he is given little to do, and towards the end, I didn't see him particularly threatening. Aquitting himself better, much better in fact, is Wilhelm Von Homberg as Vigo, creating quite a sinister villain, if not quite memorable. Also there were some excellent special effects, a hilarious court room scene and the spirited performances of the entire cast, making this an enjoyable, if not entirely successful sequel. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

They're the best, they're beautiful, they're the only Ghostbusters - and they're back!

[Old Joe · 23 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)

I'm still ready to call them.

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 9 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?

Their Number Is Still In The Book

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 22 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.

Decent but very forgettable

[finnnoveshen · 6/10 · 6 July 2021]

Ok this movie is not terrible when I was five I used to think this movie was just as good as the original and maybe better but now rewatching it I kind of was disappointed and the plot is horrible same with the villain, but bill Murray's still good so what can I say.

Watch it if your going through the ghostbusters movies but don't expect on likening it.

A tepid sequel that should have been much better

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 5/10 · 31 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.

My favorite GB film of the entire series...

[isabellacatgirl · 10/10 · 6 March 2022]

Can't believe this is rated the lowest on IMDB out of all the other GB movies,no way! Even lower than the much maligned(but misunderstood) Answer The Call(2016) and lame Afterlife.

Never understood the complaints about this one. Saw it in the theaters,and seen it many times since and still remains my all-time favorite GB movie and imo the best one.

Everyone's at their peak here in this film,even moreso than the first. The whole cast looks great in this,and the look is even more iconic than the other films. The only weak link may be the new villain,and the fact that the pacing isn't as punchy as the first film. Nonetheless I love the romance between Louis Tully and Janine lol,and the Ghostbusters never looked as good. Sadly this is the last time we see the original crew until the 2009 game. There are some good horror scenes in this thrown for good measure,what's not to love??? Best Ghostbusters movie. The most memorable for me and has one of the best soundtracks.

Fun sequel

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 13 June 2020]

After the end of the first film, you'd think the Ghostbusters would be heroes for life. However, they've been sued out of existence and are barely able to get back together in time to stop a whole new evil, Vigo the Carpathian, who is trapped inside a painting that Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) is restoring along with her boss, Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol, a bright spot here).

Yes, Dana went from playing the cello at a high level to being an art expert of the same caliber. Obviously, we're dealing with a Buckaroo Banzai level individual here.

This film never lived up to the original for audiences, critics or the people who made it. It took five years of rough gestation to even get to the screen, which needed suits, agents and even a lunch for the stars to decide whether or not they wanted to work together.

Vigo is pretty great though. While his voice comes from Max Von Sydow, he was played by Wilhelm von Homburg, a German boxer, wrestler and weight lifter who also shows up in The Last of the Secret Agents?, Die Hard, The Wrecking Crew and In the Mouth of Madness. This Deadspin account of his life is pretty astounding, telling the story of a man who lived for excess and may have even fathered his own half-sister.

Remember how I said in a past review that Ghostbusters has no hero's journey for its characters? Well, they've done the third - and hardest - act off-screen, as now Ray (Dan Aykroyd) owns an occult bookstore and works a side job with Winston (Ernie Hudson) doing kid birthday parties, Egon (Harold Ramis) works in a lab and Venkman (Bill Murray) hosts a ridiculous psychic TV show.

Luckily, everything works out despite a river of slime. Rick Moranis returns as Louis Tully and Annie Potts comes back as Janine Melnitz, ready to fall for Egon.

Sure, this is nowhere as good as the first, but that Bobby Brown song sure is catchy. Actually, they could make several of these films and I'd watch them all. I even made it through the toss away the past reimagining.

It just didn't deliver

[Century_hades · 5/10 · 16 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.

Followed the first one too much.

[Aaron1375 · 6/10 · 7 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.

Bad case of sequelitis

[Vartiainen · 6/10 · 14 December 2019]

Ghostbusters 2 should have been amazing. The whole team is back, from the actors to the director to the screenwriters. Sure, five years between movies is a tad long so most of the hype had died down, but this could still have worked.

And there are good things in this movie. The world is still eminently intriguing and as cool as frozen hell. It's no wonder that this franchise is still alive and kicking. There's just something viscerally and effortlessly appealing about it.

Furthermore, all the main actors are back, from Murray to Weaver to Ramis and so on. And they're still great actors who give us great performances. Okay, Murray is clearly not bringing his A-game this time around, but he's passable even at 60 percent.

The special effects look amazing, the score is nice and there are cool scenes to be had.

So what went wrong? Well, unfortunately the script and the directing, which seems ludicrous because it's the same guys that struck gold the last time around. But there's just no denying that this is very much what a sequel shouldn't be. It's pretty much the exact same story with the outer layer swapped to create an illusion of difference. None of the characters have grown since the events of the original and in some cases they have backslid right to where they started. Like Venkman (Murray) and Barrett (Weaver). Why these sequels believe we want to see the exact same romance all over again, I have no idea, but it's very annoying. Why can't people just be a couple if they got together in the first film? There's jokes to be had in that as well.

The pacing is also all over the place and it's just not as tight as the first film where pretty much every scene was iconic. This meanders around, wastes a lot of time simply getting the team back together and is simply not as captivating as the original classic.

Still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it. It pales in comparison to its predecessor, but if seen in a vacuum, it more than passes as a fun science fiction horror comedy.

"We're here tonight because a psychomagnotheric slime flow of immense proportions is building up beneath the city."

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 30 August 2014]

Tedious retread sequel never reaches the heights of the first Ghosbusters. It just feels like the guys got back together to goof off and get paid for it. Bill Murray seems alternately amused and bored throughout the film. The rest go through the motions. As for new faces, Peter MacNicol is extremely annoying, basically playing the role Rick Moranis played last time. Moranis actually reprises his role but has nothing to do and is shoehorned into things with irritating results. It's not a bad movie. It's enjoyable enough due to the likability of their stars but the story is weak and there's nothing memorable about the whole thing.

"Everything you're doing is bad. I want you to know that"

[BrunoRatesTheMovies · 7/10 · 24 July 2022]

It's so hard to beat the original, the writers (especially if it the same writers) have to come back bigger and better to prove themselves again. And they still need to make it feel fresh. Sure, the 80s were a different time but the Ghostbusters literally saved NYC only 5 years prior and now no one in the city believes in ghosts anymore! The more I rewatch Bill Murray i these old tings the more I think he never really acts, but just exists.

My favorite movie of all time

[RossSenack82 · 10/10 · 4 September 2021]

The ONLY sequel I prefer to the original. I know it's not the popular opinion to say this is better than Ghostbusters, but that's how I feel. The jokes are better and I prefer Vigo as the main villian to Zuul.

Pretty Much Just as Good, In a Different Way

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 14 July 2013]

The discovery of a massive river of ectoplasm and a resurgence of spectral activity allows the staff of Ghostbusters to revive the business.

While the second film is not as scary as the first and clearly pushes itself to the comedy rather than horror category, it is just as good in many ways. Not better, but just as good. The movie is just such a different animal in many ways that it is hard to compare.

I am still trying to figure out why someone would name their baby Oscar... and it amazes me it took me over 20 years to figure out that Max von Sydow did the voice of Vigo or that the baby was John Denver's nephew... such interesting little facts.

Why Ghostbusters III never got off the ground

[adamvdm-882-474391 · 3/10 · 28 February 2014]

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

The courtroom scene truly rocks!

[astro_92 · 10/10 · 21 March 2006]

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.

Ghostbusters II

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 10 August 2019]

Okay sequel has use of the Statue of Liberty to help get NYC get out of their pitiful slump, having to come together if they want to save themselves from Evil Incarnate, a god immortalized in a painting, given power by negative energy slime growing underneath the streets.

A lame sequel

[Herbest8 · 5/10 · 14 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.

Exact same things happened in the original

[revahakurtul · 7/10 · 9 August 2018]

So what happens in the first one was marvelous. However this movie is a new kind of lazy writing. On the other hand, there is an advantage. This is not the worst ghostbusters movie.