Ghostbusters II (1989)

Well Deserved Praise

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

A sequel is usually something that builds on what's good in the original but this just highlighted everything that was bad in the original and unlike the original, there are not many positives about it either. There were a few funny moments but mostly it was kind of an irritating watch that almost ruined the original classic.

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.

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!).

Five years after the original Ghostbuster, the four paranormal exterminators return for a second and final adventure. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson all return as Dr. Peter Vankman, Dr. Raymond Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, and Winston Zeddemore respectively. They have been banned from investigating paranormal activity since their first adventure, but a new case draws them back. Sigourney Weaver also reprises her role as the haunted Dana Barrett who has a son who has become the object of obsession of an evil wizard Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg) trapped inside a painting. The Ghostbusters discover a running river of slime beneath the city. The slime is reactive to emotions and thrives off of negative energy, but also dances to music.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com