S.O.S. fantômes II

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.

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?

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-

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.