Two more days! Two more days!
GHOSTBUSTERS II (1989)
Blogtober Qualifications: Ghosts, slime, Carpathian warlords, everyone telling you the sequel isn't as good as the original
*Spoiler warning for Ghostbusters (1984), but if you were paying attention you'd have already watched it*
Five years after the events of the first movie, things haven't been going as well as we were led to believe. The Ghosbusters are out of business, no longer allowed to fight ghosts, and no one seems to believe in them anymore.
Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are keeping the name alive, but they've been reduced to performing at birthday parties. Egon (Harold Ramis) is off doing science stuff. And Peter (Bill Murray) is hosting a cheap daytime television show featuring fraudulent psychics.
Before long, however, big trouble comes back. New York seems like it's heading towards the end of the world once again, and there's only one group of guys that can handle it. At least, that's the hope.
So. Whenever Ghostbusters II comes up in conversation, someone will invariably have the seemingly instinctive response of telling you that it sucks. It's never quite descended to the level of outright hate, but it's "common knowledge" that Ghostbusters II is no good.
Ask me, that's completely unfair.
Does it reach the lofty heights of its forebear? No. Was it ever going to? Probably not. It's entirely possible nothing ever will. But let's take a closer look.
All of the principal cast is back, less EPA agent Walter Peck. Instead we have the mayor's assistant Jack Hardemeyer, played by Kurt Fuller, playing essentially the exact same role he plays in every other movie. Seriously, you need an obviously sleazy dude in a suit in the 1980s? You call Kurt Fuller.
Anyway, almost everyone else is the same, and they're all still great. A few more small facets are added to each character here and there (Egon seems to have lightened up), but these are still the same characters. This is a very good thing. In fact, the argument could be made that this movie does a better job of showcasing the relationships between the Ghostbusters themselves. There are multiple scenes of the four of them just talking and goofing around. Winston, especially, feels a lot more like one of the group than he did in the first movie, which for my money is more than deserved.
Our one new major character is Dr. Janosz Poha, played by Peter MacNicol, and he's a great addition. He's weird, and for most of the movie he's more or less a villain, but he's tons of fun to watch. He clearly had a lot of fun with his character, and he gets some of the best little funny lines.
Okay, minor spoilers here, because this is where it gets serious. The major complaint people have with this movie is that it's too similar to the first, which I guess I can kind of understand. Hardemeyer is just Peck again, his relationship with Peter is the same. The Ghostbusters find trouble and no one believes them, which leads to even more trouble, and they have to convince the mayor to back them up. The Ghostbusters are incarcerated. A giant thing stomps through New York. Yes, if you want to boil things down, all of these things are similar to things that happened in the first movie. But I have two counter-arguments.
Thing one is that most of these scenes, similar though they may seem at first blush, actually put a different spin on the scenes they're similar to. When the Ghostbusters appeal to the mayor, he doesn't buy it, and refuses to support them. Yeah, he eventually comes around, but the scene goes in a direction different from what you expect. And the giant thing stomping through New York is on the side of the good guys this time around. Taking a familiar element and putting a new spin on it is something sequels and follow-ups have been doing for eons, so I don't understand why this one gets so much guff for it.
Thing numero dos is the simple fact that something being similar to something else doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Certain things are similar, yes (though less than people would have you believe), but they're still enjoyable. The characters are still likable, the comedy is still funny, and the world is still fascinating. This is a setting in which I love learning more. Oh, and the effects are still mostly great, so there's that too.
All that being said, I do have some complaints. One similarity that does bother me is that Dana Barrett is once again at the center of all the paranormal goings-on. Still, if I can play devil's advocate for a second, this is far from unique to Ghostbusters. Have you ever played the Ace Attorney series of games? If not, you should, but it's amazing in those games how often the same people are either wrongfully accused of murder, or witnesses in a murder trial. And that's just the first thing I thought of. Still, it is something that bothers me, even if I understand the necessity of it.
My other main complaint is with the main villain, Vigo the Carpathian, played by Wilhelm von Homburg. There's not really anything wrong with him specifically, he just seems like a big step down in threat level from Gozer in the first movie. We've gone from interdimensional Babylonian (well, Sumerian) god to a dude who killed a bunch of people (okay, a bunch of people), and whose ultimate goal is to take over the world... but first he has to possess a baby. Still, he cuts an imposing figure. And, unlike Gozer, he's around for most of the movie.
So no, it's not perfect. And no, it's not as good as the first. But it is a more than adequate follow-up to it. So much noise is made about how amazing 2009's Ghostbusters: The Video Game is, as well as IDW's Ghostbusters comic series. Both of these are hailed by fans as "true follow-ups" to the original movie. And yes, I agree with those opinions, but Ghostbusters II definitely deserves to be included in that group. And believe me, the video game (which is great, don't get me wrong) rehashes a lot more from the first movie than Ghostbusters II does, but you never hear that as a complaint. What even?
My point is, if you enjoyed Ghostbusters, you owe it to yourself to see the sequel. And then play the video game, and then read the comics. They are all more than worth your time. We may never have gotten a third movie, but we did get a second one.
And don't you forget it.
Tomorrow we kick it in the '80s for the final time this year, and one actor makes their third appearance!
Until next time!
Current interests:
Listening - Dio: Sacred Heart (1985)
Playing - Super Mario Odyssey (2017)
Reading - The Complete Books of Blood (Clive Barker, 1984)
Watching - Kamen Rider Kiva (2008)
Thing numero dos is the simple fact that something being similar to something else doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Certain things are similar, yes (though less than people would have you believe), but they're still enjoyable. The characters are still likable, the comedy is still funny, and the world is still fascinating. This is a setting in which I love learning more. Oh, and the effects are still mostly great, so there's that too.
All that being said, I do have some complaints. One similarity that does bother me is that Dana Barrett is once again at the center of all the paranormal goings-on. Still, if I can play devil's advocate for a second, this is far from unique to Ghostbusters. Have you ever played the Ace Attorney series of games? If not, you should, but it's amazing in those games how often the same people are either wrongfully accused of murder, or witnesses in a murder trial. And that's just the first thing I thought of. Still, it is something that bothers me, even if I understand the necessity of it.
My other main complaint is with the main villain, Vigo the Carpathian, played by Wilhelm von Homburg. There's not really anything wrong with him specifically, he just seems like a big step down in threat level from Gozer in the first movie. We've gone from interdimensional Babylonian (well, Sumerian) god to a dude who killed a bunch of people (okay, a bunch of people), and whose ultimate goal is to take over the world... but first he has to possess a baby. Still, he cuts an imposing figure. And, unlike Gozer, he's around for most of the movie.
So no, it's not perfect. And no, it's not as good as the first. But it is a more than adequate follow-up to it. So much noise is made about how amazing 2009's Ghostbusters: The Video Game is, as well as IDW's Ghostbusters comic series. Both of these are hailed by fans as "true follow-ups" to the original movie. And yes, I agree with those opinions, but Ghostbusters II definitely deserves to be included in that group. And believe me, the video game (which is great, don't get me wrong) rehashes a lot more from the first movie than Ghostbusters II does, but you never hear that as a complaint. What even?
My point is, if you enjoyed Ghostbusters, you owe it to yourself to see the sequel. And then play the video game, and then read the comics. They are all more than worth your time. We may never have gotten a third movie, but we did get a second one.
And don't you forget it.
Tomorrow we kick it in the '80s for the final time this year, and one actor makes their third appearance!
Until next time!
Current interests:
Listening - Dio: Sacred Heart (1985)
Playing - Super Mario Odyssey (2017)
Reading - The Complete Books of Blood (Clive Barker, 1984)
Watching - Kamen Rider Kiva (2008)
No comments:
Post a Comment