Skip to main content

Funnily enough, we never lose our luggage.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
(1992)

(SPOILERS) Chris Columbus’s sequel to his surprise 1990 box office sensation, again produced and scripted by John Hughes, offers more of everything. More ultra-violence, more Macauley – rather than Maclunkey – Culkin precociousness as Kevin, more desperate attempts by his parents to locate their lost son, more sentiment ladled on with shovel. And more minutes – you really feel the entirely uncalled extra twenty dead weight. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York does, then, a case of diminishing returns for what is a virtual remake, give or take relocating to New York for a run around and attendant antics in a then Donald Trump owned hotel (the Plaza).

Kate: What kind of idiots do you have working here?
Concierge: The finest in New York.

And yes, Donald makes a cameo appearance. Shockingly, the directions he gives Kevin to the lobby – “Down the hall and to the left” – are both on point and accurate. Hughes’ studious repetition of the first movie’s plot and emotional beats is both its strength and weakness. No one needs to hear Kevin’s “out of the mouths of babes” pearls of wisdom delivered to a homeless person. Particularly when that homeless person – Brenda Fricker, certainly capitalising on her Oscar, but possibly not in the most artistically responsible manner – is a carbon-copy, plus birds, of Marley in the first film, whom Kevin initially feared and then befriended in a lesson that it is always good to talk to possibly psychotic strangers. The more possibly psychotic, the better.

Johnny: I knew it was you. I could smell you getting out of the elevator.

On the other hand, there’s undeniable amusement to be gained from the replay of Kevin using footage from a ‘30s gangster movie (this time Angels with Dirtier Faces) to mislead those who would interfere with his young-Ferris attempts at unimpeded leisure time (which includes ordering a stretch limo). Particularly when one of those misled is Tim Curry (as the Plaza concierge); his reaction to “You’ve been smooching everybody” is priceless. The only shame of it is that Curry’s character doesn’t get to engage in anything truly Machiavellian. Also on hand is Rob Schneider as a bellhop, but let’s not hold that against the movie generally.

Harry: I hope your parents got you a tombstone for Christmas.

The truly Machiavellian is reserved for returnees Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, the latter perfecting his live-action Wylie Coyote expression. This time they’re attempting to rob Duncan’s Toy Shop (the proprietor played by Eddie Bracken of Hail the Conquering Hero fame) but are reduced to chasing Kevin around his uncle’s deserted house, being hit by bricks, electrocuted, set alight, covered in paint, varnish, cement, falling through absent floors, impaled by various objects and flattened by others. All of this, memorably, elicited examination by a doctor who listed the actual deleterious effects of such extreme violence. Along with Roger Ebert’s entirely unconvincing assertion that “cartoon violence is only funny in cartoons”.

Concierge: Madam, there are hundreds of parasites out there, armed to the teeth.

As before, Catherine O’Hara is duly horrified at leaving Kevin behind, while John Heard never really looks all that concerned. Older brother Buzz (Devin Ratray) manages to be even more obnoxious, while youngest bed-wetting cousin Kieran Culkin sagely scoffs at the suggestion Santa Claus doesn’t visit hotels (“Are you nuts? He’s omnipresent”).

I’m not surprised Home Alone 2: Lost in New York made $100m less than its predecessor; Hughes makes the classic mistake of assuming bigger is better, when he’d have been wiser to distil the most popular elements and get out fast. It was only Culkin’s hiatus from acting – what’s that you say, he even returned? – that put the kibosh on Home Alone 3, at least for a few years, and when it did arrive, it was absent of Christmas, its star, and any general audience interest. Never mind, Disney now has it on its reboot list. I’m sure it will be every bit as inspired as all their other recent remakes.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

I have done some desperate, foolish things come 3 o'clock in the morning.

Sea of Love (1989) (SPOILERS) It’s difficult to imagine Sea of Love starring Dustin Hoffman, for whom Richard Price wrote the screenplay but who bowed out over requests for multiple rewrites. Perhaps Hoffman secretly recognised what most of us don’t need telling; there’s no way he fits into an erotic thriller (I’m not sure I’d even buy him as a cop). Although, he would doubtless have had fun essaying the investigative side, involving a succession of dates on the New York singles scene as a means to ensnare a killer. Al Pacino, on the other hand, has just the necessary seedy, threadbare, desperate quality, and he’s a powerhouse in a movie that, without its performances (Ellen Barkin and John Goodman may also take bows), would be a mostly pedestrian and unremarkable entry in the then burgeoning serial killer genre. Well, I say unremarkable. The rightly most-remarked-upon aspect of the murder mystery side is how unsatisfyingly it’s resolved. Sea of Love is so scant of r