IMDb > Invisible Mom (1996) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Invisible Mom (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 9 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Lightweight low-budget family film.

5/10
Author: capkronos (capkronos00@hotmail.com) from Ohio, USA
18 July 2007

The Griffin family is your typical suburban family with your typical suburban family problems. Dad (Barry Livingston) is a slightly eccentric scientist/inventor having problems standing up to his stuffy, impossible-to-impress boss. Son (Trenton Knight) is having a tough time dealing with the neighborhood bully and has just been grounded for not doing his chores. And Mom (Dee Wallace Stone), well, she has even bigger problems when she accidentally ingests an invisibility serum created by her husband and disappears from sight. After overcoming her initial horror, mom ends up using her newfound powers to help out each member of her family while her husband scurries to create an antidote to return her to normal.

No genre is safe from director Ray; he can churn out the sleaziest T&A fest to the mildest and most harmless kiddie-oriented trifle. Despite the hokey blue screen special effects and the silly screenplay, this passable kids film will no doubt please the 10 and under crowd. Most adults may want to pull a disappearing act of their own while it's playing, but some others may enjoy the appearances from such cult celebrities such as Russ Tamblyn, Stella Stevens, John Ashley (in his first role in many years; which turned out to also be his last) and Brinke Stevens. Dee Wallace's ingratiating and enthusiastic lead performance is a major plus and she helps keep it all watchable. Though listed as 1997 on here I am pretty sure it was actually made in 1995. A minor video and cable hit, it was followed by two sequels; INVISIBLE DAD and INVISIBLE MOM II.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

POORLY MADE, UNFUNNY,BADLY ACTED,TURKEY OF A MOVIE

2/10
Author: liammurphy1 from United Kingdom
17 August 2003

My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.

I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to

If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE

MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10

RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!

Was the above review useful to you?

Poor, not Bad !

Author: ahmed elshikh (ahmed_abd_elreheem@yahoo.com) from Egypt
30 May 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a script it has a beautiful message about fighting the bullies, young or old, all the way. It's thrilling and unpredictable, I didn't see anything coming. And it's cute without much naivety, whereas the characters look childish, but never were dealt with childishly, so I believed them and their doings.

(Dee Wallace Stone) as the mom, and (Trenton Knight) as her kid, did nicely. (Barry Livingston), as the inventor father, was good but with no charisma or chemistry with (Stone). The rest enjoyed me especially the noisy neighbor played loveably by (Stella Stevens), the sex symbol once, who showed as a hopeless weirdo.

Then, the poor side. The music is electronic hell (the thing is it didn't want to stop !). While the special effects are better being left forgotten; I think it was done in TV-ish style first, then got re-shot cinematically. Some moments kill me; such as seeing the invisible mom eats out of dog food's bag while no visible food is shown, the invisible dog reminded me of the very early special effects in the silent cinema, and honestly no one cries like that, over a photo, unless a loose faucet !

The bent to use strange lens, so the characters' faces may seem deformedly big or rather scary in close-ups, did annoy me. Couple of possible action scenes was disappointed, such as the chase of the inventor and his son at the lab. Overall that directing had nothing to dazzle. It moved by the power of the script.

Even though, the script has lousy – yet few – points; the scene of the kid feeling sad over the absence of his mother right before her reappearance was sort of misplaced, I thought it was fit more for the night scene at the orphanage, how come the evil scientist is so confident that the wife will come to the lab after arresting her husband ? (how to observe her entry too ?!), and finally the kid faced his bully by the power of the mom; it was comic yes, but not dramatically effective, a move by him would have been stronger, well, sure that line didn't complete, even his girl, since the middle of the movie, got invisible herself !

It looks like a Disney movie, yet on a cruel diet. However, I loved it. It is fun movie, done by little money. See here "Poor" isn't a motto for being bad, as much as "Expensive" hasn't become a motto for being good nowadays !

P.S : Did anybody, else me, notice the beauty (Beth Ulrich), heroine of a few later movies like (Life/Drawing – 2001), as the custody officer beside the orphanage's telephone ? Although they hided her face behind a huge glasses but her delightful presence can't be mistaken.

Was the above review useful to you?

fun film

7/10
Author: thomas2400 from United Kingdom
31 March 2009

recently watched this film with some friends while drinking turns out after a bit of alcohol this is one of the funniest films you can see

provided (as with batman and robin) you take the film as a comedy that is supposed to be stupid then you will most likely love it

yes the plot is ludicrous and the acting is terrible but if you pretend that its meant to be like that you will have a fun-time

also there is an invisible mom 2 so that most tell you there is something right about it

highly, highly recommended if you have a sense of humour if not then stay away as you will be disappointed

Was the above review useful to you?

Similar to Honey I Shrunk The Kids

Author: cine_critter from Chicago, IL
29 October 2001

The Video Movie Guide gives this one 3 stars, so I rented it for my nieces, and they loved it. Invinting seems to run in the family, and the girls really loved his automatic bed-maker! When he's grounded, the boy steals his inventor father's invisibility formula, but his mother (the mom from ET) drinks it instead. Now the boy can't sneak an extra cookie without mom seeing him. The girls laughed, and I thought it was an okay movie. Good for the kids.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

See through fun for the little ones

Author: CommandoCody from Washington, DC
17 March 2003

Professor Karl Griffin unable to stand up to his boss at work, invents an invisibility serum in his lab at home. Meanwhile, his son, Josh, is having trouble with the neighborhood bully and grounded by his mother for not doing his chores. Josh decides to use the potion to become invisible so he can get out of the house (and presumably extract some transparent pay back against the aforementioned bully). Unfortunately, his mother accidentally drinks the potion instead. What neither Josh nor his mother realize is that Karl has yet to develop an antidote. Wackiness ensues as mom in her unseen state helps Karl and Josh solve their problems. Now, if only they can figure a way to restore her to normal. As a simple, easy going comedy, Invisible Mom should appeal greatly to younger children, but do not expect much more from it. Adults will easily see through numerous holes in its plot.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

OK for the kiddies

4/10
Author: churchofsunshine from United Kingdom
17 September 2008

When this film was released in 1997 the 'special effects', such as they are, were poor. They would have been dated even for the 1980s, and even some films made in the 1970s and 1960s have had the same or better SFX work. Certainly no-one involved in the production of this film was looking for an Oscar. It's a wild departure from director Fred Olen Ray's usual stuff, most of which has the word "Bikini" in the title (Bikini Pirates, Bikini Chain Gang, Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet, etc) and are little more than T&A flicks, but here we are with a film rated "U" and aimed squarely at the kiddies. You've got to give him credit for diversifying!! This was a minor direct-to-video cult hit which later resulted in a couple of sequels - Invisible Mom 2 and Invisible Dad. Dee Wallace-Stone (whose career went downhill fast after 1982s "E.T.) plays the 'invisible mom' of the films title and would return for the sequel. Russ Tamblyn (whose career had been in free-fall even longer since 1961s "West Side Story") plays the villainous Dr. Woorter. It's probably fair to say that most of the cast were at the point in their careers where they would be prepared to work on almost anything just to pay the bills that month - except maybe young Trenton Knight as Josh. It's rather telling though that although he worked prior to this movie, this child actor didn't work again after the sequel, "Invisible Mom 2". Maybe the film was cursed. After all, he wasn't that bad in this film. For a child actor, he's pretty good - no better or worse than any of his more experienced co-stars.

As mentioned above, the "invisibility" effects are naff to say the least, the direction is poor, the writing obvious and the acting nothing to write home about. There are plenty of worse films out there though, and for anyone under the age of about ten, this film will no doubt be quite watchable. Most adults will probably want to do a disappearing act of their own while it is on though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Wowzers this movie sure did suck!

2/10
Author: Michelle (SciFiGal) from California
23 November 2001

Boy oh boy oh golly gee,

The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...

I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

This what I called "A Crappy Film"

Author: Pat-88
3 January 1999

WOW!! I never seen a movie as bad as this one before.

This movie got a Invisible Dog and a Lizard. There is more things there are invisible then "A MOM".

The makers of this movie really should name the title of this movie "The Invisible things".

The plot and the acting is so bad that makes "Attack of the killer tomatoes" looks like an award winning feature film.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.

MAN I CAN'T BELIEVE I WASTE MY TIME WATCHING THIS REALLY BAD MOVIE!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history