While the first Ghostbusters film is a classic piece of comedy, Ghostbusters II is anything but. The film tries its hardest to pick up where the first one left off, but it lacks the energy and vivaciousness of the first film. It’s a film that doesn’t quite know what audience it wants to play to, the adults that loved the first film, or the kids that fell in love with the cartoon series that came about after the first Ghostbusters. It tries to straddle the line between family friendly kids’ movie and solid comedy for adults… the end result is a film that occasionally entertains, but occasional stinks as well.

The story for this film might be one of the biggest disappointments about the film. Yeah, the first one didn’t have that great of a story either, but it was certainly more interesting and more entertaining than this, a formulaic telling of a tale about a haunted painting and a river of pink slime. The film starts by showing what the Ghostbusters are currently up to… namely trying to survive in a city where they have been banned from busting ghosts. Ray owns a book store, Egon does experiments at a college, and Dr. Venkman hosts a television show about psychics. Meanwhile, Winston floats around basking in the anonymity that comes with being a token African American character in a movie. When Sigourney Weaver’s character’s child unwittingly becomes the target of Vigo… an evil painting, it’s up to the Ghostbusters to save the day through the use of Jackie Wilson songs, babies, and a smokin’ hot Annie Potts.

The worst part about this story is just how similar it is to the first film. There is little to no creativity in the story. The amount of things repeated or referenced from the first film are enough to drown most lesser franchises. Switch Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to a walking Statue of Liberty, replace William Atherton’s annoying worm character with Kurt Fuller’s annoying wormy character, and replace the Ghostbusters being arrested and put in jail with being committed and placed in a mental asylum, and you’ve got what is essentially the same story… only cornier, more family friendly, and completely uninspired.

Ivan Reitman’s sequel is a disaster for many reasons. Most of the blame can be attributed to the shitty plot, but some of it falls squarely on the shoulders of Reitman. Whereas in the first film, Reitman allowed Murray and the rest of the cast some leeway in how they portrayed the characters, it’s clear that for the sequel, their roles, lines, and performances are somewhat limited by the actual script itself. Gone is the idle charm of a group of people that genuinely seem to get along together, replaced by stilted acting and lines that suck. Not even the ghosts in the film are as interesting as in the first movie. They are clownish and dull, and most of the film is about a bunch of pink slime… no doubt used to inspire scores of kids to purchase the messy stuff when the inevitable toy tie-ins happened.

The cast of the film, despite being much the same as the first film, just doesn’t have it this time around. Bill Murray feels jaded and disinterested, and behind his eyes, you can see a man’s soul dying when he is forced to play “adoring baby lover” throughout much of the film. Dan Aykroyd is almost a non-factor throughout the film, as is Harold Ramis. The only person who picks up their game is Ernie Hudson, who seems bound and determined to be remembered as an actual Ghostbuster. Sigourney Weaver is worthless in the film, but at least Rick Moranis and Annie Potts are the same in their super tiny roles.

The special effects are a cut above the first film, but they aren’t used for much. The special effects are sparse and usually limited to showing slime oozing places. What the film needed was a solid villain, some real sense of danger, and ghosts that are more than just some asshole in a painting.

Ghostbusters II can’t compare to the first film… and the clearest example of this can be found when comparing the film’s soundtracks. Ghostbusters II features a light and fluffy late ‘80s sound that is poppy, forgettable and completely corny. The first Ghostbusters didn’t have much of a soundtrack at all… and relied heavily on the classic Ghostbusters theme song by Ray Parker Jr. While the song may be cheesy, it is no doubt enjoyable… much like the first film itself. Ghostbusters II is simply a commercial piece of shit that lacks heart. Still… it’s not all bad, and the nostalgia you feel for the first film should allow you to plow through the second one without reaching for the remote.

Final Synopsis: This is a more commercial version of Ghostbusters. It’s not as good, lacks heart, and has some minor stupidities in it which might ruin the film for the more cynical viewers out there. It can be watched… but should you? Depends on who you are and how much you hate formulaic sequels.

Points Lost: -1 for being formulaic, -1 for a lame story, -1 for poor writing, -1 for not being anywhere near as fun as the first film, -1 for Bill Murray’s Venkman character being ruined

Lesson Learned: Babies are never a good thing.

Burning Question: Why is the slime pink? Is it girl slime?

Ghostbusters II
5/10

Tags: 1989, Annie Potts, ’80s cheese, Bill Murray, classic ’80s, comedy, dan aykroyd, ernie hudson, ghostbusters, harold ramis, ivan reitman, jackie wilson songs, killer painting, kurt fuller, latest movie reviews, pink slime, recent3, rick moranis, sigourney weaver, supernatural