I like the first Ghostbusters more from a story/plot point of view, but I always end up laughing out loud a lot more while watching Ghostbusters 2. So I can never decide which one is better. Is it better for a comedy to be more interesting, or is it better if it’s funnier? Of course, comedy is very subjective, so I have no idea if most other people find the second movie as funny as I do.
I don’t laugh at the second movie at all. In my opinion, it’s terrible.
On an unrelated note, my wife loves Evolution, so I wind up seeing it fairly often. It’s okay–not great, not terrible–and it’s far better than Ghostbusters II.
Yeah, like I said, comedy is weird like that. I’ve only seen Evolution once, in the theaters, and I remember that I was very bitter when I left, since I hadn’t laughed a single time. But Ghostbusters 2 cracks me up every single time.
I love when Stiffler tries to lure a beast, doing “Cuckooooo. Cu…ckoooo?”
And there was a nice chemistry between the main actors.
That’s strange, my girlfriend is really into Evolution as well - and hates GB2.
I can watch it, but I can’t see it having significant quality over the other.
The one part in Evolution that actually makes me laugh - and quite a bit - is the door bit.
“I do this.”
Maybe I need to watch GB2 again, but I really didn’t enjoy it, and I loved the first film
I’m looking forward to seeing the trailer for that as well.
The soundtrack in Ghostbusters 2 is awesome. Bobby Brown, bitches!
Also:
“When there’s somethin’ strange in your neighborhood, who you gonna call?”
“He-Man! He-Man! He-Man!”
Ungrateful yuppie larva.
I can’t see a Ghostbusters 3 being anything other than forced and mediocre.
And would still be a better watch than whatever comes out most weeks.
I laughed at one thing in Ghostbusters II. Weaver asks Murray if he could put down the baby, and he says something like “OK… you’re fat, kinda smelly, and you’re a terrible burden on your poor mother.”
what these charts tell me is that you can sell at least some portion of the population practically ANYTHING.
I’ve always had a soft spot for Evolution. Orlando Jones is amusing. David Duchovny isn’t taking himself seriously at all. And God forgive me, I like Seann William Scott. I haven’t seen it in a while. I should dig out the CD and rewatch it.
LOL Jaws. :P
Those charts seem pretty accurate to me. Except the Rambo one. I thought part two was supposed to be the best one? And the newest one was just boring.
The Empire Strikes Back.
There are plenty of funny moments in Ghostbusters 2 - if it doesn’t make you laugh at all, then you need to get over yourself. It is far from the same quality as the original, but there are maybe 5 sequels to outstanding movies that ever have been (Empire, Godfather 2, Aliens, The Dark Knight and Terminator 2), not counting the Lord of the Rings movies (which didn’t have to come up with new twists on the original because their plots were already written).
Hopefully the fact that it has been years since the originals means this won’t be a forced attempt to squeeze more life out of a once-great franchise. If Murray is in it and it is written by writers from The Office, it should at least be decent.
And by that criteria would still not be worth paying to see, at least for me. Nostalgia doesn’t cut it anymore when you have to pony upwards of $12 a pop to see a mainstream film these days.
The fact that The Office writers are working on it means little – anyone can put out a stinker.
It’s been 25 years since Ghostbusters came out. Sometimes it’s better to just leave things be.
Maybe not. I don’t know. I tend not to go out to the theater anyways …
I certainly can’t understand deciding against it so far in advance. How is the time from the original any definitive indicator?
Why are any potential positive factors, such as the writers, null and the negatives doubly weighted?
Lincoln said it best.
So, ignoring the actual scores, looking solely at the differences - do they tell you anything else?