Sadly Over-hyped

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Mollie and James are together and raising a family, which now consists of an older Mikey and his baby sister, Julie. Tension between the siblings arises, and as well with Mollie and James when Mollie's brother Stuart moves in. Mikey is also learning how to use the toilet for the first time.....I'm ashamed to say that when this was released in the cinemas back in 1991, I saw this a whopping three times. Not because I loved it, because there wasn't much else for a thirteen year old to see at that time, and my gosh, the phrase 'blatant cash in' must have been coined thanks to this movie.The novelty of the film, adult voices for babies, is still there, but as cocky as Willis is, and his voice talents were brilliant in the first movie, the bad script cannot provide the cute humour that Mikey once had.So it involves us more with Travolta and Alley, and although there are as good as you'd expect in a film like this, again, the script just destroys anything the narrative has to offer.So we get the obligatory dance scene that Travolta has in every film, literal toilet humour, and the films saving grace, Gilbert Godfried as quite possibly the most neurotic Nursery owner ever.But my biggest question is how much of the budget did the makers spend on the soundtrack? Because there are some huge songs in the film, from the likes of Lennon, Elvis, and Harrison. Amazing music for an almost non existent movie.It all ends with a big fire where the children are in peril, Mikey learning to love his sister, and just like every other family friendly movie released at this time, a family barbecue.All to the music of Sonny and Cher.

Look who's making a sequel now … killing off all the charm, wit and originality of the first opus. In other words: what a shameful disaster.The movie has its moments but it never really gets this awkward feeling off: that the only reason to be of this film is as a continuation of "Look Who's Talking" and nothing else, it's the quintessential needless sequel. What was a charming touch of originality in the first opus became a lame attempt of 'caca-poo-poo' childish humor, what a shame. I don't mean to sound cynical, I loved the first film, but this one had Kirstie Alley and John Travolta in the cast, Amy Heckerling in the direction, but the film has the same level of sweetness as a cotton-candy overdose and, quoting Baby Herman, I would say the result "stinks like yesterday's diapers."It's funny because I've always tried to find redeeming qualities to the film or reasons to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the first feeling has never been replaced. I remember when I saw this as a kid, I was surprised first because I didn't even think the original movie needed a sequel, then I saw it with fear and excitement, and at the end, I was left with a flat feeling. What's with all these 'penis/no penis' jokes? This Toilet-Man thing? Who the hell cares about Rona, Mollie's friend? Where does that Stuart brother comes from? And probably more than anything, what happened to the lovely relationship between Mollie and James? That's probably the less excusable element of the film: it's poorly written, and the interactions between the two pillar characters rely more on a writing decision to create a separation before a final reconciliation, than the true depiction of a realistic evolution. Are we to believe that both would argue over watching a cartoon, and getting angry about the way one's authority is challenged in front of the kids? Are we supposed to accept that Mollie who acts like a germs freak in the first act would be so careless about her brother carrying a gun in the house? And I'm not even questioning the presence of Elias Koteas as Stuart, because at least they had the good taste to vaguely evoke him in a discussion before his entrance, so we know that Mollie has a brother whose only role was apparently to justify the arguments and break-up between Mollie and James, and to close Rona's story arc, as if the character needed any development. She was fun to watch in the first opus, but in the sequel, she was made so embarrassingly 'sexy' and fell in love so easily with Stuart, that we couldn't be more careless about them, and don't get me started on what is probably the worst 'marriage proposal' from any film, so idiotically spontaneous I couldn't believe my ears.Again, the movie has some cute little moments, I loved the little nicknames between Mollie and James, the 'Elvis' dance sequence, but the ultimate result was a failure. Maybe it would have been better if it really dealt with some predictable but sensitive issues like the jealousy between the brother and her little sister, maybe, but then it would have needed the presence of the two parents, some plot devices as inspired as in the first film, less sappy music montages and zero out-of-characters moments, one is embarrassing enough, but the movie is a series of disconcerting scenes. Even as a kid, I cringed when they were singing to encourage Mikey to use the pot, and some years after, I couldn't buy the scene where Mollie was trying to make herself look pretty for James, a lame excuse to show some legs and panty dressing. Shouldn't a character like Mollie be spared from these clichés? And the following scene is another demonstration of extremely uninspired writing, because despite all her efforts, it lead to another fight with James. But at that time, it doesn't really matter, everybody's in the house, Mollie, Mikey, Stuart, Rona, James, Julie, it's so noisy we all wait for the mess to end, aware that the movie had no chances to wow us at the end. Indeed, it kept on the same level, with a weak climax, a weak reconciliation, and nothing redeeming story-wise. When you have no inspiration for a climax, just set the house on fire, and bring a last-minute villain out of nowhere. Does it work? I don't know, at one moment, Stuart is chasing the burglar, letting the kids alone and when James helps him by punching the baddie, Stuart is upset, why? No, frankly, why? I know these are details that wouldn't change anything on the final appreciation, but it's still bugging me, because it's like everything was made to sabotage the film.Many flat jokes, an incredible amount of 'what-the-bloody-hell' scene, some embarrassing humor and even more embarrassing out-of-characters moments, "Look Who's Talking Too" is a messy story that makes you forget it was about Mikey having a sister, when it's more about adult having problems in the beginning and everything getting well at the end. Indeed, the ending is happy ending because we're glad the movie ended, and if it ever had a merit, it would have been to make me love the original "Look Who's Talking" even more. Maybe I should watch "Look Who's Talking Now" again to appreciate the second opus … thanks, but no thanks.

A poor sequel to a movie the very existence of which was just barely warranted, if at all, much less deserving a follow-up(and it didn't even end here). Granted, the end of the first did pretty much mean that they had to do at least one more, and the addition to the gimmick as well as the new pun of equally questionable ability to amuse, but couldn't they at least have used the same female actress? She (name withheld so as to not spoil the surprise) would have been fine, heck, just about anyone would have. But Roseanne? They had half of the Earth's population to choose from, and out of all those options, out of every woman on the planet, they picked... her? This is one of three pieces of... entertainment? no, that's not it, this doesn't qualify as that... that I've seen her in, and were her parts permanently taken out from all three, it would not exactly reduce me to crying in the fetal position. The reaction it would produce from me would rather be in the other end of the spectrum. Various cast-members return, not all having anything to do. More nightmare sequences, one misusing a master in comedy. Gilbert Gottfried is brought in to perform his shtick, but interjects no laughs. So is Damon Wayans(Wayans', I'm sure, need to do no acting to play kids, or their voices, anyway). This time around, the couple fight. Their differences are yet again set up against each other in a manner that I would presume is meant to entertain. So is most of the movie, one would guess, but it tends to inspire boredom and restlessness, instead. More scenes that seem to have no other purpose for existing than to bring the running time close to 90 minutes(though this didn't even make it to that... thank goodness). Pro-gun people take a pounding. At least the kids stop talking after this one. I recommend this to... I don't know, people who can stand Roseanne and/or needless sequels. 4/10

Original director Amy Heckerling returns with John Travolta, Kirstie Alley and many more of the original cast for what turns out to be more of the same with this sequel."Look Who's Talking Too" just brings us a repeat performance in the true tradition of disappointing sequels. The plot merely goes through the motions and only delivers a movie that actually manages to be even sillier than the first. Bruce Willis returns as the voice of 'Mikey', and he's joined by Roseanne Barr who lends her voice to 'Mikey's new baby sister, 'Julie'. But neither one manage to raise any laughs in a very unsatisfactory film.Saturday, July 25, 1992 - Video