The Sandlot - Historia de un verano 2

I think that it was it's own new script, but not as good as the original. I agree that "David" Max Lloyd-Jones was very good and a good looking kid. Samantha Burton was the other new face that was good in the movie. I would recommend buying it just for the collection. The whole new twist to it with a different year, girls, and the new situation is good. I definitely think that you should see it for Samantha Burton and especially Max Lloyd-Jones. James Earl Jones was a very good part to have back in the movie, because it gave it the old feel. The new Sandlot is its own new gang, but as I said not as good as the original. Some of the new actors weren't so good in their acting except for Max Lloyd-Jones, Samantha Burton, and the brother of the deaf kid.

This movie was awful. Period. Anyone who had seen and loved the first Sandlot would be ashamed to see this movie beside it on the shelf. Firstly, the storyline is terribly predictable and almost exactly the same as the first one, only a lot worse because it wasn't nearly as funny. Secondly, the acting throughout the whole movie was terrible. The actors seemed to be picked more because of their body than because of their acting abilities. Character development was beyond embarrassing, a character would simply show up, spill their life story and all of the sudden we're trusting them with the fate of the movie? You could not pay me to sit through this movie again, the only reason I didn't turn it off in the first place was because I was amazed at how the film got progressively worse! I urge you strongly NOT to see this movie, not only would it be a waste of money, but a waste of time. I want an hour and a half of my life back!

I grew up on the first Sandlot and you know what? THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT ALONE! The Sandlot is a fantastic movie(one of my top favorites) and it has been by itself for 12 years and now they have to go and make one of the world's worst TV movies for its sequel. Where should I begin?

1) THE PLOT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE FIRST ONE! Group of kids lose something over the fence and spend their summer trying to come up with a clever plan to retrieve it because of some unknown "monster" on the other side. Also the feud between the rookie team and the league team. "You play ball like a girl!" That entire scene was exactly the same as in the original. Exactly the same...

2) CHARACTERS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME! One baseball hot-shot, a fat kid, one black kid, two brothers, Smalls (Scott Smalls younger half-brother) and they did mix it up a little bit, they threw in three girls who play softball. They only decided to give these characters different names. Like in the original, the dog was called "The Beast" and in this movie the dog is called "The Great Fear." What is that?

3) NOBODY IN THIS MOVIE COULD ACT! With the exception of James Earl Jones of course, he was awesome as he always is. I'm still trying to figure out why in the world he would take this role...

This movie is just plain insulting to anyone who has seen and has fallen in love with the 1993 movie "The Sandlot" because how they have basically taken every single scene and twisted it to fit the 70's. I'm afraid to even think about what "The Sandlot 3" is going to be about...

I give this 1/10 stars because that is as low as the scale goes.

This is not how a sequel is made. It completely lacks originality or continuity with the first movie. This is supposedly a small town. Isn't odd that during the 60s and 70s that none of the minority characters in either movie face any type of discrimination? And what's with the mixed message with the female lead being feminist but she needs the male lead to come to her defense? If they wanted to add female empowerment, then why didn't one of the other female characters stand up to that guy? And if I'm not mistaken Scotty said that his family only stayed in that neighborhood until almost through junior high. Did they move back? Either way, shouldn't Scotty, Johnny's brother, be about 21 or 22? I find it hard to believe that if he spent all that time with Mr. Mertle that his parents never were introduced to him. They even have a stereotypical black character based on the soul 70s blaxploitation era who dresses more 60s hippie with a dash of modern natural hair than anything remotely resembling the movie's time setting. This movie is a completely shallow rehash of the original done inferiorly.

Don't go about with this 'it's a kids movie' stuff, because aren't kids supposed to enjoy a kids movie? Still a child, I thought that this movie was rather boring and if there were razzies for kids movies, this one could deserve one.

First off, the acting was bland and wooden. Instead of using talented children, they went ahead and hired a few good-looking or cute kids with no experience, or at least that's what it seems. The boy who played 'Smalls' was actually alright, but beside him the casting couldn't have been worse.

It's cheesy, too. Very cheesy. Just the things that happen, the script, just everything. And, apparently, because everyone got such a kick out of seeing a boy kiss an attractive lifeguard through pretending to drown in the sequel, the writers decided that everyone would laugh just as much this time. Not really.

The plot line takes too much from the original and changes it around, with the evil animals and such. Why not use some imagination, eh? But, you've got to give it a little credit. There were times when a smile lingered upon my face, and I find it fairly good that they included girls this time--except for the fact they made them pretty wimpy, sticking to stereotypes as boys being tough and girls being wimpy and finding even a worm disgusting. No 'tomboy' about them, which kind of irritated me. But, thanks for at least including a girl.

I give it a 4/10.