kellym40 film review

Love knows no boundaries in ‘Beauty and the Beast’

Rating 3/5

This review is being written never having viewed the 1991 animated classic or the 1946 original or any other incarnation of the classic tale. In viewing the latest version of Beauty and the Beast, one can only think how good it might be. There must be something to this story for it to have seen two television series, the classic Disney animated film, a foreign film from France/Germany in 2014 and now this film version. As I understand, this 2017 version is more of a direct remake of the 1991 Disney classic. At the 1992 Academy Awards, the film was nominated for Best Picture (which apparently was the first animated film to do so) and Best Sound and won Oscars for Best Original Song and Best Original Score.

This film version has its merits and does bring some of the magic and wonder that you might expect from Disney in a tale like this. Bill Condon directed this story from writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos and has produced a new version for new viewers. The cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler was marvelous to look at and added to the film with musical numbers like “Be Our Guest.” From the depictions of small villages to the vast countryside and from the crowded, treacherous woods to the grand castle in which lived the prince (Beast), the cinematography brought the characters and surroundings to life.

The acting in this film seemed short of extraordinary, but that is not to say the performances were dull or plain, they just appeared to fit and served the purpose of the story. The film starred Emma Watson as Belle, the fair beauty of the land, who lived with her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), and Dan Stevens as the Prince turned Beast by the Enchantress (Hattie Morahan) because of his vanity and cold soul. Luke Evans portrayed Gaston, a seemingly vain character himself who would do anything to win the affection of the fair Belle, while LeFou (Josh Gad) stood by and unwillingly served him. Not knowing the cast before going in to seeing this film, I was surprised at some of the acting talents that lent their voices through much of the film, talents such as Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and Stanley Tucci. Of course there were many others (because musicals usually bring large casts to the production) whose faces we did not see for much of the film that did a wonderful job with their voice characterizations.

I believe the musical score and choreography were worthy of most any big stage musical production and the CGI seemed to flow flawlessly through the musical numbers. So, hats off to the original animated inspiration. There might be differing views here, though. While this production’s musical performance served its purpose for this production, from what I understand, it might pale in comparison to the 1991 animated classic in some aspects. Not having seen the animated version, I can’t quite adequately compare the two. But I, regardless if the film is a remake, a remake of the remake, or some sort of adaptation of the original source material, I take it as I see it in the current version. In this case, this musical version appeared to serve its purpose – and I believe that purpose is to entertain and be visually stunning while still maintaining a true sense of story.

Even with its merits, stunning cinematography, and near flawless CGI action sequences, the film does suffer from some inadequacies. In part, the aforementioned CGI, but mostly the relationship between the Beast and Belle. It seemed a bit rushed and the sense of connection between the two wasn’t quite strong enough for me. I wanted a little more to be truly believable. From what I understand, the backstory of how Belle lost her mother was a nice little addition to the story and character, but I’m not sure if it was truly warranted.

There was some talk in the film’s release about some “gay characters.” I don’t consider this a true issue or controversy. There might have been a “sense” of it if you were actually looking for it, but it was not overtly done and was done with enough subtlety that I don’t believe should really be an issue. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

This new version of Beauty and the Beast fell just short of remarkable, but still had enough story and action to keep me engaged with the characters to make this an enjoyable film to watch. At some point, I will have to visit the 1991 animated version to truly compare the two (as I have with other remakes) to test the true virtue with this story. Until then, I leave you with this enlightening and entertaining film.

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Deception prevails in ‘Basic’

Rating 2/5

A movie starring names like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson you think would deliver something more. I thought this would be a solid military thriller that would bring some decent action and story to the audience. While the film did have some action, a story, and varied characters, what was left was a contrived piece of film that didn’t reveal itself until the final few minutes of runtime in which I was relieved it was finally over. Deception prevails. Not just in the film’s storyline but for the audience as well.

I’m not sure what writer James Vanderbilt was trying to accomplish. I suppose it was an attempt to intrigue and entertain the audience, but this audience was not amused. It had a decent set up and got the story going into the second act but then slowly unraveled until the final, even more confusing (for lack of a better word), third act. The movie’s direction seemed instinctive, based on the material presented in the script, but director John McTiernan failed to give it any real life.

I don’t even want to attempt to give a synopsis or give away any plot, as I do not want to confuse myself or the reader. That is not to say I am easily confused, but as the story kept unfolding and revealed twist after twist, I became disengaged from the film. And then I found myself just waiting for the final act to complete so I could put away the madness. Maybe some people are entertained by that sort of thing. However, I like some plot twists and turns as much as the next eager movie-goer, but when it seems to go on and on as in this film, it just sort of takes me out. I mean it seemed like most of the second act had several surprising twists. And this went right on in through the third act.

The performances were nothing extraordinary, but catered to the needs of the film. Travolta played his character with energy and charisma as a DEA investigator. Jackson gave his usual commanding, foul-mouthed, performance as a military sergeant. Connie Nielsen, Tim Daly, Harry Connick, Jr., Giovanni Ribisi, Brian Van Holt, Taye Diggs, Dash Mihok, Cristian de la Fuente, and Roselyn Sanchez round out the main cast and played their respective roles well, but there just didn’t appear to be anything that made these characters really stand out and care for what happened to them.

I gave it my best. Basic was released in 2003. I first saw this film maybe a year or so after it was released. I recently came across it and thought I would give it another viewing. I remember it having some twists in it but not like this. If I were to view the film again and again, there might be some subtle hints to piece together the story and plot, but I don’t think I could sit through another take on it. Most likely if it didn’t really catch my interest to begin with, then it would be likely it wouldn’t catch my interest for a third or fourth time. Even with the charisma and energy from the actors, seemingly confident production team, and experienced director, the film fell into a huge mess of a storm like the hurricane depicted in the film.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘Super’ tells crime to shut up

Rating 3/5

I had reservations while viewing this film. Like a previous statement I made “You can’t judge a film by its trailer,” so it is with this film. It seems to be billed as a comedy, but plays out in an entirely different way. I can see where some might be turned off and find it unlikable. But if you put away any preconceived ideas and expectations you may have (like expecting something funny and upbeat) and open up to what the film is, it might just be bearable, or even enjoyable. And, despite its themes and explicit action, Super does have its merits.

With this film, writer-director James Gunn appears to ask the question, “What lengths would one go to if your wife fell under the influence of bad people?” He takes a real situation and turns it into a somewhat authentic reality. There is some humor in the film, but again, the trailer seemed misleading here. I don’t think Gunn intended this to be a straightforward comedy, or even a black comedy. And while the film turned a corner and strayed off the comedy path, the characters stayed true to themselves and played through the story’s action throughout the film.

While themes may be blurred and the film’s purpose may be unclear at times, it does have varied and somewhat interesting characters. And since the characters are more or less drawn into a seemingly real situation, one might wonder what someone else would do in a similar situation. Maybe not to the extent our main character goes to in the film, but some other similar action.

Super is a character driven film and seems to be driven by the lead character, a short-order cook, Frank (Rainn Wilson). Frank is an average guy and is married to, what he thinks is the woman of his dreams, Sarah (Liv Tyler). Sarah is a recovering addict and is then caught up in the hands of a slick drug dealer, Jacques (Kevin Bacon). When Sarah goes missing, Frank is determined Jacques had something to do with that and is determined to get her back. While watching a Christian cable channel, he gets a notion to emulate a superhero that stops evildoers with the power of God. Looking for more inspiration, Frank goes to a comic book store where he meets Libby (Ellen Page), a lively clerk who knows her comic superheroes. To get to Jacques, Frank dons the identity of a masked superhero, the Crimson Bolt, and takes the motto, “Shut up, crime!” Armed with a large wrench, he takes on evil wherever it may be by hiding behind dumpsters all day waiting for crime to happen.

What Frank becomes seems more like a mad man beating people senseless over petty things. But ultimately what drives him is stopping the ultimate evil, Jacques, and getting Sarah back. Libby finds out Frank is the Crimson Bolt and then becomes his junior sidekick, Boltie. She then helps Frank take on crime and go after Jacques.

The performances here are nothing stellar, but they do provide interesting enough dynamics in their character relationships that add enough to the story that kept me involved. As I said earlier, the film takes the audience for a ride by teasing one type of film and then exploding in a different direction. That may be off putting to most people, including me. But as a viewed the film, Frank became a character I connected with and wanted to see the outcome to the end. Super is not your ordinary superhero movie. Nor is it a laugh-a-minute riot. It may not be super, but it does have some merit.

kellym40 film review

‘The Magnificent Seven,’ a classic story of good and bad

Rating 3/5

I’ve said many times that they just don’t make movies like they did in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. I mean I haven’t come across too many (from the films I have seen) that have not delivered in some fantastical way to say, “That was a great film.” And while this film was a great film and I did enjoy it, something missed for me in its final production.

Some may say this is one of the greatest films of all time. They may even say it’s one of the best westerns of all time. Either way, I can’t really argue. What missed for me were parts of the first act and small portions of the middle seemed to drag a little, which then threw the pacing off for me. Not enough to take me out of the film entirely, but just enough skew my impression of the film. But I figured with the recent remake released, I would take a look at this one (which is an Americanized version of the Japanese film, Seven Samurai).

The story is set in a small farming village, just south of the border. A bandit named Calvera (Eli Wallach) rides in with his army of bandits and steals most everything he can get his hands on. The villagers decide they should fight back. A few head north to buy guns so they can fight back. Instead, they meet Chris (Yul Brynner), a gunfighter who recommends they hire men to help with their problem rather than buy guns. Chris then agrees to help, recruiting six other gunfighters, each with different backgrounds. He ultimately rounds up the six others and together they ride back to the village. The odds seemed stacked against them, but with faith and determination on their side, well…odds be damned.

The acting lineup was superb and each actor brought his own to the characters and commanded the use of dialogue from writer William Roberts. Most of these actors were relatively unknown at the time, with the exception of a few. But they played their roles well and commanded the screen with their presence. Brynner leads the cast with Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Robert Vaughn, Charles Bronson, Brad Dexter, and Horst Buchholz rounding out the Magnificent Seven. Taking his turn as the antagonist is Wallach. These character portrayals are genuine and bring individuality, which adds to the unique chemistry between them. They don’t really have any other commitments. They go along from job to job just living their lives, which propels them to do the best job they know how.

Director John Sturges blends together the action, dialogue, and story into a thrilling, nearly linear, adventure (except for those aforementioned parts of the film). This straight forward approach to the film brings the characters to the forefront that much more with each character’s varied and interesting backgrounds. The story, character interactions, and the gun fights are what kept me wanting to see the film to the end. The cinematography and music, helmed by Charles Lang and Elmer Bernstein respectively, added much to the film while underscoring key elements such as the gun fights or the lower, deeper music played when the bad guys entered the frame. And the fact the film was Oscar-nominated for Best Musical Score, proves the great effect it had on the film and audiences.

The Magnificent Seven runs 128 minutes (which might account for some of the slow pacing moments), but it gets into the story and characters quickly and gives the audience what it needs to go along for the ride. It might be just shy of magnificent, but it holds its own and has become an instant classic.

kellym40 film review

‘The Lego Movie’ snaps together, brings fun entertainment

Rating 4/5

When I first saw the previews for The Lego Movie, I wasn’t sure what to think. Of course, it seems like there has been a run of success with Lego video games base on films like Star Wars, so why not have a film like this. I was pleasantly surprised and thoroughly entertained. With the success of this film, another film – the Lego Batman Movie – comes to theaters next year.

I remember playing with my Legos often as a child. I had a series of the Lego spaceships and spacemen. I fondly remember my brother attaching firecrackers to the Lego men. For the longest time, I had several with no hands and burnt bodies.

But I digress. The Lego Movie is a wonderfully crafted piece of animation. The film’s story introduces us to Emmet (Chris Pratt), an average guy who is happy with his life (oh, and by the way he is in construction). He is happy to follow the instructions for living implemented by President Business (Will Ferrell). Soon he meets a fiery adventurer called Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) who lets Emmet in a prophecy stating that a hero will rise up to save the people from President Business’ evil plans of using a weapon of mass destruction known as the Kragle.

As Emmet is seemingly mistaken to be the hero, he is introduced to Virtruvius (Morgan Freeman) and Emmet then becomes aware of President Business’ plan. Virtruvius tries to instill the belief that Emmet can be the hero they need in order to stop the dastardly plan. Along the way, Emmet is introduced the team of Master Builders comprised of a 1980’s Spaceman Benny (Charlie Day), (the exact kind that my brother so eloquently blew up), the pirate Metal Beard (Nick Offerman), Batman (Will Arnett) and others that include a few known heroes from the DC Universe.

Writers/directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller masterfully penned a script that has fun, action, and humor, with just the right amount of sentiment to make these characters fully “animated” with life. I found the film’s theme song, “Everything is Awesome,” was a catchy, entertaining song and added to the fun of the film (and was Oscar nominated). The film was a fun, colorful spectacle of imagination brought to life on the screen. Everything seemed to click in this film, from the dialogue and characters to the story and visual effects. With heart, The Lego Movie also showed the idea of working together (despite differences) and accomplishing great things. It taught us to believe in one self; dream big, and that we can be a part of something awesome. The Lego Movie is charming, fun, and very entertaining.

kellym40 film review

Adventure rises in Pixar’s ‘Up’

Rating 3.5/5

Up is one those animated films that doesn’t seem to cater to being a film for “kids,” although it certainly relates to a younger audience, but transcends through all ages. With its use of colors and masterful animation, it brings the characters and story to life.

Another great work from Pixar with Pete Docter directing, Up tells a story of love, loss, adventure, dreaming big, and never giving up. The story begins with two children, Carl and Ellie, who happen to have a chance encounter one day. They discover they both have a love for adventure and hope to one day be explorers. Then, through an elegant montage of bits we see their life as they grow closer, get married, buy a run down house and turn it into their magnificent home, they grow older, and Carl is left to deal with the loss of his wife. This sequence is done without dialogue, while music underscores the entire montage. This quickly, but effectively, sets up the rest of the film. Carl is left to deal with his loss as he soon decides to attach thousands of helium filled balloons to his house and be carried away to Paradise Falls (Carl and Ellie’s dream spot). Little does Carl know he has an unsuspecting stow away aboard his flying house – Jordan, a plucky Wilderness Explorer Scout.

Meanwhile, in Carl’s childhood, another explorer, Charles Muntz, was famous for his adventurous exploits until one of his great discoveries was proved to be false. He vows to return to Paradise Falls and capture one of its creatures to restore his glory. He has spent years in Paradise Falls trying to capture a magnificent, elusive bird. With him are hundreds of dogs, of various breeds, which also cook, clean, serve, as well as perform various other tasks, like helping him hunt the creature. He has also equipped them with collars that enable the dogs to actually speak. He arrived there in his giant airship, which looks more like an oversized zeppelin.

Edward Asner lends his vocal talents to the elder Carl. Charles is voiced by Christopher Plummer, and Jordan Nagai voices the Wilderness Scout, Russell. All of the characters appear as real as any other characters in recent Pixar movies.

I enjoyed this film, although, it did appear to slow down some, it still had just enough to hold my interest and be entertaining. This film had heart. It wasn’t just action and adventure. It had humor and was also emotionally moving at times. It was also a little refreshing to see elderly characters at the heart of the story. Pixar has another stupendous work under their belt with a lot of the credit going to a wonderful screenplay by Bob Peterson and Pete Docter, who were also co-directors. They brought this seemingly wonderfully simple story to life to entertain all audiences.

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Take an octane-driven ride in ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’

Rating 4/5

George Miller’s ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is an example of movie making at its finest. I was pleasantly surprised, because I wasn’t sure how this film would be. At first, I thought it was going to be just another one of Hollywood’s remakes. As I looked into it more, I realized it was a continuing story of Max Rockatansky, a role first performed by Mel Gibson in 1979. The sequel came out in 1981 and a third film was released in 1985. Thirty years later, Miller brings the character back, with the role going to Tom Hardy.

Hardy brings a slightly more rugged look to the character than that of his predecessor, Gibson. But also with it, Hardy brings a lot of energy to the character. He would almost have to after being tied up and tossed around here and there through a lot of the film. Even though he is the title character, he does not carry the film alone. The other performances cannot be left out because this was an ensemble movie. Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Josh Helman, Nathan Jones, Zoe Kravitz, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley round out some of the major players and each single actor exerted the energy to bring the characters to life.

Miller, along with Brendan McCarthy and Nick Lathouris, wrote the script and provided the right amount of action and thrills to keep the film moving for its two hour run time. Miller created the perfect look of a post-apocalyptic world with the scenery, costume, and great cinematography. The film took away six Oscars in film editing, costume design, makeup and hairstyling, sound mixing, sound editing, and production design. All of these elements did not disappoint. The film was quick paced but did allow for the occasional character dialogue for character and story development, but did not slow down for very long to continue the action of the long chase in overhauled, armored vehicles. The film was basically one long chase, complete with explosions and edge-of-your-seat thrills, with a few stops along the way. The film really didn’t let up until the final scene.

Miller came back 30 years since Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was released with another high-energy action adventure in the Mad Max series. And it looks like Miller isn’t done as he is already planning a fifth installment to the series.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Marvel expands its universe with ‘Captain America: Civil War’

Rating 4/5

Marvel released the third installment in the Captain America series as part of the ever-expanding Marvel universe earlier this year. Although the title was Captain America: Civil War, it did feel somewhat more like an Avengers film, and others have agreed with that sentiment. I believe it was a great story to bring to this third Captain America because I believe it did center more on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and his childhood friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). However, the overall story and plot involves every superhero and their ultimate actions and consequences, but I do believe at the heart of it was the relationship between Rogers and Barnes.

Your favorite Avengers are back: Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Vision (Paul Bettany), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), and newcomers Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland).

The performances were as good as any previous Marvel film and even the newcomers performed well in their respective roles. Fans have waited for the appearance of Spider-Man ever since the announcement that Marvel had finally acquired the character from Sony. What I’ve heard and people I’ve talked to say that was one of the highlights of the film. There has been discussion I’m sure as to why Spidey didn’t get a solo film before his appearance in this adventure. All I can say is, “Come on, it’s Spidey.” I mean do we really need another origin film for Spider-Man at this point? With Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man in 2002 and the recent reboot in 2012 with Marc Webb directing The Amazing Spider-Man, I believe fans, and audiences alike, are familiar with the web-head. Now that the character is in the famed Marvel Cinematic Universe, much anticipation awaits for the release of the first solo film, Homecoming – set to be coming July 2017. Some may have considered Spider-Man’s appearance a bit rushed and a poor storyline to add him into the mix, but I disagree. As mentioned, we have already seen two different origin films within the past several years and there was a mention of Spider-Man in Marvel’s Ant-Man. The set up here in Civil War was Tony’s dialogue about the need to see him. So I believe the character is adequately introduced into the Marvel world. The one exception I have (and I may not be alone in this) is casting Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. Not that I have anything against Tomei (she is a wonderful actress), it just seems to be an unusual casting choice on some level (of course the same might be said as casting Sally Field in the role in Marc Webb’s reboot).

But anyhoo.

Back to Cap and the gang. The trailer pointed out a showdown between the heroes with each taking sides – some with Cap and some with Iron Man. The “feud” comes about as the government attempts to intervene and provide an oversight committee, a sort of accountability, for the heroes. Iron Man thinks it’s a good idea and Cap doesn’t. Therefore, you have each taking sides resulting in an ultimate superhero smack down. And that sequence was as compelling as the other fight scenes in The Avengers, but this time it was hero on hero.

What works for me in this film is how directors Anthony and Joe Russo weaved all of the characters, story and visual elements into a cohesive, entertaining film while developing character and story arcs. It was a bit lengthy, coming in at nearly two and a half hours, but there were plenty of action sequences, fights, and character moments that kept me in the film. All of the elements (costume, lighting, cinematography, visual effects, sound) come together in this film to bring these wonderful Marvel characters to life in a fun, entertaining way.

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘Central Intelligence’ fails to be intelligent

Rating 2/5

In mid-June, the film Central Intelligence hit theaters. The movie starred a couple of big names with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Kevin Hart to lead the cast into what looked like a typical action comedy. Rawson Marshall Thurber, whose most recent adventures in film directing were Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story and We’re the Millers (among some television credits), helmed the director’s chair. I’ve seen Dodgeball. That movie seemed like another typical Ben Stiller/Vince Vaughn silly comedy that appeared to work a little better than this film.

They say in theater (stage plays), comedy is the hardest genre to direct and produce (I should know because I’ve performed in several or been a part of in some capacity through college and such). Because of the sheer fact of the timing of jokes and dialogue and pacing, comedy is difficult. So if it is done right, then the laughs and audience should enjoy it. If the pacing or timing is off, then the show doesn’t quite work as well. Somehow with this film, Central Intelligence didn’t seem to know quite what kind of movie it was supposed to be and therefore didn’t work as well as it could have. It had the makings of an action-drama, but weaved comedy, a touching “love” story, and an overlaying message about bullying in the script, which was penned by Ike Barinholtz and David Stassen. Just as we were getting into the second act (the main thrust of the film) I wasn’t sure what to think about it. And by the end of the film, I was (lack of a better word) confused. I wasn’t sure those elements worked together well for this film. While the film did have moments of touching friendship, laughter and action, it just didn’t work well enough to keep up with the overall story.

The performances by Hart and Johnson were nothing more than ordinary. At times, I felt Johnson’s character just wasn’t sure how to act and it seemed the comedy was a little forced at times (maybe much of the time), which made me feel unsure and even uneasy about the character. Hart’s character was a little more believable, but it still seemed somewhat under par. Amy Ryan, Danielle Nicolet, Aaron Paul, and a couple of other big names, Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, lend their talents in cameos. Bateman’s character had a little more screen time than what I would call a cameo, but yet that still didn’t seem to redeem the film. All of the performances appeared to be nothing special here.

The premise, at first, seemed promising. And the overall story was something seemingly “fresh” in buddy action-comedy, but apparent flaws with the script and direction stalled the film from being better than it could have been. The film is rated PG-13 and comes in at about 1 hours and 47 minutes.

 

 

kellym40 film review

The science heroes are back in ‘Ghostbusters II’

Rating 3/5

The original Ghostbusters was original and took on a surprising following over the 30 plus years since its release in 1984. When I first saw this second installment in the theater, I wasn’t quite sure what to think of it. Honestly, I thought it wasn’t as good as the first one (but I was still only a teenager at the time of its release in 1989). I decided to revisit the film since it was just on TV at the time of this writing.

The four Ghostbusters are back: Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to battle this new paranormal threat. Sigourney Weaver returns as Dana Barrett, who has a new baby. Also returning to the supporting cast are Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) and Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts). Peter MacNicol joins the cast as museum curator Dr. Janosz Poha, who seems to have a crush on Dana, and becomes a servant to Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg), the 17th century evil spirit trying to enter the world through Dana’s infant baby. Ivan Reitman returns to direct.

The film’s opening sequence shows Dana out with her baby in a carriage. She stops to talk to a street vendor, and then the carriage mysteriously begins rolling down the sidewalk into the city streets. In this sequel, there does not seem to be a whole lot new to bring to the table as an evil spirit tries to enter this world from beyond (in this case a painting) and bring an end to humanity. After viewing the film again, I can say I liked it a little more than my original viewing in 1989. It does have some merit despite having a similar story. The means by which the evil spirit attempts to come into this world is different and the presence of this mysterious pink slime that responds to various human emotions adds to this new story.

There is some expository dialogue between the characters to explain what has happened to them in the last five years and catch the audience up from the events of the first one. Soon the Ghostbusters discover the pink slime and begin to analyze it and investigate, get imprisoned for a time, then called upon when things start getting really bad.

Ghostbusters II isn’t too bad, at least not as bad as I originally thought. Again, as with the first film, the humor and comedy comes from the story and dialogue rather than being forced for comedy’s sake. Some of the dialogue, though, might not be as clever and witty as the original but still is decent and moves the story. There are some good moments here and there to keep the audience entertained. It’s not excellent and falls just under the original 1984 film, but it’s fun entertainment.