The first film was called Ghost Busters. Two words. The second film is officially called Ghostbusters II. They blended the two words together because so many people wrote Ghost Busters as Ghostbusters when writing about the first film, so they just thought to blend them together. It's not officially a real word but that has never stopped Hollywood before.
We're told that it's five years later in the title credits and the 1st act is all about showing us how much has changed. And in this exposition time the official plot of the film appears and we realize that not much has changed except Dana has a kid and the father isn't around. The plot of Ghostbusters II is about the recurring ghost goo (or whatever it's called) not liking the negative energy of the New York people. So they are coming for justice or dominance of some kind. You never really get what the goo's motivation is. Or the point that there isn't any and the goo just appears because New Yorkers need to be taught a lesson of some kind.
Ghostbusters II is sloppy (not the goo but the plot) at best but there is a lot of charm so you don't really care when you're watching it. This film is like a lactose intolerant eating a hot fudge sundae. They're going to enjoy it while they eat it, but then there are a couple of hours of pain after. I enjoyed this film while watching it, then I was in a lot of internal pain when thinking about it afterwards. I got mad at myself for liking it.
This is a movie that makes absolutely no sense at all. And there really is no point to it except for pure entertainment value. It's the Transformers 2 of its time. I'm not downing on this film or films like it, but I think there is a line that crosses when our intelligence gets insulted. Ghostbusters II crosses that line. The first film is fun and unique, but the second film is almost the same movie as the first film except that the story isn't unique and refresh anymore.
The film's main human antagonist is a civil worker trying to bring them down. Just like the first film. Peter (Bill Murray) is attempting to court Dana (Sigourney Weaver). Just like the first film. Dana's apartment is full of ghosts from the past. Just like the first film. Winston (Ernie Hudson) is the only black person in the film and really is only in the movie for that reason. Just like the first film. And the film's writer's (Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd) underwrite their own characters in the movie and are only there for exposition purposes (saying lines to further the plot). Just like the first film. All they did was put up a II sign and they gave us the same film.
The only difference is the climax where the boys are the monster and the goo is just the goo. If there's a jump the shark moment in Ghostbusters II, it's definitely the Statue of Liberty walking the streets of New York in order for them to save the day. This plot makes no logical sense at all. Yes, the entire plot of ghosts invading New York City is not logical, but the Statue of Liberty is a real life thing. How can a statue walk? Are we really suppose to believe this?
Of course I am being a snot in this review and really nitpicking a movie that's just supposed to be a fun ride for 2 hours. But this is a film with a great idea and great characters. Couldn't they come with more interesting things to do? That's all I'm saying.
Ghostbusters III soon to hit a theater near you. And of course I'll be the second or third person in line to go see it.
2009 MOVIE REVIEWS
WATCH SHORT FILMS
WATCH VIRAL VIDEOS
MOVIE/TV BLOGS
BOX OFFICE RESULTS
MOVIE TRAILERS
OUT ON DVD
SUPERHERO NEWS
