Movie Debate #155: Ghostbusters II

[Reed Rothchild | 9,533]

[wongojack | 215]

The only Ghostbusters movie I've seen more than once is the original which is in my top 3 movies of all time.  This one really fell flat when it was new.  Not sure what it would be like if I rewatched today. Voted 3/10.

Edited April 7 by wongojack

[Tabonga | 2,318]

 

 

it would have fared better if it wasn't a sequel to such a great movie,  

As it was it was but a shade (as it were - pun intended) in comparison to  the original.

 

Edited April 7 by Tabonga

[doner24 | 1,196]

6-a solid movie that gets unfairly compared to the original’s high standard. 

[wongojack | 215]

44 minutes ago, doner24 said:

6-a solid movie that gets unfairly compared to the original’s high standard. 

Why is that an "unfair" comparison?

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

They should have just jumped back into them doing their thing, busting ghosts for a living, then a big "mcguffin / problem / whatever" happens that they have to deal with.  Spending half the movie getting them back together and leisurely turning them back into Ghostbusters again was a total waste of time.  They even troll the viewer at the start: you're all ready to watch them bust some ghosts, then - bam - it's only a birthday party...

All that said, it's still better than all the GB shite that's come down the pipe in the last few years, though.

Edited April 7 by Dr. Morbis

[mbd39 | 2,024]

It has its moments but is a huge step down from the original. 6

[nrslam | 476]

5. A real disappointment after the first one. No real interest in seeing it again.

[RH | 4,904]

I went with ‘never seen it, never will’ but this is one of those cases where none of the other options feels right.  I saw it decades ago.  It kept my attention once, but I remember nothing about nor do I feel the need to watch it again. Was it good, bad or mediocre? No clue.  Do I care to watch it again? Nope, not at all.

[Tulpa | 3,502]

Somewhat better than its reputation, but still not up to the lightning in a bottle of the original.

I saw it somewhat recently (like maybe 8-10 years ago), and now that I'm older and better able to read people, I can tell that Bill Murray absolutely doesn't want to be in this movie. It really shows in his phoned in Venkman.

[JamesRobot | 5,800]

It's a 6 for the Bobby Brown song alone.  Plus they drive the Statue of Liberty with the NES Advantage.  It had some great scenes (the courtroom) and I liked Vigo the Carpathian, but it falls a little flat.  Still decent and nostalgia puts it on par with the two new movies, but it's the weakest entry of the franchise if I'm being objective.

 

Ghostbusters > Ghostbusters 2016 > Ghostbusters 2 ≥ Ghostbusters ≥ Ghostbusters Frozen Empire ≥ Ghostbusters Afterlife 

[Sumez | 2,958]

I never understood the hate for this movie. It has tons of great moments, and is generally almost as enjoyable as the original.

Also Janosz is fantastic

Edited April 8 by Sumez

[Brickman | 3,987]

Geez some brutal takes in this thread. 

I went with a 7 (it’s a 7.5 for me). When I was younger I would have gone with an 8-8.5 but I re watched it about 2-3 years ago during my Bill Murray marathon and it didn’t quite hold up as well as I remember. It does drag on and the story has some pacing issues. However it’s still a fun movie and worth watching every now and then.

16 hours ago, JamesRobot said:

Ghostbusters > Ghostbusters 2016 > Ghostbusters 2 ≥

This has to be a troll? 2016 Ghostbusters is just a terrible terrible movie. No way that garbage heap rates higher than 2.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,533]

I think I watched this like 37 times on cable

Not sure how that translates to a score.  I figure it says something about watchability (to a kid).

[guitarzombie | 924]

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

I never understood the hate for this movie. It has tons of great moments, and is generally almost as enjoyable as the original.

Also Janosz is fantastic

I feel the exact same way.  I never ever remember people saying they didn't like this movie until relatively recently.  Love it.

[wongojack | 215]

1 hour ago, guitarzombie said:

I feel the exact same way.  I never ever remember people saying they didn't like this movie until relatively recently.  Love it.

Probably because there weren't a million websites to rank movies.  I don't think people went out of their way to tell you it was bad, but everyone I knew saw it once, said "oh well, I guess they couldn't do it twice," and forgot about it. 

I didn't meet anyone who would actually say anything good about it until I was an adult.

[The Count | 527]

I liked it quite a bit, 8/10.

[guitarzombie | 924]

5 hours ago, wongojack said:

Probably because there weren't a million websites to rank movies.  I don't think people went out of their way to tell you it was bad, but everyone I knew saw it once, said "oh well, I guess they couldn't do it twice," and forgot about it. 

I didn't meet anyone who would actually say anything good about it until I was an adult.

Thats really odd.  Of course the first one is practically flawless, but this one was more tailored to kids with some adult stuff in there.  So I can't hate it, its funny, got great lines, effects are cool, and it has Janosh.  I don't even care if its very similar to the first one either.  If you're gonna steal, steal from the best.

[JamesRobot | 5,800]

15 hours ago, Brickman said:

This has to be a troll? 2016 Ghostbusters is just a terrible terrible movie. No way that garbage heap rates higher than 2.

2016 is legit funny and we watch it almost as frequently as the OG.  And Chris Hemsworth is hysterical as Kevin.  I get it if Melissa McCarthy puts some people out but what about this movie is bad? 

My impression is that people just saw "Girl Ghostbusters" and generally flew off the handle without giving it a real shot.  2016 is mostly played for laughs and it delivers.

[guitarzombie | 924]

Ghostbusters in the pinnacle of smart, witty comedy that works for people of all ages.  All I saw was the 2016 trailer, and it screamed dumbed down, obnoxious "Ha-ha queef is funny" humor.  Sure, that can be funny, but not under the Ghostbusters tree,

[Reed Rothchild | 9,533]

21 minutes ago, guitarzombie said:

Ghostbusters in the pinnacle of smart, witty comedy that works for people of all ages.  All I saw was the 2016 trailer, and it screamed dumbed down, obnoxious "Ha-ha queef is funny" humor.  Sure, that can be funny, but not under the Ghostbusters tree,

[Gloves | 11,782]

34 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

To be fair to that joke though, it's very much a visual gag. It's not like they showed an erect penis and said "haha penis".

[JamesRobot | 5,800]

1 hour ago, guitarzombie said:

Ghostbusters in the pinnacle of smart, witty comedy that works for people of all ages.  All I saw was the 2016 trailer, and it screamed dumbed down, obnoxious "Ha-ha queef is funny" humor.  Sure, that can be funny, but not under the Ghostbusters tree,

So ghost BJs and dickless Walter Peck jokes are the pinnacle of smart comedy but you draw the line at fart jokes?  (The queef was implied.) 

Ghostbusters is a 10 for sure, and the best of the franchise by a mile, but we're not talking Shakespeare here.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,533]

3 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

So ghost BJs and dickless Walter Peck jokes are the pinnacle of smart comedy but you draw the line at fart jokes?  (The queef was implied.) 

Ghostbusters is a 10 for sure, and the best of the franchise by a mile, but we're not talking Shakespeare here.

Did he ever manage to stick his key into her gate?  Asking for a friend.

[Tabonga | 2,318]

11 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I think I watched this like 37 times on cable

Not sure how that translates to a score.  I figure it says something about watchability (to a kid).

You probably would have loved this one!

One of the cast members was Pia Zadora in her first acting (sorta) role.