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.

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.

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.

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.