Ghostbusters II

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?

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.

Ghostbusters 2 is a fair sequel that finds the boys in grey five years later, not doing too good. Of course, it's not long before evil spirits pop up again in Manhattan and they're back doing what they do best. What makes this one work as well as the first is the relationship between the main characters. Bill Murray gets the great one liners again, and his scenes with Sigourney Weaver are just as goods as the first film. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis provide enough silly techno jargon and odd references to slime and ghosts to keep you smiling. Still, you can't beat a 100 foot marshmallow man in Manhattan.

The sequel loses a little of the edge from the first film trying to be too family friendly otherwise its a pretty good film.

The special effects are quite good, particularly for the age of the film.

Holds its head above Afterlife.

This was another sequel that was fashionable to knock when it came out. It got panned because it couldn't live up to the first Ghostbusters. Well, what could? The first one was so original, so enormously popular than any sequel was bound to fail as far as matching it.

This second Ghostbusters was just fine, very entertaining and it was nice to see all the main characters back. It had a little nicer feel to it and was more family-friendly language-wise, so it even had some things going for it the first one didn't have.

The other major different in this sequel was watching Peter MacNichol, who reprized his "Renfield"-type character from Mel Brooks' "Dead: And Loving It" comedy with Leslie Nielsen. Here, MacNichol plays "Janosz Poha," another wacko with a thick Eastern European accent. He is hilarious, and elevates the enjoyment of this film. Otherwise, the rest of the cast plays and acts just as they did in the first film, which means you'll get a lot of laughs out of them The story just isn't as intense, that's all. No, it can't equal the original, but.....

The bottom line is this: Don't try to compare the two films. If you enjoyed the first, you'll like this.....period.