RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Myriam Nys 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.

Kirpianuscus colors and photography and humor. all from the same spirit of summer holiday. so French than becomes, scene by scene, universal. nothing special. except a form of joy who remains refreshing. because it is a film about childhood essence and about family. about small things, details, cinema industry and good choices. about a form of life , desired by everybody, innocent, seductive, comfortable. beach, room of hotel, meets - few magical. memories about the films by Tati and about similar stories. Valerie Lemercier and Kad Merad doing great job. Luca Zingaretti as seductive director . and eulogy to an unique age and its force of imagination.

aztellafriend 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.

languedoc-586-836028 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.