I thought that this movie was going to be terrible from the things that I have heard about it, but this turned out to be a decent movie. The only really bad thing about it was the fact that honestly it did not really need to exist at all. But that aside, the movie did decently at everything. It had decent effects, a interesting enough story for a sequel and the characters were still perfectly likable and that is what I am most judging on, if the characters are good since if they are not, I don't really care too much over what happens.

It's pretty tough for a sequel to best, let alone match it's predecessor, especially when the first one is an undisputed masterpiece. So yeah, Ghostbusters II isn't as good as the first, but it's not a bad film by any means. Unfortunately most people don't see it that way. Me, I really like this one, and think it's still a really decent film, even though it isn't what it could have been. The story begins five years after the first. Following the defeat of Gozer at the end of the first film, the Ghostbusters have actually fallen on hard times. Instead of being hailed as saviors, they have since been slapped with a restraining order and forced to cease their ghostbusting due to all the collateral damage their 'busting' causes. As a result, the four have hung up their proton packs and gone on to other activities. However, they are forced to get back to it when an evil ooze begins wreaking havoc, especially when it possesses a painting of an evil 16th Century Carpathian tyrant named Vigo, causing him to come to life to terrorize all who end up in his way. I think the main issue at hand here is sequelitis. It's just unable to capture the magic that made the first so special. It doesn't have the freshness, nor does it have the same level of laughs, wit, and energy. Ivan Reitman returned as director, and co-stars Aykroyd and Ramis once again wrote the script, and, while they don't do bad in these roles, their performances don't really stand out. I do however, like that they raised the stakes, and showed how actions have consequences. I just wish they could have come up with some more creative and stronger ideas. The music is still good though, and I still dig the effects, and yeah, the performances are fine, if slightly worn, but, even though this one has it's moments, it doesn't have near as much heart as it should. I'm still giving this one a really high rating though, as I'm a big fan, I like these guys and what they do, and it's still a fun and entertaining film. Yeah, some of it is a bit sillier, but I can't help but like it. Without a doubt, my main reason for really liking this is personal. Sentimentality is key here, as the earliest memory that I can recall is seeing this in the theater when I was a mere three years old. I can only recall one scene clearly, but still, it's a memory I want to cherish as long as possible. Bottom line: yeah, this is a step down, but it's still a pretty decent film, and offers a fair amount of entertainment, and, compared to a lot of sequels, it's quite strong, so give it a chance.

When the librarians put this out on the end-cap, I thought it was the 2016 remake. Now I know, this is the sequel, not the all-gyrlll-power remake. I wanted to see the remake to find out if it was pretty good and it was fan-boy misogyny that made it a flop. That is a task for another day, but watching this movie, and reading about it here will help me understand the remake and it flopping.Now that I understand there was an animated series, and that burned in certain expectations into not fan-boys, but kids, well that might explain the vehemence towards the all-girl cast. When something is burned into your brain as a kid, its like a religion, and I can see them being really upset with the remake, they consider it blasphemous. I guess the remake could be done with the original actors, but they are both long in the tooth and expensive. I would have had the original cast have kids, and turn the business over to them, for the good of humanity. If Melissa McCarthy is as profane in the remake as in most of her films, I can see that as another betrayal. The original was a cute movie made into a kid's franchise, and then they do the four-letter-word treatment. They deserved to flop if that is the case.The one thing I don't understand here is the slighting of the black character. He was not an any Act 1 scenes, and then, poof, he is dressed up and running around Manhattan. Talk about prestidigitation. Maybe he held out for too much money (called "gettin' uppity" by Hollywood producers) and finally made a deal and joined the cast halfway through principle photography.This is a simple good movie. I barely remember the original, but I like this one. It was playful and aimed to kids. It did not try to slip in all kinds of innuendo and double entendre to keep mommy and daddy amused. Instead it had some art film elements, like New York being a hell hole, The statue of liberty being a beacon of hope, and yeah, love cures all. Very childish, almost infantile. I loved it.Despite the movie Trainwreck, most movies that break even are pretty good. This one was $37 million in, $215 million out, worldwide. When you look at inflation-adjusted box office, the original was $586 million domestic, this one was $244 million domestic, and the 2016 gyrll-power remake was $130 million. Seems about right.

Don't make me say what I don't have said: GB2 is not a bad movie nor a so-so one. It's a good movie but truly not reaching the classic fun of GB1. For me, there is 3 huge defects in doing this sequel: 1) the soundtrack! Here there is no more inspired score, only songs: some are good (if my memory is correct, it's how I discovered Oingo-Boingo) but the rap ones are really puffing… 2) the already seen scenes: the mayor office, their arrest, the big walking thing in the streets,….I just wanted to see something else! 3) The too much auto-centered events: In GB1, the supernatural was believable and serious! Here, a bit like in gremlins 2, it's fun for fun and whatever the credibility: the opening scene with the cradle have no explanation, Slimer is iconic but inappropriate, Vigo is not really frightening and the slime not really convincing…. If you can forget all this, the movie is indeed enjoyable: the cast is really excellent and this team is among the best for comedy! Whatever the scene is about, they always find a funny line for that! The movie is also a good depiction to the way of life in a big megalopolis and the beginning when they have new jobs is original. In a way, this movie illustrates the limits of sequels: it's always the same ideas that are played and replayed!