Ghostbusters II
Columbia Pictures | Release Date: June 16, 1989
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 233 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
155
Mixed:
66
Negative:
12
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
NotoriousFraudSep 5, 2014
It tried to be a copy of the first one and was a disappointment. However, there are a few things that are worth seeing like lady liberty walking while being controlled by an Nes controller.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
ArkonBladeJul 22, 2011
ghostbusters 2 comes out 5 years after the first one did which by the way why isnt it up on metecritic for us to review? its a 10 by the way. the second one isn t near as good as the original and after 5 years its not like it was a rushedghostbusters 2 comes out 5 years after the first one did which by the way why isnt it up on metecritic for us to review? its a 10 by the way. the second one isn t near as good as the original and after 5 years its not like it was a rushed sequel like alot of movies are theese days . its still entertaining with some good humor and when i was a kid i went to see this at the movies like 4 times and loved it. but that was 22 years ago and im older i may have game it a 10 then but its a 6 now. it borrows to much it feels like from the first and the comedy isnt as funny as what the original was nor is the action which GB1 blended both so well together. still its a ok film that could have been far worse.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
FilmVirtueFeb 15, 2014
Not nearly as good as the first film in the Ghostbusters series, but like the first still manages to capture the viewer in the strange world of the paranormal--In a comedic way.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
amheretojudgeJan 16, 2018
sorry, i missed it..

Ghostbusters II

Maybe, if focused less on the sub-plots assigned to the characters and more on the screenplay then it would have come off far better than the first one since the screen time was on their side.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
TyranianApr 8, 2019
Potentially better than the first but has the same general stupidity that gets old fast.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MovieGuysOct 5, 2013
II is not nearly as good or funny as the original, but little bits and pieces are amusing, especially Dana's boss that doesn't ever utter a coherent word.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
EpicLadySpongeJul 15, 2016
[ Written on May 21st, 2016 ] Despite it being a sequel to the original Ghostbusters, I don't think this one did such a success in my opinion. Mainly it's because how the original topped the golf club like a hole-in-one, but the sequel just[ Written on May 21st, 2016 ] Despite it being a sequel to the original Ghostbusters, I don't think this one did such a success in my opinion. Mainly it's because how the original topped the golf club like a hole-in-one, but the sequel just went off like it couldn't want to do it anymore. Hey, at least they tried on this one.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FilipeNetoFeb 17, 2018
This movie is the sequel to the popular film "Ghostbuster's", released four years earlier. The main cast it's unchanged, with Bill Murray playing Dr. Venkman, Harold Ramis as Dr. Egon (more geek than ever), Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Stantz and ErnieThis movie is the sequel to the popular film "Ghostbuster's", released four years earlier. The main cast it's unchanged, with Bill Murray playing Dr. Venkman, Harold Ramis as Dr. Egon (more geek than ever), Dan Aykroyd as Dr. Stantz and Ernie Hudson as Winston. Sigourney Weaver keep's the role of Dana and Rick Moranis continues to give body and talent to the bumbling Mr. Tully. In this film, the company will be re-activated to face a new danger, the evil Lord Vigo (Wilhelm Von Homburg), a medieval warlord who resurfaces in New York with the darkest intentions.

As expected, the booming and highly profitable "Ghostbuster's" quickly spawned a sequel. However, contrary to the bad reputation of this kind of films, this sequel reasonably maintain the level of the previous film, despite being sentenced to didn't become so popular. It's the curse of any sequel to a film that reaches such popularity. In fact, both the technical team and central cast are inherited from the previous film, holding the responsibility very well, although Murray can't have been so funny such we already know how he will behave. In addition to the natural predictability, perhaps the smaller laughter guilt is also the politically correct, a barrier that shouldn't be exceeded in family comedies, but that was tight in this film compared to the first one. In addiction, Peter MacNichol comes in the role of Dr. Janosz Poha, a completely new character that gave a breath of fresh air to the film. Years later, MacNichol will redesign this character in another movie, in Leslie Nielson's company (Dracula: Dead and loving it). The special effects continue to be important part of this film, although apparently become more subtle than the first one. The soundtrack is, perhaps, one of the biggest disappointments. Apart from the leitmotiv "Ghostbuster's" ever popular, it doesn't bring almost nothing remarkable.

Although this film suffer from common ailments to most sequels, especially those that were made to resoundingly popular films, it manages to works well and please the majority of the public who saw and liked the first movie. It's a film for all audiences, familiar, fun and popular even today.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
ahmedaiman1999Mar 26, 2019
Somehow Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd saw that wasting almost the whole second act on Dr. Peter and Dana's awkward, tedious and utterly uninteresting troubled relationship, and then adding insult to injury with Louis Tully and Janine Melnitz'sSomehow Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd saw that wasting almost the whole second act on Dr. Peter and Dana's awkward, tedious and utterly uninteresting troubled relationship, and then adding insult to injury with Louis Tully and Janine Melnitz's even more cringeworthy and excruciatingly painful-to-watch relationship is a better idea than finding some plausible explanations for almost everything related to the main plot, in general, and the ludicrously terrible villain, in particular!

I mean, WHY?! The first act was really promising. It had a couple of funny spooky moments, some hilarious gags, and the cast seemed to be even more charming and energetic than it was in the original. Also, the premise is quite good (and served the humor quite a lot); but the execution is rather embarrassingly messy and nonsensical, and the laughable, scrappy third act is a case in point. I have never been a fan of the original; but this sequel is so frustrating, since the build-up was surprisingly quite neat.

(4.5/10)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
sebastianaliSep 8, 2019
Bastante inferior con respecto a su predecesora. Si bien sigue teniendo algunos momentos divertidos, estos son pocos y la historia es bastante mediocre. El antagonista principal es una vergüenza si lo comparamos con Gozer.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

56 Critic Reviews

7.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL