Customer Reviews

Ghostbusters 2 (Widescreen Edition)

5 star:		(46)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(24)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

"Ghostbusters II" recieved a fair amount of bad press when it was first released, but it is a charming, well produced and yes, funny sequel to the first blockbuster. The film picks up five years after the original. We find the Ghostbusters out of business and broke, Bill Murray is hosting a bizarre cable access show called "World of the Psychic" and Ackroyd and Ernie Hudson are performing at children's parties. Aren't the parents nervous about the GB's wielding their proton packs around thier youngsters??

The story speeds up when the Ghostbusters reunite and discover the soul of an ancient tyrant resides in a portrait in a museum. The tyrant, named Vigo has decided to take possession of Sigourney Weaver's child so he can live again to rule the world. This plot seems more disturbing than the plot in the first film, but director Ivan Reitman gives us plenty of humor to counter balance.

While not as funny as the first film, "Ghostbusters II" proves to be an entertaining follow up to the first classic film. After years of viewing, "Ghostbusters II" reveals itself to be a classic in it's own right.

This movie is not as good as the orignal but still isnt too bad. The thing I dont get is you can get both Ghostbusters 1 and 2 on dvd for $13. Why would you want to buy this seperate for the same price. I will admit the first Ghostbusters on the first dvd release had an amazing main menu.

While nothing could equal the first "Ghostbusters" (probably the top comedy of all time), number two does have its moments. First of all, it's just fun to see the original cast reunited. Their chemistry is still there, and they seem to enjoy working together again.

The plot of the second movie involves the "bad feelings" of New York city, somehow coalescing into a pink goo (dubbed "mood slime") which in turn feeds energy to Vigo, the evil wizard who is the main bad guy.

The Ghostbusters use a variety of new equipment to beat Vigo, and the special effects are first-rate throughout. The coutroom scene with the spectral Scoleri Brothers is especially good.

Ghostbusters II has many funny moments, with tons of quotable lines (just like the original). And while an appearance by the Statue of Liberty falls flat, there is still enough good stuff here to make for an enjoyable experience.

Not an all-time classic movie, but a very fun one.

I'm going to go against the crowd here and say that Ghostbusters 2 is a superior film to the original, and here's why:
While it is true that the original GB was an original surprise hit, beating out Indiana Jones, Gremlins, and other big movies in the summer of 84, Bill Murray was coming off of Stripes and was playing the same smarmy guy he always played in the early 80s. In GB 2, Murray is way more likable and he allows his great costars to have more fun moments, like the discovery of the river of slime, Rick Moranis gets to be the Ghostbusters' lawyer and "suits up" as an honorary Ghostbuster this time. Anne Potts, Harold Ramis, Dan Akroyd, and Ernie Hudson ALL have better material and seem more interesting this time around.
I like the way both Ghostbuster films make use of New York locations. Ghosts and undead beings walking around New York is a fascinating sight that never gets old because the special effects are really top notch.
This movie is just less cynical than the original. In fact I love that the overriding message of the film is that people sort of created the river of slime by being so cynical and that New Yorkers could pull together and change that outlook. That interesting theme gives this movie a heart that the original lacked I think.
But all of that aside, I just think it is a funnier movie. In the courtroom when the Ghostbusters put on their proton packs and sing "Doe," Ray," "Egon," and the look Harold Ramis flashes Murry is priceless.
Anyway this is probably the best movie ever inspired by Saturday Night Live cast-members, at least in my book. So give it another try.

In all likelihood, a sequel to the enormously successful and entertaining GHOSTBUSTERS was not necessary. In this whimsical, but often tedious, sequel, the ghostbusters are back, after being banned from ghostbusting! Which makes no sense as everyone hailed them as heroes after the defeat of the Marshmallow Man! But for plot purposes, that's what they decided to move this movie. Although the original cast and director are back, they don't seem as inspired or "in to it" like they did in the first. Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver seem to be going through the motions; Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are pretty much what they were in the first; and Rick Moranis & Annie Potts, who were so much fun in the original, don't seem to be a part of the story as much in this one. Peter MacNicol as the crazed museum curator is excellent in his role, and we get some fun support from Harris Yulin as the Judge and Janet Margolin as the prosecuting attorney.
The effects this time are fairly similar to the original, but the use of the Statue of Liberty in the climax is a little too far-fetched even for this kind of film. We also don't know how they get her back in the harbor after the cataclysmic ending.
I enjoyed watching the movie, but I can see why they never went for any more entries. Sometimes you should just leave well enough alone.

A lot of the original magic is absent in this belated sequel. The storyline isn't up to much and is never taken full advantage of. One thing that is sorely missed is the wide, powerful score from the first film. The late Elmer Bernstein ducked out of scoring this one and (the awful) Randy Edelman took over. This could have been alright if he respected Bernstein's work but he used none of the themes from the original. It's all just light-hearted cues and dullness.

The plot takes a backseat to long character explanation and development. The Ghostbusters have been out of business since blowing up Central Park West. Which is total crap! The saved the world from the destruction of Gozer. Why the hell would they go out of business? A totally ridiculous story that does nothing but aggravate fans of the first. Who on earth thought of this?

Now the Ghostbusters are forbidden from performing public services. But a narrow-minded Judge wants to send them to jail for causing a massive blackout. Then, 2 ghosts show up and they bust them and before you can say 'Who ya gonna call?' they are back busting undead ass.

Something I find very stupid and annoying about the plot is that the aforementioned Judge and a City Attorney repeatedly say that they do not believe in ghosts. Obviously these guys have forgotten about the 200-foot marshmallow man and the evil voice of Gozer booming all over Manhattan Island.

And this time the villain isn't as scary as the Gozer. Now we have Vigo, a 14th century madman who wants to return to living form and has targeted Weaver's child as his host. He plans to do this before the stroke of midnight on New Years Eve 1989 or some baloney. For a film that has it's build-up and climax on New Year's Eve there is no mention Xmas whatsoever. And the ending with the hidden painting is REALLY corny.

Bill Murray was very open about his distaste for this film when it came out. He said it was pointless and he never really wanted to do it. The Ghostbusters franchise was taken in a much stronger direction with The Real Ghostbusters TV show. At least with that they never went out of business for saving the world. Honestly, what stupidity!

However, it was thanks to the TV show that this movie was toned down a bit and more family-friendly. But the TV show and the first movie have something this film doesn't; atmosphere.

A scoop of trivia: In the montage with the Ghostbusters running all over New York after suddenly coming back into Business we see a clip of Ray driving like a maniac and Peter gives him a strange look. This scene was originally going to follow after the scene in which Ray is hypnotised by the painting of Vigo. The Ectomobile was supposed to crash into a tree in Central Park and we see a shot of the license plate fall off and Ray come out of his trance. But this entire scene was cut from the film and is only left in the montage.

Ghostbusters 2 is to Ghostbusters what MIIB was to MIB. A total repeat. Which makes the out-of-business/back-in-business plot even more retarded as we have to go through the establishments all over again instead of devoting that time to a stronger, better plot.

Filmed in Panavision the DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen with good Dolby 5.1 sound. There are no extras other than a trailer.

I was just a little kid when this came out in the theater. I was too young to see the original in theaters, but by the time of the sequel (five years later) I, with millions of other kids, was a complete fanatic. I waited with bated breath for this thing to come out back in the summer of 1989... I watched my taped-off-TV copy of the original ten times a day in preperation... etc.
I could never not like this second offering, but even at the age of six, I was somewhat confused at some of the elements in Ghostbusters 2. (I deep analyzed every detail then, even more than I'm about to do now..) Stylistically, the movie falls way short of the first. This is odd, because all the same people were involved, who made the first movie so unique. From director Ivan Reitman, all the way down to that guy who played the mayor. Even the concept for the second script had a great idea, that just seems somewhat mishandled in the production. This could have easily been on par with the original, but a few things make it lack. The music for instance is pretty cheesy. Theres this goopy generic piano stuff thats all over the place, like Reitman just picked up some rights for it on the cheap. The quirky score for the first is nowhere to be found.
The first twenty minutes of the movie waste way too much time trying to show how all the characters went their own seperate ways after the battle with Gozer in the first. These sideplots date the movie (mention of the world ending on new years 1989...feh..)and are pretty much useless to the overall story. Also to many shots are taken at the fact that in 1989, Ghostbusters had become such a huge franchise for kids. Like the line "The proton pack is not a toy". I had a toy proton pack. It was cool. The scene where Ray and Winston sing for a bunch of kids was somewhat pointless, and since its right at the beginning of the movie, the whole vibe is cheapened right off the bat. Also, whats with Winston shaving the mustache? He was such a bad ass in the first movie, and he's pretty goofy in this outing. Did he just not dig the mustache anymore? maybe,, but I think that Ivan Reitman wanted him to resemble the cartoon version more. And maybe to be a little less tough looking. For the kids.
Also, Annie Potts' Janine was made to look more like the cartoon version. Although, she must have taken some sexy pills, because she's way hotter this time around, and it works for her. The cartoon Janine was originally a cross between Annie Potts' original likeness and I think, Cyndi Lauper. Cartoon Janine was kinda trashy at first (japanese animation values) Around the third season, the cartoon changed her image completely, to the the big round glasses and the bright long red hair, making the cartoon Janine a lot more conservative looking. Annie Potts took this new cartoon likeness and floozed it up quite a bit. I crack up when she seduces Rick Moranis later in the film. Still, this is just another crack at the franchise itself, although one that worked well.
Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter now. I still think that there should be a third one. The first Ghostbusters may easily be my favorite movie of all time, but the second one is just a somewhat ok attempt to keep the ball going... even though it never went any further. The first installment is timeless and will be enjoyed for generations to come, but this one may not live on past the memories of some us perpetually six year old fans from the summer of 1989. Bobby Brown On Our Own! What what!!!

Imagine for a moment that in 1944 MGM decided to make a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz". They managed to reunite the entire original cast: Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Bert Lahr, Frank Morgan and Billie Burke. The production values were as high as in the first film, and Victor Fleming once again provided capable direction. There was only one problem: the script was deeply flawed and far inferior to that of the previous film.

For those of us who remember the original "Ghostbusters" as an all-time classic from our childhoods, "Ghostbusters 2" is the precise equivalent of that hypothetical "Oz" sequel. For an hour and forty minutes we get to see the characters from one of our favorite movies, played by the same actors, in another movie. The only problem is that it isn't a *good* movie. "Ghostbusters 2" is painfully derivative of its predecessor; it's far less well structured; and Randy Edelman's score can't hold a candle to Elmer Bernstein's for the first film.

As a child I avoided seeing "Ghostbusters 2". I knew it would probably be painful to watch, given my love of the first film, and I was right. As an adult I can now derive some degree of enjoyment from the film. I love the characters, and I love seeing them again. But if you ever find a DVD of "The Wizard of Oz 2" that has dropped in from a parallel dimension... you know who not to call.

Anyone else notice how so many reviews for Ghostbusters II open with quotes from the movie (or in this case, the closing credits song)? I guess it's because Ghostbusters II, though not as good as the first film, is still very kinetic, fun, and quotable.

It's taken me awhile, but I've finally been able to pinpoint why Ghostbusters II isn't as good as the original. As a kid, I used to love Ghostbusters II. For a seven year-old, Vigo was the creepiest thing in the world, and I was watching the movie on a 13-inch TV screen to boot! Gozer from the original film might have been a bigger threat, but she wasn't nearly as scary as Vigo. Maybe that's why when I picked up the remastered edition I felt slightly let down that the actual movie wasn't as good as I remembered it. Vigo is still creepy, but once he steps out of the painting, he's just an old man in a costume. Even worse, in a rather anti-climatic ending, Vigo is easily beaten. So Ghostbusters II is diminished in that it fails to live up to the high nostalogic expectations I had of it.

But that's not the only thing though, Ghostbusters II feels...watered down compared to the original. Yes, the plot was exactly the same, but that wasn't really the problem for me. Maybe it's because the original movie spawned a huge cartoon series, and Columbia felt that it had to cater to the kiddies, and a lot of the adult-oriented jokes were removed (also, Jenine's hair is now red, as it was in the series). The problem may lie with Dan Aykroyd. He was the heart of the original movie, and the way he played Ray with a snappy, serious attitude made for some of the most memorable moments. Here, after Venkman grabs Ray's ears and forces him to reveal their new client, Aykroyd loses his spark. He gets possessed by Vigo, he's the one who has to venture down to get the slime, he's the one who has to give the speech about goodwill towards the end. It's a weaker, kiddier Ray, like in the cartoon, and here it weakens the film.

However, I still enjoyed Ghostbusters II a great deal. The special effects are amazing, considering that they were made in 1989 before CGI. The ghosts look convincing, and the Statue of Liberty scene, though obviously bluescreened, is excellently composited. There are a lot of funny gags, including scenes from the montage, the river of slime, the abandoned underground railroad, and the courtroom battle. Plus, it's just great fun to see the entire team reunited, they really play off each other very well. It's hard these days to find so many comedians together in one film. The DVD itself is a very nice edition. It's not a special edition, but for its relatively low price it's a definite purchase. The picture and sound quality are great. For a scene that you can use to demo your sound system, check out the courtoom scene. The rear speakers pick up the drafts and echos of the room, and the ghosts pan from speaker to speaker as the guys blast 'em. Also of note is that the film comes in three different audio languages and a bunch of subtitles, particularly in Asian languages. I'm Asian, so it's nice to see Mandarin subtitles, even though I can't read it that well. How does this apply to you? It might not, but if nothing else, I at least give Columbia points for the variety of languages one can enjoy the film in.

Fans of Ghostbusters should grab this one, but make sure you have the orignal first!

I don't know why almost everyone hates this movie. I thought the cinematography & music evoked a wonderful feeling of charm & warmth. Comparing this film to the first one is stupid, b/c the first one was a totally gothic film and this one is simply a different movie with some of the same elements (concepts of the supernatural, characters). Sometimes, now that I'm older and quite a bit more jaded, I find myself bored out of my mind by the long-winded first half hour or so. But when I was 5 and the dullness of reality hadn't been forced upon me (when I started school, I had to learn & study math and needed to tone down my zeeal and sit down and concentrate on "real" stuff and life kinda went downhill from there...), I found myself at times scared by this film (the music at times was TERRIFYING!) and at other times wishing I knew the lyrics to that song the people outside the museum were singing at the end so I could sing with them! The "good vs. evil" story still appeals to me even today and the memories I have of this film and all it had to offer (including toys that had bright and colorful packaging!, which probably would have been stopped if this film hadn't come out and rekindled the passion many people felt for the Ghostbusters "franchise") are worth more $$$ than all the profit this film & its predecessor made! I can't say this for a fact, but I think many people don't know (and/or don't remember clearly enough if at all) how to watch a movie without focusing on logic, but, rather, letting your senses do the talking! This film does to one's heart what cotton candy does to your tongue (asside from rotting it). It's a splendid treat that any non-jaded-business-person who hasn't lost all of his/her child-hood passion can enjoy!