rudedude-1
While this was not the worst movie I have ever seen this one does pale to the original. First Corey Feldman's Bobby is now a suit. I guess that could happen but most of the movie seemed predominated by the conservative vs liberal debate between Bobby and Dinger's sister Rachel (Robyn Lively), a trend which we say way too much of in the '90s I also feel that Corey Haim was grossley underused. There's an unwritten law in sequels that says use your returning players as much as possible. I'm not going to argue the death of Jason Robards' character Coleman Ettinger because it would be one of the only ways to not have him appear, but I will voice my biggest gripes over the following: 1) that Coleman was actually conducting more experiments on a professional level and 2) that he was having sex with his assistant. Did the filmmakers of this one even bother to watch the original. The reason Coleman-as-Bobby endured high school life, fought Bobby's best friend and put up with countless other high school humiliations was so he could be reunited with his wife and after that he had given up on the experiment was because he just wanted to live his life with his wife. This movie did establish one thing: that Bobby, Dinger, and Rachel are from Cleveland. However this is not the worst movie I have seen and it was good to see these characters again. I had seen the original and liked it so it was almost like a reunion with old friends and I could think of worst ways to spend a Saturday afternoon.
darlenefraser2000
Warning may contain spoilers! Although this sequel to the 1989 hit has really no comparasin(I think i spelled that right!)to the original. Which was a body switch comedy(very popular storyline in the late 80's)this sequel is faithful enough I suppose. The story has a sexy con artist after a pair of spec's, one pair has the ability to make the wearer of the second pair, do his or her bidding. Of course they land in the hands of bobby and dinger which sets them in yet another adventure. Although the film box would have you beleave that this was loaded with nudity, it's not. which is good. mainly because there are so many "sequels" nowaday's that take that territory out of desperation, to get money, and fan recognition. defanintly worth a look.
Brian-272
I rented Dream a Little Dream 2 from my local video store in 1995, that being my first viewing of the film, since then I have recently watched this movie a couple of times the last few months on the premium cable network Showtime. A decent comedy with the two Corey's involved in a dramatic tangle over a pair of special powerful sunglasses. The best thing about this movie is the beautiful Stacie Randall, hopefully we will see her in more movies so she can showcase her talent. All in all Dream of Stacie watch if you like Haim and Feldman but Stacie Randall is the best, this film is made to watch if nothing else better to do and to view Stacie Randall.
macgruder
Crap. That is what this movie is. Don't get me wrong, I like cheesy movies and I'm a fan of the Feldman/Haim duo(Lost Boys, License To Drive), but this movie was so stupid. Corey Feldman once again doing his Michael Jackson impression, and Corey Haim trying to get his hair to look as weird as possible. Was there even a plot? Oh yeah, something about a few pairs of "magic sunglasses"(what?). The plot was totally different from the original Dream a Little Dream, so I don't know how this movie interacts with the original. I'm guessing the only reason they made this movie a sequel to the original is because this way people who liked the original would actually think this movie had some redeeming value and waste an hour and a half of their life watching this crap.
AD
