Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

dhainline1 I have a soft spot in my heart for the original "A Christmas Story" from 1983. Little Ralphie wants a Red Rider BB gun for Christmas and we can all relate to wanting something so bad we can taste it! This time, Ralphie Parker is a teen boy played by Braeden Lemasters who wants a car instead of a BB gun. They want all of us to think everything is the same as the first movie. How wrong the writers of this are! No one but no one can play Ralphie like Peter Billingsley did in the first movie. Braeden tries but he seems so immature for his age and the fantasies he has about his school crush Drucilla Gootrad (Tiera Skovbye) cross into stalker territory. While Daniel Stern was excellent in "Home Alone" he can't live up to Darren McGavin's portrayal as the Old Man who was stern but at the same time a kind father. Let's all forget this movie exists and everyone will remember "A Christmas Story" one hundred years from now while forgetting the sequel even exists!

slimer8489 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.

jmfabiano524-1 Now we know the story of "A Christmas Story" by now. Not just the plot of the movie, but the story of the movie itself. Holiday movie based on Jean Shepherd's writings comes out in 1983, doesn't exactly set the world on fire. Then said movie hits cable and home video, and builds a following until it becomes a full-fledged Christmas icon and has its own 24-hour marathon. Not to mention tons of merchandising, and so what happened almost 3 decades later was probably more inevitable than Mrs. Parker asking Ralphie what he wanted for Christmas. Warner Premiere's direct to DVD "official" sequel, "A Christmas Story 2." Yes, without using any Jean Shepherd material, nor Shep being here to offer input or a role.I've been a fan of "A Christmas Story" from the start, laughing at the commercials and going to the theater to see it when I was 6. I'd always watch it on HBO, and as I grew up, I bought the VHS and later DVD. I hope to one day take a trip to Cleveland to visit the Christmas Story House. So I guess I was compelled either way to give this sequel a look, no matter the potential for a train wreck."A Christmas Story 2" takes place six years after the original. Ralphie is now 15 years old and has a new Christmas wish: a new car. However, unlike his quest for the Red Ryder BB gun, this one takes a backseat to other wacky holiday time antics. The car is actually the means to another end, as Ralphie wants to impress dream girl Drucilla (not Esther Jane, his love interest in the Shepherd stories who did cameo in the first movie). And that too is overshadowed when Ralphie takes the car for a test drive and ends up wrecking it. Now he must earn $85 to pay for the damage. Can he do it, with the help of his ever-present friends Flick and Schwartz? Meanwhile, kid brother Randy lives out Buck Rogers fantasies, the Old Man is still battling the furnace and has developed a sudden frugality (what happened to the "Arab trader" who'd make deals to get the perfect tree?) as well as an interest in ice fishing, and we get some appearances by familiar places, things, and jokes.And therein lays the first problem with this film. It comes off as a glorified ad for the first movie (and its merchandise too, perhaps?), "highlighted" by the return of its most famous item, the Leg Lamp. Other half-baked references include Ralphie's car being wrecked in slow motion, as an excuse to revisit his "Ohhh fudge" exclamation; Flick voluntarily sticking his tongue into a pneumatic tube (seriously, he does it on his own accord, did his original experience make him a masochist?); and Ralphie using his earned money to take a homeless family to the Chop-Suey diner, which is rendered useless due to political correctness, but hey, at least you're reminded to buy a figurine of the restaurant to complete your collection! Other than the shameless revisiting of the original, "A Christmas Story 2" also cannot shake the direct-to-DVD/borderline sitcom feel. Indeed, a teen's quest for a car, and having to raise money to make up for damage caused by some antic, are both hackneyed television tropes you would think would have been below Bob Clark's standards (then again, he did direct "Baby Geniuses"…). The movie's highest profile star, Daniel Stern, plays the Old Man like a gruff caricature of Darren McGavin. I am sure someone considered it "clever" casting because he was on a TV show where a narrator revisited his youth. The subtle and charming humor of the original film is missing here as well, as seen in young Randy's dropping of several S.O.B. bombs. Remember how much you loved Ralphie doing the same after being duped by Little Orphan Annie? You'll love it being repeated in clusters, in the first few minutes of the film! And where the original's department store Santa was mostly scary because, well, store Santas are scary, the sequel's Santa is a nasty man who can't stop complaining about his wife's affairs.The people behind "A Christmas Story 2" may not shoot their eye out, but they sure shot themselves in the foot. This 90-minute ad/sitcom should serve as a warning that cashing in on nostalgia doesn't always work, without the organic elements that gave the originals their heart and entertainment value. The past is better revisited than recreated.

jscrafty 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.