From the off, it's plain to see that there's something wrong with Ghostbusters II. The energy and the passion that were clearly there in abundance across the span of the first movie seem entirely absent, almost as if - compelled by contract - the entire cast and crew were summoned back to the set just a few hours after they'd finished shooting the original picture and were forced to start work on a sequel without taking any time out to relax. Which isn't really the tone you want to set for what is supposed to be a "rollicking comedy sequel," is it? So whilst Ghostbusters II was met with mostly critical distain upon its first release, in which both critics and movie-goers alike branded it "toxic," is it now safe to say that time has been a little kinder to this sequel? It would be untrue to say that Ghostbusters II (which sees pretty much everyone from the original back again doing exactly the same thing as they did before) is anything but a rehash, because it so very clearly is: the approach here, obviously, was to reproduce the same movie all over. But there are a lot of neat gags here, most of them courtesy of Bill Murray, with the samey plot serving as a canvas for the improv to thrive. It's no classic, and it doesn't have a patch on the original, but as a funny, curious oddity, Ghostbusters II is worthwhile.
Sam Hill is an ardent cinephile and has been writing about film professionally since 2008. He harbours a particular fondness for western and sci-fi movies.
