The film has the same problems as its predecessor. Only a heap of new ones, which are explained by the fact that at that time, it was customary to do sequels.
In the film moved almost all the characters of the original. Not even Sigourney Weaver and her neighbor. This makes it feel like all the bad things in town revolve around the same people. Get them out of here and the problems will go away. Alas, movie bosses at the time were afraid to change something in a formula that had already worked once. Having the same actors was a problem at the time. As well as the secondary script.
Hunters face the phenomenon of global evil again. As before, it manifests itself mainly at the end. So it’s hard to remember what happens in the movie until the end.
It's not really shit. The same boring sitcom with gacks and jokes. The comic and absurdity of what is happening resembles either a banter or a thrash mess. As before, no drama and no heat. There are very few ghosts in the film, they do not pose a direct threat. Therefore, up to the very end, I frantically wanted to press ' speed 2x'. However, there are positive changes. First, the main ghost antagonist is better worked out. And all the research related to it is interesting and interesting. The special effects got better, too. But in the final, self-repeats begin again. The marshmallow man is replaced by the Statue of Liberty, and the hunters will again be comically lying on the floor, while Bill Murray spits out another spice. One thing remains the same. The black hunter will not be revealed again and nothing will be told about him. Many story branches lead nowhere and it is not clear why added. Whether it's a scene in a courtroom that leads nowhere, or a plot of trapping hunters in a mental asylum. The heroes have already proved everything, but why are they being put under arrest again?
The second film is a more complex script. But good ideas ruin self-repeat. Why is the movie called Ghostbusters if they are not hunting anyone?
Continuation of the story about wonderful, charming, cheerful and kind ghost hunters. In the plot, five years pass - everyone forgets about the hunters, but the city of New York is again on the verge of disaster and the guys have jobs again.
The second film is even more naive than the first. The story about the negative emotions of people who gather in the sewers and feed a terrible spirit from the past, the idea that everyone should gather positive thoughts and sing joyful songs, finally, the revived statue of freedom as a symbol of unity and joy of citizens – all this looks naive and childish. But, it does not irritate at all, but on the contrary, it really fills the soul with some kind of warmth.
I am sure that this tape with great pleasure and interest can well watch the current young audience, “pampered” by the special effect and the breadth of film selection.
It is not even necessary to write something detailed. It’s just a very cool and soulful film with great actors.
I like the second part better than the first. And, in general, both parts can safely look at each other in a row to immerse yourself in the bright world of soulful films of the late 80s, early 90s.
The first “Ghostbusters” showed itself as a light fantasy comedy, where only some ghosts caused a little fear. Not designed for a sequel, the film suddenly became a cult, giving rise to the need for a sequel. Well, if you have to, then hold on.
Even though it's only been five years, the team of four hunters are already acting like tired veterans, and it's felt in almost every scene. Ghostbusters 2 is already a real attraction, in which literally everything is shown for the sake of making the audience laugh with a glass of popcorn and a mug of beer in their hands. Most likely, both the director and the actors did not doubt the success, so many plot elements of the original are repeated here: Peter is again building a relationship with Dana, the public continues to debate the existence of ghosts, and in the denouement, we again observe a huge creature on the streets of the city. All this is just as frivolous, just as fun, but the taste of secondary already makes itself felt.
Unsuccessful looks Louis (Rick Moranis), whose comic is already whipping over the edge of the permissible and looks not so important for the plot. In theory, the character should somehow grow above himself, and it seems to happen, but it is still perceived ridiculously. The musical accompaniment, which the audience loved five years earlier, this time is twisted by a new song, and this, I must say, is a big minus, since it reveals the whole essence of the sequel: to cash in on the glory of its predecessor.
The situation is saved mainly by the villain, who turned out to be more interesting and thoughtful than in the first part. Vigo, whose formidable portrait looked particularly impressive in 1989, is truly admirable. He is the true master of ghosts. The idea of pink silk also evokes more interest than the strange portal from the first part. Visual effects, of course, are high, although these days they look outdated. In a couple of scenes, you can even see frame-by-frame animation, about which in a few years everyone will begin to forget with the advent of the era of computer graphics.
In general, as is often the case, the unplanned sequel turned out to be worse, although it is still pleasant to look at the familiar Ghostbusters.
7 out of 10
Recently, I re-read my review of the first part and found a mistake in it: I accidentally wrote that the film was released in 1974 instead of 1984. The continuation of the legendary tape came out after 5 years (obviously, this is 1989) and revived the memory of hunters. The director was able to fully retain the cast, including minor characters.
Plot. 5 years have passed since the last mass invasion of ghosts. Everyone gradually forgot about ghosts and the brave four. Now each of the guys is busy with their own business. Meanwhile, in the city a new trouble: in the sewer found pink slime, which is a clot of negative energy of people. It all flocks to the museum, which contains a painting with a portrait of Vigo of Carpathia, a tyrant of the XVI century, whose spirit wants to enter our world. . .
The film does not copy the script of the original, slightly modifying it, but introduces a new idea into the continuation. However, one can easily find similarities: the main antagonist is similar in habits to Goser, the giant Statue of Liberty is supposed to remind of a marshmallow man, and the assistant mayor looks a lot like an environmental inspector. At the same time, watching the second part is still interesting, only the middle of the picture sags a little (apparently, this is a hereditary disease). This time, the authors introduce two love lines into the narrative, which, although they look ridiculous, but bring a small amount of romance to the tape.
Atmosphere. The creators kept the spirit of the original: the same costumes, a fire pole, a car. Nostalgia mode is activated immediately. Actors do well with their roles, and Rick Moranis (Louis) still gives out a great acting and amusing with his actions. It seemed to me that there were more quality jokes here than in the original.
Special effects. The computer graphics are almost the same as in the first film. Of course, it is nice that the authors have preserved models of evil spirits and holograms of ghosts, but I would like to see something new.
Music. The main theme of the original is here. So get ready to hum a familiar motif again. Other melodies also deserve your attention: for example, a nice song "On Our Own" Bobby Brown.
Result. Not a bad continuation of the famous picture. If you miss the adventures of brave guys, then safely include the second part. It turned out a little worse than the original, but this does not mean that it is deprived of the warmth for which we once fell in love with the first film.
7 out of 10
(68%), remember where to call if something is wrong?
The second part of “Hunters” appeared in 1989. Most importantly, all the actors of the original are still in place! Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson and Rick Moranis. Let me just say a few words about Rick. You know, he's a hell of a role. It's a pity that some moviegoers don't know this actor (don't forget). Thank you for your smile, my friend!
In terms of story, it has been 5 years. Over the years, hand on heart, a lot has changed. The hunters somehow became distant from each other, especially the hero of Bill Murray (became a TV presenter), because ghosts stopped terrorizing the inhabitants of the city. The heroine Weaver managed to give birth to a child and run away with her husband. Yes, the hunters were dullly left behind, but everything returns to normal when the paranormal activity again begins to prank.
You know, quite a worthy continuation. I really don’t understand those who scold the sequel and praise the original. As I said above, the actors are all together (and with such a composition it is simply impossible to make a bad movie), an unusual antagonist (I personally liked, not some banal monster), some funny sketches with ghosts (Lizun is a bus driver, the ghost Titanic, etc.).
The script was written by Aykroyd and Ramis. And director Reitman, again, is present as director. Well, it's obvious that they filmed for profit. Only the cinema in the end turned out – fascinating and atmospheric. I love the '80s, guys. It's kind of warm. There is a special chemistry between Bill and Sigourney, they fit together. Great comedy fiction, so the review is positive!
Paphos? I agree, periodically skips, but he migrated from the first film. Reitman led the hunters into the crowd. Here they decided to ride to the Statue of Liberty. Plus, they laughed at themselves so well, like they can buy various souvenirs and get a discount on catching ghosts. Come on, guys, follow the original. Best Hunters of 2016!
P.S.
Did you know that Cheech Marin is playing here? I just found out...
4 nerds. Four scientists. No guns or knives. No murders or exposures. No shooting or blood. No pigtails or aikido. No bald spots or cash. Without SWAT and West Point ... (I'm not talking about the Big Bang Theory...)
... instantly becomes the idols of millions, purifying the Big Apple from all ghostly and ghostly evil spirits! Armed with a special device, hefty backpacks and relying on their own brains and the logic of things, they cleanse this grandiose sinful city from casual visitors to otherworldly worlds, and already as full-fledged characters from the cinema, becoming cult heroes for many years!! Not coming off my lips to this day!! True legends!!!
But it's been 5 years! Peter and Dana diverged. "Hunters" is no longer needed by the city. Settled down their burrows. Few people are interested. Life flows, life changes. Household. Everyone lives their best. And how does get...
.. But the usual calm and boredom is disturbed by an unusual case that almost took the life of Dana’s child. When a stroller with a child without the knowledge of the mother on a strange trajectory of movement safely sent to another street ...
.. of course, taught by the bitter experience of past years, Dana does not long sluggishly turns to her old friends, not forgetting to find out how Peter is... Guys, scientists pretty quickly find out that the case with a wheelchair is not an accident, and the city in the foreseeable future will flood a whole disaster! But will those in power listen to the advice of experienced professionals who have repeatedly saved this city? Of course not. And the universal catastrophe, ready to absorb all the good and light around, will rapidly gain power until then. Until sinful officials again remember about the only true salvation from all ghostly evils!
(between us girls...)
The second part is the same class as the first one! Although now it is dominated by special effects and looks not so confident, and sometimes these ghosts would like more. But the movie still looks very smooth. Very good. Very tolerable. With a lot of humor, including Peter Wenkman posturing. With the well-known Lizun. With a very terrible Moldavian Villain Vigo and his disgusting servant. With old friends, including the mayor of the city. With a real atmosphere of the turn of the 80s and 90s. With a taste of New York. Decently, confidently, purposefully, the film follows the path of its plot and does not let down either true fans or casual viewers. Follow the film his music and musical compositions dedicated to the main characters. In short, in truth, a good ribbon, from which it blows the very familiar smell from childhood ... When we are still in school (and this is so many years after the premiere!) tried to imitate the brave heroes from your favorite film, dissecting the roles from all four, and fighting for the title of main Peter Venkman, who, in addition to solo television and the palm of leadership in the group, gets a stunning beauty!
This film, unfortunately, stops on only two episodes, nevertheless popularly and internationally loved! It is still very well respected!
He raised Bill Murray to the Olympus of Hollywood fame. He gave the world the same animated series and a disgusting remake. He will be for many years to make fidgeting and itching impatiently in the chairs of Hollywood producers who dream of re-incorporating this wonderful idea, with the maximum benefit for himself!
In short, what are the words here... When at our discretion the classic comedy-fiction Hollywood pen ... With the incomparable Bill Murray in the title role, with the seductively spectacular "alien" Sigourney Weaver and under the sensitive script and acting guidance Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis!
The sequel "Ghostbusters" was released after 5 calendar years. What is interesting: just passed the introductory credits, as we see the inscription “5 years later”, – so the plot has passed exactly the same time.
We managed to save all the faces from the first part. Now only Peter and Dana in separation. And Dana's baby isn't Peter's. This child just decide to cling to the infernal forces of evil.
The focus is in the museum. This is a picture of Vigo. There is also a servant - the performer of the plans of the picture lord. Hunters are on the trail. This is a pink sludge, which appeared as a result of negative emotions of residents.
Yeah. It's kind of drawn... I would say that the script of the film is much weaker than the prequel. And implementation, by the way, too... But it's twofold. Let me explain.
I didn't like the idea of reviving the Statue of Liberty. I understand that this is an expression of the deepest feelings for the American people. But it's been shown too much.
But the graphics of the film surpasses the original first part. There are a lot of cute scenes with this kid.
Sometimes the film fails, then goes back on the same tracks. With sequels, in principle, always trouble. It is also good that it does not fall below the bar set by the audience.
And here again appears Lizun! I waited for him. But again, he did not play a driving role for the narrative. Okay, lonely ghost. A tribute to the classics.
Even when I watched it, I thought I could do the franchise with the same characters. But, apparently, the long-term construction in five years erases these fantasies. There, in 2016, came a reboot with female hunters. (no further comments). And this film is time to evaluate your impressions and reject.
7 out of 10
The movie is awesome. I've seen it many times. It's not boring. The scene with the bathroom is generally tinier - a kind of pink monster crawled out of it. The moment with Vigo is also cruel - a king of evil. Well, what a scene when the Titanic arrived in general, all the ghosts of the ship are assembled. Like that. The performance of the actors is good - everyone respect and respect. I know an actor from a very scary movie. All the actors played as well as in the first film. Here we go. The scenery is as high as ever, as in the first film. All the evil is made very qualitatively - as alive. Well, the outfits of the heroes of the film are also good - like guys with laser guns. Like that. In short, prophesy scored in the film. That's a fact.
The philosophy in the film is that it’s ghosts versus guys. Evil versus good. Mysticism against ordinary people. That's what I get. And the film teaches not to strain, but to watch the film and laugh from the heart - it's a comedy. That's it.
Ghostbusters 2 is a great sequel to the original. Everybody watch. You won't. The film was even better than the first. And there is also a remake of 2016 - but about that later. In the meantime, look and laugh, gentlemen, this killer comedy. Here we go. I have nothing to complain about - the film is just cruel. Only:
“Sequels are always worse than the original” is a very popular statement, and in part it is. Continuations of one hundred percent hits often turn out to be a failure on all fronts. But there’s always an exception to the rule, the experience of a second Terminator or Spider-Man confirms that, and for some reason I thought it was with Ghostbusters. The original was not ideal, it was where it was going, but in fact, this franchise was cursed by sequels. But don't jump to conclusions! Now we will assess the situation in more detail.
What could have gone wrong? Ivan Reitman returned, the original lineup returned – the merits of the first part should have doubled, but instead there were many more shortcomings. To begin with, it is worth noting that the creators crossed the line, which resulted in a large number of delusional moments. You see, the original was pretty crazy and I don't mind, but it has to make sense! In the first part, there was a balance. The heroes themselves did not believe in what was happening, and there are many inexplicable things happening. It is full of situations that contradict themselves and a lot of problems with logic. This is the main reason why the sequel loses to the original - there are many strange and not logical elements that in total give an uneven picture. Amused me and the villain - with him I have the most questions and in general - it's a walking cliché. In addition: here very stupid people came out of the city, who do not believe in obvious things and ... wow, talked out! This film is weaker (and without it not perfect) than the original, but that doesn’t make this movie bad! Of course, the minuses are peculiar spots on this interesting story and they can not be washed away, but the story is good!
In the second "Hunters" even there are moments that surpassed the original! In the first part, the plot was fascinating, but in fact predictable, because we were introduced to the characters, what they do, etc. But here the course of events is much more difficult to predict, that is: in places the film looks more interesting. The creators have come up with quite a new one and there is no feeling that this is a simple repetition of the first part. Of course (as I said above), sometimes they went far, but it is forgiven: the sequel looks good as a separate film – if you are not familiar with the original, you can immediately take up the sequel, because you will not have the feeling that you missed something.
Humor's keeping up. Jokes about feces are not very good, but even this humor is presented so that you want to smile, and it’s all about the presentation, that is, in the actors. Thanks to their play, you want to laugh at the most nasty jokes. The characters are all good, from Murray to Ramis. Unless Ernie Hudson is still weak. Kid Louis once again proved that he deserves due attention - his developing love line is extremely curious. The effects are no longer striking, as in the first part (but Lizun still looks more like a doll - but it is better not to forget about the year of release).
More to say, “Ghostbusters 2” has undergone many miscalculations and a detailed analysis sharply catches the eye a lot of shortcomings – some small, others more. But in doing so, cinema offers exciting new ideas (which sometimes go far) and predictability has been leveled to the ground. This film won’t let you get bored – it’s a lot of events and you’ll even learn more about the personal dilemmas of some of the characters – it’s also quite interesting. So don’t blind yourself to the idea that it’s a popular movie that should turn out to be a masterpiece – it’s not. Do not overestimate this movie in advance and tune in to the usual movie attraction, which can be a worthy pastime.
7 out of 10
In 2016, the franchise returned... What a scandal...
For fans of “Ghostbusters” (and after the first part there were many of them) the presence of various villains did not play a special role, which is why Vigo was met without much delight. Sumerian Gozer was much luckier. The main "delicious" is hidden in the very theme of the other world, as well as in charismatic heroes - hunters. Demons come and go, or they get caught. Almost everything in this world depends on a lucky coincidence, and ghost hunters are very often lucky, and they easily send another archetypal villain into a cleverly designed trap for evil spirits. It seems that in the second part of the film, our heroes are in their prime, but only ghosts have not appeared in the city for a long time. And our heroes will remain unemployed. Forever. No, of course, evil will not sleep. And while four friends stop by for the birthdays of young children (giving children the souvenirs and gadgets that once saved New York), without fear using the gasoline of the faithful “ECTO-1”, the ancient forces will gain momentum for the decisive blow.
All the same
Special effects slightly raised the bar, jokes became less funny on the floor of the level, but the new storyline, as well as beloved characters contribute to the fact that the flaws in the form of primitive jokes that were relevant in the first part, you can close your eyes. Yes, and Bill Murray has become much funnier, in any case, he does not joke so that the viewer gave him a “sinning” look, which means everything is fine (in a word, he is not annoying). There were a lot of nice innovations, fresh ideas, which in most cases were implemented. For example: they showed that there are many ghosts like Lizun, tried to develop the relationship of Peter Venkman and Dana Barrett, introduced a comic assistant to the villain Vigo into the plot, but this fact slightly destroyed the atmosphere of gloom, Janine also did not go anywhere, she seems to have a personal life with a new boyfriend Louis, whom she brazenly seduced with knees in nylon. This is Santa Barbara. However, the film does not bother us with “Indian” motives, and when the ghost hunters again take up the hunt, you can safely say: “They are back, they are still the same.”
In childhood and now
This raises an interesting question: Is Ghostbusters relevant in 2016? This is a 1989 film, not a reboot. The answer is probably positive because of a few facts: The film still has a huge number of fans, they still love the picture, probably often recommend it to their friends for viewing, which increases their number and ratings on sites like imdb, so the ratings of “Hunters” will not fall. Of course, there will be viewers who do not like a little animated special effects, but it already depends on perception. As a child, we took everything to heart. Much closer than we would like, but many people love Ghostbusters to this day, some out of respect for childhood, and some just love, and funny special effects do not particularly bother these people. In addition, the film is a classic of the ghost genre, close to the definition of masterpiece. Therefore, yes, “Hunters” are still relevant to this day, even in 2016.
Ivan Reitman was successful
The attempt to continue the story did not come out sideways to Reitman, even considering the fact that the second part was a weak, but not a failed sequel, and replacing Ivan Reitman with the entire cast, then everything could end much worse, and so, an excellent sequel that can be viewed many times, like the first part.
P.S. The soundtrack is the same, it can not but please
Where did you find them? He had to be the one who looked at the spoon.
What is the problem with the second part of Ghostbusters is that the first part already existed and all the truly creative developments were used in it. Yet what was introduced new, turned out to be completely unsuitable to the spirit of the picture itself and was knocked out of the narrative.
I am especially interested in why in a rather vulgar comedy it was necessary to insert family values that were underloaded by everyone. It's so cool to alternate childcare scenes with jokes like, Hello, Egon. How's science? Your learned cats are scraping your brains. They'll scratch me a meter below.
The new villain is absolutely boring in both his villainous plan and his origin story. What only the undead did not represent Vlad Tepes in art, though this time the authors for some reason hesitated to call him by name. And his assistant is completely annoying with a complete lack of motivation.
The concept of a disintegrating team forced to perform at children’s matinees is certainly good, but unfortunately it does not get further development. And that's actually the whole movie trying to introduce as many ideas as possible, but not developing any of them.
5 out of 10
Ghostbusters 2 is more of a romantic comedy than fiction. Quite dynamically starting, the film slides into its romance, and the whole hunt for ghosts seems to fade into the background, because the character of Bill Murray needs to regain love, and the trio of his friends will cope without him. In general, they would have coped, but, for reasons I do not understand, they could not do without their fourth colleague throughout the plot.
Our hunters have long retired and earn what they can, but, of course, this was not the case. The film is incredibly patriotic and by the end just starts screaming about uniting all people under one idea. The idea here is shown as a huge clot of mucus enveloping the art gallery building, but the thought is still more than clear. And, of course, you can not forget about the walking statue of freedom, as a kind of catalyst for this unification and stirring our childhood memories.
By the way, the film is in no way inferior to the first part in terms of sensation, unless there is less fiction. And according to memories, so the portrait of the evil Vigo scares much more than the frowning marshmallow man from the first film.
7 out of 10
Five years later, Ivan Reitman continues the story of ghost hunters with the original cast. The film performed alongside the first picture, which is usually rare for sequels.
The main characters ran away on their own business, but then they have to unite in order to understand the strange events taking place in the city. And reunites them, like last time, Dana Barrett, performed by Sigourney Weaver, and her young child.
For fans of giants in cities, there will be a moment that the authors wanted to include in the last part, but could not, and in this picture they did, only in a slightly different interpretation. This is certainly not a marshmallow man from the previous film, but also a very recognizable figure. The acting and the plot were good, especially liked Bill Murray, who plays Dr. Peter Wenkman, a talkative scientist who translates almost all events into humor. Since there are more interesting events in the film, it looks almost in one breath, and does not give time to look even at the clock.
6 out of 10
Because, for me personally, it wasn't enough, but it's not bad overall, although I don't think I'm going to watch it again.
After the first part of the film about fighters with paranormal phenomena, universal love for them and world recognition, in the hearts of fans still remained a feeling of incompleteness and the creators decided to give them and bring to light the second part of the acclaimed film.
"Ghostbusters 2" made a real furor and world pop culture. They are not only loved by the audience of that time, but now remain interesting to watch. That rare moment when the second part is not much worse than the original. Special effects at a good level of the time, humor as always to the place, without vulgarities and pathos, as it was in the first part, a lot of satirical moments and not afraid of ridiculing the stupid canons and styles of the time. A good moral component, the film is presented with deep meanings, only after a few views you begin to notice things that you did not pay attention to before. The creators from the first minutes show us the main problem of the city of New York and all its inhabitants, and why they need hunters so much.
In fact, the film is far from perfect, and it has quite a lot of banal cliches in the plot, but this is nothing compared to modern cinema. In this film blows kindness and for the absence of banal and vulgar jokes, this film wants to put a green light. Some people may find this movie boring, but for sure it remains one of the most beloved.
I think none of the creators of Ghostbusters expected their creation to be so popular. Viewers around the world were indescribably delighted after the release of the tape on the screen and did not tire of singing a funny melody of the main characters, which for some time became no less popular than the title theme of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Each member of the film crew, and especially the actors, literally in one day turned into icons of popular culture and began to use their fame for their intended purpose, decorating with their presence a variety of projects, where they were called vying. But the public still craved the return of the beloved fighters with evil spirits and the creators of the incorruptible hit had no choice but to release in 1989 "Ghostbusters 2", which turned out not only not to be worse than the original part, but in something even better. In the director's chair of the project again was the permanent Iven Reitman, and all the leading actors led by Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Sigourney Weaver. The only significant replacement in the ranks of the creative team was the arrival of the franchise composer Randy Edelman, who replaced Elmer Bernstein. But you can not worry about the musical accompaniment of the tape - it is still in the hands of a proven professional. It is quite natural that the production budget of the sequel received the necessary financial addition, and therefore for the visual beauty of “Ghostbusters 2” is also not worth worrying. The only thing worth worrying about is the quality of the script, because often the second parts are always inferior to the original, but to the credit of Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis they waited for five years between the releases of two films, because they eventually got a really outstanding text, which in the skillful hands of Ivan Reitman turned into a real extravaganza. The picture boasts the mystery of what is happening, organically prescribed characters and chic scenes with special effects. So the triumph of the tape is more than natural.
So, the plot of the film unfolds five years after our brave Ghostbusters ruthlessly dealt with the ancient Sumerian deity, determined to conquer neither much nor less the whole world. However, the heroes did not receive the expected reverence, as ungrateful government bureaucrats did everything possible to cover up the "supernatural" agency. It is also worth noting that after the closure of the otherworldly portal, the ghostly activity in New York almost disappeared and the Hunter had to retrain in order to somehow make ends meet. So Peter Venkman (Murray) became the host of his own TV show, Egon Spengler (Ramis) focused on studying the human character in a stressful situation, and Ray Stentz (Aykroyd) and Winston Zadmore (Hudson) earn money by entertaining kids at birthday parties in their old Ghostbuster costumes. It seems that the hero of the recent past will never return to the Olympus of glory and reverence, but the situation suddenly changes when a rare picture arrives in the city, which depicts the ancient ruler of Carpathia and Moldova, Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg). The prince was known for not sparing anyone and was known as one of the most bloodthirsty people who ever walked the earth. So it is not surprising that the prince’s subjects eventually caught him and committed long-awaited revenge. But no one could have foreseen that Vigo was familiar with black magic and immortalized his soul in the portrait, which arrived in New York, a city that never sleeps and is saturated with the negative energy of the inhabitants, irritated by the crazy pace of life in the metropolis. The ancient prince is going to incarnate in the body of a baby and in passing calls from the world of the dead forces of evil, who are once again going to terrorize New York. And only abandoned Ghostbusters can fight back the enemy. So get ready for the final battle. Believe me, she won’t disappoint you!
As you can see, the long pause separating the original film from the sequel really went to the franchise only to the benefit. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis had plenty of time to work through the script and make it as successful as the first film. It was decided to slightly change the tone of the production and delve into the mysticism, which gave the tape the necessary mystery. Of course, as before, Ivan Reitman and the company used a kaleidoscope of witty, memorable jokes and relied on the acting skills of talented comedians involved in leading roles, but in addition, the story itself has become much more interesting and even sinister. The decision to make Prince Vigo the main villain was incredibly successful, because in his image you can see the notes of such classic monsters as Count Dracula, Elizabeth Bathory and many other, no less eminent representatives of the axis of evil of world culture. However, wine does not cause a real nightmare. On the one hand, he seems to be an incredibly creepy and uncompromising monster, but on the other, the prince looks like a caricature of the same eminent monsters, because it is simply impossible to take him seriously when the Hunters led by Peter Venkman joke on him. “Ghostbusters 2” is still easy to perceive and looks in one breath from the beginning to the final credits. Their main difference from the first film is a much more interesting plot and it really pleases.
Positive emotions are also evoked by a return to her role as Sigourney Weaver. As before, her character, Dana Berret, is the decoration of the production and her storyline is allocated even more time than before. A rather weighty period of timekeeping is given to the relationship between Dan and Peter Wenkman, who destroyed all the romance that was in the finale of the last part, but are trying to revive it in the second tape. I was also pleased that the creators decided to return to the story of a modest, clumsy, but at the same time charming accountant Louis Tully performed by Rick Moranis, as well as the ironic secretary Janine from Annie Pots. In addition, the history returned and loved by millions of viewers green ghost named Lizun, for which the masters of special effects created a couple of hilarious scenes and proved that he can even help our heroes in something, and not only eat everything that falls into his hole and scare innocent people.
In conclusion, I want to say that "Ghostbusters 2" look no worse than their illustrious predecessor. Moreover, the sequel largely surpasses the first film and its existence proves that the sequels are not always tortured and simple. The picture of Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray is rightfully considered one of the best films of his era. Moreover, it is interesting to watch even in our time, because such resourceful, funny and original films are now practically not shot.
After the Sumerian deity and the villain of Carpathia is not terrible!
The box office success (almost 300 million against 30 invested) and the frenzied popularity among viewers around the world of the comedic mysticism “Ghostbusters” sooner or later would lead to the fact that the screens would sparkle the sequel. And this event happened exactly five years later, in 1989, when all the same participants of the project were again in a single clip. True, Rick Moranis fell out of the collegium of writers in the second part, but his ridiculous hero was in the sequel. Over the script worked well-known comedians of his time Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the direction was again given to Ivan Reitman, and the quartet of the main characters, except Aykroyd and Ramis, joined all the same Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson. And secondary, but very important characters were played again by Sigourney Weaver, Annie Potts and, in fact, Rick Moranis.
After a successful special operation against the evil Sumerian deity in the image of a giant marshmallow of our heroes, the city of New York has forgotten. “Hunters” are more about their own business, and Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) is not glued to Dana (Sigourney Weaver). But again, the paranormal darkness thickens the colors over the city, someone Vigo came to the museum and, submitting to his will one of the employees, very much wants to reincarnate, and for this he needs a child. Pursuing his own interests, the subordinate employee of the museum puts Dana under attack, but he remembers well that she has a defender, and his friends represent the same heroic “Ghostbusters”, in their arsenal plasma blasters, traps and, of course, the whole machine “Ecto”, which tells people not to worry by its signal: old-good “Ghostbusters” are on guard from paranormalism!
One would expect the second Ghostbusters to have the same disastrous trend as many sequels: they are far worse than their predecessors. Thank you to the cinematic gods, but in this case it didn't happen. Perhaps, the producers of the film only squandered, because the sequel was invested 7 million more, and the revenue was slightly less, but still 215 million dollars earned at the then world box office - the amount is very, very solid. This balanced drop in profits, in principle, can be easily explained: the first “Ghostbusters” had high-quality visuals at the time, and the characters kept a proud secret of their main features. In the second “Ghostbusters” already somewhat in advance imagine what awaits you in front of the screen, and the creators failed to surpass the first part, so the money collected is a very good amount, as already mentioned.
Yes, our favorite characters have somewhat lost their exclusivity, and the second part of Ghostbusters did not give additional motivation and did not reveal them from new, perhaps unexpected sides, but the fact that none of the quartet has lost their positions is for sure and it can be recorded as a positive asset. Visual effects remained at the same level. I wanted something more, I wanted fireworks illusions, but the creators of the sequel limited themselves to the same techniques used in the predecessor. For 5 years, while the plot of the new “Hunters...” technology has become more advanced, diverse, but overpaying only 7 million with difficulty you could expect that special effects will become more beautiful and refined. Keeping the brand of the initial Ghostbusters is probably the main credo of the sequel, and the producers are to blame for everything else! For many, the main, by the way, and it turned out that the guys did not fall in spirit, but are still smart, working and believing in their work. And the writers still can say thank you for the fact that although there are overlapping lines with the first part, but this is a completely new task with its nuances and fictions, for example, slime, from which people turn. And what they turn into you would be nice to know for yourself.
So, if you have seen the first part of the famous comedy-fiction mysticism, then be sure to watch its continuation! The same heroes are waiting for you again, who will still be able to easily entertain you when in full seriousness, without crossing the streams with blasters, they catch all sorts of nefarious and malicious representatives of the parallel world. It’s a good idea, in a word!
8 out of 10
P.S.: And the director and producer of “Ghostbusters 2” Ivan Reitman will continue another very interesting business – Arnold Schwarzenegger in comedies!
Ghostbusters 2 is a fantastic adventure comedy fantasy that I have loved since childhood and watched it many times. I like this sequel more than the first film, because the story of the sequel is more interesting, original and spectacular. This film is like one big gift for the whole family, which may well be enjoyed by both the children's audience and adults. The movie is very funny, kind and funny, and looks easy, bringing with it a lot of comic moments and positive emotions.
Once again we see beloved and brave ghost hunters, who again have to fight with ghosts and with a terrible and mystical something that must be urgently destroyed, and we see a funny, fantastic story that was shot very interesting and for 1989 not bad.
In the sequel, we see all the characters who played in the first film. Bill Murray is always funny and charming, he’s an interesting actor, and this role of him in Ghostbusters is my favorite. Sigourney Weaver is also beautiful in this fantasy. I love this actress, she is not like anyone and is exceptional. In this film, she played chic, and Weaver is always well suited for roles in science fiction films.
The budget of 37 million dollars was a decent and high-quality sequel about funny and funny ghost hunters, who once conquered millions of viewers, and this movie was very loved and watched by almost everyone. When I think of this movie, I immediately remember the melody that played in both parts. This film balances between fiction and something original, ghosts and hunters, love and courage and all that makes this movie so bright, interesting and loved since childhood. I am sure that this comedy undoubtedly deserves the attention of the audience and, of course, a positive assessment. Ghostbusters 2 is a childhood movie that I love, and it will always spark and laugh, and after many years it has not lost its relevance for me, and it is quite possible to watch it now. I really liked the atmosphere in this film: kind and positive, and something in it was still attractive and interesting, which in many films is no longer there. This movie is aimed solely at maintaining the mood, and not watching it, I believe, means really losing a lot.
9 out of 10
Over the past few decades, the heroes of children’s fantasies and games have acquired superpowers, have often acquired a courageous and belligerent appearance, are able to bring fear to their enemies at a glance. So sadly, the heroes of my childhood look old today, and their past exploits are losing ground in the face of the onslaught of Marvel and DC Comics characters on the big screen. As the saying goes, “An old friend is better than two new friends.” Therefore, sometimes you want to spend an evening in the campaign of famous heroes of the 80s for their seemingly so naive, but nostalgic adventures for millions of viewers.
Set five years after the heroic defense of New York City from a hostile Sumerian deity. It is worth noting that despite the incredibly frequent use of the Big Apple in cinema, returning to the streets of the city with the Hunters makes a lasting impression. Despite their services to society, our heroes are deprived of the right to do what they love and are forced to vegetate before a new otherworldly threat appears. Another question is that the plot of the sequel was an order of magnitude weaker than the original 1984 picture. A long, tedious introduction of half an hour is likely to miss even the most loyal fans of 80s comedies. It remains unclear the bias towards social narrative, such as the reasoning that you need to do more serious business in adulthood, or here is the topic of parenting, which looks frankly boring in its presentation. Even the main villain himself, the lord of Carpathia, brings boredom and gives the cult picture a shade of films of category B.
If it is not addicted to the plot, the new appearance of familiar characters from childhood on the screen gives genuine positive emotions. Ivan Reitman’s films, and this one in particular, have a finely tuned concept of family comedy. In this case, it does not matter whether you are interested in the theme of the supernatural or fiction in general. In any case, they are served here with a fair amount of irony. More importantly, what mood you want to get after watching. Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray retained what I thought were some of the most successful characters they created. Now they with a serious mine on the face warn the city authorities about the danger, in a couple of minutes with a smile to fight with vile ghosts.
The second part may not be as vivid and memorable as I would like. But even if we take into account the shortcomings of the picture, she wants to forgive everything when her favorite characters again dress gray dress-ups, hoist bizarre equipment on their backs and rush with a cheerful grin to help the residents of New York. This is a great example of a successful family comedy in many senses, the viewing of which is extremely not recommended to cancel or postpone.
After the successful release of the original film “Ghostbusters” and good reviews by critics, as well as the appearance of numerous fans, the sequel was only a matter of time. However, fans had to wait as long as five years, and in 1989 the world saw the continuation of “Ghostbusters”. The film was a great success and collected not a small box office, and also increased its army of fans. But what kept the sequel from the original film? Let’s start with the story and start with the story.
A group of scientists who once proudly called themselves “Ghostbusters” was forced to disintegrate after saving the city of New York. Since the paranormal phenomena did not bother the residents of the metropolis, which means that the need for hunters was no longer there and everyone successfully forgot about them. However, the dark forces recalled their existence a few years later. And four brave scientists were forced to return to the fight against ghosts and other undead. Using a new weapon, they must once again save the city of New York. The plot of the picture is somewhat reminiscent of the first film, but despite this, the film looks very interesting and exciting.
A great role was played by a good cast. Four great comedians led by Bill Murray perfectly coped with the role of ghost hunters, and their excellent sense of humor does not let the viewer get bored throughout the film. However, the film did not slide into an ordinary comedy, as the authors perfectly balanced humor and fantastic action. In general, the actors played their roles very convincingly and professionally.
And of course, in the paintings of this plan, special effects play a huge role. And although today they look outdated for its time, the visual design of the picture is quite worthy. In addition, special effects give the picture a sense of nostalgia.
The continuation of the film “Ghostbusters” is almost not inferior to the original. Of course, it does not have the originality that was in the first part. But, despite this, the film turned out to be quite worthy and is recommended for viewing by all fans of good cinema and fantastic classics.
The universe of “Ghostbusters” sprawled into a fairly weighty franchise and imagery, while having only two movies in reserve, the second and last of which was shot as early as 1989. However, faced with these characters and their activities, you will not forget and you can review them from time to time, getting similar positive emotions. In the future, the stock of development of this brand was followed by novelizations, comics, and computer games (and quite a lot). Shooting five years after the original, this fantastic comedy with some simple and soulful fantasy special effects, as well as a folded cast, provides a story in the same time frame.
Five years have passed and the “hunters” have nothing to do: there are no ghosts, no one explains, no one splashes protomatter, and the proton emitter with a positron hole had to be covered up. That’s how these brave guys run, earning a living do not understand what: who leads a dubious show on television, meeting with no less dubious psychics, predicting the end of the world or contactees with aliens; who keeps a laboratory for the study of human emotions, and who shop selling occult literature. But New York, and at the same time the world, is facing a new danger - the local museum brought a terribly terrible picture, with which a certain Moldavian Transcarpathian Prince Vigo sees through the viewer with a contemptible glance, who killed people in droves and received pleasure from this (the image suggests a comparison with Vlad III Tepes). The tyrant needs an innocent child to seize world power and domination, into which the black soul intends to possess (a well-worn motive). However, the child he, through his assistant - a very slimy and sweet museum face, chooses not simple, but namely - the child of the former passion of one of the "hunters". The confrontation begins, seas of protomatter are found in the sewers, which carries all the malice of a huge conglomeration to the museum, paranormal activity awakens, all evil spirits walk through the streets.
In my opinion, a very good picture, replete with comedic moments in which Bill Murray lustrously shines, and these magical axe special effects, like from old movies, fantasy films or comic books. And in general, at some points the film creates comic imagery. Well, these fictions with proton emitters, positron pits and the very fact of hunting ghosts with equipment and specialized equipment in an exclusively Hollywood entertaining manner with a bright appeal to the victory of good over evil should, in fact, interest people of any age, the benefit is presented simply, easily and without excesses of thought. That is a purely entertaining spectacle that can be quite perceived even by children. It was in this state that I really liked this movie, as I still like it today.
And yes, the Titanic joke is just lovely.
After the release of the famous science fiction comedy “Ghostbusters”, a sequel appears on the screens, which had much less audience success, but still became a successful continuation of the cult story. Compared to the fun first part, the sequel turned out to be a much darker and heavier story, gravitating more to horror than to comedy.
At the center of the second film are familiar characters, now forced to deal with a clot of sinister energy in the New York sewer and over a city mired in its sins. Another trouble awaits the heroine of Sigourney Weaver, Dana, and her good neighbor played by Rick Moranis. In fact, in the second film, the plot is much more unpredictable and it is pleasant and interesting to follow its development. Directing Ivan Reitman is purely within the genre and the film impresses the viewer and the skillful work of the cameraman Michael Chapman, and the eerie soundtrack of Randy Edelman, perfectly emphasized the atmosphere of the picture.
So, if you liked the first part of this original film, watch the second. You won’t be disappointed because there aren’t any movies like that right now.
10 out of 10