the audience applauded

Pretty Good

For having a relatively low budget, the film's style and overall art direction are immensely impressive.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Five years after the first "Ghostbusters," Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis team up for this sequel. Sigourney Weaver is back as well, and Rick Moranis has a bigger part than in the first film. While ghosts remain the subject, and defeating them the work of the Ghostbusters team, the plot here is about defeating a demonic takeover of the Big Apple. So, the boys with the proton blasters have their work cut out for them. The only way they can win this one is by having all the citizens of New York City be happy and kind to others. It's an uphill battle, because, as the Mayor of NY says (David Margulies), "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's god-given right." That's the best humor in this film. To enliven the folks a bit, the ghost fighters turn the Statue of Liberty into a floating appearance that makes everyone happy. Well, it still has some humor, but one can see that another sequel probably wouldn't do too well. The idea has pretty much run its full development with this film.

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.

When the librarians put this out on the end-cap, I thought it was the 2016 remake. Now I know, this is the sequel, not the all-gyrlll-power remake. I wanted to see the remake to find out if it was pretty good and it was fan-boy misogyny that made it a flop. That is a task for another day, but watching this movie, and reading about it here will help me understand the remake and it flopping.Now that I understand there was an animated series, and that burned in certain expectations into not fan-boys, but kids, well that might explain the vehemence towards the all-girl cast. When something is burned into your brain as a kid, its like a religion, and I can see them being really upset with the remake, they consider it blasphemous. I guess the remake could be done with the original actors, but they are both long in the tooth and expensive. I would have had the original cast have kids, and turn the business over to them, for the good of humanity. If Melissa McCarthy is as profane in the remake as in most of her films, I can see that as another betrayal. The original was a cute movie made into a kid's franchise, and then they do the four-letter-word treatment. They deserved to flop if that is the case.The one thing I don't understand here is the slighting of the black character. He was not an any Act 1 scenes, and then, poof, he is dressed up and running around Manhattan. Talk about prestidigitation. Maybe he held out for too much money (called "gettin' uppity" by Hollywood producers) and finally made a deal and joined the cast halfway through principle photography.This is a simple good movie. I barely remember the original, but I like this one. It was playful and aimed to kids. It did not try to slip in all kinds of innuendo and double entendre to keep mommy and daddy amused. Instead it had some art film elements, like New York being a hell hole, The statue of liberty being a beacon of hope, and yeah, love cures all. Very childish, almost infantile. I loved it.Despite the movie Trainwreck, most movies that break even are pretty good. This one was $37 million in, $215 million out, worldwide. When you look at inflation-adjusted box office, the original was $586 million domestic, this one was $244 million domestic, and the 2016 gyrll-power remake was $130 million. Seems about right.

I rated the original Ghostbusters a perfect 10/10 stars, as I find it to be a near perfect comedy. Today I watched "Ghostbusters II" for the first time since I was a kid, and I found it to have held up very well.This movie is not quite as good as the original, but it's still quite good. So much so that I've gone with 8 stars rather than 7, even though 8-10 tends to be my rating for superb movies. This sequel is cheesy in a way that the original is not, but it's still very good. Both are slapstick comedy, and both have a vibe that appeals to kids and adults. Still, the sequel is just a smidge bit off compared to the masterpiece that began the franchise.One thing that adds to the cheesy factor is the poor soundtrack used. Whereas the first movie played well off the strength of Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters" single, this film has some lesser known tracks that just don't have the same appeal as that hit. As for the script and the plot, it's really not bad at all. Very good, in fact. But the climax of the movie is a bit anti-climactic, and there's a scene in the midst of the film that's supposed to be a fight scene between two protagonists that isn't much of a fight at all (they supposedly were trying to "kill each other").All in all, this is a very good film. A predictably weaker sequel compared to the original, but it's still a fun watch, and one that I don't regret seeing again as an adult whatsoever.