A_Voice 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.

Jackson Booth-Millard 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!

zorrothefox This movie is one of the best children's movies that I've seen. It doesn't have any big stunts, or major stars(unless you count the parents).The story is about a girl Vada, who doesn't know much about her mother, who died before Vada was old enough to remember much about her. All she has are a few faint memories and a box full of her mother's belongings.As part of a summer project, she decides to write the paper on her mother. She somehow manages to convince her parents ( Jamie Lee Curtis is her step mom and very supportive) and flies to California to her uncle's place). She starts searching for any clues to her mother's past, and in the process finds out much about herself.A very refreshing movie, which has a simple yet gripping story. Anna Chlumsky as Vada is simply too good. Austin O'Brien as Nick is quite sarcastically funny, and is a good foil for Vada.I rate this movie 10/10. A must-watch movie.

Penny 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.