Eric Stevenson This movie actually holds a special place in my heart. I believe when I was really little I saw scenes of this movie with the spider gremlin. Since than, I always used to draw a spider design and I believe I still do. I'm fairly certain I got the design and the spider legs from this movie. Anyway, I'm surprised more people don't like this movie. I will admit that it does have a major fault.I wish they had the gremlins go into more of New York City, but instead they're just confined to this one building. I remember reading Leonard Maltin's review and how funny it was to see him in the actual movie. He was actually friends with Joe Dante and was one of the few people who didn't like the original movie. It's great that he can make fun of himself like this as I admit he's given unfavorable reviews to a lot of great movies. Sometimes the visuals are off, but it's still very creative. It was in fact goofier than the original but I still think it had the spirit. ***

Paul Magne Haakonsen I am, and have always been, a fan of the "Gremlins" movies. Especially since they manage to combine comedy and horror in a most satisfying manner, but most importantly because of the Mogwai and the gremlins themselves.If you enjoyed the 1984 "Gremlins" movie, then you will definitely also like the "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" from 1990.This is a direct continuation of the first movie in a way, and the writers managed to come up with a story angle that supports the transition between the first and second movie quite well.In "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" Billy (played by Zach Galligan) and Kate (played by Phoebe Cates) have moved to New York and are working for the Clamp company and work in an advanced skyscraper. When Gizmo finds his way to Billy, and is accidentally exposed to water, New York is in for a repeat of the incident that happened at Kingston Falls.One might think, at a glance, that I have already seen this in the first movie. And you are right, to a certain extend. Sure, there are similarities to the first movie, but everything in "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" is taken one step further. More gremlins, more mutations, more mayhem, more comedy, and so forth.What I love about "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" is the great ideas for changing the gremlins, as they are exposed to the various formulas and genetic materials from a research company also house in the Clamp Tower. The gremlins designs are just fantastic, and the creativity behind these ideas is just fabulous.There are also some great performances in this movie. Of course, first and foremost, it was nice to have Zach Galligan and Phoebe Cates return to their roles. But it was equally great to have Dick Miller return as well, despite for a small role only (just as in the first movie). Furthermore, there were some memorable performances by Christopher Lee, Robert Prosky, John Glover and Robert Picardo.The storyline in "Gremlins 2: The New Batch" is also good, and it matches the craziness, intensity and the unique style of the first movie very well, and then adds a new element to that."Gremlins 2: The New Batch" is a movie that you can watch again and again, just like the first movie. And this is one of those types of movies that everyone is familiar with, even if they haven't actually seen the movie. I think that these two movies are definitely something that everyone should take the time to sit down and watch.

ElMaruecan82 1989 was a terrific year for sequels as four of them made it in the box-office Top 10, and three of them would actually have sequels. So I guess when Joe Dante was making the second opus of his 1984 hit "Gremlins", the results of "Ghostbusters 2", "Lethal Weapon 2", "Back to the Future part II"… and on the top of them "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" probably made him believe his "Gremlins 2: The New Batch", would be a sure lock for a great return of investment. It was not.Maybe 1990 wasn't such a good year for sequels after all… still, my jaw dropped when I read that the film only grossed 40 millions of dollars out of a slightly superior budget. I don't think it's a result even the most skeptical critics expected; something happened there, let's call it a disastrous and unfortunate accident, nothing that really speaks bad statements about the film's quality. It wouldn't have meant much either had the film made it in the Top 10, I don't think "Ghostbusters 2" was anyway superior to "Gremlins 2" but it must have met with the fans' expectations, they had their quartet, Billy Murray's wisecracks, a worthy villain and a larger-than-life last-minute savior… so it was worth the ticket and the popcorn box. So what exactly lacked in "Gremlins 2"? What didn't lack was the leading pair, Zach Galligan and Phoebe Cates, the cute Gizmo, his evil descendants, including the Mohawk, and the unforgettable three rules that everyone forget. Was there a lack of originality? Not at all, the film does try to play in a different field than the first, starting with the setting. We're not in the Capra-esque Christmas small town but in New-York giant corporate skyscraper, governed by a Donald Trump-like character named Klamp, it's a terrific setting as it defiantly pretends to create a microcosm of the urban post-modern world in a rather confined environment… so that it ultimately becomes the Gremlins' ecosystem. Billy and his newlywed wife work together in the building, he's a shy and obedient executive and she's a competent hostess who tries to fit in New York and people's rude manners.The heroes are given more depth and character than in the first film but so are the Gremlins who're not just a generic group of monsters. You have the chief, the goofy one with bulging eyes, one with two visible front teeth, some others will be submitted to genetic transformations including gender-changes, one becomes a spider-hybrid, and another turns into electricity… no holds were barred, and we could as well have a Gremlin turning into an apple pie or a rubber duck. Too much fun kill the fun, and it's a pity because one special Gremlin was enough, you know which one I mean: the intellectual sophisticated Gremlin (voiced by Tony Randall) who could finally raise the Gremlins' voices in a more interesting manner than their usually hyena-like giggling that quickly get tiresome. It's a pity that such a scene-stealing character blooms very late in the film, he's one of the things we remember and one of the aspects that subtly hints the sequel's satirical intent.Indeed, "Gremlins 2" is not like any sequel. For one thing, it's pretty much aware of its status as a sequel and doesn't try to be a "Gremlins" in a building as "Die Hard 2" was "Die Hard" in an airport. The film mocks its own material by toning down the gruesome violence of the Gremlins and emphasizing the jokes and humorous effects. But whether for the Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy opening and some weird comic moments involving a trap door, there is something desperately obvious in the way the filmmakers tell us this is a comedy and at the end, the good gags are quite lost in the midst of these frantic attempts to take distance from the original. Ultimately, what happens with "Gremlins 2" is that it takes too much distance from the first film in the wrong time and not enough in the right time.Just when you expect the film to go a little further in its satirical approach, when you think the brainy Gremlin, after such a puzzling speech about the notion of civilization, will lead the Gremlins to something more transcending than the usual mayhem or chaos, well, then the film gets back to the whole 'kill them' issue and becomes a standard action movie. The problem is that the efforts to make the Gremlins look so unique and different didn't have, to me, the right pay-off. I actually felt sorry to see them being killed in an equally blind way, the evil savage ones just like the goofy ones, I would have just loved to see the brain Gremlin survive, because he actually had something more human than the others. Why let the 'action' devices kill the 'satire' ones? "Gremlins 2" is undeniably original, and had better intentions than many more successful sequels, it was also served by a nice supporting cast, many prestigious cameos, from the Looney Tunes to Hulk Hogan, from Christopher Lee to Leonard Matlin, but its self-referential approach must have disrupted a majority of teenage fans who probably didn't get all the references to classic films like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Marathon Man". I mentioned that the first movie also suffered from a kind of schizophrenia as it was trying to be a horror-B movie and a 'family' Christmas story, but those were twists in the formats while "Gremlins 2" tries to be two different things tone-wise, and it didn't quite succeed although it had some great potential.Three years later, another movie would suffer the same fate, and would be a box-office flop due to a similar misunderstanding, "Last Action Hero". These things happen and I guess some movies doesn't get the recognition they deserve. Bad luck.

electro-71748 Another Gremlins movie filled with chaos and fun that for some reason, is usually thought of as a bad movie! I don't understand why so many people don't like this film. If anything it should be thought as on the same level of good as the first. Gremlins 2 does exactly what you would want from a Gremlins sequel, it ups the chaos, introduces new and memorable gremlins such as Mohawk, Greta and Brain, and explores all new possibilities, such as mutant gremlins. But it doesn't just rely on the gremlins for it's comedy, it also has many extremely funny moments in how it does satire of TV and large corporations. It even makes fun of itself, making jokes based on problems from the original and the concept of the Gremlins. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoyed the original film.