Le Retour du Gang des Champions

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?

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.

It's 1972, 10 years after the original movie. A new group of kids play at the Sandlot. Johnnie is the little brother of the original's Scott Smalls. He's launching a rocket when David Durango and his friends confront him. He almost burns the dugout down and only saved by Hayley Goodfarier living next to the Sandlot. Later, Hayley and her two girl friends dare to show up on the field. David faces off against her underhand pitching and they decide to join forces. When the ball goes over the wall, Johnnie recounts The Great Fear.

There is a nostalgic love for the original which is always going to be trouble for any sequel. This is essentially mission impossible. The original has a timeless perfection which this one struggles with. The addition of girls is an interesting turn. It's fun to twist the "You play like a girl" insult. The sense of time and place is not quite up to snuff. The small contained coming-of-age world is lost to some degree. The kiss at the carnival is the first good moment although the tag at the plate should have been a dropped ball. As it stands, it's simply a hard play and not a dirty play. Samantha Burton is not a natural actress. It's obvious she's there for her ball skills and she's also pretty cute. The acting from the kids are uneven but they do kinda grow on me. The cat claw contraption is hilariously childlike. It's reminiscent of the original but inferior. This could be a lot worse.

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.

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.