HOME | DD

Description
"Maybe I'm off my hinges, but I believe ya. That's why I'm gonna let ya go. I'm gonna give ya to the count of three, to get your lousy, lying, low-down, four-flushing carcass OUT my door!" But not until after you've read this review, so let's get on and continue the Christmas movie reviews with "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York".

Released two years after its hugely successful predecessor, the McCallister family all returns, and are preparing to spend another Christmas abroad, this time in Florida. But youngest member Kevin, played once again by Macaulay Culkin, finds his patience tested by his family again, after his brother Buzz publicly humiliates him at their school's Christmas concert, and the family appears to side with the older brother. The disagreement ends with Kevin stating that if he had the money to spare, he would take his own holiday by himself. The following morning, another late start and frantic chase to the airport seems to be going perfectly well, with Kevin one step behind his family all the way. But when the McCallisters arrive in Florida, they find that "Kevin's not here". It turns out that Kevin followed a stranger that he mistook for his father onto an entirely different flight, and has wound up in New York. With his accidental wish seemingly coming true yet again, Kevin sets out to explore New York City, and come across new faces, including a toy store owner named Mr. Duncan, a stranger surrounded by pigeons, and some wacky oddballs working at the city's Plaza Hotel. He will also soon encounter his old foes The Wet Bandits, as Harry and Marv have broken out of prison and roaming the streets looking for a great heist.

OK, so it sounds like there are a lot of similarities to the original film residing within the sequel's narrative, but does sticking to formula make a credible follow-up? The answer is… mostly. Home Alone 2 is definitely funny and very entertaining with lots of things to like about it, but unlike the first film where I felt everything from the comedy to the characters, to the heart and sentiment of the story, was perfectly executed, I do have a couple of issues with this one.

Let's start by explaining my issues with it. First, there is the repetition. I don't mind some repeated jokes, or even a story that seems similar, but this feels very close to a carbon copy of the first film. It's not just jokes that are repeated, the film's content, narrative, and structure that it all plays out in, appears very close to the first film too. Not to say that it's a bad sequel, far from it, in fact, I just would've liked a little bit more difference from its predecessor than it gave. The other thing comes with some of the traps that are set for Harry and Marv this time around. While seeing their pratfalls and painful misfortunes in this film is often very funny, I actually find some of them more uncomfortable to watch than amusing. They seem more extreme and painful this time around, with scenes like Harry and Marv getting hit by a heavy pipe, and Marv getting electrocuted. I do find these moments funny and fairly in-keeping with the cartoony slapstick violence of the first film, Marv and his reaction to getting electrocuted reminds me of times in Pokemon when Pikachu would, whether accidentally or purposely, electrocute his companions. While I find it humourous, I also can't help but wonder if it's really that friendly for what is meant to be a family-friendly live-action comedy. The one other scene that I have always been uncertain about is when the Wet Bandits are climbing down a rope soaked in Kerosene, which Kevin then sets alight, causing the two to fall to the ground, and then be soaked by a heap of varnish. I don't know, is that taking the aim of a painful outcome a little too far? In the original, Kevin just seemed to want to punish the bandits by seriously injuring them, but with scenes like this in this film, it seems like he wants to kill them. This seems to overstep the line where I refer to these traps and injuries as "Tom and Jerry" violence, it's almost bordering on "Itchy and Scratchy" violence, and I don't like the idea of a 10-year-old boy like Kevin being this mean-spirited or sadistic.

OK, that's my negatives out the way. What do I like about the movie? Well, despite the fact that the repeated storyline does make it a bit formulaic, I do like how John Hughes made the follow up bigger and bolder than the first film. Rather than just being confined to his house, Kevin is lost in a huge city. This not only allows the sequel to be bigger in size but setting it in New York allows for some nice imagery, and they do take advantage of that here, particularly in scenes where Kevin first arrives and sees some of the sights. I realise that this film was made and released in 1992 and no doubt that New York has changed considerably since then, but I still think it worked as an effective way to showcase the city as a tourist attraction. Every time I watch this film, I think to myself, "New York looks like a great place, I would love to go there myself one day". The same goes for how it showcases the Plaza Hotel. The designs, both interior and exterior are just gorgeous, with the rooms themselves looking incredibly luxurious. Again, I'm sure that 20 years on since this film was made, it has undergone many changes, but if I managed to hatch all the money I could to visit New York, I think I would still love to stay in this hotel.

And most crucially, the film is very funny. Like I said, despite not liking every single one of the traps set for the Wet Bandits (or should I say the Sticky Bandits for this review?), I do find myself chuckling at many of the others. One of my personal favourites is Marv shouting out, "Harry, I've reached the top!", before falling through giant holes cut out of every floor until he ends up at the bottom. That scene is hilarious! But much like the first film, I find myself more entertained by the comedy and characters outside of the trap scenes. The newly added characters here are all good and quite memorable. The late Eddie Bracken gives a sweet, pleasant performance as toy store owner Mr. Duncan, and Brenda Fricker is wonderful as the unnamed pigeon lady. Although only having a limited role and many similarities to Marley from the first film, she is still a very likeable character.

The hotel staff are also a lot of fun too, and leading them is the man who, in my opinion, is easily the show-stealer. Tim Curry as the concierge is absolutely fantastic, he makes this movie! Every scene that this character is in is gold, I can't help but watch it with a big grin on my face. I am not that familiar with Tim Curry's work as a live-action actor, but I have always enjoyed his work as a voice actor, with some particularly memorable credits including Captain Hook in "Peter Pan and the Pirates" and Nigel in "The Wild Thornberrys". And just like he did with those two cartoons, this film provides another performance where he just completely sinks into his character and thoroughly enjoys what he's doing, and the deliveries of both his lines of dialogue and facial expressions are delightful. He's aware that his character is a pompous, upper-class jerk, and he's just having so much fun with it that it's very difficult to not have a lot of fun watching him. The other comedic highlight for me comes from the make-believe gangster film sequel. "Angels with Filthy Souls", the fictional gangster movie from the first Home Alone, has its own follow-up, the aptly titled "Angels with Even Filthier Souls". This little segment from the film is brilliant to watch, in fact I actually think it's better than the first one, and there are some big laughs to be had with the way Kevin uses it to trick some of the hotel staff.

Despite being very similar to the first film and, in my view, not as enjoyable on the whole, Home Alone 2 is still a very worthy follow-up. There's a lot of fun to be had, a good premise, good choice of location, some memorable new characters, and of course, a superb performance from Tim Curry. I have some issues with it, but the good stuff is just too good to resist. It's another film that is always welcome on my Christmas viewing list.

RATING: 8/10

Description
"Maybe I'm off my hinges, but I believe ya. That's why I'm gonna let ya go. I'm gonna give ya to the count of three, to get your lousy, lying, low-down, four-flushing carcass OUT my door!" But not until after you've read this review, so let's get on and continue the Christmas movie reviews with "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York".

Released two years after its hugely successful predecessor, the McCallister family all returns, and are preparing to spend another Christmas abroad, this time in Florida. But youngest member Kevin, played once again by Macaulay Culkin, finds his patience tested by his family again, after his brother Buzz publicly humiliates him at their school's Christmas concert, and the family appears to side with the older brother. The disagreement ends with Kevin stating that if he had the money to spare, he would take his own holiday by himself. The following morning, another late start and frantic chase to the airport seems to be going perfectly well, with Kevin one step behind his family all the way. But when the McCallisters arrive in Florida, they find that "Kevin's not here". It turns out that Kevin followed a stranger that he mistook for his father onto an entirely different flight, and has wound up in New York. With his accidental wish seemingly coming true yet again, Kevin sets out to explore New York City, and come across new faces, including a toy store owner named Mr. Duncan, a stranger surrounded by pigeons, and some wacky oddballs working at the city's Plaza Hotel. He will also soon encounter his old foes The Wet Bandits, as Harry and Marv have broken out of prison and roaming the streets looking for a great heist.

OK, so it sounds like there are a lot of similarities to the original film residing within the sequel's narrative, but does sticking to formula make a credible follow-up? The answer is… mostly. Home Alone 2 is definitely funny and very entertaining with lots of things to like about it, but unlike the first film where I felt everything from the comedy to the characters, to the heart and sentiment of the story, was perfectly executed, I do have a couple of issues with this one.

Let's start by explaining my issues with it. First, there is the repetition. I don't mind some repeated jokes, or even a story that seems similar, but this feels very close to a carbon copy of the first film. It's not just jokes that are repeated, the film's content, narrative, and structure that it all plays out in, appears very close to the first film too. Not to say that it's a bad sequel, far from it, in fact, I just would've liked a little bit more difference from its predecessor than it gave. The other thing comes with some of the traps that are set for Harry and Marv this time around. While seeing their pratfalls and painful misfortunes in this film is often very funny, I actually find some of them more uncomfortable to watch than amusing. They seem more extreme and painful this time around, with scenes like Harry and Marv getting hit by a heavy pipe, and Marv getting electrocuted. I do find these moments funny and fairly in-keeping with the cartoony slapstick violence of the first film, Marv and his reaction to getting electrocuted reminds me of times in Pokemon when Pikachu would, whether accidentally or purposely, electrocute his companions. While I find it humourous, I also can't help but wonder if it's really that friendly for what is meant to be a family-friendly live-action comedy. The one other scene that I have always been uncertain about is when the Wet Bandits are climbing down a rope soaked in Kerosene, which Kevin then sets alight, causing the two to fall to the ground, and then be soaked by a heap of varnish. I don't know, is that taking the aim of a painful outcome a little too far? In the original, Kevin just seemed to want to punish the bandits by seriously injuring them, but with scenes like this in this film, it seems like he wants to kill them. This seems to overstep the line where I refer to these traps and injuries as "Tom and Jerry" violence, it's almost bordering on "Itchy and Scratchy" violence, and I don't like the idea of a 10-year-old boy like Kevin being this mean-spirited or sadistic.

OK, that's my negatives out the way. What do I like about the movie? Well, despite the fact that the repeated storyline does make it a bit formulaic, I do like how John Hughes made the follow up bigger and bolder than the first film. Rather than just being confined to his house, Kevin is lost in a huge city. This not only allows the sequel to be bigger in size but setting it in New York allows for some nice imagery, and they do take advantage of that here, particularly in scenes where Kevin first arrives and sees some of the sights. I realise that this film was made and released in 1992 and no doubt that New York has changed considerably since then, but I still think it worked as an effective way to showcase the city as a tourist attraction. Every time I watch this film, I think to myself, "New York looks like a great place, I would love to go there myself one day". The same goes for how it showcases the Plaza Hotel. The designs, both interior and exterior are just gorgeous, with the rooms themselves looking incredibly luxurious. Again, I'm sure that 20 years on since this film was made, it has undergone many changes, but if I managed to hatch all the money I could to visit New York, I think I would still love to stay in this hotel.

And most crucially, the film is very funny. Like I said, despite not liking every single one of the traps set for the Wet Bandits (or should I say the Sticky Bandits for this review?), I do find myself chuckling at many of the others. One of my personal favourites is Marv shouting out, "Harry, I've reached the top!", before falling through giant holes cut out of every floor until he ends up at the bottom. That scene is hilarious! But much like the first film, I find myself more entertained by the comedy and characters outside of the trap scenes. The newly added characters here are all good and quite memorable. The late Eddie Bracken gives a sweet, pleasant performance as toy store owner Mr. Duncan, and Brenda Fricker is wonderful as the unnamed pigeon lady. Although only having a limited role and many similarities to Marley from the first film, she is still a very likeable character.

The hotel staff are also a lot of fun too, and leading them is the man who, in my opinion, is easily the show-stealer. Tim Curry as the concierge is absolutely fantastic, he makes this movie! Every scene that this character is in is gold, I can't help but watch it with a big grin on my face. I am not that familiar with Tim Curry's work as a live-action actor, but I have always enjoyed his work as a voice actor, with some particularly memorable credits including Captain Hook in "Peter Pan and the Pirates" and Nigel in "The Wild Thornberrys". And just like he did with those two cartoons, this film provides another performance where he just completely sinks into his character and thoroughly enjoys what he's doing, and the deliveries of both his lines of dialogue and facial expressions are delightful. He's aware that his character is a pompous, upper-class jerk, and he's just having so much fun with it that it's very difficult to not have a lot of fun watching him. The other comedic highlight for me comes from the make-believe gangster film sequel. "Angels with Filthy Souls", the fictional gangster movie from the first Home Alone, has its own follow-up, the aptly titled "Angels with Even Filthier Souls". This little segment from the film is brilliant to watch, in fact I actually think it's better than the first one, and there are some big laughs to be had with the way Kevin uses it to trick some of the hotel staff.

Despite being very similar to the first film and, in my view, not as enjoyable on the whole, Home Alone 2 is still a very worthy follow-up. There's a lot of fun to be had, a good premise, good choice of location, some memorable new characters, and of course, a superb performance from Tim Curry. I have some issues with it, but the good stuff is just too good to resist. It's another film that is always welcome on my Christmas viewing list.

RATING: 8/10