Ghost Busters II is the only sequel I have seen so far where I feel my review is for the most part the same. To me, this movie wasn't really like a sequel. It was like Columbia Pictures decided to reinvent Ghost Busters (1984) by changing the visuals. Yes there are different things in the plot, for example, it's set five years later, Sigourney Weaver's character has a baby, and the Ghost Busters have to restore their names to New York by saving the city like they did five years before. But none of these minor changes made me feel like I was watching anything new.
|The most well known cast known universally|
As for the special effects, I felt that director Ivan Reitman had an ambitious concept and used it well. Although it still did not raise my interest of the movie to a higher level, it definitely kept me paying attention to what was happening on screen. Much of the effects in this movie deal with slime. Watching the slime ooze and sludge all over town reminded me of The Blob (1988), but in a less graphic sense. I'm curious if Dan Aykroyd borrowed this idea from that movie. I would like to know how they even cleaned the mess up. I can't tell which would have been more difficult; cleaning the mess in the first movie with the "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man", or the slime. I'd pick the marshmallow, at least you can eat that.
|Hmmmm.......is that the Blob from 1988??|
Ghost Busters II will satisfy fans of the franchise but it's almost too close to the original. All the original characters are back, but it seems like nothing new was added; besides more slime.
Points Earned --> 8:10