I am a huge fan of A Christmas Story and was unaware that Bob Clarke had filmed more of Jean Shepherds work until I listened to the commentary track on the Christmas Story DVD. I had read peoples comments here and been a little concerned by its 5/10 score. I still wanted to see it for myself so I picked up a copy on VHS for £1.00. With all our VCRs now replaced with DVD players we only have one VCR in the house so I didnt get to watch this til after midnight one Sunday night. Whilst not brilliant and no where near as good as Christmas Story (but I guess thats because this isnt about Christmas!) I found this film to be a very delightful piece of light-hearted entertainment. Yes the choice of actors dont seem to be as memorable but thats probably because Ive watched Christmas Story hundreds of times. Dont expect any huge moments, but this is a perfect lazy day nostalgic movie. The adults will probably enjoy it more than the kids though.
Add a Review
-
satin_grace3 December 2006I remember watching this movie when it premiered on the movie channels as a kid. I hadn't even seen A Christmas Story yet and with that in mind I didn't demean this movie just because it didn't compare. I found it quite humorous and I love how it goes beyond the first movie and more into the craziness of their family once I finally watched ACS. It is an excellent movie for kids and adults, especially those that are still kids at heart. I was actually trying to track this title down so I can purchase it on DVD. Seeing the only comment left on this movie was disheartening and I wanted to express my opinion for this wonderful movie.
-
amanda_tlg20 May 2005The prequel -A Christmas Story- will live on as a classic. But this follow up wasn't too bad. I thought it was cute. The dish give-away, the property taxes, the gypsy tent....it's worth seeing. Charles Grodin wouldn't have been my first choice to play the 'old man' but it works, I suppose. The scenes with the next door neighbors will have you laughing for a LONG time. It may be a little hard to watch at first, especially considering most of us are used to the original cast. But it's a memorable movie. Hard to find on VHS or DVD, but I'm still looking. I don't think my collection will be complete until I have it. Anyone who remembers their mother collecting stamps for gravy boats will have a few nostalgic moments here, too.
-
Robo-Junkie20 August 2002A funny movie, while not as good as A Christmas Story, it has it's own silly feel and manages to stay in the same mold as its predecessor. So if you liked A Christmas Story, you'll probably enjoy this one as well, even if you've watched A Christmas Story your entire life :)
-
jaymaloney27 May 2005"A Christmas Story" is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.
So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, "It Runs In The Family" . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.
The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.
The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.
The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.
ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS. -
D_Burke8 October 2009I was eleven years old when "My Summer Story" (originally released as "It Runs In The Family") came out, and I remember reading about it in a kids magazine but never seeing it get released in my local theater. When I looked up on BoxOfficeMojo.com that the film only grossed $71,000 at the time of its release, it didn't surprise me. It turns out a lot of other kids my age didn't see this film released at their local theaters either.
"My Summer Story" was advertised at the time as a sequel to "A Christmas Story". I'm not sure if "sequel" is the right word for such a movie, even though the same characters from the previous movie were reprized here. The fact is, people tend to forget that both movies were based on the memoirs of Jean Shepherd, who provided narration for both movies. Without most of the cast of the original movie (save Shepherd himself and Tedde Moore as Ralphie's teacher, Mrs. Shields), a lot of the charm that made "A Christmas Story" both a perennial favorite and a cult classic was lost in this movie. Although director Bob Clark, who directed both movies, is now deceased, he probably became aware 15 years ago that this movie could not even come close to the long-term success of "A Christmas Story".
Kieran Culkin is a very good child actor who grew up to do some really good movies ("Igby Goes Down", "The Cider House Rules"). As a child, he displayed a lot of charm in understated movie roles (both "Home Alone" movies, both "Father of the Bride" movies). Here, he has to fill Peter Billingsley's shoes, and he seems unaware of the previous movie. He doesn't look like a child from the 1940's, nor does he really act like one. He just kind of seems to go through the motions here. For instance, there's no excitement in his eyes when he goes searching for a top, and his level of embarrassment is not evident in the scene where the Chinese top with flowers is mocked by his peers. As good an actor as the younger Culkin became, his acting did not match with Jean Shepherd's enthusiastic narration.
My guess is that both Kieran and Christian Culkin (who plays younger brother Randy) got cast in this movie the same way their older brother Macaulay got cast in "The Good Son": their father pulled strings and went against the studios wishes through threatening and bribery. "The Good Son" was not a good role for Macaulay, and these roles in this movie weren't the right fit for these Culkin boys.
Charles Grodin probably got typecast as Mr. Parker based on his previously successful performances in the "Beethoven" movies as the grumpy Dad. In this movie, he plays grumpy well, but that's really all he plays. It's a one-dimensional performance that doesn't contain the warmth of Darren McGavin's more developed character from the original movie. Mary Steenbergen doesn't give a lot to her performance as Mrs. Parker either, and the subplot of her gravy boat surplus may have been funny on paper, but is awkward on film. The part near the end where she throws a gravy boat at movie theater owner Leopold Doppler (a miscast Glenn Shadix of "Beetlejuice" fame) made me wonder how that didn't occur to her in the middle of the film.
The gravy boat fiasco is just one of many subplots that, unlike in "A Christmas Story", coexist, but don't interlope and connect to form one great story. They all just seem very sitcom-like and unoriginal. There's a subplot about a tax collector that goes nowhere, some hillbilly neighbors who aren't as aggravating as Grodin desperately wants the audience to think they are, a fishing story which accounts (surprise!) no fish being caught over a majority of the summer, and a brief mention of the famous BB gun from "A Christmas Story" involving Ralphie being shot somewhere else other than the eye. When he gets shot in this place, it feels like a cheap laugh that insults the intelligence of the film's intended audience.
On top of all those inconsistencies, the movie never gives a time and place. By that I mean that the movie takes place sometime in the 1940's before television, but you never know exactly when because the film never tells you in subtitles. It's clear that the people who made this movie made too many assumptions of whom would see this film.
This movie is no "Christmas Story", that's for sure. However, if it weren't for Jean Shepherd's narration, this film would be completely forgettable. Shepherd is a great storyteller, both on paper and on film. His voice has a grandfather-like charm to it, and his sense of humor goes without saying. He lived these tales he tells, and no one can tell them better than him. Without his voice in the movie, the film would have been completely lost. So yes, "My Summer Story" was deeply flawed in many areas, but I marginally recommend this film because of Shepherd's great storytelling skills. -
ShariRN3-126 February 2008Like most people I love "A Christmas Story". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In "A Christmas Story" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.
-
BandSAboutMovies24 December 2022Jean Shepherd started working on this movie in 1989 after wrapping up production on the TV movie Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss and realizing that he was making more off the replays of A Christmas Story than trying to create TV shows or films. The cast of that film was now too old to oplay the roles, other than Ralphie's teacher, Miss Shields, who is played again by Tedde Mills.
A year after the first movie, Ralphie Parker (Kieran Culkin) is now battling with a new bully, Lug Ditka (Whit Hertford), with former bad guy Scut Farkus (Chris Owen) now just another student. The two battle spinning tops and most of the movie involves Ralphie trying to find the perfect top to defeat Lug. Randy is played by Kieran's brother Christian.
Meanwhile, mom (Mary Steenburgen) is dealing with a movie theater giving away the same gravy boat every week - the same story is in The Phantom of the Open Hearth - while the Old Man (Charles Grodin, trying to do a grunting approximation of Darren McGavin) is battling an even bigger Bumpus clan.
Directed again by Bob Clark, this was released as It Runs In the Family but released on video as My Summer Story. It's a cute enough movie - the moment where Ralphie realizes he's now a man are really poignant - but you can see why the studio changed the name of the film so it wouldn't be compared to A Christmas Story. -
I was real disappointed after watching this movie. While it did have a few funny scenes, it sucked compared to "A Christmas Story." The humor was way too different. It was more silly and childish, unlike in the first movie, where all the funny scenes in it are all believable and can be related too, which is why that movie is so great and never gets old. For instance, a kid getting beat by his mom over the phone or getting his tongue stuck to a pole was funny but at the same time believable and done in such a way that you felt bad for him while in "It Runs In The Family," a guy getting hit in the head with a dish and not fall down or bleed is more slapstick humor and unrealistic. And what was up with the Parker's family new dog? While the dog is cute there is no way it could have understood the dad's strategy and be a decoy and trick the neighbors big hound dogs. It was so cartoony which is good for a modern kids Disney movie but didn't belong in a sequel to "A Christmas Story." Watching a "A Christmas Story" at times feels like you take a trip back in time and really gets you into the Christmas spirit while "It Runs In the Family," feels more like a silly movie meant to just make you laugh and doesn't take you in. I mean there was no tears, no real fear around the bullies, no fights, no fantasies, no passion, no drama. It was so fake and felt rushed.
-
Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED "A Christmas Story." The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed "A Christmas Story." It's that bad. 1/10.
-
behemuthm3 January 2002This film was excellent! While some may argue that it is not up to par with "A Christmas Story" it is definately a good and faithful sequel. Unfortunately none of the same cast (probably because all the child actors were now too old) but still great acting all around. The story is awesome, and the narration classic! One to definately check out. 8/10.
-
zbacku27 February 2017No spoilers, just saw about 20 minutes of this movie. My question is: How can a sequel to one of the greatest movies of all time be so bad. It is unwatchable, embarrassing to watch and just a waste of time. IMDb says I must have five lines to review a movie. So, I will just have to continue to type until I get to the five lines needed. This movie is now worth the five lines for a review.
-
Of the two sequels to "A Christmas Story," (the other being Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss released in 1987), It Runs in the Family (aka My Summer Story) is the better one.
Kieran Culkin portrays second-grader Ralphie Parker. Though Parker was supposed to be 14 years-old in the second movie, the writers might've felt it to be more entertaining to once again write a story from a young kid's perspective. Not only is it something younger children can relate to, but they don't have to stick to such strict guidelines of reality, allowing room to delve into fanatasies and imaginations of our narrating protagonist, Ralphie.
That is what made the first movie so enjoyable, this kid getting all psyched out about Christmas and dreaming about his Red Ryder BB gun. Then, he'd have his little day dreams about how his mom got together and plotted to give him a bad grade on his essay about the gun, marking it with large letters that "he'd shoot his eye out." Or how, when his parents often rebuffed his requests for the Christmas present, he daydreamed how he was blind and returns home and his parents grieve about how they should've been nicer to him. There's a bit of that going on here, and makes it a better comedy.
So, little Ralphie Parker is engaged in a battle with a new foe, Lug Ditka, who challenges Ralphie to a tops war. The tops battles are apparently symbolic of strength and more appropriate in a family film than physically fighting. While Ralphie's classmates have failed to beat Lug, the reigning champion, Ralphie is going to prove is worth. And the feat becomes very intimidating.
The movie is pretty much a string of subplots, one not really dominating the other. Meanwhile, we have three other subplots. The funniest and most interesting one involves Ralphie's mother (Mary Steenburgen) and the other local Indiana housewives going to this theater each week, lured by a salesman's promise of getting a full set of autographed celebrity dinnerware. Each week, they return with the same gravy boat. The funny part is seeing Ralphie's mother getting annoyed when her husband asks her the stupid question of where all the other celebrity autographed plates were when he was standing in a kitchen full of gravy boats. Like a scene from Citizen Kane, the women eventually get together and stage a revolt.
The other subplot involves Ralphie's father (aka The Old Man) and greater insight to their boorish hick neighbors, the Bumpus's. Recall in the first movie, it was their dogs who often stormed the Parkers kitchen and spoiled the Christmas turkey. Once again, there is a feud between Old Man Parker and the Bumpus's concerning a territorial dispute.
And, yet another subplot concerns Ralphie and his dad, and their skilled fishing expedition. As you'll notice, there's not much going on with Randy Parker (played by Kieran's brother, Christian).
It turned out to be a better family comedy than Ollie Hopnoodle's, and one that fans of "A Christmas Story," would probably enjoy. -
I have enjoyed Charles Grodin's work in a number of films (e.g., "Midnight Run"), but he is a problematic factor in this sequel to "A Christmas Story". Darren McGavin portrayed The Old Man as eccentric, volatile, bemused and usually funny. Grodin's portrayal made him seem close to insane and occasionally a bit scary. Mom was fine and the kids were acceptable. The best thing about the movie was the Bumpus clan...really the only reason to watch it.
-
larr11813 August 2003A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.
-
jckruize4 December 2007Jean Shepherd, Bob Clark, and the entire cast and crew seem to be trying really hard with this latecomer sequel to "A Christmas Story" but it just doesn't work.
Now granted, it would be tough for anyone to follow in the footsteps of the beloved characters portrayed so memorably by Darren McGavin (as The Old Man) and Peter Billingsley (as Ralphie) in the original, but the efforts here by Charles Grodin and Kieran Culkin, respectively, are disappointingly feeble. Culkin can be dismissed as merely bland; he's just not much of an actor. Grodin, however, is more problematic. Never the warmest of actors, his skill at playing low-key supporting characters who specialize in dryly delivered asides is unparalleled. But here he's simultaneously trying to pay a tribute to McGavin and convincingly portray a bigger-than-life 'man's man'; in both cases he's not only unconvincing, but actually looks uncomfortable.
Despite the ploddingly episodic script and casting weaknesses, praise should go, once again, to the production design and costuming, nostalgically evoking a bygone era. For some people that may be enough. But overall this a depressing example of filmmakers going to the well once too often. -
Avnat24 March 2002This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.
-
sdoylebigisland24 December 2004I saw it as "It Runs in the Family".
I found it very funny. Midwest Gothic humor I guess and I enjoy that and if you like Jean Shepard you'll like this. But also maybe because I didn't try to compare it with "A Christmas Story". It involves one kid's summer in Indiana, trying to outfox the local bully and dealing with the unspoken world of adults. Shepard's crystal clear descriptions of growing up with stand offs and quirky battles. The sets and settings are done perfectly, with all the humid reality of a Midwest summer.
I thought Grodin and Steenbergen were great, along with one of the Caulkin kids. I missed the first part, but still enjoyed it. -
mobotobo23 February 2006I so wanted this film to work. A Christmas Story is a real classic. It combines a tone and sense of humor that I think is pretty unique and has really become one of my favorite films. I was disappointed to see that the original cast had changed for this sequel but I still figured it might work. Culkin is a good actor and it seemed plausible that it could all work again. But the thing is - the movie almost suffers from trying to hard to be like the original even though it isn't anything like the original. This has a strange effect and leaves the viewer wondering what kind of movie this is. Others have also commented that Charles Grodin is positively terrible in the film - and that's sad both because he was actually a pretty charming guy in other movies and because the original Dad was so good.
-
heckles20 September 2003(Spoilers) No matter what you think about the rest of the movie, the last scene was a real gem. The camera pans on mother Mary Steenburgen, listening with a smile on the house steps as her husband's pals trade vulgar stories with Ralphie in attendance. Her boy's been admitted to the man's club! Then she jumps up with a yelp and runs to pull him out when a story gets TOO raunchy. I loved it!
-
paris_whitney_hilton_nyc25 December 2012If you loved A Christmas Story as much as I did , please don't watch this awful mess of a movie ! They said it was a sequel yet I never felt these two movies were connected in any way . . There is nothing one can relate to that has anything to do with the famous holiday classic . Different actors , boring story , worthless script , totally unfunny ! If you are going to make a sequel you best do it with as many of the original characters and cast members as possible . Just as important is a good storyline where viewers can make a connection between both films . It Runs In The Family is just another crappy time waster that I hated seeing . I would rather shoot my own eyes out than watch this piece of junk again ! I gave it only one star but even that is being too generous !
*** Totally Not Hot ! ......... PWH *** -
thomas99814 February 2007Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...
In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die. -
MovieAddict201628 January 2006This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.
The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.
Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie... -
keith-6156 August 2006I've watched this film several times and loved everything about it, especially the narration. Was disappointed that I couldn't find it on DVD, so I asked my buddy about it (a movie buff and pop culture freak who never saw it) but he only raved and raved about A Christmas Story which I had never seen.
Well, the special edition of Christmas was released, my buddy bought it, and invited me over.
Yeah, great film. Very cool. But the family that *I* fell in love with was the Summer Story cast! And here, I read comments of Christmas Story fans hating this sequel. Funny how that works out!!!
The good news is the DVD has been released recently, at a discount price, and it is still a great flick worth repeated viewings.
Charles Grodin is GREAT as The Old Man ("Son of a Bitch!" "F-I-S-H-!" and "War, Bumpus! This is war!"), Steenburgen is hilarious when she snaps at the Orpheum and gets arrested, Dick O'Neill as Pulaski ("I haven't got all day!") and the Culkin kids are fine as Ralphie and Randy.
Anyway, if you are a Baby Boomer, and enjoy nostalgic looks to our childhoods, BOTH films written by Jean Shepherd are MUST-SEE DVDs. -
My family and I loved a Christmas story and we loved it runs in the family aka. my summer story. Its all about being young and your child hood,people seem to forget that. I've tried to get the movie on DVD and looked everywhere no one has it. If it does come out on DVD my family and i know other's that would love to bye it. My favorites are the hillbilly neighbor's and Charles Grodin. The Culkin boys are great to.This movie is a sure pleaser and it will bring back memories of your childhood.Every neighborhood has neighbor's like the Bumpesses and a child that's trying to live the summer to the fullest.Watch with your family and enjoy Iam sure you and your children will love the movie to.................