Customer Reviews


64 Reviews
5 star:
 (27)
4 star:
 (13)
3 star:
 (18)
2 star:
 (2)
1 star:
 (4)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Ghostly classic of screaming brilliance!
I have no idea why they think that 1989's "Ghostbusters II" failed to live up to the first one. The first one from 1984 was excellent in it's own way but parts of it showed signs of being dated. From my perspective though, the second Ghostbusters movie takes what was great about the first one and built upon the greatness of that one and took on a far less comedic tone in...
Published on Nov. 9 2003 by Distant Voyageur

versus
3.0 out of 5 stars 'Busting Makes Me Feel Good! (A lot Less In This Movie)
One of the main problems with GHOSTBUSTERS II is that it came out five years too late and that everything from the first film was invalid. In the first film the Ghostbusters literally save New York City and were heroes. In the sequel, we find out that that they are prohibited from "ghostbusting" and owe the city a hefty bill for the destruction incurred at...
Published on June 17 2004


‹ Previous | 1 27 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Ghostly classic of screaming brilliance!, Nov. 9 2003
I have no idea why they think that 1989's "Ghostbusters II" failed to live up to the first one. The first one from 1984 was excellent in it's own way but parts of it showed signs of being dated. From my perspective though, the second Ghostbusters movie takes what was great about the first one and built upon the greatness of that one and took on a far less comedic tone in favor of a much darker and more dramatic twist to the story line. To me, this was a wise movie in my part as it showed the growth of the movie series and showcased the producers taking new risks with new creativity.
It all begins years after the spectacular events that brought the first Ghostbusters movie to an epic yet humorous ending. The Ghostbusters team have gone bankrupt due to numerous lawsuits brought against them by bureaucrats after the property damage done during the Marshmallow Man incident years back (According to the movie timeline) and have gone their own separate ways. However, New York City is now in a state of danger when a mysterious painting of a 16th century Carpathian who lived during the 14th Century named Vigo begins resides at the Art Museum. Vigo, residing in the painting, causes weird things to happen. Also a massive river of ectoplasm (Red Slimy substance coursing through the city's sewer system) materializes from the negative emotions/bad vibes in the cities' citizens and feeds evil and hate into its citizens it comes into contact with. During an incident that occurs with a sample of the red slime, they discover that the ectoplasm if allowed too much negative emotions will explode with a cataclysmic amount of explosive force and wipe civilization off the face of the earth. Now the Ghostbusters have to team up again and lift the spirits of the New York population to fight the rising evil of Vigo's spirit and prevent disaster. However, the Ghostbusters team is viewed as psychologically disturbed by authorities and is in danger of being imprisoned at mental institutions. Not even Dana Barrett is out of the woods either. Worse yet, Vigo in his spirit form, is after Dana Barrett's infant son Oscar so he can transfer his spirit and life force into the body of Oscar so he can live again. With all of these massive obstacles, it's a dark yet fun adventure for the Ghostbusters team as they duke it out to save the future of NYC and possibly the world from total annihilation.
Bill Murray steals the spotlight as the loveable yet eccentric Peter Venkman whose highly humorous personality has nonetheless been in conflict with the various spirits and ghosts that have haunted the city and his life following the events of the first movie years before then. Rick Moranis' character Lewis Talbot is just funny, seeing him going from just a mere babysitter and job assistant to actually becoming an actual Ghostbuster towards the ending. Sigourney Weaver brings on an excellent and more dramatic role playing Dana Barrett. The rest bring on solid roles as well. The movie also is benefited from an excellent script and great and original plot. The special effects and the ghosts and such in the first movie while have scared the daylights me back when I was just a toddler when it was relatively new, look quite dated today but on here, they are a lot more improved and still are pretty scary, in an entertaining way. I gotta admit, I still love watching the ectoplasm and what it does. The seemingly opposite tone of the second Ghostbuster movie perfectly compliments the previous one so well. This movie in a way sends out a great message too of how the negativity of society has gotten out of hand recently (both around GB 2's release and today) and what the fallout could turn out to be. It's something to really think about.
I still to this day am baffled at the significantly lower amount of box office revenue that this movie generated when released back in 1989. While it may have in part due to the surprisingly darker tones that might have driven away those who were looking for more humorous story, it still is unbelievable that they considered this movie to be a 'flop'. This is far from a flop, in any stretch of the imagination. It mustered up 100 Million at the box office, far from a flop even though it wasn't as financially successful as the first one. Perhaps I might be sounding a bit over reactive due to the fact that I've been a fan of this incredible movie since I was around 7 years old when this came out but I think that the so called 'failure' of this film is one of the greatest injustices in the history of movies. It's a pity that they decided to not continue after this one. Then again, it's probably a good idea that they didn't, not because they would wreck the franchise with a third sequel that would've been weaker than the previous two but that at least they ended the movie series on a high note. "Ghostbusters II" in many ways avoids the so-called sequel slump that ruins many movies over time. It was a wise move to give the short-lived franchise a much more dramatic undertone and giving the "Ghostbusters" movie a new and original twist in storyline. It's a sign that they were branching out into new territory and it's a pity that the audience seemingly was not embracing this new change in tone. In fact, by simply making this one almost like a rehash of the first one would've turned out disastrous. Instead, "Ghostbusters II" Turned out to be a masterpiece and one of the greatest movie sequels of all time and I highly recommend that you buy this DVD today! Buy both of them. They are both worth owning!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars 'Busting Makes Me Feel Good! (A lot Less In This Movie), June 17 2004
By A Customer
One of the main problems with GHOSTBUSTERS II is that it came out five years too late and that everything from the first film was invalid. In the first film the Ghostbusters literally save New York City and were heroes. In the sequel, we find out that that they are prohibited from "ghostbusting" and owe the city a hefty bill for the destruction incurred at "spook central" (Dana Barrett's /Sigourney Weaver apartment building near Central Park from the first movie). In the sequel, they have to literally start from scratch to re-establish themselves along with a new Ghostbusters logo. The rest of the plot is interestingly inventive but not as thrilling or memorable as from the original Ghostbusters (who can forget Gozer, Zhule, the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man). The heroes have to stop an evil spirit from the 16th Century, Vigo the Carpathian (currently inhabiting a painting of his own image being restored at a museum by Dana Barrett). He wants to come back to life by taking over Dana Barrett's baby boy, Oscar while "enlisting" the aid of Dana's boss,Janosz (an annoying Peter MacNicol with a european accent). At the same time his evil presence is oozing pink ectoplasmic slime (the first movie had green slime) being fed by all the negative vibes in New York City. Also,as in the first movie, the antagonizer against the Ghostbusters business was a man from the EPA (which was hilariously original and inventive), in this film it's the the mayor's campaign manager (Kurt Fuller). GHOSTBUSTERS II's production values and special effects are excellent along with the chemistry and comraderie among the cast and characters. However, it feels like it could have been a preliminary draft of ideas for it's characters instead of a sequel (i.e. The Statue of Liberty compared to the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man). The filmmakers should have taken out the "trying to re-establish themselves" plot from the script, and concentrate on a more inventive and earth-shattering storyline which is the point of any sequel. The hype on the first GHOSTBUSTERS poster states "Coming This Summer To Save The World" and the film lived up to that hype. GHOSTBUSTERS II did not have that kind of atmosphere. Lastly, as stated earlier, the film came out five years too late. To show what five year can do, in the first film, there was a catchy pop tune by Ray Parker, Jr. In this film, it is replaced by an unmemorable rap song...rap had become contemporary by the time the film was released.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars The Funniest Movie Ever!, May 14 2004
By A Customer
The funniest part of this movie was when a lady's mink coat came alive. I liked the way the ghostbusters sucked up ghosts.
If you liked the Gremlins, you'll enjoy this movie.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars Good..., April 30 2004
Being such a huge fan of this film's predecessor, I was bound to be somewhat overtly critical of the sequel. Ghostbusters 2 is by far not a bad movie, but it could've been a lot better. On a creative level, the script/plot is basically the same as the first movie... It's kinda like watching the first one, just throw a baby into the mix. A rehash, you could say. Anyway, it isn't all that bad. The jokes are funny, performances are strong... More could've been done with the script and plot basically to make it more unique and original.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars MUCH better than the first one!, Jan. 26 2004
By A Customer
I personally find the first Ghostbusters movie to be quite cheesy in my opinion but I think the 1989 sequel is far superior in every way.
The first one looks incredibly gritty to where it's almost unwatchable. The second one has muhc clearer picture quality and much more drama, something that I love in movies as opposed to comedy that the first one is more of. The ghostbusters are now up against the rising of an evil spirit of a 16th century mass-murderer named Vigo who aims to inhabit the body of a newborn infant to be 'reborn' again and it happens to be the child of Dana Barrett.
This movie is so much darker than the first one but I like it that way.
The DVD offers little in the way of new stuff.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars The Slime now has feelings, OH BABY!, Nov. 11 2003
By 
Matthew Jordan "devilmanozzy" (Saint Joseph, IL United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Ghostbusters 2 is not the best of sequels. Sure the money was there, but it didn't seem all that funny. Sometimes this movie down right took on a dark tone. The Painting was truely a scary ghost, and in some ways may have been one of the biggest problems with this movie. As for the actor's, it seemed like the jokes just didn't work. Probably if your looking for a true movie comedy, go with the first Ghostbusters. This movie wasn't very funny, and was semi-scary drama. Let me now review this dvd in detail: Movie charctors: I could see that Bill didn't really have a feel for this movie. Most actor's in this movie do decently, but not as well as the first movie. The support cast also wasn't very good this time round. One of the biggest problems with the movie charctors was the lack of humor. . . . . .80% Movie Plot: The plot basicly was put around the Slime and the painting. Basicly The slime now has feelings and is effected by how people in New York feel, and theres a ton of it in the sewers. The Painting is a self-portrait of a known Murder that died in a very bad way. Anyways The painting's ghost needs a host to walking again in human form. And of coarse Dana and Peter's baby he wants. Go figure. You think this ghost would have known better. lol anyway. . . .85% Movie effects: The effects where very interesting. The Art department sure gave the movie some very interesting ghosts. However Some things didn't quite work. The Statue of Liberty was way off the size of the real one. One more thing about the movie was how it seemed like from one screen to the next, the suits changed from Brown to Purple so quickly. . . . .90%Dvd features: This Movie didn't really get any at all.. . . . .50%If you like this movie I suggest: Ghostbusters, Candyshack, Evolution, SNL in the 70's - early 80's.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars My 2nd favorite movie, 1st being Ghostbusters, Oct. 19 2003
By 
People don't give Ghostbusters II the credit it deserves, but I will. I give it 4 stars only because nothing can measure up to the original. But nonetheless, GBII is funny, has great special effects, and has a feel-good vibe to it. I hope that Ghostbusters 3 gets made.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars good movie, Aug. 12 2003
By A Customer
This was a good movie but I liked the first one better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars "I used to have a roommate, but my mom moved to Florida.", June 10 2003
My second favorite movie of all time, the first Ghostbusters being my first favorite. This is the best sequel to the best movie of all time. People say it follows the original to much, while that may be true....who cares?! If the first one was good, why not try it. Allthough, this movie is still very different from the first. The soundtrack IMO is better, the movie has more recent feel to it and look I might add. The whole original cast is back. What more can you want for a sequel?! Get this movie, now and the first. As they are both probably the best comedy/sci-fi movies of all time. Long live Ghostbusters! Oh yeah, get the new Ghostbusters products coming out this fall including a new comic book series! And maybe some day the gang will suit up one last time for a Ghostbusters 3.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars Impossible to Equal the Original, March 15 2003
By 
John Nolley II (Fairfax, VA United States) - See all my reviews
Ghostbusters was such a uniquely entertaining and hilarious film that nearly any sequel would be doomed to fall short of the lofty expectations ladled upon it. Unfortunately, Ghostbusters 2 does indeed fall short, and far more so than one would have expected from such a great comedic team.
First, the story: a few years after the Ghostbusters saved New York from the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, the guys are banned from practicing ghostbusting--yet soon their talents will be required again as a new painting at the museum where Dana Barret (Sigorney Weaver) works is posessed by the Dracula-like spirit of its likeness, Vigo.
My first problem has to do with the implausibility of these events. Why would the Ghostbusters, after obviously having saved the city, be banned from ghostbusting? And why does Dana have a kid--not Peter's? I let that pass, though.
From there, it seems the painting has a rather unnatural attraction to Dana's young baby, though whom it believes it can be reborn. Peter MacNichol as the geeky museum curator does deliver a hilarious performance as he falls under both Dana's and the painting's spell.
The Ghostbusters return to duty when they find a strange psychoactive slime flowing through tunnels beneath the city, a slime that causes negative emotions on contact--but which reacts positively to "Your Love Lifts Me Higher," animating a toaster to dance (and eventually the Statue of Liberty).
Needless to say, the Ghostbusters save the day. Yet he film lacks many of the elements that made the original so unique. The dialog and situations, though funny, aren't so dead-pan and lack the timing that created the chemistry of the first film. Nor does the villian seem quite so menacing as a giant marshmallow man.
The movie does provide a number of laughs, but there's a reason you see it far more often on cable than the original: the licensors know very well which one is the superior and thus charge more for the rights. The film is in and of itself decent as the product of the Murray-Akryod-Ramis team--it just couldn't live up to the original.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 27 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Ghostbusters II (Sous-titres français)
Ghostbusters II (Sous-titres français) by Ivan Reitman (DVD - 2006)
CDN$ 14.99 CDN$ 5.00
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews