Os Caça-Fantasmas 2

In this 1989 sequel to the original blockbuster, the storyline picks up 5 years later as Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) is trying to move on with her life and her new baby. Soon, ghostly forces are at work to attack her and her baby, and once again she enlists the help of the Ghostbusters. The film is a strong sequel and is almost as fun as the original, but some plot holes and loose ends make this not nearly as good. The romance of Annie Potts' Janine and Rick Moranis' Louis is funny, but there is no explanation of what happened with her romance with Egon from the first one. A lot of the story and humor is recycled from the original, but fans of the first film will definitely enjoy this above-average sequel.

I say that one line summary not in the meaning you should watch this film in widescreen, but in that this film isn't as bad as some people say. Sure it might not have the ultimate originality of the 1st (of course), but it is still entertaining, one of the best of 1989. This time, we see 5 years later where the Ghostbusters parted ways (Venkman to a Talk show, Spengler to a child psychologist and Stanz as a book store owner) but are put back together because of new activity in the paranormal that could end the world (courtesy of a painting named Vigo). Then, comedy ensues with great visual effects to match. Still pretty funny (the talk show scene with Chloe Webb is utterly hilarious), but maybe just a tad lesser than the first. A-

I guess that usually, we have to wonder why they make sequels. If nothing else, as long as the sequels aren't boring, obnoxious, pathetic, embarrassing, insulting, or otherwise bad, then they're acceptable. "Ghostbusters II" passes. Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Annie Potts and Rick Moranis reprise their roles from the original. This one has the title characters battling a river of hostility-based slime that's possessing a painting. Peter MacNicol plays the man who brought the painting to New York, and subsequently gets possessed by it. "Ghostbusters II" is pretty ridiculous, often gross, but never unpleasant. So who you gonna call?

It's so hard to beat the original, the writers (especially if it the same writers) have to come back bigger and better to prove themselves again. And they still need to make it feel fresh. Sure, the 80s were a different time but the Ghostbusters literally saved NYC only 5 years prior and now no one in the city believes in ghosts anymore! The more I rewatch Bill Murray i these old tings the more I think he never really acts, but just exists.

The first Ghostbusters was a feel good, silly and entertaining film. The sequel is certainly a worthy one, and I really enjoyed it, though it seemed a little more serious in tone. Bil Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson all return, and all of them do a very credible job. I especially liked the fact that Ramis, Ackroyd and even Hudson were given more to do. The sequel, set 5 years later, shows that Dana and Peter have had a baby named Oscar, and he was really cute. As I've said already, it doesn't quite have the feel- good nature of the first film,(the ending was a bit of a letdown)due to a rather contrived plot and some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. Peter MacNicol does his best, but he is given little to do, and towards the end, I didn't see him particularly threatening. Aquitting himself better, much better in fact, is Wilhelm Von Homberg as Vigo, creating quite a sinister villain, if not quite memorable. Also there were some excellent special effects, a hilarious court room scene and the spirited performances of the entire cast, making this an enjoyable, if not entirely successful sequel. 7/10 Bethany Cox.