Was it really that bad?
>>67148787
Not really. The angry slime bit was pretty good and the evil painting guy worked well.
Still not as good as the original.
No, it's not bad. Just pointless.
Same plot as Ghostbusters 1, but with a different premise. Visually, it was neat though, and it had some new jokes that were just as funny and fresh as anything you'd find in the first movie.
>We had part of a slinky... but I straightened it.
>>67148886
>leaving out based yonosh
>>67148787
Yes.
Any time there's a baby heavily involved in what should be a "bro" movie, it sucks the life right out of it with all the "awwwwwww" scenes they use for the bitches.
loved it, but seriously wtf was this about?
>>67149691
sequel to 3 men and a baby
flashlight eyes in the hallway used to freak me the fuck out as a kid.
same with the ghost dude with the stroller outside the window and possessed Ray.
Good movie, but not on the same level as the first.
Objectively, yeah, it was pretty bad. I mean, the characters literally sing the Ghostbusters' song in the first five minutes of the movie.
They control the Statue of Liberty with that one giant NES control pad.
That said, I liked it when I was a kid, so I still have fond memories of it. But I'm not going to argue with anyone who thinks it's shit.
>>67148886
>evil painting guy
You mean Viggo the Carpathian? Vigo the Cruel? Vigo the Torturer? Vigo the Despised? Vigo the Unholy?!
HE IS VIGO! YOU ARE LIKE THE BUZZING OF FLIES TO HIM
>>67149691
>>67149832
i liked the run dmc remix of the the theme tho
i didn't know the order of the movies as a kid and accidentally watched the second movie first
>>67149832
That birthday party with Ray and Winston was great. And Venkman having his own shitty talk show and Egon doing weird experiments.
It was a good "what has happened since the last movie" intro I thought.
>>67149938
the ghostbusters being in the shithouse makes sense because of all the charges against them they had before even confronting zuul.
but we all agree that dickless, the epa guy was melted by the hot marshmallow that fell on him and was killed instantly right?
>>67148787
Loved it when I was a kid, but after watching it recently it just feels not as good. It has great scenes, but feels like it's missing something.
>>67149901
>i didn't know the order of the movies as a kid
>watched the second movie first
>the second movie
>first
>Ghostbusters 2
>2
>first
your parents meet at a family reunion, anon?
>>67151159
no, i just didn't speak english back then
>>67151177
seems like you still don't.
>>67151177
what number system did you use?
On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a throne of blood. What was will be. What is will be no more. Now is the season of evil.
Not at all, honestly. It's ultimately a perfectly serviceable film, with decent gags and really good effects.
Its major problem, and this really can't be overlooked, is that it's extremely lazy from a screenwriting perspective. It's one of those sequels that simply repeat the plot and structure from the first one, instead of taking the scenario and evolving it. It sort of works with movies like Die Hard 2 (and even that one is heavily contested), but Ghostbusters 2 had to reset nearly all progress and development from the original in order to make the formular work again, and that's where the whole issue stems from. From what I understand, Men in Black 2 did that as well, basically negating the first movie's ending in order to force Tommy Lee Jones back into the story, so they can play out a mad-libs rendition of the original plot, with the same character dynamic.
As I said, it's lazy and comes from Hollywood's fear of taking risks, preferring instead to stick to established and profitable ideas and structures. That's why, for example, every single part of the Transformers series is essentially the same movie with minor variations.
In short, Ghostbusters 2 wasn't bad at all, but way too lazy and safe to really work.
>>67148787
It's good, but it was just a cashgrab
