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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.