churchofsunshine
"Invisible Mom 2" (or II as it appears in the on screen titles) is set two years after the first film. Dee Wallace-Stone is still the Mom, Barry Livingston is still the scientist Dad, and although Trenton Knight has grown about 12inches in the intervening two years, he still plays their young son Josh, while Fred Olen Ray (best known for his sleaze and T&A fests rather than family films like this) once again directs, so the end product has a lot in common with film number one in the series - Ray even finds time to put in a little flashback sequence just to explain to the audience exactly what happened in the first film and how "mom" came to be invisible in the first place. It turns out that the antidote she took wasn't 100% effective, and she still becomes invisible on occasion, especially when she gets stressed.The plot involves some old rich guy who is about to die and has a niece and nephew who stand to inherit billions, except that brother and sister duo Olivia (Mary Woronov) and Bernard (Micky Dolenz) are stereotypical evil little characters who have already bumped off other relatives so they can be first in line. Unknown to them though there is another relative - a 12year old boy named Edward (Justin Berfield) who was placed in an orphanage many years previously by his mother so that the evil Olivia and Bernard wouldn't be able to find him and arrange an accident. Thus so it is that "Invisible Mom" and her family become foster parents to young Edward (or Eddie) and get sucked into the story about Olivia & Bernard trying to reclaim him and arrange an unfortunate accident so they can inherit everything. It's not an especially original plot, but since this is a film aimed mainly at kiddies (like the first one), I'm sure they won't care too much.Micky Dolenz and Mary Woronov don't just chew the scenery they eat it and swallow it whole by going completely over-the-top in their evil-ness, but like I said, this is for the kiddies and they will probably find this scene-stealing stuff quite fun. Even though this film is named "Invisible Mom" there isn't actually that much invisibility in it, which is probably just as well given how naff the effects were in the first film - maybe that's why this time round, they don't notice so much. I was also once again confused by the DVD video cover which featured invisible mom on an exercise bike with a young girl looking through the window in astonishment. Who the young girl is, I don't know, but I don't recall seeing her in the movie, and neither does any scene involve an exercise machine. Surely this sleeve cover is misleading and should be investigated by the trades description people. How can they use a picture like this as a cover for a film that doesn't bear even the slightest resemblance to anything in the movie itself? What are they afraid of? The film isn't that bad. Children will love it. I'm not so sure about adults, but this is what it is, we're not supposed to read too much into it. I'm not so sure I could face a third instalment in the series, but this definitely is a bit more fun than the first one. A sequel that is better than the first film. That's something you don't see too often! 6/10
bbchops
It may be that I could not comprehend the intricate tangle of subplots and complex characterisations within this piece of cinema as I have not yet had the pleasure of enjoying the first in the canon of the Invisible Mother, the eponymously titled 'Invisible Mom'.Certainly this film had a lot to say about modern capitalist America and the role of invisible parents and their effect on their progeny. Commendably the role of the 'Invisible Mother' was of a strong and independent woman struggling against the the adversity of being non visible.Despite her lack of effect on photonic radiation she presented a strong role model for any invisible girls thinking of bearing children.Sadly, and much to my dismay, this could not stop the film stinking like a bucket of prawns in the sun.
