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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.