bowmanblue
I think it's fair to say that the original 'Ghostbusters' is a classic. Very few people will disagree with that. Therefore, due to its success, a sequel was inevitable. I remember watching 'Ghostbusters II' at twelve years old back in 1989 and absolutely loving it! As did every other one of my friends. It was only as I grew up (and possibly coupled with the rise of the internet) did I realise how - apparently - hated it was.Since that revelation, I've watched it a few times and, every time, tried to see its flaws. And, even after repeated viewings through older, more cynical eyes, I still love it! It has all the original actors from the first film and they play off each other perfectly. The story has literally moved on and the characters have grown as a result. The special effects still look better than many that are overly-CGIed nowadays and best of all, it's funny.If I was really trying to be critical I could mention that it does seem a bit odd that, by all accounts, the city of New York has completely forgotten about how the Ghostbusters saved the world (and, sometimes, it's even debateable whether the populous even BELIEVES in ghosts!). Plus it is a bit of a re-tread of the first movie's plot, beat for beat (but no one seemed to mind that much when 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' did that many years later!).I'd never say it's better than the original. That kind of praised is reversed for the 'filmic elite' and rarely happens at the best of times. However, just because it's not as good doesn't make it a bad film. It's a perfect compendium piece to the original and, if you accept that, you should have fun with it. Now, if you REALLY want a bad and extremely pointless film, then check out the Ghostbusters remake (actually, don't - stick with either of the originals, the eighties cartoon series or even the game on the PS3 when it comes to your fix of ghostbusting!).
stormhawk2018
It's pretty tough for a sequel to best, let alone match it's predecessor, especially when the first one is an undisputed masterpiece. So yeah, Ghostbusters II isn't as good as the first, but it's not a bad film by any means. Unfortunately most people don't see it that way. Me, I really like this one, and think it's still a really decent film, even though it isn't what it could have been. The story begins five years after the first. Following the defeat of Gozer at the end of the first film, the Ghostbusters have actually fallen on hard times. Instead of being hailed as saviors, they have since been slapped with a restraining order and forced to cease their ghostbusting due to all the collateral damage their 'busting' causes. As a result, the four have hung up their proton packs and gone on to other activities. However, they are forced to get back to it when an evil ooze begins wreaking havoc, especially when it possesses a painting of an evil 16th Century Carpathian tyrant named Vigo, causing him to come to life to terrorize all who end up in his way. I think the main issue at hand here is sequelitis. It's just unable to capture the magic that made the first so special. It doesn't have the freshness, nor does it have the same level of laughs, wit, and energy. Ivan Reitman returned as director, and co-stars Aykroyd and Ramis once again wrote the script, and, while they don't do bad in these roles, their performances don't really stand out. I do however, like that they raised the stakes, and showed how actions have consequences. I just wish they could have come up with some more creative and stronger ideas. The music is still good though, and I still dig the effects, and yeah, the performances are fine, if slightly worn, but, even though this one has it's moments, it doesn't have near as much heart as it should. I'm still giving this one a really high rating though, as I'm a big fan, I like these guys and what they do, and it's still a fun and entertaining film. Yeah, some of it is a bit sillier, but I can't help but like it. Without a doubt, my main reason for really liking this is personal. Sentimentality is key here, as the earliest memory that I can recall is seeing this in the theater when I was a mere three years old. I can only recall one scene clearly, but still, it's a memory I want to cherish as long as possible. Bottom line: yeah, this is a step down, but it's still a pretty decent film, and offers a fair amount of entertainment, and, compared to a lot of sequels, it's quite strong, so give it a chance.
Jesse
This film is a disgrace to the original Ghostbusters. The original Ghostbusters is quite possibly my favorite comedy of all time. This sequel that was released in 1989 is downright terrible. I remember watching this sequel when I was about seven or eight years old and not liking it. However, yesterday I tried watching this film again since I love the original and I (shockingly) loved the 2016 one, and I could not even finish Ghostbusters 2 because it was so awful! I made it an hour into it and I could not even finish it. The movie is painfully unfunny. It felt like a parody of the Ghostbusters! I don't know what went wrong with this movie. I can watch the original and the new one multiple times and laugh out loud, whereas with the sequel to the original I only chuckled once! Overall, this movie is an absolute disaster. It is horrible and I will never EVER watch it again. This movie absolutely gets a 1/10! I'm telling you avoid it and just stick to the original 1984 one and the new 2016 one!
