kriegerg69

Contrary to what most others have stated, this poverty row-looking production was NOT actually produced or made by Universal (so folks can stop criticizing the poor production values on the greatest studio during the classic era of horror). This fairly dull movie (yes...I agree that much with the negative reviews here) was actually made by Scienart Pictures, and only distributed theatrically by Universal, who did NOT produce it. So people can get off Universal's back with their lambasting of the movie...instead blame Scienart Pictures.

Meryl Streep reportedly didn't want to do a full role, so she only appears for a few minutes near the end of the movie. They basically explain that Donna has died...without Streep, this film never should have been made. It even has a very downbeat, lackluster opening instead of the dynamics the first film had in its opening...and that was a bad sign to start off with. Technically, it's very well photographed (albeit much darker-looking than the first film) and technically accomplished, but that's not enough. Musically...they used all the good and well-known songs in the first movie, so this one uses much lesser ABBA tunes, and unfortunately reuses several songs from the first film...that gets very tiresome very quickly because the viewer (at least I did) wants to hear songs not used the first time around. The only two standouts were "Knowing Me, Knowing You" and the song "Waterloo" (only heard and performed during the first film's end credits) but redone here as a big production number. Half the movie is spent on flashback scenes to Donna's past using younger actors as the characters. There was also absolutely no need for Cher to be in the film, as she adds nothing...nada...zero...to the story...only reason is so her character can sing the song "Fernando" (not used the first time around). She's accompanied by Andy Garcia, whose only reason for being there is he plays Fernando, giving a very weak reason for Cher's character to sing to (and with) him, and there's no reason for his character to be there either. There's also really weak reasoning for Rosie and Bill's breakup to be part of the story, rather odd considering they got together near the end of Mamma Mia. Most annoying was how there was no mention at all of Harry Bright's (Colin) sexuality...in Mamma Mia, it turns out he's gay and ends up with a handsome boyfriend, but that gets thrown right out the window with no mention of his being gay or what happened to his partner from the first film (except for some brief hinting at in the flashbacks with the younger Harry). Personally, I would not recommend this movie to anyone. Stick to the first movie because it's a continual feel-good time and is much more fun. Mamma Mia 2 is almost depressing to watch.

I have yet to actually see this, but has anyone yet realized this may very likely be an unauthorized remake of Amphibian Man (1962), a Russian film? The more I read about DelToro's movie, the more I see the similarities between it and the earlier Russian film no one seems to realize this movie is a LOT like.

This pilot for a never-materialized series (another reviewer is incorrect in referring to it having a run of only 2 episodes....this, the pilot, was the ONLY episode ever made. It was never picked up or approved as a weekly series.) is a lot of corny, goofball fun. It was a perfect situation for Anthony Perkins, and the rest of the cast is hysterical throughout, often stealing scenes right out from under Perkins, especially Joshua Miller as Edgar, and Pam Matteson as Miss Blasco (who seems to echo Madeline Kahn had Kahn been playing the character). It would have been interesting to see what other stories would have been created had this delightful concept been given a chance.