One of my all-time biggest comfort movies is the first Happy Gilmore, released back in 1996. Ever since I was a kid, I used to watch that movie all the time with friends at sleepovers, with my mom, and even just by myself and it never failed to make me laugh hysterically.
For years, I watched as Adam Sandler made plenty of sequels to his movies, but I was always sad that a Happy Gilmore sequel was seemingly never coming. So when it was finally announced that a new adventure in Happy’s life was on the way, I was absolutely ecstatic. Which is why it breaks my heart to tell you that the sequel is absolutely awful.

A Bleak Premise Cloaked in Comedy:
The film’s setup is jarring: after years of success, Happy is now a washed-up alcoholic, reeling from a tragic accident that left him widowed. While the original Happy Gilmore thrived by balancing absurd humor with light emotional stakes, the sequel begins on an unusually dark note that sets an uneasy tone. Instead of feeling earned or meaningful, the emotional gravity of Happy’s backstory feels like a clumsy attempt to inject dramatic weight into a franchise that was never designed to carry it.
This tonal whiplash becomes one of the film’s most persistent problems. Scenes that should be zany and fun are weighed down by grim exposition and awkward attempts at depth. There’s an odd sense of obligation in how the movie tries to mature Happy’s character, but the writing lacks the nuance to make that transition work. The result is a muddled identity crisis: is Happy Gilmore 2 a redemption drama, a sports parody, or a heartwarming family tale? It tries to be all three and succeeds at none.
Old Faces, Faint Charm:
Sandler reprises his role with a clear sense of affection for the character, but his performance is listless and erratic. When Happy does return to the sport that once defined him, Sandler tries to revive the same manic energy and comedic timing that made the original so beloved. But at 58, he feels tired—both literally and comedically. His signature rage-fueled outbursts now come across as stale echoes of a joke that has long since aged out of relevance.
Julie Bowen returns briefly as Virginia in flashbacks and visions, and while she gives a grounded performance, her role is relegated to a narrative device rather than a meaningful character. Christopher McDonald’s return as Shooter McGavin is one of the film’s few bright spots. Despite the script saddling him with a bizarre subplot involving psychiatric care, McDonald injects his scenes with much-needed charisma and timing. His reluctant team-up with Happy brings a flicker of the magic that made the original memorable, though it’s fleeting.
New additions to the cast fare less well. Benny Safdie plays Frank Manatee, a villainous energy drink CEO whose performance oscillates between cartoonish and confusing. Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio (Bad Bunny) plays Happy’s new caddie Oscar Mejías with charm, but the character feels underdeveloped, mostly serving as a plot device to steer Happy toward redemption.
Flat Humor and Overstuffed Plotting:
The humor in Happy Gilmore 2 feels stuck in the past. Relying heavily on callbacks, recycled gags, and crude physical comedy, the film doesn’t offer anything fresh or inventive. Cameos from golf legends and legacy characters are shoehorned in with little payoff, and most comedic beats fall flat, especially when paired with the story’s more somber elements.
The plot is overstuffed with unnecessary detours—legal troubles, rehab programs, league rivalries, and corrupt corporations all collide in a bloated narrative that forgets the beauty of the original’s simplicity. Happy’s arc from washed-up recluse to contender again is buried under contrivances and melodrama. There’s an attempt to recapture the underdog charm of the original with Happy’s daughter’s ballet school as the motivating factor, but the emotional stakes feel artificial and rushed.
The Sport of It All:
The golfing sequences are oddly choreographed and lack the kinetic energy and comedic absurdity of the original. The finale—an overly long, convoluted match between two rival leagues—has the potential for fun spectacle but ends up feeling more like a chaotic fever dream than a satisfying climax. Even the “big putt” moment, clearly designed to echo the iconic finale of the first film, is hampered by digital effects and a deus ex machina-style resolution that feels unearned.
It doesn’t help that the film’s central conflict—traditional golf versus the flashy, extreme “Maxi Golf”—is neither compelling nor well-developed. It’s a satire without a punchline, raising the question: what exactly is the film trying to say? By the time the showdown concludes, it’s clear the answer is very little.
A Sobering Reflection, but No Substance:
One might argue that Happy Gilmore 2 is attempting something more profound—examining legacy, fatherhood, grief, and personal growth through a comedic lens. But these themes are handled so clumsily and inconsistently that they end up muddying the tone rather than enhancing it. Moments meant to be heartfelt or redemptive instead feel awkwardly wedged between slapstick sequences and forced callbacks.
Even the final act, where Happy experiences closure and hope for the future, is hampered by an out-of-place ghostly farewell and an overly sentimental montage. The film wants to have it both ways: a touching farewell to its iconic hero and a raunchy, ridiculous comedy sequel. But those opposing aims pull the film in opposite directions, leaving it emotionally hollow and comedically limp.
Overall:
Happy Gilmore 2 is a textbook example of why some classics are best left untouched. Though it may tug at nostalgia by reuniting familiar faces and echoing familiar beats, it never justifies its existence beyond a weak sense of obligation. The tonal imbalance, stale humor, and overloaded plot all contribute to a film that is less a triumphant return and more a tired retread.
There are scattered moments where the old Sandler charm flickers—particularly in the banter between Happy and Shooter—but they’re too few and far between to redeem the film. For fans of the original, Happy Gilmore 2 may offer a few comforting memories. For everyone else, it’s a swing and a miss.
A bogey of a sequel that neither lands its laughs nor its emotional beats, Happy Gilmore 2 ultimately feels like a misplayed second shot—off-course and out of bounds.

Happy Gilmore 2 Review: Swings for Nostalgia but Misses the Fairway

Acting – 5/10

Cinematography/Visual Effects – 3/10

Plot/Screenplay – 2/10

Setting/Theme – 2/10

Watchability – 3/10

Rewatchability – 2/10

User Review

0
(0 votes)

Summary
Happy Gilmore 2 is a textbook example of why some classics are best left untouched. Though it may tug at nostalgia by reuniting familiar faces and echoing familiar beats, it never justifies its existence beyond a weak sense of obligation. The tonal imbalance, stale humor, and overloaded plot all contribute to a film that is less a triumphant return and more a tired retread.

Pros

Seeing Adam Sandler return as Happy Gilmore, alongside familiar faces like Christopher McDonald (Shooter McGavin) and Julie Bowen, offers a wave of nostalgia for fans of the 1996 original
Christopher McDonald brings genuine charisma and comic timing, with his scenes offering brief flashes of the original’s comedic energy

Cons

The film can’t decide if it’s a slapstick sports comedy or a tragic redemption story, resulting in jarring shifts between crude humor and serious melodrama
The death of Virginia and Happy’s downward spiral are handled clumsily, undermining the emotional stakes and alienating fans who expected a lighter sequel
Many jokes feel recycled from the first film or stuck in 1990s sensibilities, with few genuinely funny or clever moments
The script is bloated with subplots: rival golf leagues, rehab, corporate corruption, ghostly visions, and family drama—making the story feel unfocused

.review-total-box {
display: block;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-review-area .review-percentage,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-review-area .review-point {
width: 20%;
float: right;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper .review-circle.review-total {
margin: auto 0;
padding-top: 15px;
width: auto;
height: 100%;
clear: both;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper > .review-total-box {
display: block;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper > .review-total-box > div { display: none; }
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box h5 {
color: inherit;
}
.wp-review-1005770 .review-embed-code { padding: 7px 30px 15px; }
.wp-review-1005770 .review-embed-code #wp_review_embed_code { background: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5) }
.wp-review-1005770 .wpr-rating-accept-btn {
background: #e57e34;
background: linear-gradient(to top, #e57e34, #f08436);
color: #000000;
margin: 10px 30px 12px;
width: -moz-calc(100% – 60px);
width: -webkit-calc(100% – 60px);
width: -o-calc(100% – 60px);
width: calc(100% – 60px);
border-radius: 50px;
}
@media screen and (max-width:600px) {
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-point-type .review-list li .review-point,
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-percentage-type .review-list li .review-percentage {
width: 40%;
}
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-point-type .review-list li .wp-review-user-rating .review-point,
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-percentage-type .review-list li .wp-review-user-rating .review-percentage {
width: 100%;
}
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-point-type .wpr-user-features-rating .review-list li span,
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-percentage-type .wpr-user-features-rating .review-list li span {
float: left;
line-height: 1.4;
font-size: 14px;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros {
padding: 15px 30px;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons {
padding: 15px 30px;
padding-top: 0;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-total-wrapper {
max-width: 100%;
float: left;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .user-total-wrapper { max-width: 70%; }
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-total-wrapper h5,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-total-wrapper .user-review-title { font-size: 14px; }
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-review-area .review-percentage,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-review-area .review-point {
width: 50.5%;
}
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-links { padding: 15px 30px 5px; }
}
@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .reviewed-item,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-desc { padding: 15px; }
.wp-review-1005770 .review-list li,
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-point-type .review-list li,
.wp-review-1005770.wp-review-percentage-type .review-list li,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .wpr-user-features-rating .user-review-title,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .user-review-area,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-links,
.wp-review-1005770.review-wrapper .review-embed-code { padding: 12px 15px; }
}
]]>

Acting

Cinematography/Visual Effects

Plot/Screenplay

Setting/Theme

Watchability

Rewatchability

Summary: A bogey of a sequel that neither lands its laughs nor its emotional beats, Happy Gilmore 2 ultimately feels like a misplayed second shot—off-course and out of bounds.

1.8

A Bogey