I watched 2 films tonight. Ghostbusters 1 followed by Ghostbusters 2.
Ghostbusters was the first film I can ever remember seeing at the cinema. I was 5 when it was released and although I loved it, I remember being a little scared at times (give me a break, I was 5!). It's easy to look back at childhood films with rose tinted glasses but after watching it today I have to say that it has stood the test of time and remains a great film.
Sadly, the same cannot be said about it's sequal which was released 5 years later in 1989.
According to wikipedia, the film was produced for only $25 million ($5 million less than the original) but still managed to take in over $200 million of earnings (just goes to show how much money sequels can generate!). Unfortunately, the film was a huge let down. I won't go as far as saying that the film is terrible because it's at least watchable. But it's very average (at best).
The plot, if you could call it that, is incredibly poor. It starts off with Sigourney Weavers 8 month old baby chasing away from her down the street. The reason : there's evil sludge lurking in the sewers of New York and some guy from the renaissance who is stuck in a painting needs the baby to become alive again.
Nothing really happens except from wife beater Bobby Browns awful tie-in song popping up 2 or 3 times. For some reason he also has a cameo though the cameo makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with the plot at all.
I'm a huge fan of Dan Aykroyd and have nothing but admiration for the work that Harold Ramis has done (he did help write Ghostbusters 1, CaddyShack and Animal House after all!) but I can't but feel incredibly let down with this film. The film has a rushed feel about it but this film was released 5 years after the original so surely they were under no immediate pressure to get a film made regardless of the quality of the screenplay. I have no doubt that if the 2nd film was a bigger success, we have seen a trilogy.
Instead, we will have to make do with a remake in a few years with some cameo appearances from the original cast.
I appreciate that sequels are difficult to write for, rarely meet expectations and are usually worst than the first film (excluding Empire Strikes Back, Godfather II etc) ; but surely they could have done more with the Ghostbusters brand.
Perhaps I am being really harsh and I'm stuffering from post film depression. What do you think of Ghostbusters 2 : do you think it suck balls as much as I think it does?