Uma Turma Divertida

If you've seen the original Sandlot movie, you will recognize numerous similarities in this sequel. The movie takes place ten years after the events of the first movie and revolves around a baseball team, which plays its games in the same sand lot as the original movie. The many similarities to the first film include a main character who is very fast, a chubby, curly-headed kid, and Mr. Mertle's dog, which plays a big role in the plot (again). In many ways, the movie is almost like someone found the old script and re-wrote it for a modern audience, changing the characters and story enough to make it a new movie, but keeping it similar enough to be true to the original story. If you're looking for an original piece that compliments the first one, this isn't really it. Like most sequels, this one tries to appeal to the audience of the original movie and takes few risks in covering any new territory, unless you count the inclusion of Sean Berdy as Sammy "Fingers" Samuelson, a deaf boy who provides an original comic distraction to the plot on more than one occasion.

Despite its similarities to the original, as a stand-alone piece, this is a nice little story and well worth watching, especially for the younger audiences who really liked the original Sandlot. If nothing else, the movie is entertaining and doesn't get bogged down with a complicated plot.

Oh Dear Lord: somebody somewhere must have been offended by the original movie (which was obviously a fiendish plot to perpetuate the stereotype that a group of school boys could play sandlot baseball games without following preconceived notions of gender equity and politically correct behavior). The result of this brutish insensitivity manifests itself in "Sandlot 2", which is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. Hey anonymous narrator guy who agreed to reprise his 'Sandlot 1' role for this atrocity...have you no shame?

This film's offenses to all of moviedom are far too numerous to adequately catalog. First and foremost, "Sandlot 2" is not so much a sequel as it is a B level remake of the original. Virtually every situation from the first movie is clumsily recreated by a far less talented cast and group of writers: the scene where Squints kisses Wendy Peppercorn is transformed into bizarre (yet utterly predictable) slapstick involving a kissing booth, another 'Beast' must be outrun (this time by the uninspiring Max Lloyd-Jones), another outfield wall collapses...you get the picture. And what this shameless ripoff cannot steal from the original, it manages to plunder from other movies (such as the scene in "Bad NewsBears" where Amanda takes a cheap shot to the chest near home plate).

The cast itself is incredibly lackluster. Max Lloyd-Jones is an inadequate replacement for Mike Vitar's benevolent Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez, although to be fair, the writing doesn't help him any; whereas Rodriguez selflessly places his own reputation on the line to take a shy, gawky kid under his wing for the summer, Lloyd-Jones' "David Durango" has little concern for the plight of misunderstood Johnnie Smalls (yes, the little brother of Scotty Smalls) and appears far more interested in being aloof and ultra-cool while scouting out love interests. Brett Kelly's "Hamilton Porter" impersonation begins and ends with his physical appearance. Even little James Wilson sounds suspiciously like Marcy from "The Peanuts Gang" as Johnnie Smalls, and he was probably the most talented of the bunch.

And then there is Teryl Rothery appearing in a hackneyed feminist role that undoubtedly had Susan B. Anthony turning in her grave. No cliché is left unturned as she chides her husband for calling his daughter by a pet name ("Female children are every bit as good as male children" she pronounces, providing an unsuspecting Johnnie Smalls with a smarmy look just oozing with resentment and general creepiness. *shudder*) and responds to her daughter's romantic uncertainties by telling her that "women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Sadly, the writers did not manage to have Rothery work a single utterance of "Burn your BRA for the ERA" into the mother/daughter dialog, but perhaps they will correct this glaring oversight in time for "Sandlot 3: The Gloria Steinem story". Coming soon to a theater near you?

The rest of the movie provides a quick cure for insomniacs far and wide as the writers desperately try to make amends for the first film's over-indulgence of testosterone (the phrase 'Male Chauvinist Pig' was repeated, I think,about eighty-six times). The movie's objective can probably be summed up in a single line, where the insult fest between the sandlot kids and the little leaguers is recreated. "You play ball like a GIRL!" one of the kids snarls. "Ex--CUSE me?" chirps one of the newfound female ballplayers. The only thing missing from the moment was a scrolling disclaimer at the bottom of the screen with the producers not only apologizing for the original scene but for everything else wrong with the world up to and including dishwater spots.

Which is all well and good. My only question is, when will these same producers get around to issuing an apology for stealing ninety-seven minutes of my life that I can never, ever get 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.

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.

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!