IMDb > Look Who's Talking Too (1990) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Look Who's Talking Too
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Look Who's Talking Too More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 32 reviews in total 

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Going over the same stuff again

Author: gcd70 from Melbourne, Australia
4 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Bland and lacklustre

Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
2 August 2010

The main problem with this sequel is that it is a very lacklustre retread of the much superior first movie. Now I don't mind more-of-the same-sequels, Home Alone 2 is one of the best and most underrated sequels out there in my opinion and that is often criticised for being too much like the first film.

Starting with the good things, the cameos from Damon Wayons and Mel Brooks are amusing, same with Bruce Willis and Roseanne Barr and I liked John Travolta's dance number. Plus the soundtrack was good and the film was nice to look at. However, it is incredibly predictable in the story and the script is very weak, I do agree there are too many poopoo jokes. The direction is bland and the sentimentality well and truly gets in the way.

Overall, disappointing and bland. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

*****,perfect 5 stars,a highly underrated sequel.

Author: PJS-5 from N.H
1 July 1999

COME ON FOLKS WHATS SO APPALLING ABOUT THIS MOVIE! although I can understand if it was called "Not as good as the 1st but okay" although personally I thought the film was as good as the original (call me insane if you want I don't really care) the film still had plenty of good humor (granted the humor was rather gross & juvenile mostly but still) the plot worked & it still has a good amount of humor & heart as the 1st film so I leave you now & (unless you'd place it a rating & review such as I did) encourage you to give this film another chance,BYE!

Was the above review useful to you?

I need a fix cause I'm going down, down to the bits that I left uptown

Author: jessegehrig from United States
25 March 2014

I was embarrassed for the cast when I first saw this movie. Then I started to think, hey at least its not The Adventures Of Pluto Nash, or The Sweetest Thing, or 2012, or White Chicks,or Crank,or that is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Its aims to be satire but achieves schmaltz. The writing is terrible, the direction is equally as bad.--- Am I a bad person if I don't care about what little kids are thinking? Because I don't. Maybe if I had children of my own the idea of talking babies might be cute, but I don't have children and so what should be cute in this movie is instead cloying and choking like being caught in a cloud of bad perfume. Overall this predictable bore is to be avoided but there are far worse movies, success!

Was the above review useful to you?

Mikey's Back

Author: Punk19 from Chester, Virginia
17 July 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Mikey(Bruce Willis(voice)and Lorne Sussman) is now a two year old. His life is perfect. He has a mother, a father and now on it's way is his baby sister Julie(Roseanne Barr). Mollie(Kirstie Alley) and James(John Travolta) are so happy together. But when Julie is born Mikey has a whole new perspective about baby sisters. He now has problems with his parents. His sister even resists him. But in the end it turns alright. Mikey saves her and they live happily ever after.

This is a movie to show your two year old son that is now in the mode for potty training. For Mikey has a few terrific dreams about Mr.Toilet and using the potty. A good movie to let your children watch. Nothing graphic except a little butt is shown.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not brilliant,but not too bad.

Author: Dillon Harris from Ireland
30 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Look who's talking too is an o.k. movie,I would say its an absolute must see,but I wouldn't say it was the worst movie ever either,its about a five year old baby who talks like an adult in his head and thinks that his parents can understand him,but all the other baby's talk like that too and they can all understand each other and the main baby's parents (Dad played by John Travolta)decide to have another baby,and when the baby finds out he looks forward to it,and once the new baby comes out the baby is o.k. with it,but as the days go on the baby starts to get jealous,and when the moms brother comes to stays for a while the dad isn't o.k. with him keeping a gun with him and after the parents have an argument with each other they separate for a while,and meanwhile the baby decides that hes getting too old for diapers and decides to tries use the toilet and he tries to teach his little teacher how to walk.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:


Author: anonymous from ohio
25 May 1999

i don't care what anyone says this movie is hilarious. Roseanne as the voice of the baby was perfect. she even looked like her! John Travolta and Kirstie Alley work well in all three of the look who's talking movies. When it came on T.V. it had at least 20 minutes of edited stuff which i don't know why they took out. The one problem i had was with not having Mikey talk. The kid is old enough to talk unlike the baby, so why didn't they just have him talk? Otherwise that it was hilarious!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Why didn't they let the children talk?

Author: Hanna-Reetta Paasonen from Tampere, Finland
26 July 2001

I was disappointed with this movie. Not that I don't like this kind of comedy, I loved the first one, but this just doesn't live up to that.

It's not the kids' fault though. Mikey is still a cutie, and he's got some good jokes, although I don't get the speaking arrangement - he says a word or two himself, and then it suddenly switches to the male voice. I think they should have chosen either or. This was just annoying.

Roseanne as the voice of little Julie is GREAT, and there are some really good parts with her(like the visit to the doctor). But where is she for most of the movie? There is so much of the parents fighting and problems with the goofy brother-in-law that it seems the kids take a second seat in this film. I was bored at times with the long fighting scenes. They were neither interesting nor funny. The pregnancy was fast-forwarded through - I suppose they had no more ideas for it after the first movie - and Mikey's jealousy for his sister gets less attention than the potty training(which is far less interesting). The burglar story is too unbelievable to be funny. And the "music video" parts are weird - why are there so many songs? the Elvis impersonation is pretty cool(by John Travolta), but the rest of the "classic pop songs" should have been left out.

There are some really cute sister-brother scenes, but this movie could have been so much better, funnier, and more interesting if they had let the kids play the main role. Now it's pretty disappointing. Some good laughs, but not enough to save the movie. I give it a 5 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Lazy and Not Very Funny

Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
1 June 2012

Look Who's Talking Too (1990)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

John Travolta and Kirstie Alley return in this "the first one made money so let's rush a sequel" film, which also has Bruce Willis returning as the voice of Mikey. This time out a new baby sister (voiced by Roseanne Barr) causes the parents to stress out and break up, which isn't easy on either kid. That's pretty much the only thing, story wise, that this sequel offers and it's clear that very little effort went into the production. It's really pathetic whenever so much energy goes into making a good film and then the producers just turn their back on that energy that made the first film so good and they just rush out whatever they can no matter how bad it is. LOOK WHO'S TALKING TOO really doesn't do anything right as we're just given situations that were covered in the first film but here they're not cute and they're especially not funny. This is a pretty poor film that only mildly works because it's constantly begging you to overlook all the flaws because the first film was so cute. In fact, the highlight of this sequel is a quick sequence when we get some flashback scenes from the first movie. The entire "joke" here deals with the parents trying to potty train Mikey and this leads to some really embarrassing moments including a singing session between the adults, a really bad "best friend" (voiced by Damon Wayans) who is always talking about the poo-poo monster and then there's the monster toilet (voiced by Mel Brooks), which is just downright embarrassing. In between all the unfunny jokes we're given some pretty bad dramatic moments including some stuff with the parents fighting in front of the kids and the finale with the fire really just seems out of place. The performances are all pretty boring as well as the two leads just sleepwalk through their roles and Barr is just horrid given some pretty bad dialogue to say. Willis is energetic at least but the dialogue does him no favors. Somehow, the producers managed to squeeze one more film out of the series and things were only going to get worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

As sweet as a cotton-candy overdose and as stinky as 'yesterday's diapers' ...

Author: ElMaruecan82 from France
9 November 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history