The thing is, sequels/prequels need to be judged against their predecessors. Aliens? Good. Terminator 2? Good. The Empire Strikes Back? Good.
Then you get to The Phantom Menace, Spider-man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Superman III, Blues Brothers 2000, etc. Those films represented a steep drop-off in quality. Ghostbusters II falls into that category.
You can’t just say, well, on its own terms, it’s not terrible. The point is that, as a sequel, it does not and cannot exist on its own terms. It has to justify the fact that it was even made, and on that count alone it fails miserably.
…I enjoyed it, and I’m not one to compare it to the first as the first is one of those rare unflinching classics. I saw Ghostbusters 2 as just a continuation of the story, it maintained continuity with the cartoon series “The Real Ghostbusters” which I thought was cool, and while not the best movie in the world I laughed and liked it quite a bit.
Actually, you bring up a valid point of comparison. Not only was Ghostbusters 2 a bad movie, but the cartoon was much, much better. Especially the one where Hollywood filmmakers approach the Ghostbusters about making a movie based on their adventures. At the end, when the Ghostbusters arrive at the premier of the finished movie, you see the actual opening shot of the real movie on the screen and hear Lorenzo Music* (doing the voice of Venkmann) saying of Bill Murray (who refused to license his appearance for the cartoon), “That guy looks nothing like me!”
I never watched the cartoon, but I’ve played the game. Which was good, (for a game and not a film,) it had a lot of old references like a Vigo painting that talks. Though, in the movie, the Vigo painting changed into a picture of the 4 guys and Oscar.
I am cautiously optimistic about the reboot. I still love the idea of ghost chasers in an urban area.
In what way did it keep continuity with the cartoon? In the cartoon, they worked regularly and successfully as Ghostbusters for years after Gozer. In the second movie, right after defeating Gozer, they were sued into penury and had to fold their operation. They’re two wildly divergent continuities.
There were some good ideas and good scenes in the movie but somehow it’s less then the sum of its parts.
Where the first movie had a rollicking soundtrack the second one wasn’t as much fun.
Vigo seeking to possess an infant as his way to reenter the living world is a right fiendish plot but I still think Sigourney Weaver was wedged in there as the mother. Nothing against her but I didn’t have any expectation of seeing her in another Ghostbusters ever again. I also suspect the reason so many Ghostbusters III scripts came up lame is from trying to find a starring role for her.
It was an anti-gestalt movie. The sum of the parts added up to less than the whole.
Several little good bits. But poorly strung together. The overall plot structure just relied way too much of elements of the first movie plus crappy new ideas.
If you tune in to some random spot when it’s playing on cable, you’re likely to enjoy a scene or two. But then its weakness starts to show.
It depends whether you see movies as fragments or as a whole.
Oh, and converting Louis from a CPA to a lawyer was phenomenally dumb.
Count me as someone who loves Ghostbusters II! I think Venkman was more likable in the second film, coming off as very protective of both Dana and Oscar. I liked Louis clumsily getting up and trying to explain himself as Dana comes home. I liked Janosz, and Vigo, and the scene with the dancing toaster. “It’s always the quiet ones.”
I don’t think it’s better than the first one, but I love both of them.
It was better than Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t really like the first one all that much because I saw the good cartoon first. They were a lot more creative with what the ghosts and mythos could do.
Of, course, at the time, I took the show, and thus the movie rather seriously, as I was a kid. I didn’t get that either one was trying to funny. But both seem equally funny to me now.
One of my main problems was that in the first film, it made sense when nobody believed the GhostBusters. Almost nobody had seen a ghost. In the second film, almost everybody in NYC has personally seen a ghost. Those that have not personally seen a ghost, did see live news footage of Mr Staypuft and have seen the destruction he caused. So when the judge in GB2 refuses to believe in ghosts, it makes no damn sense.
Oh and I agree with Miller, GB2 is not in the same continuity as the cartoon. They did include a scene with Slimer as a nod to the cartoon. But, that was it.
I loved the first film.
I talked it up among friends when the first trailers came out.
I drove to opening night with the sound track blaring through my cars stereo.
I arrived more pumped-up than I had a right to be.
*** Slow Lingering Movie Let-Down***
"…No problem, that’s ok… there’s more coming… there’s more coming… there’s more coming… "
I almost called out sick the next day because of how embarrassed I was. It had seemed like it would be SO good… who would intentionally kill a franchise That Good? …but it wasn’t…
Going in, I felt like a guy who had won a free in-ground swimming pool.
Leaving, I felt like I had just discovered too late that the pool had been filled with the turds of 100 years of homeless people who liked chili, cheese, and corn.
I’m glad they are making a movie. I hope its as good as 1 and not as bad as 2. I’m praying its not the comedic ass-suck that “The Heat” was. If it is, three wooden stakes will be driven permanently through these young actress careers Peter Cushing style.
Hollywood forgave “Speed 2” on the grounds that it Never Ever happen again. So… ladies? Don’t Miss…
