Long running movie franchises seem to be everywhere now days, but in some cases, select popular movies haven’t truly become a series until recently. “Ghostbusters” for example was a pop culture juggernaut in the early 1980’s, and despite expanding into various animated spin-offs, games and comics, it only had one direct sequel in 1989, and didn’t really become a reoccurring franchise until 2016, in which we’ve seen a number of movies since.
It makes me wonder why something as popular as “Ghostbusters” took so long to become a big movie series, and why there was only one direct sequel following the original. While “Ghostbusters 2” certainly had a mix to negative reception upon its release, the film has seen something of a resurgence, with some fans describing it as not being as bad as its initial reputation suggests. While I loved the original “Ghostbusters” as a kid, I was always a little indifferent to its sequel. Nevertheless, I’m curious to look back on that first and only true sequel to see if anything holds up, or to see if its lesser reputation is more justified.
Set five years after the events of the first movie, the Ghostbusters have gone their separate ways and are trying to make a living in a field where there are no more ghosts to bust, while the citizens once again view them as to-bit frauds.
Things get interesting when the local museum acquires a new painting of a dark entity called Vigo the Carpathian, whose wicked spirit dwells in the object. With his presence stirring, new ghosts appear on the scene to terrorize New York and bring the Ghostbusters back in business. Caught in the middle is Dana Barrett, the on and off again love interest of lead Ghostbuster Peter Venkman. Their relationship is rocky, but worse things arise when her new baby Oscar becomes the main target for the villain Vigo, who aims to use the infant as a new host body. Thus, the Ghostbusters not only band together to save New York again, but also to safeguard little Oscar.
Director Ivan Reitman and all the main cast members from the first movie are all back … but the jokes and the freshness of the first just aren’t there. My biggest reservation is making a baby the focus point of the narrative, as it’s really boring to watch these characters pal around with this toddler. On a side note, it never made any sense to me why the villain would want a baby body to inhabit, as opposed to a grown adult. In fact, we briefly see him take over Ghostbuster Ray Stantz, played again by Dan Aykroyd, and I feel that should have been expanded upon. The concept of a team member taken over by the villain has all kinds of potential for conflict, and adding something fresh to the premise, as opposed to the tonally off beat baby narrative. On that note, this sequel has an oddly mixed tone, as it aims to appeal to little kids more than the original, but it also contains some darker material appropriate for a real horror film.
I will say that while the jokes aren’t very funny, the chemistry is still there between the cast. Even though I’m not laughing at anything, I’m still smiling and enjoying these characters acting off each other. Bill Murray tries his best to carry the hummer of the film, but he can only go so far with so little. Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett again doesn’t have too much to work with, but she absolutely makes the most of what she’s got. I don’t have much to say about Rick Moranis and Annie Potts romantic subplot, other than, I wish we could have seen more of either of them as Ghostbusters, as opposed to just Rick Moranis in uniform for a second at the end. I’d say the late Harold Ramis in his signature role of Ghostbuster Egon Spengler delivered the most consistently charismatic and funny performance.
One genuine ace up this films sleeve is the new villain Vigo the Carpathian, who I feel has a presence equal to Gozer from the first film. The setup with him as a cursed oil painting is great, as it gives the audience a visual and design that sticks with us even before the villain physically appears on screen.
Also, Vigo’s henchman Janosz, played by Peter MacNicol delivers a memorable performance as something of an unhinged Renfield to his Dracula … a full six years before he actually portrayed Renfield in the 1995 comedy “Dracula Dead and Loving it”. Despite being such an animated presence in the film, he still has some suitably creepy moments … this image of him walking down a dark hallway with a glowing face always spooked me as kid. Of course, the best spooky highlight of all is when Janosz takes on the likeness of a ghostly Nanny that kidnaps baby Oscar on the ledge of Dana Barrett’s apartment. This scene pays tribute to the Wicked Witch of the West, right down to a similar music score, and it’s just a memorable creepy image, especially with the glowing red eyes.
Another slight against this movie is that it takes a while to generate any momentum. There are certainly highlights spread throughout, but they aren’t consistent, with lengthy additional scenes that go on forever, and as the saying goes … “It’s all filler and no thriller”.
About thirty minutes in we finally get a big set-piece with the team battling the ghostly Scoleri Brothers, and it’s like finally, something’s happening. On that note, when the ghosts do show up, they come in a fun variety. The music montage in the middle features a jogging ghost, who’s a rare human looking spirit in this franchise. As per tradition, there’s a second ghost montage at the end of the movie, and hot take … I think this is a better montage than in the original. We get a giant ghost framed through an archway, a lady’s fur coat coming to life, and even the Titanic comes back with its dead crew … “Better late than never!”.
My favorite scene of the whole movie is a haunted subway, in which our heroes venture underground, and encounter a number of spooky oddities, including a ghost train. Something about haunted modes of transportation and unexplored underground catacombs beneath a busy city just feels ripe for story potential and creative ideas. In fact, it reminds me of an episode from “The Real Ghostbusters” titled “Knock, Knock”, which also focused on the team discovering an underground ghost station leading to a dark and spooky dimension. Supposedly, a proposed script for a potential Ghostbusters sequel would have involved crossing over into a ghostly dimension … which sounds awesome.
Getting back to “Ghostbusters 2”, it’s also frequently criticized for hitting familiar beats from the plot of the first movie, which is true, but it’s still not without its own iconography.
Aside from the cursed painting and haunted subway, we also have an underground river of slime feeding off of negative emotions, a cute bit with a dancing toaster, a shock moment with a creature emerging from a bathtub, and the Statue of Liberty coming to life at the end. Despite being another giant mascot marching through New York (and nowhere near as great as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man), I’m still quite fond of this Statue of Liberty finale. I like seeing something giant aiding the team as opposed to threatening them, but a part of me wishes we got a Kaiju inspired climax with the statue battling that giant Ghost monster we saw earlier in the montage. Still, the final battle we get with Vigo is satisfying enough, which I can also say about this film as a whole.
It’s not a great sequel by any means, nor is it one that I return to that often, but it has its highlights and still serves as a novelty item of sorts. It’s the only direct Ghostbusters sequel to feature the main cast in their prime, and while they don’t have anything that fresh to work with, the charm and charisma is at least present on the surface. There’s a reason fans have a soft spot for this movie, as it’s not a terrible sequel, just an average one, with some above average moments spread throughout.
Thanks for reading my review of the
1989 sequel “Ghostbusters 2” … and continue to enjoy the movies you
Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment