Ghostbusters II (1989)

The review praises the sharp one-liners, meticulous production, and grand finale that tops the first film's classic scene. It notes the original cast returns in strong form with a buoyant score and inspired effects keeping the edge intact.

The script is sharp with an eye on children and the film is funny in a harmless way, with strong supporting turns from the cast. It suffers from repetitions of the first film and an uncomfortable attempt to integrate Murray's character into a relationship.

The critic finds the sequel easier to take and funnier than the original, which seemed overproduced and sloppy. It is more modest and less aggressively extravagant while delivering a lively story about negative energy threatening Manhattan.

The film is described as babyboomer silliness that appeals to kids with its slime and ghosts while adults enjoy the clever dialogue. Bill Murray anchors the central role amid the team's efforts against the new supernatural threat.

The film sticks closely to the successful formula of the first with bigger effects and strong turns from Murray and Moranis. The script lacks sparkle and offers little that is new despite the high budget.

The sequel fails to recapture the energy of the original despite the familiar cast and plot elements. It serves mainly as an excuse for the team to reunite amid a new supernatural threat involving an endangered child.

The critic defends the sequel as far better than its reputation and thoroughly enjoyable, replicating the original's blend of humour, scares, thrills and effects while improving on the plot with the River of Slime and Vigo elements. They highlight laugh-out-loud moments, effective shocks like the bathtub scene, and strong character expansion.

The critic argues Ghostbusters II deserves more love than its reputation suggests, calling it clever, funny, and well-characterized with a solid story that holds together. They single out the strong courtroom set-piece and Bill Murray's Venkman material for praise while noting its fresh angles on post-original fame and character development.

The critic sees Ghostbusters II as a consistently funny and lighthearted extension of the first film that entertains through cast chemistry and familiar gags despite repeating many elements from the original. Contemporary critics were harsher due to sequel fatigue, but the piece argues it holds up as a solid 'if it ain't broke' sequel.

The ranking calls it a fun but frustrating sequel that recycles successful elements from the first film while adding some new story points, yet it suffers from overly cartoonish execution and ridiculous set pieces like the Statue of Liberty scene. It remains mostly entertaining thanks to the core cast's talents.

The piece describes the film as lazy, flat, and broad compared to the inventive original, though not outright terrible. It notes that its uninspired quality and modest box office performance helped stall further big-screen entries in the franchise for years.

The critic argues the sequel is a lazy, forced remake that lacks the original's enthusiasm and improvisational spark, with a plodding story, convoluted plot, and cast members going through the motions after studio and performer reluctance.