pulling the feelsβ¦
pulling the feelsβ¦
FLICKFEEL
63
from 51 comments
COMMUNITY
β
nobody yet
YOURS
β
β¦
FUN
27
how good a time it was
MEANINGFUL
67
how much it moved you
Two separate readings, not parts of the score β the score says how much of it held you, these say what kind of watch it was.
Nobody has rated this on FlickFeel yet. This is public discussion of this title, read into a curve. It is not a rating and it never becomes one.
Read from 51 comments (46 from Metacritic, 5 from TMDB reviews) β 10 of them described how it moves.
Thin evidence β the shape below rests on 10 comments. The shaded band is how wide the uncertainty actually is, and it is drawn to scale.
Not enough people said when to name this shape. The line is what the evidence draws, not a finding.
Hover the curveDrag across the curve to see what people said at any point.
βFunniest bits are under the creditsβ
CinemaSerf Β· TMDB reviews β
βThey both have the same pacing issues.β
HellHoleHorror Β· Metacritic β
βi did like the ending of the filmβ
Josephgamers65 Β· Metacritic β
βwhole ending was over the top but engagingβ
Diptanshu Β· Metacritic β
βwasting almost the whole second act on Dr. Peter and Dana's awkward, tedious and utterly uninteresting troubled relationship, and then adding insult to injury with Louis Tully and Janine Melnitz's even more cringeworthy and excruciatingly painful-to-watch relationshipβ
ahmedaiman1999 Β· Metacritic β
βThe first act was really promising. It had a couple of funny spooky moments, some hilarious gags, and the cast seemed to be even more charming and energetic than it was in the original.β
ahmedaiman1999 Β· Metacritic β
Read 26 Aug 2026 Β· confidence 83% Β· scored on the same 0-100 scale as a community score Β· how this works
Published reviews, not felt experience β a different question from the one above, and never mixed into the FlickFeel score.
βEven 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.β
Vincent Canby, The New York Times Β· 80
βGhostbusters 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.β
Staff (Not Credited), Variety Β· 80
βHere, 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.β
Hal Hinson, Washington Post Β· 80
βEverything 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.β
Desson Howe, Washington Post Β· 70
βGhostbusters 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]β
Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times Β· 70
Scores from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, read 26 Aug 2026. Quotes belong to their publications and link to the full reviews.
Grouped by where it was written, because a considered review and a reaction typed an hour after the credits are different things. Every quote links to its source.
βThey both have the same pacing issues.β
HellHoleHorrorabout 0β100% inread it β
βi did like the ending of the filmβ
Josephgamers65about 75β100% inread it β
βwhole ending was over the top but engagingβ
Diptanshuabout 75β100% inread it β
βwasting almost the whole second act on Dr. Peter and Dana's awkward, tedious and utterly uninteresting troubled relationship, and then adding insult to injury with Louis Tully and Janine Melnitz's even more cringeworthy and excruciatingly painful-to-watch relationshipβ
ahmedaiman1999about 33β66% inread it β
βFunniest bits are under the creditsβ
CinemaSerfabout 90β100% inread it β
βThis was another sequel that was fashionable to knock when it came out. It got panned because it couldn't live up to the first Ghostbusters. Well, what could? The first one was so original, so enormously popular than any sequel was bound to fail as far as matching it. This second Ghostbusters was just fine, very entertaining and it was nice to see all the main characters back. It had a little nicer feel to it and was more family-friendly language-wise, so it even had some things going for it β
tricksyread it β
β'They're back!' I watched this straight after the first one. It was just as good as the first film. I enjoyed it.β
Peter89Spencerread it β
β"Ghostbusters II" easily recreates the spirit (if you'll pardon the pun) of the original and it is very engaging and entertaining viewing throughout, especially for a sequel where money is usually the only primary motivating factor. Of course, this is probably the case here as well, but at least there is a concerted effort by screenwriters Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd to refresh the range of cliches on offer that made the previous film so much fun and phenomenally popular back in 1984. However, β
kevin2019read it β
no tags yet β rate this flick to drop some vibes β¨