My Girl 2 (1994) Poster

(1994)

User Reviews

Review this title
55 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Good but not great
TheLittleSongbird12 March 2011
I love My Girl, it is very charming and poignant, and as far as sequels go, My Girl 2 is good but not great. It is disappointing compared to My Girl, but it was decent and could have been a lot worse. The script does fall into cheese occasionally, the story is predictable, some of the direction lacks tightness and the pace is dull in the middle.

However, My Girl 2 is beautiful to watch with lovely scenery and pleasant photography, and the soundtrack is pleasant on the ears. The acting also helps, Anna Chlumsky broke my heart in My Girl and she is just as charming and poignant. Austin O'Brien shows an able chemistry with her, and Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd are also solid. The film also has an atmosphere that keeps true to My Girl, making some scenes that strived to be heart-breaking genuinely so.

Overall, it wasn't a great movie like the first My Girl but I liked it for the performances. 6/10 Bethany Cox
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Better as a standalone film, pretty pointless as a sequel.
A_Voice8 December 2013
Well, I certainly enjoyed its predecessor. The previous film had a simple story, but it was more character driven rather than a plot oriented film. That was the reason the audience were left heartbroken at the sudden death of a major character.

The story continues as Shelly is pregnant and Vada realizes that she barely knows her late mother. Thus, she decides to leave for LA to get to know more of her mother.

My Girl, focused more upon how Vada grew up in an funeral home with death all around and how she matured. It was a story about growing up. I liked the mystery around the character of her mother and wasn't much curious as to how she actually was. Whereas, this is completely different. It is more of a plot driven story, an adventure as one might say, with little to no character development. For me at least, I think this movie destroys the characters created in the previous film. Vada is now mature, but it was her innocence which made me love the previous film. So it is a pointless sequel i'd say. My Girl should have been left alone.

On the other hand if you look at it as a standalone film i.e. no connection with the previous film, it is actually a good film. If someone sees this film before the previous one, they might like it.

Direction: Weak.

Script/Story: Average.

Acting: Anna is mature, and has acted just fine. Austin is average. Rest of the cast is good.

Music: Good, refreshing.

A weak and unnecessary sequel.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Contrived and timid
n-mo4 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Roger Ebert appeared disliked this film because of its loosely-jointed subplots. That actually isn't really the problem with the movie, though, as it is more introspection and characterization, and for what it's worth, does a pretty good job with that. However, it is true that there is a lack of the kind of character evolution we saw in the first movie.

And part of that has to do with the characterization of Maggie, Vada's mother, the key albeit absent persona in this story. Since almost nothing was revealed of Vada's mother in the first movie, the writers seemed to think themselves free to do whatever they liked, but the character they created is so completely and obviously contrived and retrofitted that it destroys any credibility this film has and makes it difficult to reach the end.

Let's start with the simple, obvious continuity errors. In the original film, Harry Sultenfuss indicated, when his daughter was 11 1/2, that he had not been on a date in 20 years. Yet in this movie, he indicates to Veda that he met her mother and "proposed to her on the second date; two weeks later, we were married; almost nine months later, you were here and she was gone." So that would have made his last date at most about 13 years prior to his 20-year assertion, assuming he never had a date with his wife while they were married. Since, speaking on the order of a few decades, rounding to scores of years seems just a bit overkill, I'm going to have to call the writers' bluff on this one.

Also, Maggie, as shown in pictures here, looks more like a wannabe Marilyn Monroe than the pretty but somewhat frumpily-dressed young lady we saw beside Harry Sultenfuss in the first film.

And this little gaffe points to character problems that are not so much continuity-related as thematic. Maggie was an aspiring actress born and raised in Los Angeles who frequented hipsters, walked out in protest over Senator Joseph McCarthy and first married in New York City... and somehow she ended up in bucolic heartland Pennsylvania married to a forensic anthropologist. A conversation toward the end of this movie does suggest that she was undergoing a personal evolution and wanted a life that was a bit more grounded and down-to-Earth than what one would find in Hollywood, so perhaps that isn't so implausible.

One problem. The tone of the movie, with regard to its treatment of particular subject matters, is decidedly anti-McCarthy and even anti-Nixon. It is not that one can never be both pro-family/pro-rural/pro-heartland/pro-religion and anti-G.O.P., but when the foils happen to be lefty New Age hipster types, as they most certainly are here, that sort of juxtaposition is more than a little disjointed. (Oh, and the proud Young Republican McCarthyite cop pushing bogus charges against a discreet man for the sake of the snot-nosed kid of a non-famous chick he apparently despised anyway? That was too much.)

Unplanned sequels are tricky things. One has already largely resolved the conflicts from the first movie, and retroactively locating the points where the story and characters remain sufficiently open for further conflict and development is not easy. In this instance, the writers may or may not have done their best, but the result, notwithstanding the charm Vada and her family still exude (Nick, however, cannot hold a candle to Thomas J. in terms of personality), looks like just another artificial packaged product capitalizing on a good brand name. (On that note, conveniently, the conclusion of the previous movie left the authors with a logical narrative reason for not paying Macaulay Culkin's salary, which would doubtlessly have been astronomical by this point.)

A final slice of food for thought. It is not that older films never strained plausibility, but to the extent that they did, they usually didn't try to take themselves so seriously as to pretend to hyper-realism. I think this is one reason why one must wade through newer films so much more tediously to find good ones, and why contemporary cinema could stand to take a lesson or two from the theater.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of my favorites.
silvergirl138522 April 2000
Yes, I know "My Girl 2" was a sequel. Yes, I know it is hard to follow the first movie. But the reason why I love this movie is because of the way we see Vada Sultenfuss has changed over the course of a few years. I loved seeing the sweet, innocent Vada become more of an adult & still remain likeable as a character. I also love Austin O'Brien in this movie; to date, he has not been in anything memorable, but I think the role of Nick was suited for him. I do find the relationship they have somewhat disenchanting, but it was what I was waiting for the whole movie. I think the plot was an interesting one, and Maggie Muldovan made this movie. It is, as another reviewer remarked, worth it to watch the movie countless times just to hear her sing "Smile." I love all of this movie, though, so I would advise seeing it.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just pointless
Andy-41118 April 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
My Girl 2
jboothmillard7 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the first film purely to see the tear-jerking scene where Macaulay Culkin is stung to death by bees, it was only right I see the sequel to see what I thought as well, from director Howard Zieff (The Dream Team). Basically two years have passed since the death of Thomas J., and his best friend Vada Sultenfuss (Anna Chlumsky) is a little older and still living with with her funeral parlour owning father Harry (Dan Aykroyd) and new pregnant wife Shelly (Jamie Lee Curtis). At school before spring break she is given an assignment to write about someone she admires and has never met, so naturally she chooses her biological mother, who died when she was a baby. Her father agrees to let her go to Los Angeles to do research on and learn more about her deceased mother who she knows hardly anything, staying with her uncle Phil Sultenfuss (Richard Masur). Once there she finds herself accompanied by and under the protection of Nick Zsigmond (Last Action Hero's Austin O'Brien), the son of Phil's girlfriend Rose (Christine Ebersole), who at first hates that he has to lose his holiday time escorting this "hick girl". But he becomes more involved with Vada's personal mission, and he is happy to help her find the people that knew her mother when she was alive. When one or two people talk about a relationship her mother had with another man before Harry, Vada wonders is he is her true biological father, and the man she ponders is her real father is Jeffrey Pommeroy (John David Souther). Jeffrey shows Vada a reel of film with mother in it, when she used to be in the theatre, and it includes her singing the song "Smile" acapella, and he confirms that he did not have sex with her mother. Vada says a heartfelt goodbye to Nick before leaving L.A. and returning home just in time to see Shelly give birth to a baby brother and happy to be back with father Harry. Also starring Angeline Ball as Maggie Muldovan and The Mask's Ben Stein as Stanley Rosenfeld. Chlumsky is still as likable as she was in the first film, O'Brien is a good new friend for her, and Aykroyd and Curtis don't exactly get much time on screen, the story is a little too soppy to really care about at times, and the first film is more bearable, so a cheesy drama. Adequate!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Significant and cringe-worthy disappointment Warning: Spoilers
Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I really liked this movie
The_Cobra23 August 2002
I don't know what to say: i just really liked this movie. I even cried :-o Maybe I am just cheesie or too romantic, but what the heck.... In my eyes, the main storyline is not the search for the mother, but the discovery of those first loving feelings, the changing of the body, the transformation from childhood to adolescence, in short: it is a story about growing up. Something we all have gone through....its such a "feeling good" film: all people are friendly, there are no sorrows...

It gets a 7/10 (which is a lot coming from me, believe me)
27 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
My Girl, same as she ever was...
Howlin Wolf4 August 2011
What does Vada learn about herself in this second installment, is the important question... ? In the first movie, she learns how to let someone go, and to not be so freaked out by death. In this, she learns about her mother, goes back home, but she hasn't changed much as a person. Practically zero character development, which is poor when she's the main character to build the plot of your whole movie around.

It was nice to see her again because she's a warm screen personality and Chlumsky performs her well, but this adventure doesn't build on anything that went before it, so we're left to wonder what purpose the story has except as a blatant attempt to make more money.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The sequel's just as good as the original
Wuchakk14 June 2015
The original "My Girl" from 1991 was a quality drama about a 10 year-old girl experiencing tragic death. In "My Girl 2" she's now 13 and goes to Southern California to learn about her mother she never knew. Her companion is played by Austin O'Brien. Dan Aykroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis play her father and stepmother while Richard Masur and Christine Ebersole co-star as her uncle and potential aunt. The beautiful Angeline Ball has a small role as her mother in flashbacks.

This is just a solid drama, as good or better than the original. The adventures of the two 13 year-olds as they go from person to person searching for information about Vada's mother compels the story along. The people they meet are colorful or interesting. The peripheral subplots are good too, like will the Uncle propose to Rose or allow some rich dude with a Jaguar to snatch her up?

The film runs 99 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles, California, including Topanga Canyon.

GRADE: B
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Listless Movies
DJBlackSwan18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).

Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.

Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.

People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.

Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Don't listen to the haters, it's lovely!
sophiahwright13 December 2020
It's a beautiful movie which follows up perfectly from the first. It retains that My Girl magic that we all fell in love with in the first movie. People out there love to hate, but please don't listen to them. Watch it for yourself
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not bad at all
lisafordeay14 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
My Girl 2 is the sequel to the 1991 drama starring Anna Clumsky,Jamie Lee Curtis,Dan Aykrod and Austin O Brien. It tells the story of Vada who travels to LA to track down some information on her late mother while staying with her uncle and cousin. But will she discover some dark secrets about her e.g. seeing her mom's ex fiance/ husband. Overall if you liked the first one you might like it.

6/10

Angelica Ball from The Commitments stars as Vada's deceased mother.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Heavy-handed sentiment...'family friendly' in the worst sense
moonspinner556 May 2011
The sequel nobody asked for. Anna Chlumsky reprises her role of preteen Vada Sultenfuss from 1991's "My Girl", an inquisitive Pennsylvania schoolgirl who, spurred on by an English class writing assignment, flies to Los Angeles by herself to hopefully learn more about her late mother--a budding actress who died in childbirth--from her uncle. Sloppy, excruciatingly thin coming-of-age nonsense, unconvincingly set in the 1970s, hopes to pick up the slack (and wow sixth-grade girls) by introducing shaggy-haired Austin O'Brien as a potential love-interest for Chlumsky's Vada (her previous puppy love amour, Macaulay Culkin, having expired in the first installment). But the eyeball-rolling O'Brien and the judgmental, condescending Chlumsky are a dismaying pair--neither child has a lot on their mind--while the period rock songs on the soundtrack (some of them generic) fail to provide the nostalgic lift intended. * from ****
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good but not great
Monika-523 March 2000
No, MG2 isn't as good as the first movie, but how often are sequels better than the first? (I will make a case for Toy Story 2.) Anyway, the acting is strong (especially Anna Chlumsky, who is wonderful again as Vada), the plot of Vada researching her mother's life is very interesting, but the subplots are a little pedestrian and cliched. I read a review that claimed Dan Aykroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis were "sleepwalking" in their roles, but in all fairness, they didn't really have much to do in this movie. The fabulous Christine Ebersole steals several scenes, and Austin O'Brien does a good job here as well. It may not be the greatest film ever, but you could certainly do worse!
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
If you liked the first one, might as well see what happens
Dana826 July 2000
When you see the ad/movie in video store of MY GIRL 2 you're like, how on earth could they have made a sequel to such a great first movie. MY GIRL 2; of course like many other sequels don't live up to their originals but this sequel is touching and funny. 5/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
disconnected from the original
SnoopyStyle19 March 2016
Vada Sultenfuss (Anna Chlumsky) is now 13. Her father Harry (Dan Aykroyd) and Shelly (Jamie Lee Curtis) are expecting a new baby. She's given a school assignment to write about someone who achieved something and who she's never met. She decides to write about her mother Maggie (Angeline Ball). For spring vacation, she goes to her mother's home town L.A. to stay with uncle Phil. She is assisted by the son of Phil's girlfriend, Nick Zsigmond.

The lost of Macaulay Culkin in the first movie is tough enough. This one sends Vada to L.A. and abandons the rest of the cast. I'm willing to have Vada in her teenage years but I don't understand why she can't stay in her small town. She is essentially disconnected with the first movie. There is almost no point in doing a sequel in this way. The middle of this movie is terribly flat and meandering. The Maggie reveal is very touching but the rest of this is forgettable.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not Perfect! But Still Good
killbill_2822 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My Girl 2 is set 2 years after the first movie. A much older Vada is growing up and wants to know about her mother that she never met. She goes to Los Angeles to find out more about her mother for a school project. Many stars return from the first film including Dan Aykroyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, Richard Masur and Anna Chlumsky. There is also some new comers such as Christine Ebersole and Austin O'Brien who plays Vada's love interest. Its a shame that Griffin Dunne didn't return.

Howard Zieff returns to the helm to finish the story of Vada Sultenfuss. Not as perfect and edited like the first film, but its still a good film and the soundtrack is just as good as the first film. Sometimes the film does lag and is pretty boring in some parts but if you liked the first film then watch this film. It tells you the whole story about Vada's life and her mother.

Remember its not perfect but overall its not a bad film!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It is rather a less inspired film and one that lacks the courage and complexity of its previous one but has good moments
fernandoschiavi7 February 2021
My Girl was a huge worldwide success, bringing us a plot that handled delicately and carefully serious and deep themes such as the relationship between life and death, losses, mourning, among other important themes, told under the eyes of Vada, a girl of 11 years in Pennsylvania. It was a film that certainly amused and caused a stir in the audience due to the unfolding of the plot.

Three years have passed since the events of the first film. There is an upcoming holiday and Vada Sultenfuss (Anna Chlumsky) convinces his father, who allows him to travel to his uncle Phil's (Richard Masur) home in Los Angeles. Vada's drama teacher gives her the task of interpreting the life of someone she has never met, so she wants to research her own mother's life. On this voyage of discovery, she has as partner Nick Zsigmond (Austin O'Brien), the son of Rose Zsigmond (Christine Ebersole), his uncle's girlfriend.

Written by Janet Kovalcik, this sequence brings an important change of tone, leaving it appealingly sentimental. The first film forced Vada to face some shocking realities (the death of a best friend, the senility of a grandmother) and was heavily salted with mortal humor, while in this sequence the atmosphere of the sequence is softer and more golden. Among other things, the film is a nostalgic Valentine's Day for Los Angeles in the most remote days, when the city still used the mystique of a relaxed post-hippie lotus land.

This second part ends up running away from the thorniest issues previously discussed. Obviously, due to the protagonist's entry into adolescence, the film starts to deal with other themes, tries to advance the plot and at the same time fails to let go. Right at the beginning of the plot, we see that Vada remains the best friend of Judy (Lauren Ashley), who in turn, starts to become interested in one of her schoolmates. Already Vada, she still does not know how to deal with this adolescent phase and does not know how to identify the signs and these new feelings. It is a phase of discoveries presenting itself to her, her best friend, typical of the age they are in, when feelings are transformed and interests are changed. At the same time, Vada is also about to become the older sister, as Shelley (Jamie Lee Curtis) is pregnant with her father (Dan Aykroyd). When Harry asks his daughter to switch rooms when the baby arrives, Vada and the audience have another sign that the girl has grown up and that she had to adapt to the new reality.

Just as life goes on and things change, Vada also feels the need to have answers about her mother when her teacher asks her students to write about someone they have never met. This causes more changes to occur in the girl's life when she needs to go to Los Angeles, where her mother was born and lived a large part of her life. Arriving in the city, where her uncle Phil (Richard Masur) also lives, she also meets Nick, the son of his uncle's girlfriend, with whom she starts to live intensely for the following days in search of answers about her mother's past. The script then divides into these two stories. One is Vada's present in Pennsylvania, while the search for the past unfolds in Los Angeles, where the plot actually unfolds. And this is perhaps the big problem with the film, which is very much tied to the past and little developed.

Starting with the clues about the past of Vada's mother, Maggie (Angeline Ball). The ease with which the tracks appear, which are forced to connect only in order to make the script go, is remarkable. Since the focus of the plot was on searching for Maggie's past, there was a lack of more outstanding characters who could, in fact, unravel and show the public more effectively the relationship they had with Maggie, how she influenced their lives positively or negative, bringing more complexity and significant discoveries, that would make the public really care more about their past, so that we could, in fact, surprise and meet Maggie together with Vada and share with her the surprises, anxieties and joys to measure that this "investigation" was evolving.

Furthermore, small discoveries are significantly less important, such as having been suspended from a class, for example. The ultimate goal was that, to show an ordinary woman, with her dreams and talents, who cannot complete them. Maggie wanted to experience everything in life, including being a mother, but unfortunately her dreams and plans were interrupted. However, the feeling that the public remains, is that it was necessary to bring more layers to the character and more relevant facts about her life. With the exception of Jeffrey Pommeroy (John David Souther), who provides us with these significant and exciting moments, we do not feel the same with the other characters that appear throughout the projection.

The "dubious scenario" of the film is made even more by the approach of director Howard Zieff and screenwriter Janet Kovalcik. Everything in this film is full of sermons about the importance of being yourself. Vada does not feel any twinge of anger at the loss of her mother or any doubt about her search. She is prematurely mature. There are indeed connections to the previous film across the Pennsylvania core, and even Thomas J. is quoted and remembered in a passage in Los Angeles, but otherwise, this sequence could easily pass as a single film. This investigation in LA is far from intrinsic complexity, difficult to deal with, striking emotional moments or the poetry of the previous plot. Another aspect that harms is the relationship between Vada and Nick. After less than a week, teenagers develop a fast and shallow relationship, and it doesn't even come close to the relationship that Vada had with Thomas J., the sincere friendship of a whole childhood. Not that the actors are in bad shape, but the script is extremely hurried to develop the plot in California and features several forgettable characters. The feeling that remains is that both the sets and the plot could have been developed much more effectively.

Much of the original cast is back, but that's another problem. In addition to the hurried relationship between the teenage protagonists, Dan Aykroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis are only supporting actors, far from the main story and only serve to situate the viewer in the plot. They do not have the same importance in the relationship with Vada that they had in the previous film. It is really a waste of talent and the proof that perhaps taking the plot to another city and exploring the past was a wrong choice, neglected in relation to actually advancing the plot and character development. Already the most incisive presence of Uncle Phil (Richard Masur), now with his girlfriend Rose (Christine Ebersole) brings some good moments of comedy when talking about how Phil does not expose his feelings when making a more serious commitment to Rose. In spite of having good moments, they seem to be out of place, which only serve to produce a conversation between Vada and Nick, when they wonder if they would be related from that moment on with the romance between Phil and Rose.

It is rather a less inspired film and one that lacks the courage and complexity of its previous copy, but that, in a way, still presents us with a few discoveries about Vada's past, leaves us a little apprehensive with one of these revelations that put in check the girl's true paternity, and which shows how the girl's life is after a few years, she overcame or learned to deal with the losses of the past. It is a film with the right heart, but it does not have the same innocence and magic as before. It is worth visiting, especially for the charisma and talent of Anna Chlumsky, who once again steals the show.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
My Girl 2 shouldn't have come out.
Dana8229 June 1999
My Girl 2 shouldn't have come out. We all loved My Girl but I think that My Girl 2 tried to be just as good as My Girl but it never got close. Just listen to the title MY GIRL 2 ---come on. All and all it was alright.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Well, It Wasn't Bad.
Movie-ManDan4 February 2017
My Girl is iconic. Who remembers the sequel made a few years later? It didn't work like the original one did. I'm not saying that this is a bad film, because it isn't at all. It just lacked in any real emotional connection that the first one had. This seemed to almost force-feed and recycle what worked in the original.

It is now the spring of 1974. Vada's interests in boys is rising and her maturity is growing since we last saw her. She was a spunky tomboy in the first one, but now she's more serious and lively, but still maintains the spunk and jazz that made Vada, Vada. She isn't much different from the last time we saw her, but there is still a believable change. Dan Aykroyd and Jamie Lee Curtis are also a tad different. People change, people grow.

Just before March Break, Vada is assigned to write a report about someone she admires but has never met. She decides to do it on her mother. She sees it as a chance to know more about herself and gain her own independence. She badgers her father into flying to Los Angeles, which was where her mother grew up, to do research. She stays with her uncle (Richard Masur) who is living with Rose and Nick Zsigmond. Nick is played by Austin O'Brien who becomes Vada's childhood romance. At first, they don't get along, but then something grows. O'Brien was really good as Nick. Anybody that trashes him are wrong. Unfortunately, he's no Macaulay Culkin. Culkin is the better actor with more charm and Thomas J was better than Nick. In this, is seems that Vada and Nick are just a fling that will end just as she returns home. But her relationship with Thomas J was magical and it felt like it would last forever. Her explorations to get to know her mother are all fun and adventurous with the little romance at the backdrop. I liked the adventure aspect, but it wasn't a whole lot interesting.

The acting by all (mainly Chlumsky) are perfect. But it lost the emotional impact and self discovery that made the original so great. Sure Vada finds out more about herself, but it doesn't impact the viewer much. Plus, the magic from the first was lost. Magic is the only suitable word for this. The emotional impact is rather low too. I have mixed bags with this.

Either download it or buy the double feature. If you already have the first, no need for this.

2.5/4
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I liked this movie...
ppamjo216 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I think that this was a good movie... Vada chooses to write a report about someone that they never met. She decides to do a report on her Mom. Her mom was an aspiring actress.. Vada ventures out to California to find out all about her Mother..

She stayed with her uncle and his girlfriend who have a young son named Nick... Personally I thought Nick was kind of a jerk.

I think that this is such a great story. Vada can now grow up knowing that her mom was special to a lot of people. The scene with Jeffery Pomeroy was so good... He told Vada that he was glad that her Mom found someone that would love her and that he was glad when she was born...

Sure the story may not sit well with some people, but I thought that it was great. I know if I never met my Mom, I sure would like to know all about her...

I would give this film a chance...
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
so she came back?
emilie860517 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
anna comes back, only to go away and (**SPOILER**) attempts to find out what her mother was up too before she had her. the only problem is that she has to go to california, where she meets the guy that is pretty cute in my opinion, and they go around the town figuring out what mother was up to. i found the story plot kinda a drag, and couldnt really figure out what they could have added to make the first one feel incomplete. but gave this one only one point higher than the first one because i felt that anna really gave a better performance and added some romance to the movie, which is really what i wanted for her, since she has a lot of drama at home and should have gotten away and relaxed. good work again, anna and the guy that played the cute boy, i dont really remember the name of him. (C+ C)
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Perhaps this film might've gotten better reviews if it weren't titled "My Girl 2".
scorchingsirius12 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen this movie several times, and read the other comments to see if another viewer would enlighten me as to why this movie was so "bad", but the negative reviewers were hard-pressed to find specific examples -- all people said was "it's a sequel, so it's pointless, they shouldn't have made it, THEREFORE it must be bad." If you ask me, that's definitely jumping to conclusions; it's very easy to write a review like that without ever having seen the movie at all.

What's interesting about this movie is, while it is a sequel, unlike most sequels, it just as easily could stand on its own -- viewers need not have seen My Girl before seeing My Girl 2. The setting is, for the most part, completely different (from funeral home in Pennsylvania to sunny California). Vada's character, which, in the first movie, had been a neurotic hypochondriac, has "recovered" and now is more or less a normal teenager. Shelley (Jamie Lee Curtis) has been accepted into the family and is now just a loving stepmother -- and she plays a minor role in the film, anyway, as most of the film concerns Vada away from home -- and thus an entirely different cast of new characters were introduced. Instead of looking at this film as a sequel, one could easily see it as a 13-year-old girl attempting to find out more about the mother she never knew. I wouldn't exactly call that contrived, and the movie didn't incessantly "repeat" themes or jokes (or make more than a reference or two) to the first movie.

*SOME SPOILERS*

What I came away with, though, was that the story line didn't feel strong enough to sustain the movie. Yes, it was enjoyable, but there weren't a lot of twists and turns to move the main story forward -- a lot of the major points of conflict were found in the subplots, actually -- the relationship between Vada's uncle (who makes a cameo in the first movie, and whose character is expanded here) and his fiancée; the relationship between Vada and Nick (which is slightly disturbing considering he's going to be her cousin); the news of Shelley's pregnancy, etc. The bulk of the main story, after Vada arrives in California, consists of her talking to people somewhat matter-of-factly; she never really hits any "dead ends" or runs into any problems until near the end when Vada finds out about her mother's first husband. For some reason, though, that doesn't feel much like a satisfying climax, because nothing really built up to it or "prepared" the audience for it. On the other hand, the following scene, where Vada gets to "see" her mother for the first time (on film), really arouses the sentimental pathos so characteristic of the first movie. However, I wonder what is implied by the final scene -- where Vada flies home to be with her father and Shelley and the new baby and sings the song her mother sang in the film -- is it saying that although Vada grew up without a mother, she can play "mother" to this child? But the child already has a mother (and not Vada's mother). There is no real coming-of-age in this movie, either, as might be expected in a film with a thin plot -- possibly because Vada is pretty sane in this film, and there aren't many more of her values one can alter.

Somehow, overall, the film manages to come off as enjoyable, though, if maybe just for the audience's curiosity about the mysterious half of Vada's family she knew little about. I can't quite classify it as a "good film", but even with all the little things I listed above I can't exactly classify it as a "bad" film, either. It follows a different sort of formula than the first movie, so I don't even feel like seeing if it measures up to the original is a fair point of comparison. It's different -- let's just leave it at that.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a bad sequel but doesnt hold up well on repeat viewings unlike its predecessor
spencer-w-hensley6 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The original My Girl was a wonderful family film about a girl dealing with lifes trials the main one being the death of her best friend played by Macaulay Culkin who died from a fatal allergic reaction to bee stings near the end of the first film.

The first movie concluded the story nicely and with a hopeful ending. While it was heartbreaking she lost her best and closest friend we realized that Vada (Anna Chlumsky) was going to be ok by the time the movie ended.

Three years had passed and desperate to make money the studio and filmmakers brought Vada back in a sequel that when I first saw it felt it was as good as the first film but in viewing both films fairly recently I am sad to say this sequel just doesnt hold a candle to its moving and far more enjoyable predecessor.

Like so many sequels My Girl 2 seemed desperate to reunite the cast and director of the previous film and they completely forgot what made its predecessor the hit movie it was.

Vada is given a school assignment to write on someone she has never met who is important to her and accomplished something great. Since her dads marriage to her mom was so brief as she died right after Vada was born he is of no help to her.

Her Uncle (Richard Masur) who had a small supporting role in the earlier film has since moved away from his family in Pennsylvania to be a mechanic in Los Angeles and lives in a home above the garage owned by his girlfriend (Christine Ebersole) actually giving an enjoyable, likeable performance here.

Vada's now stepmom (Jamie Lee Curtis) has trouble convincing her overprotective father (Dan Aykroyd) to let her visit her uncle in Los Angeles where her mother was born in raised but Aykroyd eventually relents. The uncle's girlfriend has a son (Austin O'Brien) who becomes Vada's companion in search for info on her mom and naturally her love interest.

The problem here is just that the story takes too simple an approach to be entertaining.

The first film had a meaningful story with great life lessons for adults and kids.

This sequel just seems to want to go for sentiment and in doing so the story just really isnt all that interesting.

The most interesting part of the film is Vada discovering her mom had a husband before being married to her actual dad (John David Souther) and he is the one who ultimately gives her the information she desires about her mom.

The search for the mom doesnt answer questions that should be. What did Vada's mom truly accomplish that was great other than giving birth to her?

Also the story of her and O'Brien just doesnt have the depth that her and Culkin did the first time.

O'Brien just comes across as a smug, selfish kid initially and his interactions with Vada dont have the same meaning like the first movie did.

I think the sequel could have worked a lot better if Vada were the main focus. What could challenge her at this point in her life?

Why not focus more on relationships with boys and her family like it did in the beginning of the film before she went to LA? That could have made for an interesting film.

Or why not focus on her building a relationship with Souther? Their scenes together are by far the best and most moving in the film. Why not have a majority of the story focus on that? It could have been a great movie.

If you liked the first My Girl I would recommend watching this one. It has merits. But just dont expect to be moved and have a sense of hope like the first movie gave its audience.

I dont think this is one of the worst sequels of all time, nor is it a bad sequel or a bad film overall. I just think if the story had stayed closer to the original film it would have been as good as its predecessor.

I would say it is worth a watch for the scenes with Souther but I wished the movie would have focused on the two of them bonding over memories of her mom and growing to have a friendship with each other or on Vada dealing with trials in an optimistic way as a teenager rather than mostly focusing on finding out who her mom was.

Her mom seems to be the main character here in terms that the movie mainly focuses on her when the story should be more about Vada herself.

A sequel worth a watch but just one that left me with an empty feeling and wanting something more and different.

I think more time with Aykroyd and Curtis could have also made this a stronger and better film.

In the first movie Aykroyd's character was frustrating as he didnt relate to his daughter but he also had our sympathy and our care. We realized he was a flawed person and he made us want to root for him in developing into a stronger character by the end of the film which he became.

Here with what little screen time Aykroyd has (despite the fact he and Curtis get top billing their performances here are really more extended cameos), he comes across as more of a goofy stereotypical dad character almost like the poor man's Steve Martin.

Curtis practically has no character development. She was interesting in the first film as a free-spirited hippie cosmetologist, now she just has more of a role of a mother in a weekly sitcom and really does nothing with her character.

In conclusion a sequel with merits, but also one with a lot of missed opportunities for a better movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed