How sad is this?

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

In 2012, A Christmas Story had already become a staple of American culture, and it was EVERYWHERE. Clothes, props, a play, even friggin' fudge (get it?) And it was no surprise that a sequel would be made.In November 2012, we got A Christmas Story 2. I remember hearing about this and just being like "Meh. Whatever.", since I wasn't really a fan of the film at the time. Then, I began to see what horrible reviews it got, so that was enough to peak my curiosity, and last year, I finally saw this thing (after I saw the original, of course.)First off, my thoughts on the original: It's a good film. It certainly does put you in a child's perspective. I now see why everybody loves it. (If only the people marketing this stuff could see that.) Now, we get to this movie, hoo boy. First thing, this was on TV A LOT last year, so I just saw it on one of the airings, although I did rent it from the library, but the DVD skipped. So, our plot is that Ralphie is now 16 and he wants what every 16-year-old wants for Christmas, a car. Of course. He also wants to woo a girl at his school named Drucilla. That's fine and all, but we can't have fine, how about we repeat the same things that made the original great in this film? Yeah, my main gripe with this film is that it tries to "recapture the greatness" of the original... By repeating the same stuff. The Old Man still is having a neverending battle with the furnace (five years later?), Ralphie's mom still overdresses Randy, Flik gets his tongue stuck to something (or, in something in this case), and of course, many uses of the phrase "Son of a bitch!" Pitiful.In my opinion, if you want to capture the essence of the predecessor, you have to take what made it great, and step it up a bit, not repeat the same things. Now, this movie is an obvious cash grab. It was made at a time where A Christmas Story was insanely popular. It tries too hard to recapture the fun of the original, and offers barely anything new. But with all this hating, at least they were trying. They were at least trying with the sets and props. They at least tried to make it look like the '40s. They also try to shove in some Christmas morals. That's all good. It also has that good Christmas-y heart feel to it, where everything turns out in the end.So, horrible movie, but it has heart and at least tried.

Jean Shepherd has got to be spinning in his grave. I haven't read his books, but we've watched the original "A Christmas Story" 20 - 30 times. To say it is only a movie or forget about comparisons and just take it as something new and just 4 fun is a symptom of a society that has lost its soul. The richness of the writing of the 1982 original (somebody mentioned there are parts of #2 that are taken from Shepherd's stories, and I think I can guess which--I would bet the visit to the dentist, one of the few funny moments) is not just a hard act to follow, but a national treasure. The original transports us back to another time when the world and especially this country were qualitatively different than it is now. Every detail, the cast, every nuance, the whole aesthetic, gels to remove us from the cynicism and political correctness and every other aspect of Today to a world that some of us can remember, almost remember, or at least, imagine we remember. The would-be sequel fails completely to understand, much less appreciate, the beauty or depth of this magic. The cast is all wrong. Crudeness was a part of that era, but it was configured in a totally different way from the 1-dimensional postmodern context which this one is locked into. The demon White Male stereotype this buys into is devoid of any comprehension whatsoever of the character Darren McGavin so perfectly portrayed. The costumes are still from 5 years earlier, not counting Ralphie's 1980s giant eyeglasses, which didn't yet exist in the years this story is supposedly set in. This one was cranked out by commercial crapsters incapable of escaping a temporal tunnel vision that has no business attempting to recapture any era that has gone by before their own time. The acting is mostly godawful. Seems like the only times it improves a bit are scenes where it appears that they finally got a bit tired of yelling their lines. The meanness of some of the acting or characters in the original was purposeful--it showed a child's perception of them, not actual cruelty. In this one, it's all just crude and stupid. The only reason to see version 2 is as a kind of cultural monitor, to compare and contrast, hopefully to learn the differences between great art and a total failure to grasp what art is.

All I'm thinking is: why couldn't they have made this movie ten years ago. It's a very nice idea; what ever happened to Ralphie Parker and his family and friends? It's not a bad movie, but it just doesn't catch the humor or the timeless quality of the house. For one thing, I don't think they used the actual house, and two, I really wish they had filmed it with the same style as the first movie, (but then, maybe it's a bit hard to gets 70s-era film gear). The young actors playing Ralphie, Flick and Schwartz are passable, but the new Mom and Dad kind of stick out. Mom is okay, but Daniel Stern makes no effort to emulate or really re-capture the role of the late Darren McGavin. What he does is basically create a new character with shades of the original, but he misses something of the timeless quality of the first movie, obsessing more on money and becoming a caricature. Another thing, the movie lacks some of the core characters of the first movie, (Scut Farkus, Grover Dill, Miss Shields, the Bumpass Dogs…), and introduces some new ones. Do we really need to see Ralphie as a teenager obsessing about getting a car and the hot girl in school? It's kind of like seeing Darla of "Our Gang" getting her first bra or Dorothy of "The Wizard Of Oz" having her first period. Sorry, too much information. Another thing, besides the school and the department store, the original movie was sort of in a contained universe. You never really saw much of it beyond the fences or the gray wintry skies, so actually seeing the rest of town and the neighbors' houses is kind of like the magician showing how the trick works, it removes the charm and the mystery, and let's not forget, there's something about seeing Christmas from a kid's point of view so trying it from a teenager's view feels kind of awkward. Bottom line, it's not a bad movie, but it really would have worked much better with a separate identity than as a follow-up to a Christmas Classic.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the worst movies ever. The people that wrote and directed this must have no imaginations at all. How many jokes can you possibly rehash from the original? They could have easily made an original Christmas Story sequel, but they did this. How about basing it in a different decade? How about not naming the characters the same as they were in the past? How about actually getting actors that at least resembled the original people? I also find it hilarious that they have to call this the official sequel because there was an attempt at a sequel to the original movie back in 1994. Mind you, it wasn't great and the characters again didn't look like the originals, but at least it was an attempt at a new story.