"When I was 9 I pulled the wrapping off the present of my dreams and knew right then that no Christmas would ever be the same and none were, until today." Ralphie (Lemasters) is a few years older and it's Christmas time again. This year instead of a gun he wants a car. When he is testing out how it feels behind the wheel an accident happens and he owes the dealer $85. When his dad (Stern) refuses to help him and his friends get jobs, which turns out to be a huge adventure. I have to admit I was very skeptical going in to this movie. I loved the first one but after seeing "Christmas Vacation 2 : Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure" I am a little leery about sequels to classic movies. This was better then that one but this is still nothing to rush out and see. Stern is a little over the top and every other scene is him yelling at the furnace. They try to just re-hash the funny gags from the original but they aren't funny in this one. Pretty much the movie is what you would expect and most people will watch it out of curiosity, like I did. Overall, I was expecting worse but this is still forgettable and not really worth seeing. I give it a C.
57 Reviews
Not what I wanted for Christmas.
JoshSpurling9 March 2013
Ralphie obsesses over what he wants for Christmas, doesn't get it, then gets it after all. He says, "Oh Fudge!", wears an embarrassing animal costume, isn't able to have turkey for Christmas, and eats at the Chop Suey Palace. Mrs. Parker overdresses Randy for the cold weather. The Old Man yells 'It's a clinker!' fights the furnace, and gets a leg lamp. And, of course, Flick gets his tongue stuck to something.
You may think I'm talking about A Christmas Story, but sadly this is also the description for the completely unnecessary sequel, A Christmas Story 2. Clearly, there is no attempt made here to capture the magic of the original, only a blatant attempt to cash in on its success by recycling all its funny moments and adding tired family movie formulas. At one point, Ralphie blurts out what I'm sure the entire audience is already thinking, "Oh no! Not again!" It could easily have been the tag line for the movie posters.
Despite all this, A Christmas Story 2 is certainly not as bad as it could have been, considering the current family movie genre's obsession with vomit and flatulence. If you're just feeling a bit nostalgic for A Christmas Story, A Summer Story and Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss are far better sequels with fresh material, though they, too, pale in comparison to the original classic.
You may think I'm talking about A Christmas Story, but sadly this is also the description for the completely unnecessary sequel, A Christmas Story 2. Clearly, there is no attempt made here to capture the magic of the original, only a blatant attempt to cash in on its success by recycling all its funny moments and adding tired family movie formulas. At one point, Ralphie blurts out what I'm sure the entire audience is already thinking, "Oh no! Not again!" It could easily have been the tag line for the movie posters.
Despite all this, A Christmas Story 2 is certainly not as bad as it could have been, considering the current family movie genre's obsession with vomit and flatulence. If you're just feeling a bit nostalgic for A Christmas Story, A Summer Story and Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss are far better sequels with fresh material, though they, too, pale in comparison to the original classic.
Christmas Story 2 Doesn't Exist
Fields2016 January 2013
There's never been a sequel to The Christmas Story. You may have seen a movie you THOUGHT was Christmas Story 2, but there never was a Christmas Story 2. Daniel Stern never tried to replace Darren McGavin. There's never been a Christmas Story sequel that shovels every memorable moment into the sequel just because. There's never been a Jean Shepard soundalike that would fit right at home with a video game version of the film.
I know the filmmakers were trying hard but let's be honest, was this film really necessary? I mean, I'm sure there was a love and devotion to the film because they were huge fans of the original but if that's the case, everyone should just make their own spin on Christmas Story 2. That's what it seems like anyway.
The film takes place with Ralphie in his teen years. I will say one good thing that they did pick a decent Ralphie. Heck, I even liked Flick and Schwartz in this. Ralphie wants a car for Christmas as opposed to the Red Rider BB Gun. There's a miss opportunity here where instead of "You'll shoot your eye out" it could be something like, "You can't drive, kid" or something to that effect. Then Ralphie ends up damaging the car and the car owner wants him to pay for it so he and his friends go get demeaning jobs.
The problem with this movie is that it's not nearly as fun as Christmas Story. It tries hard, but it doesn't succeed. Ralphie even has these imagination sequences that seem too juvenile for someone at his age. They refer to Christmas Story like it was last year when it's supposed to be years later. Wouldn't they be talking about a different Christmas by now? It's just not very good. Oh, and Daniel Stern (as good as an actor he is) just comes off as annoying and I can't see The Old Man anywhere in him.
I'll end this review on a good note though. The love interest is insanely hot. I see Ralphie has good tastes. Unfortunately how he talks to her at the end is shoehorned in and-- OK I'm trying to end on a good note here. The girl is gorgeous. That is all.
I know the filmmakers were trying hard but let's be honest, was this film really necessary? I mean, I'm sure there was a love and devotion to the film because they were huge fans of the original but if that's the case, everyone should just make their own spin on Christmas Story 2. That's what it seems like anyway.
The film takes place with Ralphie in his teen years. I will say one good thing that they did pick a decent Ralphie. Heck, I even liked Flick and Schwartz in this. Ralphie wants a car for Christmas as opposed to the Red Rider BB Gun. There's a miss opportunity here where instead of "You'll shoot your eye out" it could be something like, "You can't drive, kid" or something to that effect. Then Ralphie ends up damaging the car and the car owner wants him to pay for it so he and his friends go get demeaning jobs.
The problem with this movie is that it's not nearly as fun as Christmas Story. It tries hard, but it doesn't succeed. Ralphie even has these imagination sequences that seem too juvenile for someone at his age. They refer to Christmas Story like it was last year when it's supposed to be years later. Wouldn't they be talking about a different Christmas by now? It's just not very good. Oh, and Daniel Stern (as good as an actor he is) just comes off as annoying and I can't see The Old Man anywhere in him.
I'll end this review on a good note though. The love interest is insanely hot. I see Ralphie has good tastes. Unfortunately how he talks to her at the end is shoehorned in and-- OK I'm trying to end on a good note here. The girl is gorgeous. That is all.
Well... it could have been worse
Wizard-88 November 2012
When I saw the Blu-ray for this movie at my local video rental store, my first reaction was, "Whaaaa?!?!?" I mean, they had years earlier tried another sequel to the classic "A Christmas Story", which was titled "It Runs In The Family" (a.k.a. "My Summer Story") And that movie was pretty bad despite bringing back the original director and writers. And looking at the credit list for "A Christmas Story 2", it was clear NO ONE from the original movie was returning! My hopes weren't that high, but my curiosity won out and I rented the movie and brought it home.
To be fair, this sequel does try to a degree to be different, moving up several years and having the main character of Ralphie to now being a teenager - which does bring up some new situations for him that couldn't have been done in the original movie. And there are some comic and/or tender moments here and there that did make me smile a little, moments that at times do come close to capturing the warm and hilarious feeling that came from the original movie.
However, for the most part the movie is a disappointment. Most of the gags aren't that funny, not just for the fact that many of them are simply recycled from the original movie. The main problem is that despite everyone involved in this sequel (in front of and behind the camera) is working VERY hard, the movie always seems to feel like a low rent imitation instead of the real thing.
Still, as I indicated in my summary line above, the movie could have been worse than it presently is. But I do hope they won't make "A Christmas Story 3".
To be fair, this sequel does try to a degree to be different, moving up several years and having the main character of Ralphie to now being a teenager - which does bring up some new situations for him that couldn't have been done in the original movie. And there are some comic and/or tender moments here and there that did make me smile a little, moments that at times do come close to capturing the warm and hilarious feeling that came from the original movie.
However, for the most part the movie is a disappointment. Most of the gags aren't that funny, not just for the fact that many of them are simply recycled from the original movie. The main problem is that despite everyone involved in this sequel (in front of and behind the camera) is working VERY hard, the movie always seems to feel like a low rent imitation instead of the real thing.
Still, as I indicated in my summary line above, the movie could have been worse than it presently is. But I do hope they won't make "A Christmas Story 3".
FUDGE! This crummy movie was really horrible! Somebody please shoot my eyes out!
ironhorse_iv27 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Although, director Bob Clark's 1983's A Christmas Story was first overlooked as a sleeper hit. It has since grown a positive critical reputation. This was all, due to television stations replay the flick, every holiday season. The plan work, and now, this film considered by some, as a holiday classic that families can and should enjoy watching together every holiday season. Sadly, the same cannot be said for this direct-to-DVD sequel. In my opinion, I really doubt, any television station would aired, this film. Nor, do I believe, that this movie has much rewatchability. If people say Christmas has gone commercial and lost its soul, this is the product to prove they're right. Not only is this film directed by Brian Levant, was very unnecessary and complete pointless film to an already over-commercialize first film. It's also wasn't nearly as funny as the original film. The stupid slapstick humor, such in the case, of a tongue being stuck on something, the endless childish day dreaming, and the over-mean Santa were mostly rehash jokes from the first movie; adding nothing really new. They were so watered down. Even the overused leg lamp joke is forced down our throats. It really comes out of nowhere. Unlike a warm tongue, and an ice-cold pole. This sequel taking place in 1946, seven years after the events of the first movie didn't stick with me. Based off, the film that in return is based from the short stories and semi-fictional anecdotes of author and raconteur Jean Shepherd. The film follows the story of a slight older, teenager, Ralphie Parker (Braeden Lemasters), whom hoping to get a little more than a BB gun, this Christmas. Hoping for a car of his own. Ralphie would do anything to put his hands on one, while also gaining, the attention of his class' prettiest and most popular girl Drucilla Gootrad (Tiera Skovbye). Can Ralphie find the money for such a thing or will this be, his first disappointing Christmas? Watch the movie to find out, if you want to! Without spoiling the movie, too much, the quality of this movie story is below average. The film is full of awful writing, full of unnecessary calls backs, narrative, and subplots that don't make much sense. Another problem with the writing, is how it turns, mostly likable characters from the first movie, into unlikable beings, this time around. A good example is the Old Man (Daniel Stern) who come across, as very shallow, bitter, and over-cartoony angry, because of 40 cents. I really don't get it, for a turkey lover; you would think that, he would spend 40 cents per pound for a turkey. Even if, the Old Man was too poor, to buy a turkey this year, how in the hell, was he able to gain, enough money for a car? It doesn't makes no sense. Daniel Stern cannot match the likable screen presence of Darren MacGavin from the first movie. Even, the main lead, is disturbing to watch. I really didn't like, Ralphie's perverted actions, throughout the film. It was a little too creepy. The lack of dialogue for him, was also a bit alarming. Despite that, Braden LeMasters does look the part and his adult voice over narrative, really does sound, like the same guy from the first movie. I can't say, the same for the others actors in this film. They look like, they step into the wrong movie. Visually, the movie's production is mostly a miss than a hit. I like, how the film tries hard to make it seems like its 1946 Indiana with its sepia tone, however, the CGI backdrop effects are a bit too jarring, not to notice. Overall: Like the 1994, TV movie sequel call, 'My Summer Story' (originally released as It Runs in the Family), this ultimately falls as far inferior follow up to the timeless original. I hate the fact that it was even made. This direction to video film isn't worth checking out, but if you find yourself, wanting more of the Christmas Story. Check out, author Jean Shepherd 'In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash' or Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories' for a good laugh. Even Shepherd others stories, like 1988's Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss, 1982' Other Disasters, 1985's The Star-Crossed Romance of Josephine Cosnowski & 1976's The Phantom of the Open Hearth were a lot better than this film. In my opinion, just stay away from this monstrous film, at all cost. You will have a better holiday season, without it.
Direct To Video For A Reason
OX_Bigly2 December 2012
It's a direct to video sequel of a famous well established film that was released 29 years after the original. If any of that sounds like a good idea I have a bridge to sell you.
This should be warning enough that this movie will suck big time.
The only reason this film was made is because you can get the first film for under $10 and newer DVD/Blu-Rays cost more. They are trying to cash in on the first film by giving you similar scenes in this "new" film. Personally I would like to see more stories from the book it was based on.
This movie deserves to have a bar of Life Buoy taped in it's mouth and forced to wear pink bunny footie pajamas for the rest of it's life.
This should be warning enough that this movie will suck big time.
The only reason this film was made is because you can get the first film for under $10 and newer DVD/Blu-Rays cost more. They are trying to cash in on the first film by giving you similar scenes in this "new" film. Personally I would like to see more stories from the book it was based on.
This movie deserves to have a bar of Life Buoy taped in it's mouth and forced to wear pink bunny footie pajamas for the rest of it's life.
You can't re-imagine a classic!!
brimcq547722 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What can i say.. a sequel that should never have been.. The acting was horrible. Look, when i know i could do a better job acting you need to find better actors. Daniel Stern...what happened to you? The house was totally different..maybe they moved..into a house with a "clinker" of a furnace? I remember the classic Ralphie had those piercing blue eyes.. Hell even when you see Peter Billingsley, grown up in his cameo in Elf, you are like "I know that guy". Just a horrible movie.. so many bad parts..the worst has to be where it looks like Ralphie is having a orgasm as he plays the cymbals as he thinks about some chicks hair.. pass on this crap-fest at all cost.. a local Christmas play will be more enjoyable..
You can't go home again
jamesmccormack6 November 2012
Here's proof that you can not go home again . This film is totally heartless and soulless....so pale in comparison to the original which has evolved into a modern day classic. There is good reason this film went straight to video. Please do not waste your money on it. I had a cheap rent from amazon.com. I thought it might cheer me up ...having the flu and all.
Back is our Ralphie now at 15 and he wants a car for Christmas. The old man will not spend 40 cents per pound for a turkey so he is involved in some subplot to catch a fish for Christmas dinner. Part of the problem with this video is the incredible number of subplots...each more uninteresting as the others; including a candy cane fight at Higbee's, a Santa who walks out on the job, poor Randy getting dressed up in tons of layers to go outside, and a love interest for Ralphie. Even the "leg lamp" shows up for an encore.
A Christmas Story 2 looks like one of those made for TV films on SYFY or Lifetime. The sets are cardboard...but then again so is the acting. It makes "The Santa Clause 3 and 4 look like art films. Costumes are barely period. I dare you...I double dog dare you...to watch the preview. You will see exactly what I mean.
Someone was out to make a buck. But then, that is what Christmas is all about.
Back is our Ralphie now at 15 and he wants a car for Christmas. The old man will not spend 40 cents per pound for a turkey so he is involved in some subplot to catch a fish for Christmas dinner. Part of the problem with this video is the incredible number of subplots...each more uninteresting as the others; including a candy cane fight at Higbee's, a Santa who walks out on the job, poor Randy getting dressed up in tons of layers to go outside, and a love interest for Ralphie. Even the "leg lamp" shows up for an encore.
A Christmas Story 2 looks like one of those made for TV films on SYFY or Lifetime. The sets are cardboard...but then again so is the acting. It makes "The Santa Clause 3 and 4 look like art films. Costumes are barely period. I dare you...I double dog dare you...to watch the preview. You will see exactly what I mean.
Someone was out to make a buck. But then, that is what Christmas is all about.
Time I'll never get back
jscrafty28 December 2012
This movie was awful. Over acting, horrible script, and it did a great dis-service to the original movie. The only worse than this was the Star Wars Holiday Special.
I recommend NEVER watching this. If you own a copy, burn it. With any hope it will only have mention of it on IMDb.com and people will wonder if it was any good. I hope that the actors can successfully ignore the fact that they were in this film. It must have been directed at 7 year old kids. Funny thing is that you can make a movie for kids and not have it suck so bad that parents burn it.
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. Your life will be better having never seen it.
I recommend NEVER watching this. If you own a copy, burn it. With any hope it will only have mention of it on IMDb.com and people will wonder if it was any good. I hope that the actors can successfully ignore the fact that they were in this film. It must have been directed at 7 year old kids. Funny thing is that you can make a movie for kids and not have it suck so bad that parents burn it.
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. Your life will be better having never seen it.
I was surprised...
prankster1612 November 2012
Back in August 2012, I and many people all across the internet were horrified when a trailer for a sequel to the all-time Christmas classic "A Christmas Story" hit the web. Why a sequel? Why now? It didn't help that the trailer looked absolutely atrocious. There had already been direct-to-DVD sequels to other great Christmas movies before (Home Alone 4, Christmas Vacation 2) and they all turned out wretched.
I admit, the trailer did not impress me at all, but I was curious. So, on November 1, 2012 I went to my local Wal-Mart and picked up a copy. Costed me $20. Did I just buy myself a lump of coal for Christmas?
First, let me get the big negatives out of the way: -The slapstick humor was groan-inducing -The "romantic interest" subplot was unnecessary and went nowhere -Some of the sets look ridiculously cheap -Daniel Stern's acting was hammy as hell
That being said... I like it. I mean, lets be blunt: this doesn't hold a candle to the original Christmas Story. But the thing I think separates this film from other Direct-to-DVD sequels is that the people who made it actually gave a crap. When I watched the interviews with the cast and director in the special features section, you could really tell that they had a lot of respect for Jean Shepherd and the original movie.
Braeden Lemasters takes on the role as Ralphie, and does a surprisingly good job as an older version of our lead protagonist. He makes Ralphie come off as very likable and mature. You can't help but root for the kid throughout the film.
The rest of the cast is so-so. The actors who play the mother and Randy brother do a solid job. Flick and Schwartz are fine when they aren't acting like Curly and Moe. Daniel Stern has some great scenes as the Old Man, but his hamminess gets grating after a while.
In the end, there's no way a sequel to "A Christmas Story" could possibly live up to the original. All they could do was make a solid movie, and I think "A Christmas Story 2" is a solid movie. I was really surprised by this, and I think if you can look past the aforementioned flaws you will be too. I mean, hey. There are plenty of worse holiday film sequels out there!
I admit, the trailer did not impress me at all, but I was curious. So, on November 1, 2012 I went to my local Wal-Mart and picked up a copy. Costed me $20. Did I just buy myself a lump of coal for Christmas?
First, let me get the big negatives out of the way: -The slapstick humor was groan-inducing -The "romantic interest" subplot was unnecessary and went nowhere -Some of the sets look ridiculously cheap -Daniel Stern's acting was hammy as hell
That being said... I like it. I mean, lets be blunt: this doesn't hold a candle to the original Christmas Story. But the thing I think separates this film from other Direct-to-DVD sequels is that the people who made it actually gave a crap. When I watched the interviews with the cast and director in the special features section, you could really tell that they had a lot of respect for Jean Shepherd and the original movie.
Braeden Lemasters takes on the role as Ralphie, and does a surprisingly good job as an older version of our lead protagonist. He makes Ralphie come off as very likable and mature. You can't help but root for the kid throughout the film.
The rest of the cast is so-so. The actors who play the mother and Randy brother do a solid job. Flick and Schwartz are fine when they aren't acting like Curly and Moe. Daniel Stern has some great scenes as the Old Man, but his hamminess gets grating after a while.
In the end, there's no way a sequel to "A Christmas Story" could possibly live up to the original. All they could do was make a solid movie, and I think "A Christmas Story 2" is a solid movie. I was really surprised by this, and I think if you can look past the aforementioned flaws you will be too. I mean, hey. There are plenty of worse holiday film sequels out there!
Why?
chefperry-444914 December 2021
Nothing about this movie is The Christmas story. The story line is horrible and the acting seems forced and strained. The father looks like he got younger rather than older. Why? Much like other sequels, it did a disservice to the original movie.
No, really, this is good...
casperthegoth-13 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Here is the problem. You like Christmas Story, and this comes along and insults you immediately - even the cover is a tasteless rip-off of the original. How could this be any good?
Well. It is. You do have to take some things into account first.
1) A Christmas Story may be one of the most watched films ever. It plays all Christmas Day and makes everyone nostalgic for the season. Even if this were a perfect followup, it would take 30 years for it to establish the following of the original. You cannot expect the same feeling.
2) Jean Shepherd is dead. Surprise, he didn't narrate this film. He also didn't write the script - but his book is still used for some parts of the story. Expect a voice actor trying to sound like him, expect a writer trying to write like him... the key word is try. It is so clear that the people involved with this film really do love the original as well as the material.
3) Don't expect to like Ralphie as much as you did. It isn't even the actor - it is the age. A young boy is almost unisexual in his wishes and schemes, it could very well be a young girl. Everyone likes young Ralphie because he IS everyone. Teen Ralphie is a boy becoming a man. He is attracted to girls now, and wants a car. You shouldn't like him as much and you won't.
4) Expect re-use of plots. It is a given. Is there a Harry Potter that doesn't mention Voldemort? Then get over the fact Aunt Clara is still sending gifts, or that Ralphie still says Fudge, or that an over protective mom is still trying to bundle her last child. In fact, if you don't let yourself be turned off by these things you realize that they are a part of the essence of this story. It is referenced several times, but things don't change. It is the foundation for the beautiful story of forgiveness between the fighting parents, it is part of the definition of Ralphie as a stubborn person, it is the very basis of ritualizing Christmas and accepting nostalgia. It is almost the theme of the film, and to understand that is critical.
If you accept these things before you watch the movie, I assure you that you will like it - mostly because you know that you aren't expecting another gem.
There are some details worth mentioning. I really did not like somethings about the film. I don't like the digital filter to appear old. The first movie got it right, this one looks digital and that harms the film. It actively removes the nostalgia. I also hate the title. The correct answer was "Another Christmas Story" - why are we obsessed with putting a 2 after everything? And did they really need to say B*tch so much??
In the pros side, the Chinese Dinner in this film actually made me tear up a little - which also happens to be the subject of the best monologue voice-over in either film, in my opinion. There are plenty of new stories to build on the recycled gags - and they are funny. I find that this movie actually has more heart. The first was so biographical that it was a love story by an author to his family and childhood. This is a love story to all families, and that is a very different thing.
The bottom line is that no one involved in this move was perfection, but they were all expressing some love of the original - it shows, and in its own way, I think it is worth pulling out once a year.
Well. It is. You do have to take some things into account first.
1) A Christmas Story may be one of the most watched films ever. It plays all Christmas Day and makes everyone nostalgic for the season. Even if this were a perfect followup, it would take 30 years for it to establish the following of the original. You cannot expect the same feeling.
2) Jean Shepherd is dead. Surprise, he didn't narrate this film. He also didn't write the script - but his book is still used for some parts of the story. Expect a voice actor trying to sound like him, expect a writer trying to write like him... the key word is try. It is so clear that the people involved with this film really do love the original as well as the material.
3) Don't expect to like Ralphie as much as you did. It isn't even the actor - it is the age. A young boy is almost unisexual in his wishes and schemes, it could very well be a young girl. Everyone likes young Ralphie because he IS everyone. Teen Ralphie is a boy becoming a man. He is attracted to girls now, and wants a car. You shouldn't like him as much and you won't.
4) Expect re-use of plots. It is a given. Is there a Harry Potter that doesn't mention Voldemort? Then get over the fact Aunt Clara is still sending gifts, or that Ralphie still says Fudge, or that an over protective mom is still trying to bundle her last child. In fact, if you don't let yourself be turned off by these things you realize that they are a part of the essence of this story. It is referenced several times, but things don't change. It is the foundation for the beautiful story of forgiveness between the fighting parents, it is part of the definition of Ralphie as a stubborn person, it is the very basis of ritualizing Christmas and accepting nostalgia. It is almost the theme of the film, and to understand that is critical.
If you accept these things before you watch the movie, I assure you that you will like it - mostly because you know that you aren't expecting another gem.
There are some details worth mentioning. I really did not like somethings about the film. I don't like the digital filter to appear old. The first movie got it right, this one looks digital and that harms the film. It actively removes the nostalgia. I also hate the title. The correct answer was "Another Christmas Story" - why are we obsessed with putting a 2 after everything? And did they really need to say B*tch so much??
In the pros side, the Chinese Dinner in this film actually made me tear up a little - which also happens to be the subject of the best monologue voice-over in either film, in my opinion. There are plenty of new stories to build on the recycled gags - and they are funny. I find that this movie actually has more heart. The first was so biographical that it was a love story by an author to his family and childhood. This is a love story to all families, and that is a very different thing.
The bottom line is that no one involved in this move was perfection, but they were all expressing some love of the original - it shows, and in its own way, I think it is worth pulling out once a year.
I really enjoyed this late sequel
atinder29 November 2012
A Christmas Story 2 (2012) Who ever thought there be a sequel after 29 years break
I only saw first one a few's weeks ago, for the first time
The movie is a sequel to the 1983 film A Christmas Story and was released straight to DVD.
This movies takes place Five years after first movie, now Ralphie a Teen, This time he tries to get Car for Christmas
No were near as good as the first movie, but it dose not make the a bad movie at all, far from it.
This movie had some really funny moment, some jokes missed the mark, it had a nice plot.
I laughed a number of times, there some really good sweet moment as well.
The were really great hints to first movie, Like the thing the the Mum broke in the first movie makes return and she not happy about it!
The acting was really good from the whole cast
Nice and funny and sweet
I really enjoyed this late sequel 6 out of 10.
I only saw first one a few's weeks ago, for the first time
The movie is a sequel to the 1983 film A Christmas Story and was released straight to DVD.
This movies takes place Five years after first movie, now Ralphie a Teen, This time he tries to get Car for Christmas
No were near as good as the first movie, but it dose not make the a bad movie at all, far from it.
This movie had some really funny moment, some jokes missed the mark, it had a nice plot.
I laughed a number of times, there some really good sweet moment as well.
The were really great hints to first movie, Like the thing the the Mum broke in the first movie makes return and she not happy about it!
The acting was really good from the whole cast
Nice and funny and sweet
I really enjoyed this late sequel 6 out of 10.
NOT terrible
scottshogs24 December 2014
One of my favorite (and certainly my favorite Christmas movie) movies is A Christmas Story. I watched this "squeal" expecting a Trolls 2 (of which there is no Trolls 1). However, while the movie does not deliver on that Jean Shepherd voice over or short stories beauty...it is actually not a terrible film. It honors Shepherds characters, but does NOT convey his short story presentation. The movie is good by our low modern standards, but OH how we miss great minds like Shepherd's. While a cat can be entertained by transformers 14 "things blow up and this movie has no point other and the writers have the IQs of a 3 year old" (working title), we are so missing minds like Shepards'.
A crummy commercial
wag-877-42004322 December 2013
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.
Thomas Wolfe said "You can never go back"....perhaps he was thinking about this film...or should have been!
planktonrules20 November 2021
In 1940, Thomas Wolfe wrote a book entitled "You Can Never Go Back"...and it comes to mind as I watch "A Christmas Story 2". Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that "A Christmas Story" is considered a classic...a tradition that many of us enjoy watching year after year. This sequel is, at best, watchable...but about as welcome as a case of the Clap. You just can't go back and replicate the success and charm of the first one no matter how hard you try...and the folks who made this one hardly tried.
The story has many of the appearances of the original, as the characters are the same in both films. But apart from that and themes 'borrowed' from the original (such as most of the plot about Ralphie wanting something BIG for Christmas as well as the sub-plot involving the furnace), it's an unpleasant walk down memory lane that only serves to show how good the original is...and how third-rate this film is.
The bottom line is that sequels that are made MANY years later (such as this one...made 29 years later) invariably suck...think about the sequels they made for "High Noon" and "Gone With the Wind" many decades later. Most of the jokes fall flat and the charm is notably absent.
So COULD this story have worked? Yes, had they made the characters all new and NOT tried to make it a sequel...in that case this could have worked...at least had it been written better and actually made it funny.
You might wonder WHY I gave this abomination a 5. Well, despite being a TERRIBLE idea, the acting was good and although the film was NOT funny, it was at times well written and entertaining. I think it's best seen if you've never seen the original.
The story has many of the appearances of the original, as the characters are the same in both films. But apart from that and themes 'borrowed' from the original (such as most of the plot about Ralphie wanting something BIG for Christmas as well as the sub-plot involving the furnace), it's an unpleasant walk down memory lane that only serves to show how good the original is...and how third-rate this film is.
The bottom line is that sequels that are made MANY years later (such as this one...made 29 years later) invariably suck...think about the sequels they made for "High Noon" and "Gone With the Wind" many decades later. Most of the jokes fall flat and the charm is notably absent.
So COULD this story have worked? Yes, had they made the characters all new and NOT tried to make it a sequel...in that case this could have worked...at least had it been written better and actually made it funny.
You might wonder WHY I gave this abomination a 5. Well, despite being a TERRIBLE idea, the acting was good and although the film was NOT funny, it was at times well written and entertaining. I think it's best seen if you've never seen the original.
GILBERT GODFREY DOES SHAKESPEARE
nogodnomasters6 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
That was all I could think about. Is this better or worse than Gilbert Godfrey doing Shakespeare? It certainly wasn't as funny. This film incorporates some really sad acting. The narrator attempts to copy the original, but lacked the enthusiasm. They copied many lines from the first film and in a way, horribly recreated it.
The first film had universal appeal to both young and old. This one has much of the humor aimed at kids, yet in the first 5 minutes drops three "S.O.B." bombs. Later, Ralphie practices removing a bra from a mannequin. Ralphie (Braeden Lemasters) dreams of a convertible and a girl. The worse portrayal by far was by Daniel Stern as "The Old Man."
Perhaps if you are the type of person who has enjoyed all those "The Wizard of Oz" sequels you might find some enjoyment in this one. I thought it was sorry entertainment. The best part of this DVD was the trailer for the original story. Not worth watching for free, but not quite a reason to go to war with Canada where this "Genuine, Authentic, 100% American Christmas" was filmed.
The first film had universal appeal to both young and old. This one has much of the humor aimed at kids, yet in the first 5 minutes drops three "S.O.B." bombs. Later, Ralphie practices removing a bra from a mannequin. Ralphie (Braeden Lemasters) dreams of a convertible and a girl. The worse portrayal by far was by Daniel Stern as "The Old Man."
Perhaps if you are the type of person who has enjoyed all those "The Wizard of Oz" sequels you might find some enjoyment in this one. I thought it was sorry entertainment. The best part of this DVD was the trailer for the original story. Not worth watching for free, but not quite a reason to go to war with Canada where this "Genuine, Authentic, 100% American Christmas" was filmed.
A Christmas Story 2 Review
Spideyfan-963-2462157 September 2016
A Christmas Story 2(2012) Starring:Daniel Stern, Braeden Lemasters, Stacey Travis, Valin Shinyei, Gerard Plunkett, and David Michael Paul Directed By:Brian Levant Review Why the hell have we been trying to kill A Christmas Story the past ten years? Remember when it use to be that tiny little film that not too many people knew about but then you kind of shared it in the hopes it would get more attention, and then it somehow ridiculously backfired to the point where it gets too much freaking attention on the holiday season. I suppose in many respcts this expected but my God they market it in the most obnoxious way. Their's never a sense that the advertisers are doing this because they like the movie, its obvious their doing it because its popular and they'll make a quick buck. And Now comes A Christmas Story 2 where our main character Ralphie, is on a quest to get 85 dollars to pay for an automobile he wrecked. An automobile he desires to get for Christmas to impress a girl he has the hots for. The film is quite unnecessary, I mean their are so many things in this that just make anyone who's seen the first film think "Oh look they did/had that in the first movie remember aw man it's hitting the nostalgia factor this movie is good." But guess what it isn't. They may be some of you who enjoy the first movie I however didn't. But if you did for the love of God don't see this sequel it will screw with your brain why/how because it's stupid. If their is any credit I can give this film it's the actor Daniel Stern who plays Ralphie. He's the only good thing about this movie and the only reason you or I would keep watching. He captures the spirit of the original performer while still making it his own. It's usually hard for me to review a pile shitstain like this but I feel like I've left you with the basics of what you need to know so I'm giving A Christmas Story 2 a one out of five.
Absolutely Horrible!
jenaycarter25 December 2019
I've seen this movie and laughed when I found out that it existed! What the heck were they thinking!? They should have just left this poorly acted, low budget film else where! Because that's just how bad it was!
Oh my gosh! The story to me doesn't even make sense! First off why is it five years later!! Why is this movie even made! The age cap to me is totally off! And the acting is just really bad! Ralphie starts off from wanting a BB gun in the 1983 version to all of a sudden wanting a car! No sir! I don't care how old this movie is, til this day it still irritates me that this movie was made.
And with me I'm one that likes original! So if your going to make a second film following the first one, and you don't have a plot to cover the original....then you DONT NEED TO TOUCH THE ORIGINAL!
Oh my gosh! The story to me doesn't even make sense! First off why is it five years later!! Why is this movie even made! The age cap to me is totally off! And the acting is just really bad! Ralphie starts off from wanting a BB gun in the 1983 version to all of a sudden wanting a car! No sir! I don't care how old this movie is, til this day it still irritates me that this movie was made.
And with me I'm one that likes original! So if your going to make a second film following the first one, and you don't have a plot to cover the original....then you DONT NEED TO TOUCH THE ORIGINAL!
On the Contrary
philgregg899923 November 2012
Let me first qualify my outlook on A Christmas Story(1) by saying I never allowed myself to purchase it, nor do I watch it before Christmas Eve, so I suppose I am a purist when it comes to this classic. The title of this movie caught my eye and aroused my curiosity and in the end I thought it was quite good for a remake without re-boot. It's very difficult to re-capture an original hit, and certainly this re-used a lot of the original gags but I thought it was very well done, had a very good storyline and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Some folks may just need to let go and have some fun with movies, that's what they are for! Relax... it's JUST a movie!
I enjoyed it.
kelseylaura-4716228 December 2019
Granted this isn't as good as the original but I didn't expect it to be. It wasn't meant to be an award-winning film just a fun movie to watch at Christmas time . The people who are angry that this movie was even made crack me up because they are so overdramatic about it . You don't like it don't watch it . It isn't hurting the original . Anyway I thought the cast was very good especially the boy who played Ralph . There were some funny moments as well as some heartwarming ones . Many of the gags from the original are repeated. I would have preferred substitute swear words rather than the actual ones . It did have a few scenes that were kind of annoying or unrealistic . Overall it's an enjoyable movie . Some have complained that the actors are not like the ones in the original Christmas story . To me that's no big deal . Every time the Parker family is filmed they are played by different actors of different ages . The age difference between Ralphie and Randy changes every time . Christmas story 2 is far from the best Christmas movie ever made it's also far the worst . I enjoyed it .
Better than what I thought
tinkymonkey28 November 2012
I really thought it would not be that great. My daughter bought the movie and I heard them laughing so I went and join them to finish watching it and joined in on the laughter at the funny parts. It had some really funny scenes and Daniel Stern is not that bad playing the 'old man'. The only pet peeve I had was the young man who played Raphie was by the end of the movie showing some major dark roots (only a woman would probably notice this). All in all my family enjoyed it and laughed a lot. The youngest one in the home to the oldest one in the home liked the movie. It is a decent family movie for all to enjoy. It is not near as good as the original but I would recommend watching it.
Why
thecsevengo1 December 2019
Just why
Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times
Haha
Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times. Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times Sorry my review was too short a bunch of times
Haha
Unappreciated.
zachariah-3816428 November 2022
I'm here to write a wrong (author laughs at bad joke). This is not at all a bad movie and is clearly being review bombed for petty reasons such as casting or dissimilarities to the first film, all of which are written by film trolls who have a chip on their shoulder from last Christmas. This is a fantastic sequel to the first and absolutely deserves to be recognized as canon. There are so many good qualities to this film, the classic cinematography, retro sets, awesome visuals and raunchy dialogue which are completely reflective of the first. Daniel Stern as the old man is a fantastic choice for casting and carries the same humor you'd find in home alone. The plot is strong and keeps its focus through the movie without effort. Many of the film's dissimilarities to the first are what also make this one special. It's a new age group many who watched the first as kids can enjoy the same story more geared towards an older audience. As for teen movies go this is a good one but as Christmas movies go this is a great. Must watch now that the 3rd is out!
This movie must've been a joke.
jerrytimes-565-87770026 December 2012
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
