Last week I wrote about one of my favorite films, Ghostbusters (1984).  It’s the kind of flick that would never get made today, because the entire premise—a group of former academics-turned-paranormal-exterminators saving New York City—is too outrageous and original for any Hollywood studio to touch.  Thank goodness for the creative ferment of the 1980s!

Regardless, Ghostbusters has always had a special place in my heart (read last week’s review for a detailed retelling of my quest to obtain the film on DVD in 2010), and while it is controversial to write it, I have always enjoyed its sequel, the oft-delayed Ghostbusters II (1989).

Part of that enjoyment comes from seeing the film constantly on basic cable in my childhood.  They played GBII on heavy repeat.  As such, I’ve always associated the film with the 1990s, and even though it was released in 1989, it definitely has a more “Nineties” feel to it than the original, which definitely feels like the 1980s.

All of the commentary about Ghostbusters II at the time of its release—and to this day—is that the film is a poor one compared to the original, and that it doesn’t capture the spirit of the original.  It’s often deemed a failure, but according to the film’s Wikipedia entry, it grossed $215.4 million in box office receipts against a budget of $40 million.  Maybe the flick is a failure in an artistic or cultural sense—maybe—but it certainly wasn’t a financial flop.

Besides, we’re talking about Ghostbusters here.  It’s not exactly high art.  But neither is it low-brow prop comedy.  The argument seems to be that the first Ghostbusters film was a massive success in a cultural sense, but Ghostbusters II failed to make the same impact… even as it, according to Wikipedia, “spawned a series of merchandise including video games, board games, comic books, music, toys, and haunted houses.”

Well, maybe it did kill the chance for a proper Ghostbusters III, but I’d pin that more on Bill Murray’s reticence than the film itself.

Whatever the case, what of the flick?  Well, I like it.  Yes, it’s not as good as the original—few sequels ever are—but it’s pretty dang enjoyable in its own right.

The film picks up with the Ghostbusters—who should be international heroes—destroyed due to various lawsuits.  They’re all pursuing various side hustles to try to pay their debts.  This sad fate is fitting with the theme of the film, which is all about the dangerous effects of negative emotions.

Those negative emotions are feeding a massive river of slime just below the city’s streets.  As New Yorkers get mad at one another, the slime starts to manifest dangerous apparitions, including the monstrous Vigo the Carpathian, a scary dude in a painting with mystical powers.

There’s a whole plot about Vigo using a Polish museum worker to steal Sigourney Weaver’s baby so that Vigo can return to life as a powerful wizard.  That’s not very interesting.  But what’s fun is watching the Ghostbusters muck around in the slime and figuring out that it’s powered by negative emotions.

I also vividly remember the scene where the pink slime comes up through the bathtub in Dana Barrett’s (Sigourney Weaver’s) apartment to try to steal baby Oscar.  That terrified me as a kid.  I imagine many kids who came of age in the 1990s were similarly scared of the bathtub drain—much to their parents’ chagrin—after seeing that scene.

The film culminates, of course, with an epic set piece:  the Ghostbusters encasing the Statue of Liberty in slime charged with positive emotions, and riding it to the museum to save the baby.

It’s ridiculous.  It’s over-the-top.  It’s a little stupid, yes.  But isn’t that what a 1980s sequel is supposed to be?  The original film, but more—even and especially to absurd degrees.

I’m not going to say Ghostbusters II is a great film.  But it is good entertainment with an amazing cast.  Sometimes, that’s enough.

One final coda:  would you rather live in a universe without Ghostbusters II?  Answer honestly.  I think the answer is “no.”