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.