Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 45 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: The Ghostbusters take up their proton packs once more to battle the forces of evil in Manhattan! After waging a war on slime that cost New York City millions, the they find themselves out of business until an ancient tyrant, preparing a return to the Earthly domain through his portrait at the Manhattan Museum of Modern Art, sets his sights on Dana Barrett's baby as the new home for his wicked soul! With the help of the Museum's possessed curator, he plans to turn New York into a really scary place to live! Now only the Ghostbusters can save New York City, by turning paranormal pest control into an art form! Expand
  • Director: Ivan Reitman
  • Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Comedy
  • Rating: TV-PG
  • Runtime: 108 min
  • More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 14
  2. Negative: 2 out of 14
  1. Even the special effects are more to the point of the comedy than they were in the first film. For some reason, this appears to leave more room for the sort of random funny business that Mr. Murray and his friends do best, or to which they react with most aplomb.
  2. 80
    Here, the comedy breathes, and the illusion that it's not a factory-assembled product (which it most certainly is) is a nifty one. For a major studio blockbuster, the thing is darned chummy, and above all, that rare, modest thing, a good show.
  3. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    Ghostbusters II is babyboomer silliness. Kids will find the oozing slime and ghastly, ghostly apparitions to their liking and adults will enjoy the preposterously clever dialog.
  4. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    The movie and everyone in it remain, under Ivan Reitman's determinedly casual direction, very loosely organized. They amble agreeably, but not necessarily hilariously, from one special-effects sequence to the next. These are not better, worse or even different from the original's trick work, and their lack of punctuating surprise is the film's largest problem, especially at the shamelessly repetitive climax. [26 June 1989, p.89]
  5. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
  6. Reviewed by: Llyod Sachs
    As amiable and formfitting as Ghostbusters II can be, it's a thin, dimly conceived affair. For all its rave-up special effects, it adds little to director Ivan Reitman's original, which itself was no fountain of wit but at least had a fresh gimmick going for it. [16 Jun 1989, p.37]
  7. The best thing in the movie is Peter MacNicol as Dana's boss at the museum, a slippery character with an incomprehensible accent. [16 Jun 1989, p. E1]

See all 14 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 9
  2. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. Mar 14, 2011
    I saw this movie years before seeing the first one, which is probably why I liked this sequel better than the original. Still, I love it because it was the one that made me a huge Ghostbusters fan. Collapse
  2. Jan 11, 2014
    Not a bad follow-up to the original. Though there are some typical sequel staples, like more characters, more special effects and a similar plot line, this film fares well. Expand
  3. Jun 23, 2013
    The sequel to the mid-80's hit is just that little bit better than the first thanks to just having a little more action and laughs as well as just being a bit more updated also. Again, because its from the 80's I was late seeing it until probably the late 90's and while I liked it, it's just sitting in that average stage for me. Great to see all the main players from the first film back of course with the addition of a few newbies. Overall a decent sequel that manages to top the first, just Expand
  4. May 25, 2014
    Ghostbusters II is a good sequel but its not on the level of the first movie. Granted i still enjoy the hell out of this movie even to this day. The cast is amazing with all the main characters returning from the previous installment so that was nice. My problem with it though is that for most of the first half of the movie it felt disjointed and it seemed like there was a lack of comedy which is a shame becuase thats what makes these movies so great i know compared to the first film i barely laughed. Also Bill Murray was rarely helping out the Ghostbusters and spent most of his time with Sigourney Weaver i understand that it was about building a relationship between them but it gave off the feel that the Ghostbusters dont really even need him anymore.

    Overall i give it a 7.0 If Ghostbusters III ever gets made it will be cool to see how it turns out also i would LOVE To see Rick Moranis in it.
  5. Feb 15, 2014
    Not nearly as good as the first film in the Ghostbusters series, but like the first still manages to capture the viewer in the strange world of the paranormal--In a comedic way. Expand
  6. Sep 5, 2014
    It tried to be a copy of the first one and was a disappointment. However, there are a few things that are worth seeing like lady liberty walking while being controlled by an Nes controller. Expand
  7. Oct 5, 2013
    II is not nearly as good or funny as the original, but little bits and pieces are amusing, especially Dana's boss that doesn't ever utter a coherent word. Expand

See all 9 User Reviews