Showing posts with label Whit Hertford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whit Hertford. Show all posts

June 23, 2022

My Summer Story.

Review #1854: My Summer Story.

Cast: 
Charles Grodin (Mr. Parker, the Old Man), Mary Steenburgen (Mrs. Parker), Kieran Culkin (Ralphie Parker), Christian Culkin (Randy Parker), Whit Hertford ("Lug"), Chris Owen ("Scut" Farkus), Geoffrey Wigdor (Flick), David Zahorsky (Schwartz), Tedde Moore (Miss Shields), T.J. McInturff (Grover Dill), Glenn Shadix (Leopold Doppler, Manager of the Orpheum Theater), and Roy Brocksmith (Mr. Winchell, The Assessor) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story, #679 - Black Christmas, #1055 - Porky's)

Review: 
A Christmas Story (1983) was a loose working of two Jean Shepherd works: his 1966 book In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash and his 1971 book Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories And Other Disasters. Shepherd, along with Bob Clark and Leigh Brown (Shepherd's wife), wrote the screenplay for the movie. You might not know that Shepherd was the best man to serve as narrator, since the screenplay was based on a series of monologues that he had done on the radio (his broadcasts on the station WOR made him quite popular); he was known for his "interesting" manner of telling tales about his life that balanced the line of fact and fiction while saying that his work was "anti-sentimental". Shepherd had been born in Chicago, Illinois before being raised in Indiana (East Chicago along with Hammond, where he graduated). Clark, inspired by hearing one of Shepherd's stories being told to him on the radio, spent twelve years trying to make the movie, and a couple of Shepherd works had reached television (with him as narrator) before and after the release of this film, most notably with The Great American Fourth of July and Other Disasters (1982), a TV work with Matt Dillon as "Ralphie". The movie lessened the acid edge of the Shepherd stories, which he had envisioned as "Dickens’s Christmas Carol as retold by Scrooge.” At any rate, the moderate success of the film on release led to a plethora of television channels showing the movie on Christmas not long after it was released, and the popularity on the television circuit (rightfully) continues to this day. Shepherd, seeing the returns made from its showings on television, was inspired to try and make another movie based on his stories. Of course, it is also possible that Clark wanted to make a sure winner, since Clark directed these films after the release of A Christmas Story: Rhinestone (1984), Turk 182 (1985), From the Hip (1987), and Loose Cannons (1990). Somehow, idiotically, the movie was released as It Runs in the Family to tremendous empty returns. It was only after the movie had vanished from theaters that it was retitled My Summer Story, which is what you will see on video releases.

Of course, in waiting eleven years to make a movie with the same director and writing crew (along with being shot primarily in Cleveland), the main cast was entirely replaced. Oh, and now one is watching a series of vignettes that seem like an anthology rather than the offbeat material presented in the original, one that saw a handful of imagined scenes, such as our lead imagining himself as a hero stopping bandits from taking down his family (dressed up in frontier garb) with his imagined gun. So, instead of a movie where a kid's desire for a Red Ryder BB Gun that happens to feature little side stories in the spirit of Christmas, now one has a movie with small plots for the main family that has a central story of...super-duper tops along with a neighbor with hillbillies (or whatever you would call them). Of course, neither is really about the acquisition of an item as it is more about capturing the spirit of a time long ago told in engaging vision; Shepherd may think his stuff was anti-sentimental, but the heart of what made that movie work was how one confronts their childhood memories in its positives and negatives without being trapped by them. In other words: it was the experiences that stuck with one rather than some toy. Somehow, the movie just doesn't come together, proving that having the same crew behind a classic does not mean the next movie together will work out just the same. Simply put, putting a bunch of new faces will not make a winner when they can't quite live up to mildly interesting expectations that are flattened. Look, we all know that A Christmas Story can raise a distinct discussion when it comes to just how funny it actually is (spoiler: it is funny, no shit), but no one will really have that kind of discussion with My Summer Story, since it doesn't even reach half of the heights of amusement that the previous film had. Shepherd once stated that "The reality of what we really are is oftentimes found in the small snips way down at the bottom of things.” My Summer Story is basically the flattened expectations of what we thought summer was going to be...with life being like a series of ties. Who the hell would want that kind of movie? If Shepherd didn't care for the lightened touch of the original film, why go back with the original crew? And if he was fine with what was done before, why make a movie that seems thoroughly pale in spirit to the original?

It was a tough task to replace Peter Billingsley as the lead from the original, since he managed to cultivate an interesting lead presence in youthful charm. Culkin...doesn't really have that charm. One simply feels like they are watching a television product rather than something that reaches the level of film in conviction, which he just can't capture, and being paired with his brother doesn't lead to even a fraction of the brotherly amusement seen in the previous movie. I'm told that Grodin was actually a pretty funny actor with timing like no other in sardonic charm, even if his film choices were all over the place, ranging from The Heartbreak Kid (1972) to Beethoven (1992). Here, replacing Darren McGavin from the original, he just doesn't have what it takes to really capture the role from before, seeming more of an agitated father figure than the hardboiled tender role of the original. It probably doesn't help that he has an actual foil to deal with in the "Bumpus Family", which proves the case that you sometimes don't need to see something. Melinda Dillon held the original film pretty well in her timing that counteracted McGavin that practically resonated together with no effort needed. Steenbergen has the best timing of the main group here and is thus the only one to result in general charm, probably because her character arc is the most bewildering (read: interesting) of anyone in the movie, involving a bunch of gravy boats and irritated collectors, which she handles with semblances of laughs. The movie might prove fine for those who want something really average, since the technical aspects of its look and feel does at the very least seem adequate to anybody with the tiniest curiosity for the movie or to just spend 85 minutes. As a whole, the movie just seems lost in trying to capture the (ordinary) magic that had been seen a decade prior, one that was made too late to really have an impact while also serving as the strange cousin of future attempts at trying to cash in on the original movie that included a musical, a direct-to-video sequel, and even a live show. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just walk away and satisfy a different curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

October 11, 2018

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.


Review #1143: A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.

Cast: 
Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Lisa Wilcox (Alice Johnson), Kelly Jo Minter (Yvonne Miller), Erika Anderson (Greta Gibson), Danny Hassel (Dan Jordan), Beatrice Boepple (Amanda Krueger), Whit Hertford (Jacob Johnson), Joe Seely (Mark Grey), and Nicholas Mele (Dennis Johnson) Directed by Stephen Hopkins (#548 - Predator 2)

Review: 
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, much like its horror counterpart Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, was released one year after its fourth installment in 1989, and it shares the similarity of looking like a rushed product. It was shot and edited in a span of eight weeks on a eight million budget, and there were a group of edits made afterwards to avoid an X rating by the MPAA, but the real problems with the movie lie in its execution. The story was credited to John Skipp, Craig Spector, and Leslie Bohem, while its screenplay was credited to Bohem, although there were significant re-writes from William Wisher & David J. Schow along with Michael De Luca (who would later write and co-produce the sequel). With all of these writing influences, it's also notable to mention that the premise has similarities to a rejected pitch by producer Sara Raisher for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, which involved Freddy "clawing his way out of the womb." With all of this mind, how do things play out? It definitely feels lacking in some ways when compared to the previous one, which from what I remember was just a decent follow-up that didn't go too much off the rails. This one lingers in mediocrity from the onset and never really leaves that realm, with occasional highlights.

The production design certainly has a decent touch to it, trying to go for a sort of Gothic feel, made especially clear with the parts tinted blue, which is certainly weird when contrasted with the gory effects sequences - along with cutting remarks from Englund. The puns aren't awful, but after a while they certainly test one's patience, although I do appreciate seeing Englund play the role as only he could. It is nice to see some returning characters such as Wilcox, Hassel, and Hertford, even if only the former has real prominent time on screen. Wilcox does for a decent lead to follow along with for the most part. The new characters don't have too much personality to them, only showing bare characteristics to be used against them (which isn't new to this franchise), but I didn't find any of them too interesting to go along with, especially with the initial skeptic played by Minter, but I suppose the movie would've had a part giving off exposition with or without a skeptic. The plot is okay, but nothing too inspired, and it certainly has a weird time trying to hold itself together between its decent gore parts and its occasional groaners to follow it. It it especially is amusing that one part of the climax involves Krueger's mother (who we already saw in the third film) and having to find her remains in an abandoned asylum to release her soul or something to that extent. With these films, it's just better to let them play out their weird ideas (gory or not) and let them play out. It's not hard to say this isn't anything good, but being critical is hard for something that is at least occasionally watchable, even if it isn't too scary. It is possible that the franchise was becoming a bit tired, since this franchise had five films in five years, along with a television series called Freddy's Nightmares, complete with Freddy Krueger as presenter that ran from 1988 to 1990. For 90 minutes, it's not a completely terrible experience for something that definitely needed some sort of energy to get the creativity going.

Clearly the franchise would think of something more original for the next film...or perhaps not. Next time.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.