AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Pluskylang
Great Film overall
Joanna Mccarty
Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.
Mr-Fusion
The original "Major League" had a distinct heart that's all but gone this lackluster sequel. Retreading the first movie in nearly every way, "Major League II" takes the lazy way out and turns these great characters into cartoons for cheap laughs. There's no way the Rick Vaughn we know would've gone full-on cleancut endorsement boy, and making all of these guys into complacent wimps after just six months is ridiculous. Where's Harris? Why is Hayes suddenly an actor? The best parts of this movie were all of Rube's scenes and Tanaka's intro, but they couldn't make up for Charlie Sheen's nodded-off performance. It's not a bad movie, but it does have "meh" written all over it.5/10
Miles Riley
In my opinion, the biggest flaw was that it was supposed to be the 'very' next year, but in reality the movie was filmed five years later. This really showed with some of the characters. Rick Vaughn (Charlie Sheen) was a rookie in the first film, but he's obviously not a kid anymore in this one. When Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger) first stepped out of the taxi at the beginning of this movie, he looked so much older that it was stunning. And Margaret Whitton (Rachel Phelps) had aged so much and gained enough weight that I literally didn't even recognize her at first. All of this just took a while to get accustomed to, not to mention Willie Mays Hayes now being played by a different character. They just casually slipped that in there like we weren't supposed to notice, but I never really could accept this as being the same character that I loved so much in the first film.As far as the comedy, it's a bit more slap-stick than the original. The character of Rube Baker (played by Eric Bruskotter) is likable, but borderline goofy. Also, Roger Dorn's character (played by Corbin Bernsen) has transformed from an egotistical bad-boy to a wimpy cry-baby. I had trouble believing that was the same character as well.But all of that aside, I still liked this film pretty well. It just took me a while to adjust to the changes. I enjoyed it better the second time I watched it, once the initial shock had worn off.
MovieAddict2016
The first "Major League" was enjoyable (even if it wasn't great or anything) whereas this cash-in sequel is basically just to suck the money out of a film that made more cash at the box office than anyone expected.The first "Major League" came out in '87 and this one in '94; the seven-year gap surely didn't help much with profit. As far as I'm aware this didn't do nearly as well as the original in theaters and it's not hard to understand why.Most of the original cast returns - mainly Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen though - to once again spoof baseball. It's not as wacky a comedy as, say, "Hot Shots!", but it's close.The real problem with this film is that it's basically extending a story that doesn't need to be extended and recycling a lot of jokes we've already seen. It's worth seeing if you catch it on television, but don't go out of your way - especially if you didn't care much for the original.
Tecun_Uman
This movie did not have the budget or the star power of the first one, but it made up for it with sharper writing and more creative characters. The real delight of this second chapter was that of Randy Quaid, whose tortured Indians fan character was just great. Exit Wesley Snipes, enter Omar Epps, who upholds the character of Willie Mays Hayes. Charlie Sheen is given more range and better punchlines, while the character of Jack Parkman infuses a much needed new enemy into the storyline. In fact, it is David Keith's Parkman that really makes the movie. I really feel that this film kept the series at the same level as the first, if not actually bringing it up a bit. Of course the third was really bad. So, don't be nervous that this will be another "sorry sequel", it really is quite good.
