Was Ghostbusters 2 a good film?

I was born in '80, so when I saw the original GB for the fist time, I was pretty young. The sequel, (which I saw in theaters,) was more “kid-friendly”, and fewer jokes went over my head at the time.

**WatchMojo **listed it number 1 in their Top 10 Underrated Sequels:

Though their lists are kind of out there sometimes.

Of course now that I’m older I KNOW that the first is better, but I still enjoy the sequel with a fondness I don’t have for the original. I’m sure it’s a big part nostalgia.

Things I’ve considered:

-The humor is more generic. Still funny!

-The Statue of Liberty… “They don’t make Nikes in her size.” I guess slime makes metal morph? Jackie Wilson and a Nintendo controller were sweet, but overall a little too reminiscent, of Stay-Puff… (If you’ve ever seen ‘Evolution’, You’ll notice that it’s a poor Ghostbuster knock-off, complete with a giant final enemy.)

-Oscar. Cute baby. Not old enough to ruin his adorableness by talking.

-Vigo. Badass. One of the better aspects of the movie.

-Luis. I want get into physical fights to the death with people who claimed Luis had nothing to do with the boys winning against Vigo. The music that plays after his line, “I’m here with you guys!” confirms it, (for me.) Of course, all the people outside witnessed only him “saving the day”.

From asking Janine out, (who first had the crush on Spengler,) to suiting up and assisting the guys, made his character more lovable and not just someone you’re laughing at.

-Janosz was also very funny and creepy.


Thanks to the person that changed the tittle. :smack:

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Still no. Derivative and lame.

It was a rehash/remake more in the style of a Crosby/Hope “Road” picture or a Marx Brothers movie than anything else. Same characters, same setup, recycled gags, recycled story. Pretty much as funny/not as the first one, just less fresh.

Nope. The baby was a horrible element because it completely negated the sexual tension between Weaver & Murray, one of the original’s best selling points (though I think that film is overrated, too). The other thing that made the first one work was the novelty–big special effects comedies were rare back then, and all the sequel did was rework the same elements without any new perspective (just tiny things off on the edges). And I found the Ra-Ra-USA-USA ending extremely pandering and unnecessary. Blech.

Holly crap!

I guess I’m seeing it sporting rose-colored glasses.

Rather than break Peter and Dana up only to get them back together, and have the rather clumsy Louis/Janine business–why didn’t they have the kid in danger be Egon and Janine’s? I know that an early draft had them getting married at the end, so they could have kept that idea for in between movies.

Haven’t seen it in years but it was a fun movie. I liked the toaster scene, Murray trash talking Vigo, and the ghost train / river of slime sequences.

I was 13 or 14 when the first one came out, and I loved it. Saw it three times in the theater.

When the second one came out, a friend and I went and saw it. I don’t remember the movie, because I haven’t seen it since. What I do remember is my friend and I thinking it was really, really stupid.

A textbook example of an unnecessary sequel. There was nothing in the sequel that hadn’t been done in the original.

I didn’t really care for GB2, but out of curiosity - is cellist to art restorer a conventional career path?

I recently bought it on Blu-ray because it was dirt cheap, but I’ve yet to watch the disc. The last time I saw it was 20 years ago, I reckon.

But my memory is that it’s essentially a weak beat-for-beat remake of the original, right down to the gang getting locked up/committed at the end of Act 2. I saw the first one at the movies, and it was a blast; Ghostbusters II was an empty shell of a movie.

I don’t think it was a USA! USA! ending. If anything, it was a New York! New York! ending, because the whole movie is a commentary on how cold and unfeeling New Yorkers and the city itself had become. They didn’t pick the Statue of Liberty as a national patriotic symbol, but rather as symbol of the city that every New Yorker could get behind, in a spirit of togetherness. And still they needed help from Jackie Wilson.

I think it’s one of the worst movies ever made, and I love the first one.

I actually thought they could’ve done more with the whole New Yorkers-forced-to-change-their-attitude-upon-threat-of-doom storyline. They could’ve had a lot of funny scenes featuring the city’s residents having to choke back and supress their inherent rudeness but they didn’t do it. Overall, GBII had a few funny scenes and Peter MacNicol’s Janosz was good (even if his character was basically Bronson Pinchot’s Serge from Beverly Hills Cop) but the movie was lot less energetic than the first. It almost has a contractual obligation feel to it.

You’re welcome.

Snerk. :smiley:

Exactly. So no, not good. Not good at all. Sometimes a good movie needs to be left alone without sequels or remakes.

**Was Ghostbusters 2 a good film? **

Three word. No.

It wasn’t great and the first was great. It wasn’t really all that good but it had a couple of great scenes at least.

I read somewhere that when Ron Jeremy was not asked to reprise his role as Man Behind Barricade from the first Ghostbusters, he placed a curse on future Ghostbuster movies. Let’s all hope he’s back for the reboot.