Review 109: Ghostbusters II

Ghostbusters II doesn't feel nearly as fresh or as funny as its predecessor and storyline is noticeably lacking on round 2.

Set five years after the first film, the Ghostbusters are sued for the property damage they caused during their battle with Gozer and are forced to go their separate ways.
But when Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) leans that spirits have taken an interest in Dana Barrett's (Sigourney Weaver) newborn son Oscar, the Ghostbusters reunite to launch a rogue ghost-chasing mission. The quest goes quickly awry, landing them in court. But when the ghosts turn on the judge, he issues an order allowing the Ghostbusters to get back to work.

The plot is essentially a carbon copy of the first film. What Ghostbusters II ultimately boils down to is a rather lacklustre follow up that winds up being a pail imitation of its predercessor.

This is a sequel which appears to have been put into production due to studio mandate. I read that after the success of the first film and the animated series The Real Ghostbusters that Columbia Pictures pressured the producers to make this film. Ivan Reitman, Dan Ackroyd & Harold Ramis did not want to make it as the first film was meant to be conclusive but they ultimately agreed due to studio pressure and it shows.
Apart from being a retread of the first film, the story itself is told with a surprising lack of energy and suffers from feeling tired, laboured and boring at times.
The set up is also pretty contrived with the Ghostbusters being sued for property damage and being called frauds even though there were clearly ghosts that tried to (you know) destroy the city.

Thematically, Ghostbusters II seems to be exploring the consequences of actions. Instead of being hailed as heroes after defeating Gozer, the Ghostbusters are driven out of business because of the associated destruction they caused. The "Mood Slime" the Ghostbusters collect beneath the city is a consequence of negative emotions projected by the people of New York. 

 

Upon further inspection, they find out that it has a ton of negative energy in it and has been formed by all the pessimism that is pulsing throughout the city. Audiences and analysts will undoubtedly notice parrells between the "mood slime" as Venkman put it and social media activity and how positivity is presented as a uniquely powerful force to combat that negativity.

Fatherhood is also a prevalent theme in Ghostbusters II 

Yet that theme comes at the expense of the success the Ghostbusters earned in the first film. It honestly feels as if the show is bending over backwards to uphold the status quo. The fact that the film's screenplay basically hand waves

Returning director Ivan Reitman's direction is lacklustre and uneven suggesting he never had his heart in the making of this project. The cinematography is beautiful, the special effects are actually pretty spectacular (the use of the Statue of Liberty in the climax is really a sight for sore eyes) the score by Randy Edelman is decent but just can't measure up to Elmer Bernstein's iconic work on its predrocessor. The costumes are solid, the production design is terrific.
The comedy is very hit-or-miss with a lot of the jokes either being ok or just eye rolling.

Bill Murray is ultimately forced to carry this film with his wisecracks as Peter Venkman 

Reuniting with him are Dan Aykroyd, Harold Raims, Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver all of whom reprise their roles as Raymond Stantz, Egon Spangler, Winston Zeddemore, Louis Tully, Janine Melnitz and Dana Barrett respectively; they all seem like they're just going through the motions. 

New to the series, is Jack Hardemeyer (Kurt Fuller) who is basically a knock-off version of William Atherton's Walter Peck from the first film. It's his job to be skeptical of the Ghostbusters' activities and attempt to discredit them and that's the beginning and end of his character. The film does nothing to put a new spin on this archetype.

2/5.

The Anonymous Critic.