Watch A Christmas Story 2 For Free

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.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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.

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.

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..

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.