Post by ck100 on Jun 16, 2024 3:07:27 GMT
Not as good as the original, but still entertaining overall. The actors easily slip back into their characters and have their moments to shine (as well as the new actors like Peter MacNicol and Harris Yulin), the visual effects are top notch, Vigo is an effective villain, and there are still memorable and funny moments during the film.
However, it does feel like a rehash of the original to an extent. The guys are down on their luck again after the original film and the city forgets them saving it five years prior? Negative emotions and feelings conjuring up a river of slime? Jack Hardemeyer (mayor's assistant) is basically Walter Peck 2.0. The Statue of Liberty is Stay Puft 2.0 (but Lady Liberty is sided with the guys). The hip hop soundtrack dates the film. The tone is more family-friendly (no smoking, no foul language, etc.) compared to the original.
A lot of these flaws aren't so bad in the grand scheme of things, but they do have an impact on the sequel. For many, the first film was lightning in a bottle so trying to be on the same level as the original, let alone try to top it, was a very difficult task. But still, the cast and crew give it a game try and still make a worthwhile sequel that is entertaining even though it's flawed. And I'm aware "Afterlife" director Jason Reitman is the kid who says the Ghostbusters are full of crap. And like with my "Ghostbusters" thread, if you disliked me critiquing the film, you can attack me for liking "Ghostbusters" 2016.
Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review:
Ghostbusters II (1989) - 3 out of 4 stars
"Amiable, entertaining sequel has the ghostbusting boys reteaming five years later after their last adventure to save N.Y.C. from a slime attack of gargantuan proportions, generated by all the "negative energy" in the air of the Big Apple. Longish but good-natured, with some solid laughs along the way. Chloe Webb has a funny unbilled cameo as a guest on Murray's cable TV show. Panavision."
However, it does feel like a rehash of the original to an extent. The guys are down on their luck again after the original film and the city forgets them saving it five years prior? Negative emotions and feelings conjuring up a river of slime? Jack Hardemeyer (mayor's assistant) is basically Walter Peck 2.0. The Statue of Liberty is Stay Puft 2.0 (but Lady Liberty is sided with the guys). The hip hop soundtrack dates the film. The tone is more family-friendly (no smoking, no foul language, etc.) compared to the original.
A lot of these flaws aren't so bad in the grand scheme of things, but they do have an impact on the sequel. For many, the first film was lightning in a bottle so trying to be on the same level as the original, let alone try to top it, was a very difficult task. But still, the cast and crew give it a game try and still make a worthwhile sequel that is entertaining even though it's flawed. And I'm aware "Afterlife" director Jason Reitman is the kid who says the Ghostbusters are full of crap. And like with my "Ghostbusters" thread, if you disliked me critiquing the film, you can attack me for liking "Ghostbusters" 2016.
Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review:
Ghostbusters II (1989) - 3 out of 4 stars
"Amiable, entertaining sequel has the ghostbusting boys reteaming five years later after their last adventure to save N.Y.C. from a slime attack of gargantuan proportions, generated by all the "negative energy" in the air of the Big Apple. Longish but good-natured, with some solid laughs along the way. Chloe Webb has a funny unbilled cameo as a guest on Murray's cable TV show. Panavision."
