A Christmas Story 2 (2012)

Overrated and overhyped

Excellent adaptation.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Of course it can't hold a candle to the magic of the original movie, but it's far better than the endless dribble of bad Santa movies and predictable Hallmark Channel holiday eye-candy. Ralphie is 16 and has discovered girls and cars and Randy is into "Buck Rogers". The old man is as stubborn, cheap, and obstinate as ever. (Played by a chubby Daniel Stern.) Many good ideas are revisited: "Flick" gets his tongue stuck in the pneumatic delivery tube. "Higbee's Dept. Store", the elves and a surly Santa. The worst coal-belching furnace in Indiana. (Actually shot entirely in Canada) Oh yes, this time poor Randy gets the embarrassing Christmas outfit from the eccentric aunt. He looks like the "Cracker Jack" Sailor Boy! A good reproduction of everything from the house to the street to even the fishnet leg lamp! It tries very hard and is mildly entertaining but, as noted in other reviews, many of the young viewers probably haven't seen the far superior Bob Clark Classic. Ralphie has a crush on a young actress-fashion model playing the high school heart-throb. I miss the Bumpus Hounds! Worth-a-look on cable but sure not a keeper. It went straight-to-video, of course.

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.

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.

A Christmas Story is one of my all-time favorite movies and this is a great sequel! I highly recommend this to anyone who loved the original and is nostalgic for a happy ending. It must have been very difficult for the actors to follow the steps of their "predecessors"... However, their acting is absolutely brilliant, natural; I was also surprisingly pleased by the actors looking and sounding so much like the actors in the original. I am usually perplexed at the idea of watching sequels made years after the original movie and with different actors, but this time I have had a very pleasant surprise. Way better than I thought it was going to be. Especially for a sequel made thirty years later! Well done! Definitely one of my Christmas favorites! I think a lot of people have been over critical of this movie. Many have even written bad reviews without even seeing it.