Friday, October 4, 2013

Film Friday: Ghostbusters II (1989)

Ghostbusters II has been much maligned on the basis that it never lived up to the original. In a way, that is true. Part of what made Ghostbusters so great was that it was highly original, and you can’t get that same feeling of originality from a sequel. But you know what? Beyond that, this really is an excellent sequel and I think a great many people have underestimated it.
Plot
Five years later. The Ghostbusters have closed their doors. After saving New York City from Gozer, they got sued by everyone and found themselves barred from hunting ghosts. Each of the Ghostbusters has found a new job. But things are about to change.
Dana Barrett now works at the Manhattan Museum of Art, where she restores paintings for a man named Janosz. One of the paintings Janosz is restoring is of Vigo the Carpathian, an evil tyrant and magician who threatened to return to life. The thing is, Vigo is alive within the painting and he is drawing upon the evil energy created by all the negative emotions of the people of New York. In fact, those negative emotions are creating a river of “mood slime” which is flowing directly beneath the museum.

Soon enough, Vigo takes an interest in Dana and her newborn son Oscar. This brings the Ghostbusters back together and leads to them reopening their business for their inevitable showdown with Vigo.
Why This Film Works
Although Ghostbusters II made a ton of money ($215 million on a budget of $37 million) and it has demonstrated strong staying power, it was critically despised when it came out. Some claimed it “slimed everyone’s fond memories of the original.” Gene Siskel complained that the film “didn’t try to do anything special.” Ebert said that nobody around him laughed.

But frankly, they mis-remembered the first film. Ghostbusters was never the laugh-a-minute riot they seem to think. To the contrary, it was the type of film where the payoff came in the storyline and the relationships of the characters. And while there were moments where you laughed out loud, most of the jokes really were just “warm glow moments” or snort/chuckles. And in that regard, Ghostbusters II does something incredibly difficult: it perfectly maintains the feel of the original.
Sequels come in two flavors. The first involves the continuation of the story. The Empire Strikes Back or The Matrix Reloaded are perfect examples of these. These take place immediately after the first film and they involve “what happens next.” Thus, for example, having won a surprise victory, the Empire/the Machines strike back and the heroes must now overcome a bigger, more-determined onslaught. In so doing, the characters typically continue their evolution and their relationships grow and change. The other type of sequel involves repeating the same formula as the first film as the characters engage in a new adventure. The goal here, as a writer, is to repeat the emotional journey the characters undertook as closely as possible. Consequently, these typically involve undoing everything the characters achieved in the first film so they can build it all again and then letting them repeat their prior acts with only minor differences.

Ghostbusters II is the second type and it follows the formula perfectly. It begins by wiping out their business by having them sued by everyone and discredited again. They are spread to the four winds. It also begins with Dana and Venkman being broken up as couple. This allows the writers to rebuild each achievement from the first film – the successful creation of the business, the successful construction of the friendship/team, and the successful completion of the relationship between Dana and Venkman. That allows them to completely repeat the emotional journey of the first film.
Simultaneously, the film picks the perfect villain. Vigo is approximately as menacing as Gozer was in the first film, so again the emotional impact is the same. But Vigo is also a very different villain. He has different powers, a different goal, and defeating him will require a different solution than the Ghostbusters used in the first film. Consequently, while the story feels like it has the same level of menace and the same challenge, it also feels like a fresh story. This is not just Gozer II.

More importantly, the choice of Vigo avoids two of the biggest sins sequels commit when they pick their villain. If Gozer had just come back for a second round, then all the satisfaction people felt at the resolution of the first film would be undone because the ending wouldn’t be meaningful. Alternatively, if Gozer’s bigger brother shows up, then you have this problem that the challenge of Gozer is diminished and all the time spent showing the heroes just barely beating Gozer suddenly seems false. This is the problem between Alien and Aliens actually. By having Ripley face a hundred aliens in Aliens and making them more or less disposable, it diminishes her accomplishment in Alien, where she only kills the one, and it calls into question how she could be so inept in Alien but suddenly so kick-ass in Aliens. There’s no such problem here. In fact, in picking Vigo, who is equally menacing but presents a different problem, Ghostbusters skillfully avoids the whole problem.

Each of those choices demonstrates excellent writing and I dare these critics to find a better way to handle the story. But there’s something more to consider. Where sequels really need to be judged is in the execution. And in that regard, the real question to be asked is: “Does the sequel feel like the original?”
Indeed, think of it this way: how would an audience that just watched Ghostbusters react if you moved straight into Ghostbusters II rather than showing the credits. Would they see this as the same film or would they feel something jarring? Look at Caddyshack II, Grease II or Blues Brothers 2000 for examples of films that would have audiences scratching their heads wondering what had happened. Even putting aside the cast changes, those sequels displayed differences in style, costumes, camera work, pacing and writing. They feel like cheap knock-offs of the original. Ghostbusters II doesn’t do that.

If you watch Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II back to back, you will see similar pacing, similar characterizations, similar emotional content, and similar humor. The sequel doesn’t suddenly focus on a character who happened to become a hit with audiences at the expense of the characters focused on in the original. It doesn’t try to change the nature of the story by becoming more or less dramatic, more or less “zany” or slapstick, or more or less grandiose; it maintains the balance between the horror and comedy. And it carefully maintains the tone of the relationship between the characters. This is actually quite an achievement, especially for a film that was produced five years after the original.
Yet, the film also feels fresh. When you are watching the Vigo story, you never once think of Gozer, and you quickly find yourself engrossed in the story as the characters struggle to solve the mystery of what is happening. This is not a quick knock-off.

Ghostbusters II truly is a top notch sequel. Is it as original as Ghostbusters? No, but then it couldn’t be. Indeed, if it had been, people would have been upset that this wasn’t what they expected. But it was every bit the equal of the original in terms of laughs, in terms of depth of story, in terms of emotional content and the emotional ride, and in terms of feel. And if Ghostbusters II had been the original, I suspect it would have been just as big a hit as the original.

Thoughts?

58 comments:

Dave Olson said...

I got nothin'. I only saw this movie once, on a college bus trip from Minneapolis to Winnipeg (in 1990, when having a VCR and TV screens on a charter coach was still a novel experience). It was simply not my cup of tea, so I just read my book and chatted with my neighbors. It was not as well received as the next movie we watched, Strange Brew.

AndrewPrice said...

Dave, It's hard to beat Strange Brew, especially on a bus trip to Canada!

If it's not for you, then it's not for you. No harm in that.

Anthony said...

I only watched it when it came out, but Ghostbusters 2 was not a movie I enjoyed. It lost me with the opening premise (that the Ghostbusters had been sued out of existence) and never regained me because it lacked the high points of its predecessor and followed the same formula so transparently. Ghostbusters 1 wasn't laugh a minute, but it did have a few very funny jokes/scenes (nods towards the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man). I literally cannot recall any joke from Ghostbusters 2.

Most importantly, Ghostbusters 2 did not boast an awesome, fun to modify song like the original did :).

Ty in TX said...

I got to disagree when it comes to Aliens. To me it seems more like Ripley's all "Hell NO!! This this time I've got a weapon, you sonsabitches are dead!!"

PikeBishop said...

Anthony: "Ghostbusters 2" loses me off the bat with the premise, something that the following Cracked article touches on. People completely forget what happened in the first film. Everyone saw the Marshmellow Man, the ghosts and the destruction they caused, and somehow we're to believe that the Ghostbusters were some kind of charletans who set the whole thing up. Puh-leez!

http://www.cracked.com/article_18727_6-things-movie-characters-always-seem-to-forget.html

Best line: "You think she's wearing anything under that? She's French you know."

Tennessee Jed said...

The Ghostbusters style of comedy was never one that I was inclined to be attracted to, so to be honest, both the original and the sequel, had an uphill battle to grab and secure my attention and approval. But you know what? I did see both films, and at least with the original, probably saw it a second time. And in both cases, I must grudgingly admit I enjoyed both films, at least on some level. These films will never be considered classics by me, I can't remember the laugh line or the plots all that well, but I did enjoy them, so they must have been doing something right. To be sure, the actors involved have a lot to do with that, but I would probably have to agree that a lot of the things you allude to in this review had something to do with it also.

ScottDS said...

I can safely say that, at the tender age of 6, Vigo scared the living shit out of me, and it took years for me to able to watch the film all the way through without forwarding through those scenes.

Having said that, while this film isn't as good as the first one, it's NOWHERE near as bad as some folks suggest. There are some genuinely funny lines ("We had part of a slinky, but I straightened it") and the courtroom scene is close to comedic perfection.

But I also sympathize with people who feel it's derivative. Another government bureaucrat, another tall animated object walking through the streets of Manhattan, Dana gets caught up in ghostly goings-on again, etc. There are some narrative shortcuts (Why doesn't Winston help out in the courtroom with the Scoleri Brothers?) and in fact, this movie had a TON of material that was cut.

And I agree with a friend of mine who likes the movie but hates that the Ghostbusters logo changes WITHIN THE WORLD OF THE MOVIE ITSELF. The "No Ghosts 2" logo is great for advertising but in the film? Really?

Even putting aside the cast changes, those sequels displayed differences in style, costumes, camera work, pacing and writing.

What's ironic is that, compared to the first film, this movie has almost an entirely different production crew - different costume designer, DP, production designer, composer, FX company, etc. - but I guess it's a testament to Ivan Reitman for keeping it all together. (And to be fair, Caddyshack II has one thing in its favor and that's Dan Aykroyd's bizarre character.) :-)

tryanmax said...

I've long regarded Ghostbusters as a (not "the" but "a") perfect comedy. So that's a pretty big act to follow. As far as sequels go, Ghostbusters II is leagues better than most.

I always thought that the Ghostbusters having been sued out of existence was perfect. It's a continuation of the wry social commentary that drove much of the first film and, frankly, utterly believable. (Think of all the lawsuits post-9/11 by and against any- and everyone. People coming together in the wake of tragedy my @$$!) It's also a perfect setup to one of the central themes of the film: that New Yorkers can be nasty.

That said, there are a few areas where the sequel tries to bank on things that turned out popular. Slime was a relatively small part of the first film, but the gross-out factor was a hit with the kids--especially in toy form. The sequel gives us literal rivers of slime, and in a new color. Queue new lines of multi-colored designer slime. Still, as the established link between the corporeal and incorporeal worlds, the slime works.

I wasn't really lost until they brought the Statue of Liberty to life--controlled by a NES Advantage game controller, no less. That just screamed "cashing in on the original." Admittedly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a better ending than repeating the giant creature stomping through the streets of NYC thing. But then, my name is neither Aykroyd nor Ramis.

Dwizzum said...

I find this movie a mixed bag. I felt it tried too hard to repeat the journey (emotional and otherwise) of the first movie. Dana being the center of the supernatural event again feels forced. Plus, now she has a kid from some unknown father. That was was strange. I love Rick Moranis, but there is no reason for him to be in this movie from a story point. I'm not sure I like the empathetic slime either.

On the plus side Vigo is a great villain. I really like Janosz. He had some great lines. "Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this." The best part is the whole Vigo photo shoot. That pretty much makes the movie worthwhile.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, They need a premise like that for this type of sequel. If you look at non-story continuing sequels, they all do something like this, otherwise you are leading off from a peak moment of high emotion to lead off the film. Essentially, you would be starting at "...and they lived happily ever after" then trying to write from there. It's an impossible task.

AndrewPrice said...

Ty, Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy both films. But the problem with Aliens is that it makes the whole premise of Alien feel wrong, because you suddenly realize that if they'd just shot the thing it would have died, i.e. it's not the unkillable nightmare it's made out to be in the first film.

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, They were put out of business because they got sued for massive property destruction for causing the whole thing... not making it up.

And in the real world, you can absolutely bet that would happen... just like a real Superman would be sued for the property damage he causes.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, These films stand rather unique among films. I can't think of anything comparable (or even a rip off). I think that's because it's an impossible task to try to repeat the chemistry within the films.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Agreed that this isn't as good as the original, but it's a heck of a lot better than people give it credit for. And in the world of sequels, this is one of the few that does a super job. As I note, if this had been the original, I think it would be as fondly remembered as the original.

As for agreeing with people who call it derivative, I don't agree at all. It's a sequel. By definition it will be derivative. If it wasn't derivative, it would be a brand new film and people would be pissed that it wasn't really a sequel. So attacking it for being derivative is like attacking a car for looking somewhat like the prior model year of the same car.

On Vigo, by the way, he was a good deal scarier than Gozer, but I think that was needed to keep up the level of menace. Since he's not threatening to destroy the city this time, he needs something more. That's why he's more creepy and why he has the ability to direct minions to come after the Ghostbusters. Different challenge.

Another great scene is in the tunnel. I love the look on Winston's face after the train runs over him. "Did you get the number?" "Sorry." LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I liked the ending for a couple reasons. First, I can't think of a better one. Secondly, there was a huge Statue of Liberty push around the time. NY had put it on their license plates, I think someone used it in a magic trick shown nationally, and it have just been restored. So this fit right in with that.

As for the beginning, that is exactly what would happen, as we saw after 9/11. They would have been sued by everyone in the hopes of getting something (because insurance won't cover ghost damage). And naturally, they would be shut down as well if the authorities believed they caused it, which is what they would have concluded after realizing all these ghosts escaped from their system.

I agree about Ghostbusters being A perfect comedy. It's certainly not the only one, but it is up there. And following that is nearly impossible, but this film does an excellent job of it. It does everything it should as a sequel. And as I noted to Scott above, the complaint that it's derivative strikes me as false because that is what sequels are by their nature. They are meant to give you more of the same essentially. If people want a brand new idea, then they shouldn't go for a sequel.

AndrewPrice said...

Dwizzum, I love the line about Janosz, "Where are you from?" "The upper East side." LOL!

In terms of Dana again being the focus, again, I'm not sure how you get around that unless you decide to dump her. But since she and Murray have strong chemistry, you find a reason to bring her back. Moranis too needed to come back because he played well off of everyone.

tryanmax said...

Dana is the Ghostbusters' Penelope Pitstop. Some things you just have to accept.

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, when you have successful chemistry, you don't drop characters.

Also, on Moranis, it's not like they made him a Ghostbuster. He's just their accountant (and lawyer). He promotes himself to Ghostbuster.

ScottDS said...

tryanmax -

According to the DVD commentary for the first film, Sigourney Weaver considered herself the "Margaret Dumont" of the franchise. :-)

Kit said...

Interestingly, in the video game they Ghostbusters get an insurance policy from the city to cover the damage.

Individualist said...

Well I have to say I loved both the first and second films equally.

but the best line from both the films is...

Is that true?

Yes this man has no @#$%!

Kit said...

Indi,

That is the best line.

tryanmax said...

Agreed, though both films are great with the zingers.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, They need Ghostbamacare. ;-P

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That is one of my favorite lines too from both films.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, They really are.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

I believe the line is "Da Upper Vest Side?"

I'm also a fan of "Everything you're doing is bad" and "Vy am I drippings vith goo?"

But I absolutely love the courtroom scene with Rick Moranis telling the judge, "But I don't blame them, because one time I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank-you."

Sadly, the actress who played the prosecutor (Janet Margolin) died of cancer just a few years after this film. She had appeared in a couple of Woody Allen movies and while they frumped her up here, she was kinda hot in a movie called Last Embrace. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, The courtroom scene is hilarious. "Do we have anything else?" "No, I think we helped them enough."

Yes, the upper West side. I think it's hilarious that he has that accent, but comes from the US.

I didn't know that about the actress. I never recognized her in anything else.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

It reminds me of Short Circuit when Steve Guttenberg asks the Indian guy where he's from:

"Where are you from?"
"Bakersfield."
"No, I mean your ancestors."
"Oh, them... Pittsburgh."

And the line my mother likes is Moranis' mangling of the words: "My guys are still under a judicial restrangement order! That blue thing I got from her!"

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, As a lawyer, I love that line! LOL!

That was a good line from Short Circuit too. Did you know that actor wasn't even Indian? I didn't find that out until years later. He had me fooled.

ScottDS said...

At the time, I was a kid so I'm sure I didn't know. I think my parents saw him in another movie and made the connection.

I also love the guys' banter when they're digging up 1st Avenue, especially Egon's "Yo!"

Backthrow said...

I only saw GHOSTBUSTERS 2 once, when it hit pay-per-view. Didn't love it, didn't hate it (unlike some critics, who I do remember trashing it)... I more or less enjoyed it while it was running, but I remember little from it (no specific lines or gags), other than the basics of the evil painting, Dana's baby in trouble, and the statue of liberty coming to life. I'll have to check it out again.

I dunno... if GHOSTBUSTERS didn't exist, and GHOSTBUSTERS 2 was the one and only film, I think it would be a reasonable hit at the boxoffice, but I slso think it would be almost-forgotten today (along the lines of TWINS or HONEY I SHRUNK THE KID), apart from nostalgic '80s kids.

AndrewPrice said...

Backthrow, A lot of critics hated it, but the film did really well at the Box Office despite that.

It's hard to say how it would be remembered because the effect of Ghostbusters makes it very hard to know how this would have been received in a vacuum, but I think it would for certain be remembered as being among the top comedies from that period.

AndrewPrice said...

FYI: Doctor Detroit is coming on Encore Channel in about half an hour for anyone who has never seen it and would like to. It's a fun film by Dan Aykroyd and it's actually the source of "Mom" from Futurama and her idiot sons.

PikeBishop said...

Andrew: Thanks for pointing out they were sued for the damage, not having faked it. Haven't seen the film in 20 years.

Also, Dr. Detroit is a very, very under-rated film. I never understood the critical beating it got, especially considering some of the other crappy 80s comedies that critics seemed to go ga ga over.

Akroyd is great in both personas, the supporting cast, especially Fran Drecher, shines. And its a fun plot and a well written script.

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, You're welcome. I think people get confused because the judge says he doesn't believe in ghosts. So he makes it sound like they were sued for faking the whole thing. But really it was being sued for damage and the injunction/restraining order (the "judicial restrangement order"... LOL!) would be to prevent them from causing another disaster, which is exactly what the government would do if they thought the breakdown of their containment grid created the problem.

I like Doctor Detroit a good deal. It's not a perfect movie and it's not a great film, but I think it's very enjoyable -- certainly on a par with a lot of other good 1980s films. The cast is solid, the story is fun, and there are some great moments. Akyroyd does a great job too. And the whole things is definitely worth the time. :)

Outlaw13 said...

Doctor, De-Troit. Got to love those musical numbers.

I remember seeing Ghostbusters 2 in the theater with a friend of mine who could not stop laughing when she overheard the two overweight black ladies sitting next to her singing along with the Bobby Brown theme song On Our Own.

AndrewPrice said...

Outlaw, I love the big dance. It's quite the spectacle.

The theme song from Ghostbusters is definitely better than the theme song for Ghostbusters 2, even if it is supposedly stolen from Huey Lewis.

Outlaw13 said...

I've got Doctor Detroit on DVD, after reading these comments I think I'm going to break it out for a spin. "No one can stop the doctor!"

AndrewPrice said...

Outlaw, I just watched the version I DVR'd and it was cut up badly. Boo boo! So now I need to break out the old DVD and see the complete version.

Favorite line: "I'm going to rip off your head and sh*t down your throat!" LOL! I haven't heard that in a long time.

Dave Olson said...

The theme for Ghostbusters reminds me more of "Soul Finger". That connects with another Ackroyd movie, Spies Like Us in which he and Chevy Chase hear the song as they approach the Soviet missile site. Ackroyd says "That's 'Soul Finger', by the Bar-Kays!", to which Chase replies "They must have trouble getting gigs."

Maybe the reason I didn't like GB2 was the theme. By 1989/1990, the song from the original had been beaten to death on the radio, and the sequel was a rap number. I hate rap with every fiber of my being, but that's a rant for an upcoming open thread.

And if you're looking for an in-depth analysis of the original - think of the Red Letter Media reviews of the Star Wars prequels but it's all text and the movie doesn't stink - check out "Overthinking Ghostbusters".

AndrewPrice said...

Dave, Ghostbusters has been an oft analyzed film. There is a lot going on there.

PikeBishop said...

Andrew: In addition to the "Rip off your head" line, I've always loved the final scene, where after the mayhem, Akroyd smoothly reverts to his bookish, intellectual, academic persona, referring to the damsels he has rescued and "Diavolo, my trusted companion, perhaps we will ride again some day." TK Carter's reaction defines excellent acting in my view.

PikeBishop said...

Obscure, obscure Ghostbusters trivia: What is Winston Zedmore's (Ernie Hudson) annual salary?

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, If I remember correctly, it was $11,500... which tells you something about inflation. Starting stockbrokers at the time were earning $13,900. And that was only 25 years ago.

AndrewPrice said...

Pikebishop, TK Carter does a great job throughout. I love when he's beating up Johnny Fever. "My grandfather owned your grandfather!'

PikeBishop said...

Good one Andrew: In an almost throwaway line after he emerges, covered in goo, from the final battle, He calls out to the heavens, "This job is definitely not worth eleven five a year!"

BTW, his salary would be the equivalent of just under $26,000 today, a solid working class salary for an unmarried, blue collar guy.

AndrewPrice said...

He's got my favorite line too. I love the way he says, "I love Jesus's style."

PikeBishop said...

I believe you mentioned in the Ghostbusters review that that scene in the car is one of the most important to the overall theme of the movie, and, sadly the kind you don't see in films too much anymore. The age old battle between faith and reason, discussed by two guys coming home from work, dog-tired, cigarettes drooping from their lips.

"Never met him" a nice way to ID Ray's scholarly agnosticism.

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, I think it is. I think that scene gives the film its depth and lifts it above being just a comedy. It's the moment that tells audiences, "stop and think about something bigger." It's also the moment that gives the film it's real stakes because Winston now tells us that this is the end of the world coming.

Good point about that being Ray's way of admitting agnosticism, but notice also his face and that he changes the radio station after Winston speaks. It's clear that he's suddenly concerned that Winston may be right. There is a lot there that the audience is meant to take from this.

It's also notable because it shows Winston's faith in such a positive, embraceable way... something Hollywood never does with faith these days.

PikeBishop said...

(Nervous laugh) How about a little music?

Winston (agreeing quickly) Yeah.

Great scene, plus Ray's knowledge of scripture.

AndrewPrice said...

Pikebishop, That's one of my favorite religious scenes on film because it's very powerful, very relatable, and yet also very subtle. If you were going to include religious (or political) messages in films, this is the perfect way to do it.

wahsatchmo said...

I don't disagree that the premise of Ghostbusters 2 was just fine, and Peter MacNichol is fantastic. The villain was excellent, too.

Much of everything else felt phoned in, though. From Bobby Brown's crap song and cameo, to the godawful toaster scene; it just seemed flat to me. I saw it in the theater as a teen, and I recall a little kid yelling out "It's Slimer!" when the green guy made his appearance (referring to the Ghostbusters cartoon). Maybe that cemented it for me as a bit of a shameless cash grab, but I will say that I'd rather watch it than any of the last 15 Adam Sandler movies that have been made, any of the Star Wars prequels, or any of the Matrix: Rejected sequels.

Supposedly there was supposed to be a Ghostbusters 3 in hell, but it got killed because Bill Murray didn't like how Ghostbusters 2 ended up. My source on this is Cracked, so who knows how true it is.

AndrewPrice said...

wahsatchmo, I've heard many times that Murray doesn't want to do it, but I've never heard why specifically. At this point, frankly, they are too old. They could do a reboot, but that's about it.

Agreed about theme song.

I also agree with you that at the time, this didn't seem like that great of a film, but compared to everything that was to follow, it really does rank pretty highly. Comedy took an ugly turn for the stupid after this.

Rob S. Rice said...

Sued out of existence? Preposterous! Utter nonsense! Now, if you will all excuse me, I'm going to pop 'The Incredibles' in.

I, too, loved 'Dr. Detroit.' REVENGE OF THE GROWN UP NERD!

AndrewPrice said...

Rob, LOL! Excellent catch! Sadly, that's how it would be in real life too.

EricP said...

It's not often I will give movies in which I initially fell asleep for 1/3 of the movie yet was still able to fill in all the blanks afterward, but based on your impassioned breakdown, AP, I will give Ghostbusters 2 another chance. I'll still skip through any Bobby Brown stuff, though. Man's gotta keep some principled stances, don'tcha know.

AndrewPrice said...

Eric, I can ask for nothing more. LOL!

Give it shot. It's an entertaining movie. Just try not to compare to the original, just accept it for what it is.

Post a Comment