Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

James Terrell The only reason I watched _Zapped Again_ was because I had again watched the original _Zapped!_ after 19 years (see my review for _Zapped!_). From some of the reviews in video books and on the IMDb, I was prepared for an unmitigated disaster. Surprisingly, I found myself reasonably entertained for an hour and a half.First of all, I should say that _Zapped Again_ isn't a great movie. Its origins and status as a low budget, direct-to-video movie clearly show. The plot is very superficial, the constant double entendres (especially the "wiener" jokes) get a little annoying, and the stand-up-for-your-friends-and-don't-go-with-the-popular-crowd moral that pops up in every teen film has been conveyed much more effectively. Even the special effects are worse than the original _Zapped!_, which actually came out seven years earlier.But in spite of all of this, I didn't think this was half bad, probably because I went in with lowered expectations. One reason was because the movie doesn't rely on strong profanity, sex scenes, or gross-out scenes to entertain its target audience, the way so many other teen movies do. In fact, this is basically a PG-rated movie with some nude scenes incongruously thrown in--just like the original _Zapped!_. I'm no prude, and I have to agree with the reviewer who said that the movie is "gosh darn wholesome," but not all movies--or even all teen movies--require racy elements. Maybe this IS too much like _Saved by the Bell_, but it does have PG-rated material (and those nude scenes, the only reason why this is rated R).I should devote a separate paragraph to Kelli Williams, who plays the hero's love interest (by the way, her mother, Shannon Wilcox, plays the hero's mom in the opening scenes). I had never heard of her before watching _Zapped Again_ (I never watch TV, so I hadn't even seen her on _The Practice_), but let me tell you, she helps this movie immeasurably. You see, her character is supposed to be a science nerd, just like Felice Schachter in the original _Zapped_, but Kelli lights up the movie every time she appears onscreen. Not only is she the perfect "sweet nice girl" (I always had a weakness for those characters), but she plays this part without overacting or resorting to caricature; she gets it just right. Although roles like this are never meant to win Oscars, Kelli takes this little part in a direct-to-video flick and actually does something with it. Although I'm sure she'd like to forget all about _Zapped Again_, the movie is much better for her presence. I'm not surprised that she went on to her present success on _The Practice_.The acting is actually better than in _Zapped!_, which is one main reason why I liked _Zapped Again_ better. However, I thought that the types thatsome of the characters were supposed to represent were inconsistent with those characters' portrayal and actions. Kevin (played by Todd Eric Andrews) acts just too "cool" to be an outcast nerd; I can't see why he would have any social problems. As for Kelli Williams as Lucy, I just couldn't accept her as a nerd girl (although I certainly don't object to her presence here). Not only does she look too good for the part, but her attempts at nerdy intellectualism fall flat, and the two scenes where she inexplicably wears glasses (and just as inexplicably takes them off) look like weak attempts by the filmmakers to establish her character. They should have just had her play a straightforward "nice girl" (which she does admirably). Linda Blair doesn't cut it as "the hottest teacher in the school": not only does she not look "sexy" enough, but her character is also just too nice.Still, I thought that _Zapped Again_ was a half-decent movie, especially because the acting was better than _Zapped!_ (maybe because 1989 was a more exciting year than 1982, and had that hip attitude?). Hey, it kept me entertained, and sometimes I like to take a break from the Criterion Collection and watch something that does nothing more than entertain you.If you demand that all teen movies and sex comedies have refugees from WB Network shows, big budgets, and great soundtracks (always a big selling point with teen films), then you'll hate _Zapped Again_ (which, by the way, is more a remake of _Zapped!_ than a sequel). But as long as you lower your expectations, and as long as you don't expect a late 80s teen classic like _Heathers_ or _Say Anything_, you might get a little something out of this.

Monkasi I'm glad I saw this movie on late-night TV rather than renting it for four bucks on video, because I got screwed big time. Why weren't the characters as funny and outrageous as they were in the 1982 original? More to the point, where was the SEX? The Scott Baio movie fairly dripped with prurient appeal. I mean, they had an entire prom full of scantily-clad people running around; why didn't they have a prom scene this time? And why was this movie so gosh darn wholesome? You have to be between the ages of 13 and 18 to fully appreciate it, and I think I was about 20 when I saw it. There's hardly any profanity, and the writers must have thought that people would find jokes about the word "wiener" daring and hilarious. Who thought up this sequel, a roomful of second graders? It was direct-to-video, for God's sake! There should have been MORE racy material, not less! It should have been worthy of an R rating, but instead they made it tantamount to a PG-13. I was very disappointed with ZAPPED AGAIN! Watch it for the laughs, but not so much for the flesh.

Bats_Breath Really stupid '80s movie. There wasn't even a sexual romance between the kid and the teacher, as the video box and other ads suggest. The credits clearly state this movie was made in 1989 and it shows. I remember seeing this movie on TV back in '91 and the TV Guide said 1990 and I was like "whoa, no way". 1990 can look '80ish at times because there were some left over fashions around from the '80s, but THIS FILM is just way to '80s to have been made in 1990.I guess some producer insisted the production date be "1990" to sell the film more. It didn't work, its blatant '80s. But not '80s teen flicks in a good way like Breakfast Club, Heathers, or Karate Kid. This film is awful. Watch the original Zapped, that movie was goofy fun.

Jackal-26 The 80's, wow, they gave us some pretty wacky stuff. Stuff like Michael Jackson as we now know him, the appreciation of music from any other time period, and the teen movie.This movie is a teen movie. It's not supposed to be a complex mental thriller. It's a film to make you laugh . Not so much at its jokes, but the movie itself. Sure the plot isn't Oscar material. Maybe the acting isn't superb. But the movie is hilarious.The whole plot is uproariously preposterous. The movie goes against a lot of teen-flick principles. The hero isn't very geeky. The nerdy girl waiting on the sidelines is quite attractive, and at one point the movie goes black and white for a Casablanca scene that still makes me giggle. The whole prune juice telekinesis thing is never made clear, but that's ok, because the zapped part in the title only comes up about 3 or 4 times. This movie was made in 1990, but the early 90s were simply the last revels of the 80s. This movie is an 80s teen-flick. The jokes are 80s and the music is the 80s. But the 80s were funny.I love this movie, it is a great flashback to a less stressful time, back when some crazy magic thingy would always save the day. Simply put, this movie is a great party movie, it features a really cute girl, Kelli Williams, and it's worth a rent.