Ghostbusters 2 Critic Reviews

Metascore®:

63 =
Based upon 8 Critic Reviews
See all Ghostbusters 2 reviews at
Sorted by:
Washington Post | Hal HinsonAdd Critic to Favorites

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.Read the full review

The New York Times | Vincent CanbyAdd Critic to Favorites

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.Read the full review

Variety | Staff (Not Credited)Add Critic to Favorites

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.Read the full review

Washington Post | Desson HoweAdd Critic to Favorites

Everything and everyone you liked in the original are there. But GB II often seems like "Ghostbusters: The Preview Reel, Extended Mix," with its rather see-through buffet of special effects, comic bits and music-video transitions.Read the full review

Los Angeles Times | Sheila BensonAdd Critic to Favorites

Ghostbusters II doesn't seem to be pushing as hard as its predecessor, which of course makes it even more fun. There's an old-shoeishness to the proceedings; even Murray's owlish put-downs seem a little less snide-they're almost affectionate, if that's not too outrageous a word in this context. [16 Jun 1989, p.1]Read the full review

USA Today | Mike ClarkAdd Critic to Favorites

Jumbo budget and the same talent notwithstanding, the element of surprise is missing. And ghostbusters, it seems, need that every bit as much as their targets. [16 Jun 1989, p.1D]Read the full review

Chicago Sun-Times | Llyod SachsAdd Critic to Favorites

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]Read the full review

San Francisco Chronicle | Mick LaSalleAdd Critic to Favorites

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]Read the full review

Track Your Favorite Critics | Start Now