Posted August 11, 2016
I didn't even know that there seems to be a general dislike for Ghostbusters 2 untill the media buzz for the new reboot started. Then I noticed in a lot of comments, and sometimes in articles and news too that there the 1989 sequel seems to get a lot of bad press. It really surprised me, because I din't remember it being bad at all. But I though "hey, maybe I was just a dumb kid, maybe it really doesn't hold up?" So I rewatched both movies recently and... I still don't get it. It may not be quite as good as the first, but there is no huge drop in quality here, and definately nothing to warrant outright hostility. In fact, as sequels go, it's really one of the better ones. The cast is all there, the visuals are good, it's still funny, what's the problem? The only real difference I've noticed is that the second movie leans a bit more towards the horror side of things. It's not outright scary, but there is a lot of really creepy/messed up stuff (likr the heads on pikes in the subway), and some of the jokes are quite dark (like the Titanic scene, which I really liked by the way). So is that it?