Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    Ghostbusters 2

    Reviewed by
    adamwatchesmovies@

    I just finished watching “Ghostbusters 2”. Now, I’m furious. People are up in arms about a remake of the original film, claiming it’s destroying their childhood, that it’s unnecessary, that it won’t be funny without Bill Murray and the original team. Have any of you seen “Ghostbusters 2”?! The series already destroyed your childhood on its own by delivering one of the laziest, lame-brained, unoriginal sequels I’ve ever seen. I’d welcome anything to wash the taste of this slime out of my mouth.

    It’s been 5 years since the Ghostbusters – Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) – saved the world from Gozer. What thanks have they gotten? Nothing. The Ghostbusters have broken up, the city has forgotten about them, they’ve been sued for property damage and barred from investigating any paranormal activity. When our heroes discover a river of slime beneath New York, they must get to the bottom of this mysterious phenomenon before Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) loses her newborn son to an evil force contained in an ancient painting.

    What we have here is a sequel that’s devoid of creativity. No, not devoid. That’s an absence of matter. “Ghostbusters 2” is a vault filled with anti-ideas, evaporating any potential this series had. It’s so bad it makes you wonder why you even liked the first picture if it featured the same actors, writers, and director. Right from the get-go, this adventure starts on the wrong note. For some reason, nobody believes in spirits and everyone calls the Ghostbusters charlatans. Seriously? A building gets destroyed, a giant marshmallow man stomps around one of the world’s biggest cities, ghostly activity is captured left and right, our heroes appear on the cover of Time Magazine… and they’ve been barred from capturing lingering souls, living skeletons, and slimy apparitions? Did Peter and his buddies get sent to an alternate reality between movies?

    From there, the film goes from bad, to worse. It takes an agonizing 35 minutes for the Ghostbusters to strap on their uniforms and proton packs again! I thought that’s what we watched an entire origin story for. More bone-headed decisions include the idiotic choice to break up Peter and Dana. Why? Apparently for no other reason than to have them flirt with each other throughout the whole film… AGAIN. This time, there’s no appeal to the romance. It makes a film that’s nearly 2 hours feel like an eternity as you wait for everyone to catch up to where they should be.

    This sequel is guilty of hitting one of my all-time pet peeves. It makes characters that aren’t important into big deals. It makes sense for the Ghostbusters to be at the center of all of the supernatural happenings of course. They’re on the lookout for that kind of stuff. But why do Dana, her son and Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) get sucked into another tale of evil spirits? It’s not like they’re psychics or have a logical reason to be there but they were in the first film so instead of coming up with something new, bring out the old stuff again! Don’t try and be creative! This film’s a guaranteed hit anyway so dump whatever first draft you have in front of the camera and fans will come in droves to see it.

    “Ghostbusters 2” is so proud, so sure that it’s going to be a hit that it pats itself on the back until it smashes through its own rib cage and comes out the other side. When you take a step back, “Ghostbusters” is about a bunch of guys who set up a niche business and turn out to be a success. It’s about a group of friends who turn into heroes. What is this film about? Making money and repeating itself. There are 2 scenes where the Ghostbusters get chewed out and quickly sent back into the fray. In the same movie. While you’re waiting for them to remember the huge river of slime they spotted earlier, they wink at the screen, imitate classic lines from the first picture and point out how they replaced the logo on their uniforms with one that shows a ghost raising 2 fingers instead of 1. Does it count as a joke if it isn’t funny?

    I’ll give the film that there are some cool ghost designs and a few good lines here and there, but in every other way, it’s inferior. Who cares about some painting that wants to steal a baby when, in their previous adventure, the guys took down a demi-God? You can’t believe the original team made this film a whopping 5 years after the first. Were they frozen like Ellen Ripley and thawed out of hibernation 5 minutes before the pitch to the studio? The audience suffers and the actors do too. Bill Murray is put on the forefront so often he becomes unlikeable due to his constant barrage of sarcasm. A little of him goes a long way. I’d rather watch “Evolution” or any imitator than this follow-up. In those introductory movies, it makes sense for the heroes NOT to be experts in their own field instead of dropping IQ points like breadcrumbs.

    Look up this picture’s soundtrack. Give a listen to the “Ghostbusters” track by Run-D. M. C. Notice how it’s like the original song, but does not satisfy in any way and leave you feeling cold, disappointed and longing for the good old days? That’s what “Ghostbusters 2” is. It’s a crappy remix of the first without any of the love, enthusiasm or originality. I bought this DVD in a two-pack with the first. It only takes up a few millimeters of shelf space and still, it’s a waste. This was the first time I saw this film and I hope it’s the last. (On DVD, July 20, 2016)

    2
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    adamwatchesmovies@  23.7.2016 age: 26-35 2,867 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The movie review posted on this page reflects a personal opinion of one user. We are not responsible for its content.

    Did you see ''Ghostbusters 2''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.