Good movie but grossly overrated

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The first "Nicolas" movie was a comic delight, mainly because it successfully evoked the uniquely wild and wonderful mental universe of children, where the most sensible ideas sound ridiculous and the most ridiculous ideas sound sensible. The movie also provided an original (and very funny) take on the age-old subject of sibling rivalry.Sadly for all concerned the sequel is far, far worse than the original. There is a considerable decrease in charm, wit and imagination. I don't exactly know what causes this slackening, but I suppose it's got something to do with a shift in emphasis. The parents, both husband and wife, gain in importance, which is a problem since the screenplay provides them with far-fetched and unconvincing adventures. (The dance sequence involving the wife needs to be seen to be believed.) Meanwhile, we're getting a lot of new (child) characters, at least a number of which are not as funny or memorable as the originals. Last but not least I was amazed by the absence of Nicolas' baby sister, whose arrival pretty much dominated the first movie. Listen, people, you can't make a whole movie revolving around the birth of a second child, and then make a sequel in which the said child is never shown or mentioned : it creates a continuity hole the size of Ginnungagap.So I can't really recommend the second movie - but do watch the first, it's delightful.

Since I do not have access to Parental guide editing, I am adding it here as FYI. The movie has a scene where a woman can be seen running away from the camera completely nude. Keep this in mind if you are considering this movie for young kids. The male character is nude as well, his critical parts are hidden behind a piece of garment (held in his hand).I liked the first movie much better. The actor who played Nicholas in the first movie was great. Even though the new actor is very good, I would have loved to see the same actor for continuity. Kad Merad is great as always.

The director made the mistake of putting too much humor way too often. The end-result: most of the humor wasn't funny at all. In comparison, its prequel did not have humor as frequently, which allowed the plot to develop better and made it a much more memorable movie. I really wish this one had been more like its prequel.However, I'd love a sequel. Three reasons: 1. The first movie was awesome. 2. It was a great opportunity to learn French. 3. When I watched it for the second time without English subtitles it was much more enjoyable, maybe because of my limited knowledge of French.Nicholas's mom and dad were enacted by the same actors that'd enacted them in the first movie, which was great. Most other characters were enacted by new actors and were boring, except for Nicholas's grandmother and Nicholas himself -- they were great. But then there were characters who weren't that great. For example, one of Nicholas's friends was a boy who ate everything, including crabs, frogs and things that live inside seashells -- and they showed him eating these things -- not funny!As a native speaker of English, I liked that they included Djodjo (an English boy) in the movie. Unfortunately, unlike in the book, stories or the TV episode he did not speak any English, which I was hoping he would. I heard one English word throughout the movie. Of course there's no reason for me to expect to hear English in a French movie, but my hopes were quite high.No, I do not recommend watching this movie. It was a box office flop (which means it earned less money than what went behind making it). It earned a fifth as much money as Little Nicholas, but it took more to make it. You won't like it, not if you're a child, and especially not if you're an adult.

The original Nicolas film, still directed by Laurent Tirard, was cute and funny. Its humour relied upon genuine written material forming consistent scenes and situations, and often based on the child's point-of-view, as in René Goscinny's exquisite little stories. "Les Vacances" relies a lot on nods and references to past cinema, and the rest is either disjointed (loose ends - what happens in the end with the tight spot at the nude beach Nicolas' father gets himself into?...) or simply unlikely. Even though the excellent Valérie Lemercier and Kad Merad still play Nicolas' parents, the actors in general, save for Bouli Lanners as Bernique, are insincere in their delivery and reactions and/or poorly directed. The father is supposed to be heartbroken by his wife extending her stay without him at the crazy big-money party, yet his face remains almost expressionless all the while...Also, one scene suggests that hurting severely a live animal can be perceived as humorous, which I have found particularly tasteless.