The Phantom (1996) - Comic to Movie #8

Many of us have killed him over the years. But he keeps coming back.

Director

Simon Wincer

Cast

Billy Zane - Kit Walker/ The Phantom

Kristy Swanson - Diana Palmer

Treat Williams - Xander Drax

Catherine Zeta-Jones - Sala

James Remar - Quill

A couple friends recommended 1996's The Phantom to me. Though I've heard of it, I have never seen it before now. 

In my mind, it fell into a jumbled mix of 90s hero movies such as Steel, The Shadow, Darkman, Mystery Men, The Meteor Man, and even that God-awful thing with Eddie Murphy from 2002.

The film style is rather film-noir. Given that Tim Burton's Batman and Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy, both very stylized movies, came out shortly before The Phantom, I see a bit of both in this movie - the dark and grittiness of Batman and the colorful comic strip style of Dick Tracy. On top of all that, there's a little Indiana Jones mixed in as far as the adventurous story goes.

The movie starts with the briefest introduction for the sake of those who missed whatever hyped once surrounded the phantom as told in the comic strip by artist Lee Falk. Falk, by the way, is also known for his comic Mandrake the Magician. 

Just like Falk's comic strip, which debuted in 1936, the story begins in the fictional African island nation of Bengalla.

It's the 16th Century, and a small boy witnesses his father's death after pirates calling themselves the Sengh Brotherhood attack the ship the boy and his father are aboard on. 

The kid jumps overboard and finds his way to Bengalla where a tribe rescue him and take him back to their village.

They bestow a skull ring on him. And the boy vows to dedicate his life towards the destruction of piracy and injustice. He grows up and takes the identity of "the Phantom" - a masked avenger carrying out his promise from before. 

The movie then shifts to the 1930s were a man named Kit Walker (Billy Zane) has become the 21st person to take on the heroship of the Phantom. 

As a mercenary named Quill (James Remar) is leading a small band of ruffians, and one kidnapped native boy, through the jungle of Bengalla in order to steal the Skull of Touganda which contains a powerful magic of some kind, the Phantom is on to the scheme and attempts to stop them.

He captures one of these villains, saves the boy, but fails to save the skull. 

It turns out Quill is part of the Sengh Brotherhood, and was also previously responsible for killing Walker's dad. 

Incidentally, his dad occasionally appears to Walker as a ghost or as a mental delusion, I don't know which, in order to give his son advice. 

So, Walker researchers the skulls and finds there are three other skulls that have been separated from each other. He then follows Quill to New York City. 

Meanwhile, in New York, Walker's old college girlfriend, Diana Palmer (Kristy Swanson) - the niece of the World Tribune newspaper owner, Dave Palmer - is kidnapped by female air pirates working for wealthy businessman and villian, Xander Drax (Treat Williams). 

It turns out the World Tribune is investigating Xander who has a suspicious history of dealing with other less-than-savory businessmen. Among these female air pirates is femme fatale, Sala (Catherine Zeta-Jones). 

Diana is taken to an island where she's questioned by Sala as well as by Quill himself.

The Phantom hears about this after visiting with Dave, and rescues her. 

Billy Zane as the Phantom

Back in New York, Kit meets with Dave and Diana, who isn't so sure about Kit as he disappeared from her life years before. Her current boyfriend tells Kit that one of the skulls is located inside the Museum of World History.

When they go to retrieve it, Xander shows up right after, takes the second skull from them, and joins it with the one stolen from Bengalla. 

The skulls merge and, through a show of magical skull magic, reveals the location of the third skull on an unchartered island in the Andaman Sea. 

Xander's race is on to obtain that third skull to obtain some serious powers. The Phantom and his old fling need to stop him before it's too late.

Billy Zane reminds me of a classic style Bruce Wayne if Bruce Wayne/ Batman started off in a fictional African country. 

Anyways, unlike movies such as Batman and Dick Tracy mentioned above, The Phantom lacks emotion all around. Not too many actors emote in this movie. They just do what they do. The Phantom saves people, and "phantoms," and everyone else does whatever it is their characters need to do. 

We do see some turnaround in Sala, but all Catherine Zeta-Jones has to do is look at the camera. Then we know she must be having a change of heart. Spoiler, by the way. 

We really don't know our hero, Kit Walker/ The Phantom. The audience has a very quick back story introduced as an "in case you missed it the first time." And that's really about it. It's not even his back story, to be honest. It belongs to the first Phantom back in the 16th century. 

We know Kit lost his father and sees his ghost, or his mental projection of his father. But there's no emotion in that. He doesn't seem upset by it. There's nothing here to connect the audience with the hero. 

Since I mentioned Batman earlier, in Tim Burton's film we see the damaged side of Bruce Wayne - his traumatic experience as a child witnessing the murder of his own parents. We know what drives him. There's a profound sadness and scarring that audiences can relate to in someway or another. The audience understands Bruce in a rather intimate way.

With Kit Walker, well...he just inherited his role. That's fine. But what has this inheritance done to him? What is he struggling with internally? Why does he "phantom?" Does he want to be the Phantom? All we get is a "super" hero. He saves people because that's what audiences expect heroes to do. And then the world is safe again...for now. Why should I care about this particular hero? Even Superman struggles with his role in our world. And Dick Tracy (in the 1990 movie) struggles with what should take precedence in his own life - his duties as a police detective, or his personal relationship with his girlfriend whom he wants to marry. I think the audience needs more than just a quick "in case you missed it the first time" snippet in the beginning. The audience needs to know their hero. Give them a reason to watch and become invested. 

For an epic adventure, the movie certainly delivers even with a mix of both real and computer animated explosions. The animated ones are easy to tell when compared to the real explosions. I mean, both kinds are in the same damn movie. 

The Phantom has that classic 1930s-1940s serial feel to it in its story, its delivery and pace, and its atmosphere. The characters are taken right out of those classic on-screen comic cliffhangers. This is especially true in the Xander Drax. He's the quintessential power-hungry, greedy businessman with awesome hair, a perfect smile, a tailored suit, and a rogues gallery of goons.

The character Diana Palmer brought some down-to-earth mannerisms into the story. One scene in particular depicts Palmer being taken to the island with Sala to retrieve the third skull. Sala, in the front passenger seat, turns around and says something menacing as villains often do. Palmer unexpectedly replies "What's wrong with you? Don't you care about anything?" 

"Like what?" Sala says.

"I don't know? You figure it out."

It made me laugh. 

Overall, the movie is lackluster despite its adventurous and close-call storyline. I was interested enough to wait for the resolve at the end. Still, I anticipate myself forgetting what happens in this movie as time goes by. 

Don't Fast Forward This One: 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' reminds me of 'A Christmas Story'

Peter Billingsley in A Christmas Story

Rachel Harris and Steve Zahn, Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Some might be surprised that I enjoyed 2010's Diary of a Wimpy Kid. It's an entertaining movie. 

I never heard of the book series by Jeff Kinney (my kids recently started listening to the audio books) the movie is based on until I found this movie at the public library in Lincoln, Nebraska back in 2013. 

I decided to watch it on a whim. To be honest, I can't remember my exact reasoning to give this movie, definitely not made for the likes of me, a try. But I did. 

I know Diary of a Wimpy Kid received less-than-savory, albeit not absolutely terrible reviews. Still, I enjoyed it more than I expected to. It's target audience is junior high kids. While I'm not a junior high kid, I used to be one.

While watching it, Diary of a Wimpy Kid kept bringing the 1983 Holiday comedy A Christmas Story to my mind.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid centers on young Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon). He fights a lot with his older brother, Rodrick. He torments his younger brother Manny a little too much. He's also starting middle school, and is bombarded with mixed thoughts and misguided expectations about it. He's basically like most kids. 

Through Greg's narration, thankfully not over done, we understand what those expectations and goals are. He realizes, even at 13 or 14 - however old he is -  that what he is familiar and comfortable with is changing, and will continue to change. It's a hard lesson when a kid first realizes that it's happening. And with it comes realization that he must somehow cope. 

Heffley learns the good parts as well as the bad parts of middle school fairly quickly. A lack of popularity will resort to the new kid eating lunch of the cafeteria floor. P.E. teachers will also favor the bigger kids over the smaller ones. Though the audience has an unbiased view of this one particular aspect of typical American life for juveniles through the eyes of an 14-year old, they're still able to sit on the outside and look in. 

A Christmas Story, released nearly 30 years prior, is also based on a book - In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash by Jean Shepherd. 

Like Diary of a Wimpy Kid, it takes an unbiased look at a slice of typical Americana life.

For anyone who has consistently missed the movie's 24-hour marathon on TBS every Christmas, it's about nine-year old Ralphie Parker and his quest for a Red Ryder BB-gun, which he deems is the perfect Christmas present. 

The story is narrated by an adult Ralphie, reminiscing on his pursuit.  

A Christmas Story takes place in the 1940s - a period often viewed as America's "golden age." But the Parker family are less than golden. I talked about it in a post called Is A Christmas Story really a stupid movie? Ralphie is living in the 1940s while Greg is experiencing life in current time. Anyhow, it's satirical, but both movies are certainly not watered down.

Like A Christmas Story, Diary of a Wimpy Kid knows a thing or two...or three, about human behavior. It doesn't talk down to young audiences when portraying Greg's experiences transitioning just a little closer to adulthood, and seeing life as it really is. The story does a decent enough job depicting the common adolescent mistake of projecting specific personas to gain respect and attention from peers which children think they deserve and need for survival. Greg even goes so far as to try and turn his friend, Rowley, into what he wants him to be. As Ralphie has his friends Flick and Schwartz to pal around with and confide in, Rowley is about all Greg has. He doesn't "have" his older brother, Rodrick, for any support. Rodrick just assumes Greg will be "dead or homeschooled" before the year ends. 

But rather than appreciate Rowley for his own sake, Greg tries to change Rowley's image in order to bolster himself up on the popularity scale.

Both movies, especially Diary, reminds me of the line in John Lennon's song Beautiful Boy. "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." 

Both kids sure fantasize a lot about how their life ought to go if only they could steer their respective adults into doing things their way. But adults seem to love humiliating kids, whether their P.E. teacher is watching the big kids tackle the small kids, or their parents force them to wear humiliating bunny outfits their Aunt Clara sent them at Christmas.

Ralphie fantasizes how a Red Ryder BB-gun could possibly save the lives of his entire family from creeping marauders if only his parents, his teacher, and Santa Claus himself could see things his way. Greg, meanwhile, dreams how obtaining popularity could lead to an adulthood full of success, if only his parents, his friends, and fellow classmates could see things his way. 

At Warren G. Harding School, where Ralphie is enrolled, he and his friends face the pressure heaved on them by dog-dares, double dog-dares, and triple dog-dares. In the film, we see this pressure applied to poor Flick who's dared to stick his tongue to a frozen pole. Chickening out such a dare leads to a lasting stigma.

Meanwhile, at Greg's school, the stigma comes in the form of the dreaded "cheese touch" - it's a side story about a moldy piece of Swiss cheese forever present on the black top of the school yard. Anyone who touches it has ths "cheese touch" which is similar to the dreaded "cooties." 

It's the ultimate rejection because the entire school is in on it. When I was in elementary school, there was a moldy Oreo cookie that never left its spot on top of the support beams just below the awning at the main door of the music building. No one dared touch it. For all I know, it might still be there 25 years later.  

Anyways, dares are as old as kids themselves. As long as kids exist, so will dares. 

I think it's the simple dialogue from a pre-teen's line of reasoning, the honesty of these kid's lives - anticipations, hopes, expectations, and disappointments - that make these movies similar. Both are narrated by the main character.  

But Wimpy Kid doesn't condescend to its young audience. Yes, there's boogers and other gross out humor. Yes, there's the weird kids. Everyone in middle school had their encounters with "weird kids." Ralphie did as well. All in all, Wimpy Kid has a pretty good grasp on human nature and experiences, especially when it comes to a person's need to belong. 

We see this in Greg Heffley and his quest to be popular. 

All these depictions, though silly, don't go overboard. They're funny from an outside perspective looking in. It's a style similar to that of...you guessed it...A Christmas Story. 

When it comes to finding a niche to fit in, young Greg's options seem pretty limited to school and what it has to offer. 

Both he and Ralphie do get what they want, but it doesn't come to them in the way they thought it would. 

Ralphie gets his BB Gun, but from the one person he never asked. Greg does have his popularity, but he gets it through sacrificing his reputation for his friend Rowley. And he finds his "popularity" with those who actually knew him all along, and see his selflessness for what it is. He learns to appreciate what he always had. It just didn't come the way he initially wanted it to.

All audiences need to relate to Greg Heffley and Ralphie Parker are their own experiences being a kid. Either at some point in our lives, we had a toy we sorely wanted, convinced it would bring us happiness unlike anything else. And, at some point, we started a new chapter in our lives where our first task on hand was obtaining acceptance. We just needed to know the terms we needed to meet to obtain that acceptance. Both movies don't water anything down. They're blunt. What you see is what you get, even if you're 11-years old. Welcome to life!

Don't Fast Forward This One: My 10 personal favorite comic book movies

My "Comics to Movies" series of reviews is moving forward rather slowly, but it's still moving. I keep another blog 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com which I've been giving more attention to. 

As the readers who follow my blog (I think there's two) know, I've been working on a series of reviews and commentaries on lesser known movie adaptations of comic books. In the meantime, I put together a list of my personal favorite movies in this genre.
I'm sure I'll be thrown some comments like "What? You included Dick Tracy but not Avengers: Endgame!" Yeah - I did. There are more comic book movies I enjoy immensely, but these below are ones that stand out to me. They're my personal favorites. 

And while Marvel has made some fun movies these last 10 + years (Ant Man, SpiderMan: Home Coming) as well as some less than savory movies (Doctor Strange - yeah, I didn't like that one). These picks, however, stand above the rest in my mind.  

Batman (1989) - This really stems from a nostalgic place for me. 

Tim Burton's 1989 movie Batman helped change the general public's idea of the caped crusader from the campy 1966 series image to a darker, grittier, no-nonsense superhero who doesn't spout off lines about good dental hygiene or always crossing on the crosswalk. 

While this image of Batman was already common among comic book readers, thanks in large part to artists like Frank Miller and his 1986 four-issue series The Dark Knight Returns, I wasn't reading any of that at the time of Burton's movie. I was heading to second grade in June, 1989. 

And this movie was "the movie of the summer." It made a huge impression on me. I became obsessed with Batman after I saw this. It's an obsession that has quieted down some, but hasn't died completely.  

I remember the theater exploded in cheers and applause at the scene in the third act where Batman flies his Bat Plane through the cloud cover of Gotham City, lining itself against the full moon to create the bat logo before flying headfirst towards the Joker's deadly parade. I still remember that. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) - Despite the ridiculousness behind the idea of four mutated turtles, as well as how tired parents must have been with all the hype surrounding the Ninja Turtles back in the 1990s, this movie is actually a really decent film. I'm trying to approach it from an outside perspective looking in. 

The story line is a serious one, even with the understanding that the audience at the time would predominately be children. 

The movie tackles truth, family bonds, trust, dedication, personal honor, selflessness versus greed, and corruption in society, 

The movie starts off rather serious as we witness a crime network of teens at work, all organized just to steal a man's wallet. It then goes to just how swift this network is at stealing televisions, and even an entire truck of electronics. It sets a serious tone for a movie about heroes with a huge kid fan-base. 

And though critic Roger Ebert wrote that he didn't walk out of this movie with renewed spirits as he wasn't expecting much when walking in, he did say "this movie is nowhere near as bad as it might have been, and probably is the best Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie." He wrote that in his review back in 1990, I think it's an opinion that still holds true. 

Oh, and throw in some Jim Henson puppetry. That's the topping on the pizza!

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - I admire Marvel Studios for bringing comic heroes to the big screen that aren't as mainstream as commonly recognizable heroes like SpiderMan or Captain America. 

Guardians of the Galaxy falls into that category for me. I was unfamiliar with the Guardians until the movie came out. I was sold by the trailer and the positive reviews.

It was definitely one of the first comic movies I sat through and thoroughly enjoyed, and felt good about after watching. 

Maybe that's thanks the use of light and colorful atmosphere as opposed to the seemingly consistent dark, shadowy, rainy atmosphere often seen in comic movies. 

The humor is right up my alley. I loved the chemistry of the characters. Chris Pratt is a perfect casting choice as Peter Quill/ Starlord. The dialogue was somehow believable...even for Rocket Raccoon. It's original for being a comic-based film. And though I call it a superhero movie, it's really more about individuals very different from each other, yet still able to work together towards a common goal. And those individuals become important to each other after their mission is accomplished. I felt good walking out of the theater when I saw this. This is my favorite among Marvel movies so far, followed closely by Guardians of the Galaxy vol. II. 

Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vengeance (1972) - Lone Wolf and Cub: Sword of Vegeance is the first of six samurai movies based on the Manga series by Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima. The actors clearly take this movie seriously. The acting, sets, camera work, and dialogue - this is a fantastic and well done film. Granted the effects are certainly a product of a budget probably on the lower side. The fighting scenes are entertaining. It's a darker movie for sure as the protagonist, Ogami Itto, is an assassin-for-hire knowing full well his way of life is evil. But he still maintains a sense of compassion towards those suffering from injustices. 

I reviewed Sword of Vengeance among my "Comic to Movie" reviews, which you can read by clicking here. 

Dick Tracy (1990) - What sets the 1990 Warren Beatty movie Dick Tracy apart from other comic book based movies is its style. It's the most comic-styled movie I've seen. It's a modern film noir with bright colors amid a somewhat gritty backdrop. 

It was an original style for its day. In other words, Dick Tracy is as close to an acted out comic strip than any other movie I've seen. The colors. The framework. The imagery. And on top of that, the all-star cast make this movie distinct from other movies in this genre. After Batman, which was released the year before, I think Dick Tracy was a source of inspiration for future comic book movies. It's kind of an unsung hero of such movies. I wrote about this film earlier on my blog as well. The link to that can be found here: Dick Tracy

Joker (2019) - This was certainly a different angle for a comic movie. It's based on one of the most iconic antagonists ever printed on old text stock. Without going into too much detail, this movie wasn't afraid to show certain modern mentalities are fueled more by emotion than on reasoning and deduction. I loved this movie for being something audiences haven't seen yet in the way of origin stories and social commentary. 

Joaquin Phoenix's performance is fantastic as he depicts the breakdown of a mentally ill man left alienated and alone by his government (via his social worker), his career, those close to him, and finally by his community.

Akira (1988) - This movie is just outright amazing. Based on the 1980s era Manga series, the animation is absolutely striking and impressive. I can't think of a big enough word? The story is unique and brilliant. I just admire this movie so much. I'm not necessarily into anime, so Akira is really the only anime movie I enjoy so far. Friends have recommended other anime titles to me, but I just haven't gotten to those yet. I'm sure I will, though. 

The dark apocalyptic story is brilliant. The pace of this movie goes faster and faster. Akira is a masterpiece in animation and storytelling!

Superman II (1980) - Don't get me wrong. I love the first Superman movie! But the second film I've always found more engaging and comic book-y. There's a lot that's been said about Superman the movie. While the first is a fantastic on-screen introduction to the Man of Steel, the sequel gives us a little more of Superman. The audience has more personal insight into Clark Kent/ Superman. Plus, the action with General Zod is really edge-of-your-seat storytelling. 

Wonder Woman (2017) - Even though I'm not among the target audience for female superhero films like Wonder Woman, or Captain Marvel, I still have a little more appreciation for female superheros who don't need to rely on male counterparts. Characters like Batgirl, or Supergirl, or She-Hulk are certainly iconic and have a well deserved fan base. Still, Wonder Woman doesn't have a "Wonder Man" to help bolster her popularity in any capacity. She's a source of inspiration for her female fan base. Sure, a character like Batgirl is as well. And that's fantastic. Wonder Woman stands heroic on her own. 

The 2017 was such a fun and exciting movie. The action was brilliant. It was nice to get a DC Comics hero that was neither campy nor dark and gritty, hidden in shadows and disguises. And that Wonder Woman was made with an underlying respect evident in the movie is commendable.  

The audience in the theater I watched Wonder Woman in applauded at the scene where she climbs onto the battlefield amid gun fire, and walks determined towards the enemies among the storm of bullets. Not since 1989's Batman had I heard an audience applause at a DC Comics movie. 

Shazam! (2019) - Shazam! was a surprise of a movie for me, and I'm sure for a ton of other people. 

I think the fact this movie did so well surprised a lot of audiences. But it was fun, different, and well played. The movie has a central theme surrounding family. Its story reminds me of the essay scene from the 2000 movie, Finding Forrester where Sean Connery's character, William Forrester, reads Jamal Wallace's essay towards the end of the movie.

He says, "Losing family obliges us to find our family. Not always the family that is our blood, but the family that can become our blood. Should we have the wisdom to open our door to this new family, we will find that the wishes we had for the father who once guided us, and for the brother who once inspired us, are not merely wishes at all. A family is not what you always imagine it will be." That sentiment surely applies to the story of Shazam!

Watching it brought me back to the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland where I first saw Batman in 1989. It's certainly a lot different in style and tone than any Batman movie. But it still left an impression on me.

Zachary Levi playing a kid in the form of an adult, without making it stupid, was believable. I think DC was smart for making this movie with care. 

The enthusiasm in this story is refreshing to see. Perhaps it pulled some of that from Marvel's SpiderMan movies? I don't know. But, it's there and great to see.

The Punisher (1989) - Comic to Movie #7

"Here is justice. Here is punishment. Here...in me."

Director

Mark Goldblatt 

Cast

Dolph Lundgren - Frank Castle/ The Punisher

Louis Gossett, Jr., - Jake Berkowitz

Jeroen Krabbe - Gianni Franco

Kim Miyori -Lady Tanaka

Nancy Everhard - Sam Leary

Barry Otto - Shake

A good friend of mine asked me recently if I ever watched The Punisher from 1989. 

I dug deep into the darkest, moldiest, neglected corners of my memory to dig up any recollection of knowing about a "1989 Punisher movie." Had I heard of it before? I think so. I don't know, really. 

I think I remember hearing about it, or seeing something about it at some point, but I also think I may be conjuring up false memories. I swore I've seen the poster before, but again...I really don't recall when or where I saw it, if I ever saw it at all. The chrome-style title "The Punisher" on the poster looks kind of familiar.

So, a little Googling helped shine some light of clarity into all these foggy, unreliable memories.  

The Punisher was released theatrically world-wide except in the U.S. and a few other countries. It was scheduled to be released in the States, but the film company, New World, distributing the movie was slammed with money issues. And The Punisher didn't quite receive the release it was scheduled to in the states as a result. 

It went straight to video in 1991, was shown at an L.A. Comic Convention the year before that, and had a few special screenings here and there in the years following. 

The Punisher is a Marvel Comics character who's real name is Frank Castle.

He's a vigilante whose tactics in "punishing" criminals is murder, violence, extortion and torture by whatever means necessary to "punish the guilty. He's a real Machiavellian. 

In the comics, his rage towards crime and those guilty of it stem from witnessing the murder of his wife and children by mobsters as they were witnesses to a crime. 

To me, he's a darker, grittier, and more ruthless version of Batman. He doesn't need a mask. He just needs his anger from the darkest corners of his soul, along with some fighting skills, fearlessness, and the ability to be illusive. The Punisher is recognized by a large emblem of a skull he bears on his shirt. 

Dolph Londgren (Rocky IV, Masters of the Universe) stars as ex-cop Frank Castle. His origin story in the movie is faithful to the source material. 

Dolph Lundgren as Frank Castle/ The Punisher

The movie starts after this fact, though through a couple quick flashbacks, the audience is shown the death of his family.

Castle hides in the sewer to avoid detection while the city above has been trying to determine the identity of this mysterious "punisher" for years.

After blowing up the home of a wealthy mafia crime lord while still inside, an act witnessed by police and the media, officer Jake Berkowitz (Louis Gossett, Jr.) sees Castle inside the home just moments before it explodes.

Law enforcement conclude that Castle is legally dead, but Berkowitz doesn't think so. Yet, somehow, they still can't figure out Castle is the Punisher? I guess they lack substantial proof.

Meanwhile, in his solitude, Castle constantly reflects on the death of his family. He plays it out over and over in his mind. It fuels his anger to punish. And because of his "punishments" towards the mafia, their power has weakened over time.

One mafia family leader, Gianni Franco (Jeroen Krabbe - The Fugitive) decides to come out of retirement and bring other mafia families together in order to bolster their strength. 

Franco's plans take an unexpected turn as Lady Tanaka (Kim Miyori - Babylon 5), head of Asia's crime network, the Yakuza, takes over the unification of the crime families. 

And to make sure the partnering families are all on board with her scheme, she has their children kidnapped and threatens to sell them into a slave trade if the crime lords don't go along with her plans. 

Meanwhile, Castle gathers all his intelligence through a drunken former Shakespearian actor named Shake (Barry Otto). 

Shake talks the Punisher into saving the kidnapped children despite the fact they're the offspring of mafia criminals. 

This ultimately puts Castle up against one of the largest and most powerful criminal organizations in the world.

The serious tone of the movie mixed with ridiculous stereotypes (Italian mafioso saying nothing short of dumb Italian catchphrases with fake New York/Italian accents - "forgettabout it", "hey, I ordered pizza") and just general cartoonish acting mixed in is distracting. It's like producers hired Super Mario to write all the mafia dialogue.

Louis Gossett, Jr.

Louis Gossett, Jr., plays the tired trope of the no-nonsense, introvert cop with a chip of his shoulder. 

He has a history with Castle going years back, and carries his own pain seeing his old fellow officer so far gone. 

Gossett is a fantastic actor and puts a lot of emotion into this role. But the whole "no nonsense" attitude is something seen over and over again. 

Some parts of the movie don't make much sense. For instance, a young investigator named Sam Leary (Nancy Everhard), who's fresh out of the police academy having been top of her class, wants to partner with Berkowitz as she's convinced Castle is still alive and is the illusive Punisher. 

Berkowitz, who is reluctant at first because he doesn't work with partners, agrees since he thinks the same thing. 

In a weird line of reasoning, Leary thinks Castle stole the kids, which makes absolutely no sense! None. But she thinks he did and claims his doing so "makes sense" because he lost his own children. 

It's the stupidest line in the movie.

A former cop turned vigilante, who suffered the torment of losing his two children in a car bomb would suddenly decide to steal children from their parents (albeit criminal parents) is not an act that makes sense. And she was top of her police training class? Sure, the Punisher is ruthless, but he goes after the guilty, not the children of the guilty. And this M.O. is already established earlier in the movie. 

In one scene after the police have Castle in their custody, Berkowitz verbally and physically lashes out at him because Castle has killed 125 criminals since taking on his Punisher persona. His lack of empathy seems off to me.

The dark and depraved story line - threatening to sell children into a slave trade - while one broken and deadly vigilante goes against a major crime organization is an extremely compelling story.  

However, the explosions (there's a whole lot of them) along with the consistent gun fire blowing everything away over and over again grows annoying to me. 

The movie lacks polish and perfection. It feels like it's a dress rehearsal rather than a finished production. The bad acting, save for Gossett, adds to this factor. And the pyrotechnics used as a wow factor turns boring and loud. It just goes on and on. 

Though the Punisher bleeds and bruises, he indestructible. Even Batman got hit with a bullet every once in a while. 

Barry Otto and Dolph Lundgren.

In one scene, the Punisher is sprayed with gunfire and point blank range, and still manages to walk away unscathed. 

If the writing and acting had more effort, more care, and less explosions to win the audience's favor, this may have been a better movie.  

The audience just gets enough back story, albeit in small enough doses, to understand what motivates Castle. 

Lundgren's performance, sadly, expresses the false idea that a shattered character means showing no emotion. It should be quite the opposite. Sadness and grief should be brought out. 

Being a serious "bad-ass" while blowing everything and everyone away is no substitute for extreme sadness and loss. It's poor acting.

And on top of it all, the Punisher doesn't dawn his iconic skull logo on his chest. That's like making a Superman movie and not having Superman bear his "S" shield. Logos help create the identity of the hero. No skull? That's just weak. We only see his skull emblem as the Punisher leaves knives with the skull at the end of the handle as a calling card.  

The Punisher doesn't lack in action, intensity, and story. It just forgets that too much of a good thing isn't so good. The movie had potential. They just needed something more lustrous. and looking like a finished product.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Is there anything good about 2016's Ghostbusters?

I was at a Horror Convention in St. Joseph, Mo., last summer and met a group of Ghostbusters fans who were all decked in their cosplay Ghostbusters uniforms. 

They wore some impressive looking proton pack replicas and other pseudo-scientific ghost catching equipment. One guy even had a fake cigarette hanging from his lip like Ray Stanz (Dan Aykroyd) did in the hotel scene from the 1984 movie.

While talking to these fans, I asked a question some geeks are afraid to answer.

"So, what did you think of the 2016 movie?"

I could tell by the way they looked at each other that they just didn't want to venture into these unnecessarily "dangerous" waters. It was the question not to be asked.

If they liked it, then some will deem them not-so-true fans of the franchise. 

If they hated it, then someone will label them sexist. There's just no winning.

So, I broke the ice and said "I mean, it wasn't great but it has some good things going for it." 

And some seemed to sincerely agree. The rest of them reluctantly did the same. 

It's no revelation that the movie which is often referred to as the "female Ghostbusters" wasn't great.

And this lack of greatness started with the initial advertising. It went through online bickering between cast, director Paul Feig, and fans with name-calling via Twitter coming from both sides. 

Feig called a lot of Ghostbuster fans "trash" and "trolls" among other things for expressing their opinions and disappointment towards his version of Ghostbusters. This was both before and after the movie's release.

Talk about counter-productivity. Trying to appeal to a fanbase while bashing that same fanbase will surely result in some severe criticism. 
I think it's a safe assumption that after years of talks about a third movie, audiences generally didn't want to see a remake. Still, remakes are as old as Hollywood itself. They're anything but a new concept. 

The movie was just so poorly introduced and promoted. The first trailer led fans to believe the remake was actually a part of the original films. That trailer referenced "four scientists" who "saved New York...30 years ago."  It even had a clip of the famous fire house which served as the Ghostbusters headquarters. The attention of Ghostbusters fans perked up, only to lead to disappointment heard around the internet. 

Rumors of a third sequel floated around since Ghostbusters II came out in 1989. And this wasn't going to be it. A remake! The disappointment is justifiable. You can't tease fans like that, and then belittle them for not appreciating it.   

So, hate towards 2016's Ghostbusters continues to linger.

Putting all that aside, is the movie really bad? Well, yeah. It's not great. But when I saw it during the summer of that year, I had fun watching it. Just like other movies directed by Paul Feig...well, Bridesmaids is the only other movie of his I recall seeing, his Ghostbusters was an alright popcorn movie. I got my matinee price's worth of laughs. I think it does have some great qualities. 

To begin with, the casting is well done. 

I appreciate the fact that, like the original, the actors (Kristin Wiig, Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy - she wasn't necessarily an SNL cast member, but she has been on the show - and especially Kate McKinnon) playing the new Ghostbusters were cast members on Saturday Night Live. 

McKinnon helped sell the movie for me. Her comedy and timing, in my opinion, is hilarious. She's fantastic on SNL, and she was entertaining in Ghostbusters. 

All together, it was a rather solid cast who played well off each other. 

Another aspect I love is the pseudo-science. 

In the move, McKinnon plays the Egon Spengler-esque (Egon being the brains behind the Ghostbusters in the 1984 movie, played by the late Harold Ramis) character, Jillian Holtzmann, whose scientific expertise leads to some faux scientifical gadgetry designed specifically to captures ghosts. 

In the original movie, the Ghostbusters's gadgets were limited to a ghost trap, some proton packs, and a storage unit. Their proton packs were basically sticks they pointed and shot. That was really about it. It was an awesome special effects show, don't get me wrong. Still, the 2016 Ghostbusters offered more than pointing sticks. 

Despite a story I consider sloppy and in need to reworking, I still think most of the jokes played out well. 

One particular scene that still makes me laugh is when the Ghostbusters encounter their first ghost at the Aldridge Mansion. The story behind the mansion is that Sir Aldridge locked his oldest daughter in the cellar to avoid embarrassment after she murdered the home's staff. Her ghost haunts the mansion, which is the Ghostbusters first paranormal investigation.

When she manifests herself to them, both Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) are trying to maintain their composure as the malicious looking specter stares them down. Next to them, Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) just says "hi" with a smile on her face as she munches on a can of Pringles, treating the experience like she's in it for the entertainment. McKinnon is just a natural comedian, and I particularly love her in this movie. 

So, while 2016's Ghostbusters remake is still the subject of hate and criticism, and much of it widely 

deserved for its poor storyline, it still has something movie fans can take away from it. It's just a shame the movie wasn't produced and written better. Perhaps if things had gotten off on a better foot, and some revisions had been made, well...it may have been better received. 

Ghostbusters has a fun factor, and it accomplishes what it set out to do. Entertain. At least it got that right.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993) - Comic to Movie #6

My legs hurt. My arms hurt. My spots hurt. Even my bandana hurts.

Director
Stuart Gillard

Cast
Elias Koteas - Casey Jones/ Whit
Paige Turco - April O'Neil
Stuart Wilson - Walker
Sab Shimono - Lord Norinaga
Vivian Wu - Mitsu
Robbie Rist - Michaelangelo voice
Brian Tochi - Leonardo voice
Tim Kelleher - Raphael voice
Corey Feldman - Donatello voice

Never have I ever seen the infamous Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. It took a global pandemic to get me to sit down and watch this. Right off the shell, this is not an obscure movie. That goes without saying.
TMNT III wasn't on my list of comic book based movies to review. It wasn't on any of my lists of movies to review. So, why am I reviewing this third installment?
My local libraries are my prime avenues to obtaining many obscure titles, including obscure movie adaptations of comic books. But with the lock-down in place, borrowing titles hasn't been an option.
Some movies on my list to review are actually serials from the 1940s and 50s. Though they're available on YouTube, they have a run time over five hours long. I just need a day to get through at least one of them.
I was going to put off my "Comic to Movie" string of reviews with something else I plan to do, but I decided I didn't want to postpone anything. There's enough of that going around.
My review of TMNT III is more for my own sake, to be honest. Though I've always loved the first film from 1990 - an underrated comic movie in my opinion - it doesn't fit with the general theme of these lesser known, not-so-appreciated comic book movie reviews. It's too well known, and so much has already been said about it.
With circumstances being what they are, the heck with all that for now.
The subject matter in part one made quite an impression on me when I saw it in the theater, and several more times on home video, back in 1990. I was in second grade that year.
The first film, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, has a great story line that I think is overlooked by general audiences merely because the movie is about teenage ninja mutant turtles. They were created with the intention of ridiculousness.
The themes of family, friendship, forgiveness, and integrity sets this apart from other comic movies that merely rely on the franchise they're based on for money. 
It respects its young audiences, appealing to their maturity rather than assuming their just kids so, the movie doesn't need to try very hard. Quite the opposite.
On top of all that, the puppetry from Jim Henson's Workshop is fantastic and fun to watch.
The second movie Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: Secret of the Ooze certainly makes up in the goofiness that's in short supply in the first.
It's much more garnered towards young fans, with fight scenes that are more comical when compared to part one. And it doesn't take plot points as seriously as the first. How did Shredder survive the first movie? And why is his presence in the second movie so sloppy? He was intimidating in the first movie. He was his own cartoon character in the second.
I remember the anticipation when it was announced there was going to be a part two. Rumors went around that Bebop and Rocksteady were going to be in the sequel. But obviously that isn't the case. What kids got were a mutated wolf and snapping turtle which became new characters called Tokka and Rahzar. Despite that, kids back in the day still referred to them (myself included) as Bebop and Rocksteady.
We had to wait approximately 25 years to see those guys on the big screen thanks to director Michael Bay. That much was great about 2016's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows.

It was laughable, too, even back in 1991 that Vanilla Ice has a featured song in part two. No kid I knew listened to him. And if they did, they kept that guilty pleasure strictly to themselves.
When part three came out in 1993, I just wasn't interested in seeing it. I never heard anything good about it. And just never bothered to see for myself...until now.
Rather than starting off on or under the streets of New York City, this movie begins in 17th century Japan as samurai warriors chase a man on horseback.
Once they have him cornered, an unknown woman watches them from some bushes. They end up kidnapping this guy.
The movie transitions to modern day New York City, where the turtles are still living in the subway they moved into in part two.
Corey Feldman returns as the voice of Donatello, which he played in the first movie. And Elias Koteas comes back as Casey Jones, whom he played in the first movie as well.
April O'Neil, played this time by Paige Turco, pops in to visit the turtles as she's just returning from a flea market.
She brings back an Asian style scepter among other gifts for the turtles. Oblivious as to what it really is, Donatello leads in a little research.
Meanwhile, back in ancient Japan, the kidnapped man turns out to be a prince named Kenshin (Eidan Hanzei). The kidnappers return him to his father, Norinaga (Sab Shimono), and the father and son get into a little family quarrel. Dad is upset his son has dishonored the family name. Son is irked his dad is all gung ho 😄 about going to war.
See what I did there? I said "gung ho!" Get it? No, you probably don't. O.k... Sab Shimono played "Saito" in the 1986 comedy Gung Ho with Michael Keaton. I guess I'll have to review that movie later. I thought the reference was clever.
Anyways, this domestic bickering is interrupted by a stuck up English trader named Walker (Stuart Wilson) who has come to supply Norinaga with weapons and manpower.
After their argument, Kenshin goes to sulk in his self pity when he comes across the same scepter April finds centuries later.
He reads the inscription engraved on the side. "Open wide the gates of time."
And suddenly, he trades places in time with April.
One thing leads to another, and the turtles trade places with four unsuspecting samurais from ancient Japan so they can go rescue her.

Donatello figures out they only have 60 hours to find her, and get back to modern New York City. During the rest of the movie, they don't appear too concerned or rushed about making sure they locate their friend and get back within 60 hours.
Once they do find and rescue April, now they have to find the scepter. Time is truly of the essence, but I didn't get the impression the turtles cared too much.
Still, they find it in an easy "oh, there it is" moment.
All the while, the girl from the beginning of the movie, Mitsu (Vivian Wu) watches the turtles closely as he first discovers them by a river. A little while later, their identity as turtles doesn't remain any kind of secret throughout the movie.
April comes across a prisoner named Whit, also played by Elias Koteas. To April, he looks just like Casey Jones. It seems like a bigger plot point will come from this. But I think I missed it. This character's purpose seems forced. I'm willing to bet it was the only way to give Koteas more screen time.
I'm happy they brought Casey Jones back from part one. But like Koteas's role as Whit, Jones really serves no purpose in the movie other than to attract an audience. "Looks who else is back, kids!" Otherwise, he's just...there.
I appreciate the movie going someplace the other movies didn't. It attempted to be different and engaging by placing the turtles in a brand new and unfamiliar scenario. Kudos for originality and offering something new to fans of the franchise. I appreciate that.
But it's just over all a tiresome movie. It's even haphazard at times.
The puppetry is a joke. I swear in a few scenes with the turtles, I could hear mechanical noises and clicks when the turtle masks would move to talk.
And the movements look way to mechanical unlike the fluidity in the masks seen in part one.
The story line was entertaining and intriguing at first, but I found myself just wanting the end to hurry up and arrive. By the last 40 minutes of this movie, I had to struggle to stay invested in what was happening.
My overall feeling about TMNT 3 is that it's generally underwhelming.
The turtles get a silly laugh here and there. It tries to throw out some catch phrases in the hopes at least one will stick with audiences. I don't remember if any actually did. I don't recall any.
Nothing about the movie, other than the setting in ancient Japan, stands out.

Sab Shimono in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III.

Maybe if movie producers gave audiences what they really wanted to see with the Ninja Turtles, then perhaps the third movie, and even the second, would be more worthwhile and profitable.
Audiences wanted the characters they were familiar with. No one wanted a Vanilla Ice cameo, two mutants that could have so easily been Bebop and Rocksteady, and a Casey Jones return that ended up being too superfluous.
After 23 years, I can now say I've seen all three 1990s turtle movies. But, is it something to brag about?

It Runs in the Family - aka My Summer Story - (1994)

"Sometimes events come and go before we realize how important they were."

Director
Bob Clark

Cast
Kieran Culkin - Ralphie Parker
Charles Grodin - Mr. Parker
Mary Steenburgen - Mrs. Parker
Christian Culkin - Randy Parker
Whit Hertford - Lug Ditka

In 2012, the most unnecessary of sequels was released straight to DVD, as terrible sequels often are. A gusty sigh of disgust and revulsion spread over the realm of family home entertainmentland.
This sequel, A Christmas Story 2, was packaged along with the original A Christmas Story (I guess we have to call it "part one" now) because movie companies likely felt this would be the only way to get poor, unassuming movie watchers to buy this cash grab of a direct-to-DVD movie.
But there's a huge miscalculation. Calling part two a direct sequel to A Christmas Story isn't quite accurate. That rightful claim goes to the 1994 movie "It Runs in the Family." It's worth mentioning a couple other movies about Ralphie and his family, based on the writings of Jean Shepherd which "A Christmas Story" is based on, were released just after "A Christmas Story." 

"The Star Crossed Romance of Josephine Cosnowski" was released on PBS in 1985. And "Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss," starring Jerry O'Connell as Ralphie, was released in 1988. Neither of them are labelled as sequels, though. 
This sequel was released in theaters under the title It Runs in the Family back in 1994. And it literally starts off exactly where A Christmas Story ends.
I'm not using the term "literally" loosely. I mean it. The movie opens with the shot of the Parker house on Cleveland Street as quiet snow gently cascades down and the Parker's Christmas tree gleams in the front room window. It's the same shot the previous movie ended on as the credits rolled. Even the exact same opening credits song "Deck the Halls" plays as It Runs in the Family opens. It's the direct sequel before part two was the "direct sequel."
As the first film takes place during the Christmas of 1940, this takes place the following summer.
The story is pretty scattered with three different things going on at the same time.
To begin with, Ralphie Parker (Kieran Culkin) searches for the perfect spinning top that'll outmatch that of bully Lug Ditka (Whit Hertford - A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child). It's revealed in the movie that the bully from part one, Scut Farkus, has since been demoted to "bully: second class." We can only assume that's due to Ralphie beating the ever-loving snot out of him just before Christmas time.
All the tops Ralphie uses against Ditka end up as failures.
So, he looks to outside sources including an Asian market and a gypsy at a world's fair for rare crafted tops. The climactic battle of the tops ends with an unexpected finish.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Parker pursues a collection of celebrity dishware distributed one piece at a time from the local Orpheum Theater under the operation of Leopold Doppler (Glen Shaddix - Beetlejuice).
The first piece she acquires is a gravy boat bearing the image of Ronald Colman.

Kieran Culkin as Ralphie Parker.

When she returns to the theater a few weeks later, the same gravy boats are distributed which Doppler explains as a "shipping error."
However, he assures all the women attending the theater for their free celebrity dishware, that should they return their boats at the next giveaway they'll be exchanged for the next piece in the collection.
Yet, when Mrs. Parker returns for her coveted next piece, all that Doppler has to give away for the third time is the same Ronald Colman gravy boat.
The frustration leads to an all out gravy boat rebellion from hundreds of royally irked housewives. As the movie so aptly points out, "never stand between an Indiana housewife and something free."
And while all this is going on, Mr. Parker is out to drive away his hillbilly neighbors, the Bumpuses with their incessant hillbilly music, numerous hound dogs, and constant mockery, all of which drive him to extreme measures to annoy them.
When he notices the Bumpuses build an outhouse on their property, he threatens to report them for creating such an unsanitary nuisance in the neighborhood. But they don't care.
Also, Mr. Parker builds upon his relationship with Ralphie through regular fishing trips.
Seeing as how the old man gave Ralphie his Red Ryder BB gun, and was the only character Ralphie didn't ask while pursuing that toy gun, there's something to be appreciated as the old man works to continue on building their father and son relationship. 
What distinguishes the random events in the first film compared to those in this movie is that with A Christmas Story the central plot point is clear and doesn't stray - Ralphie's quest for his Red Ryder BB gun. The other events are simply surrounding elements in the holiday theme that work well to carry the movie forward. They're what Ralphie has to deal with in his quest. They make the story relatable for audiences. Situations such as the old man winning his major award only to see it shattered, or Ralphie eagerly awaiting his Little Orphan Annie decoder pin only to be taught a valuable lesson about marketing tactics, don't distract from the main plot point. They're merely minor stories that find a resolution and are played up for laughs. The audience can still take the plot of a young boy's quest for the perfect Christmas present to heart. Everything else is attractive garnish.
There are elements in this direct sequel that some audience members might relate to as normal summer routines and events they've experienced at some point in their lives. Others, like the Parker's random trip to the World's Fair, or dealing with obnoxious appraisers, seem out of place. But nothing really makes the movie carry forward well. They're just random events that happen in the summer.
Here, there's nothing to sink my teeth into as far as the storyline goes. It's here, and then it's there. It's all about what everyone in the family is focused on, including Ralphie.
It Runs in the Family could have worked much better as an anthology movie. That, at least, would have made more sense.
Some characters and elements brought over from part one are more defined for the audience to take in. In this regard, the movie does compliment the first film rather well.
We're introduced in depth to characters we only hear about in the first movie.
For instance, the audience is introduced to Pulaski and his candy story, which are briefly mentioned in A Christmas Story. 
"Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store," Ralphie tells his parents at the breakfast table in part one.
Pulaski (Dick O'Neill) runs a no nonsense candy store who's customers - mainly, children - just make it difficult for him to operate a candy store. He's a bit like John Cleese's Basil Fawlty of Fawlty Towers, but in small town America.
But the biggest reveal, so to say, are the Parker's hillbilly neighbors, the Bumpuses's and their smelly hound dogs, who are only spoken about in the first film.
"Our hillbilly neighbors, the Bumpeses' had at least 785 smelly hound dogs. And they ignored every other human being on earth except my old man." If anyone who watches this movie can remember that line from the first film, then you'll understand the Bumpuses as seen in this movie.
With these characters, fans of  A Christmas Story can take away something new from this movie to enhance their imagination next time they watch the first movie. 
A Christmas Story 2 relies so heavily on the first movie, you might as well skip it and just watch the first movie to begin with. I
t Runs in the Family makes an appreciable attempt to be its own story.
A Christmas Story is based on the writings of Jean Shepherd from his book In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash. I wrote about this when I wrote whether or not the first movie is really a stupid or not as part of my Don't Fast Forward This One postings.
Shepherd narrates My Summer Story just as he did for A Christmas Story. And Bob Clark returns from the first move to direct this sequel.
The interior and exterior of the Parker house is the same. But the only returning actor from the first movie is Tedde Moore who played Miss. Shields.
The casting choices are as good as they probably could have gotten. Mary Steenburgen plays Mrs. Parker, formerly played by Melinda Dillon (Close Encounters of the Third Kind).
Steenburgen does make the character of Mrs. Parker her own while appearing to emulate Dillon at certain times, especially when repeating some of the character's catch phrases from part one.
Charles Grodin plays "the old man" Mr. Parker, previously played by Darren McGavin.
Grodin certainly isn't terrible in this role, but isn't as natural at it as McGavin was.
Where McGavin seems natural as Mr. Parker, Grodin seems to play up the gruff, slow witted character a bit more over-the-top. At times, especially when "the old man" is in scenes where he doesn't have to bolster up Mr. Parker's mannerisms, I could see the character as I remembered from part one more clearly.
And Kieran Culkin as Ralphie (played originally by Peter Billingsly) does make an apparent effort to portray the often slackjawed Ralphie, who cares deeply about his endeavors and how those around him affect his situations.
Culkin took some getting used to playing Ralphie, especially having seen A Christmas Story every Christmas for the past 35 or so years.
I suppose it's unfair to say this continuation is completely unnecessary as it offers more stories based on Shepherd's works, In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash as well as Wanda Hickeys Night of Golden Memories and Other Disasters. The book has so much more, story-wise, than Ralphie's Christmas quest. It's a bit like the Wizard of Oz in that, like Dorothy and the Land of Oz itself, there's more to Ralphie's life experiences. So, why not turn those into a film as well.

Kieran Culkin and Charles Grodin.

The sequel relies on the first movie - red cabbage for supper, Mrs. Parker's prompt to get Ralphie's little brother Randy to eat his oatmeal because "they are starving people in China", Ralphie's BB gun - but certainly not as much as A Christmas Story 2 did.
Still, the movie manages to capture some of the spirit and feel of the first. It's not completely lost despite casting changes in the role of the characters.
However, and it really pains me to say this, Jean Shepherd's narration was excessive and rather demeaning to the audience. If you've read my commentary on A Christmas Story posted earlier on this blog, you'll understand my appreciation for Shepherd's writings.
He narrates A Christmas Story beautifully. But his narrations in It Runs in the Family are painfully distracting.
In the first film, his voice over work adds enough humor without over doing it and taking away from what makes the characters interesting enough to maintain the audience's love and interest. It added just enough savor to the movie. It's the perfect finishing touch.
Here, pretty much every scene is narrated. It's so over done, I wish I had a direct line to the movie just to tell him to shut-up so I can watch this thing. His narration is the proverbial movie-going buddy who tells you at every scene, "oh, this is funny","Watch this...this part is hilarious", "You remember that from the first one","Oh, watch what this guy is gonna do."
But worst of all, It Runs in the Family isn't really funny. What passes for humor most of the time in this movie is over-the-top.
The first movie isn't quite like that. Rather, the humor there is in the details. Audiences can laugh at themselves through the characters as they're on the outside looking in on an era and its people many today consider "the good ol' days." Yeah, maybe they weren't so good?
It's typical American consumer behavior. The movie doesn't need to force its humor. The audience is smart enough to see it for themselves.
It Runs in the Family just plays up the "yuck yuck" laughs. It feels forced most of the time. Overall, it's just not that funny. 
It captures the spirit and passion of A Christmas Story, thanks in part to Jean Shepherd's style  and involvement, while not being something different from the first movie. It's a different road down memory lane this time. It's just lacking a plot solid and sturdy enough for the audience to grab onto and go forward.
Random tales may work in the book, but the movies are a different medium. My Summer Story didn't work in that regard.
I get it though. The title. That good ol' fashion "must have" consumerism seen in part one carries on in part two. Mrs. Parker wants her ridiculous dishware. Ralphie has set aside his once highly coveted BB gun for a spinning top so he can claim victory in the sidewalk competition of...tops...against the neighborhood bully. Mr. Parker wants the undesirables out of his neighborhood so he can breath a little easier without the annoyance of their public nuisances. Comfort and things. It runs in the family.
I'm sure fans of a A Christmas Story might still find something to take from this movie as a sort of extra bonus to add to their enjoyment of part one.