Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

Here is another case of a fun and engaging story striking it rich at the box office, leaving Hollywood execs dreaming of repeat business with a sequel. The first Home Alone was a delightful romp through one child’s chaotic misadventures of surviving on his own and defending his home. Familiarity doesn’t quite breed contempt this second go around but a change in location isn’t nearly enough to keep Home Alone 2 fresh.

Once again, the McCallister family is travelling for Christmas, only this time they remember to bring Kevin to the airport with them. This small victory turns into defeat when Kevin gets on the wrong plane, ending up in New York City instead of Miami. Once there, he crosses paths with Harry and Marv, the dim-witted bandits he thwarted a year earlier. Kevin must rely on his wits and ingenuity to prevent the Wet Bandits from robbing a toy store and exacting their revenge upon him.

This sequel has plenty of humorous moments but at least half of the laughs stem from the formula laid out in the first film. The writers avoid a total retread by changing up a few pieces of the formula but Home Alone 2 looks a lot like its predecessor if you put it in outline form. Kevin gets separated from his family (this time Kevin is not actually at home), tricks people with movie clips and props, and sets up a series of elaborate traps to thwart the bad guys. Our protagonist also finds time to make friends with and learn a lesson from someone who is scary at first glance.

The centerpiece of this film, as with the original, is Kevin’s funhouse of carnage. This time around, Kevin sets up shop in an empty house undergoing renovations. This change to the formula is innocent enough to be believable but it also allows the writers to escalate the severity of Kevin’s traps because the house is already halfway torn apart and does not need cleaned up after the chaos is over. Almost every single trap sees Harry and Marv enduring physical trauma that would either incapacitate or kill a real person. Where I was supposed to laugh, I sometimes found myself cringing at the injuries that I knew a real person would sustain. For me, the film crossed the line where comedic violence ceases to be comedic.

In the first film, Kevin learned a lesson about the importance of family. This time around, the lesson is about the importance of friendship via a homeless pigeon lady in Central Park. This subplot is a stiff and forced version of Kevin’s befriending of Old Man Marley in the original film. Whereas the Marley developments were sappy but acceptable, it is glaringly obvious that the pigeon lady sequences are there to add some form of emotional depth to the film. We all know that people just want to see Kevin humiliate a bunch of sad-sack criminals. This time around, the John Hughes-penned heartwarming moments are just hollow, unwelcome distractions.

If you liked the original Home Alone, you probably won’t protest about much of what’s in this sequel. Kevin McCallister is still the same cute, clever, sassy kid we met before and the slapstick comedy of Harry and Marv still elicits a few chuckles and laughs. If you look closely, you’ll find out just how much of Lost in New York is repackaged goods but it’s still not a bad comedy sequel. A little disappointing for sure but still a safe distance from the bottom of the pile.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Home Alone (1989)

It’s not high art but it’s not low-brow cinema either. Home Alone is one of those rare family comedies that hits all its marks and doesn’t leave you with an aftertaste of cheese.

John Hughes, one of the most successful film scribes in the 1980s turns away from coming-of-age tales fraught with teen angst and sets his sights on family dynamics as told through the eyes of a youngest child in a large family. Through the young Macaulay Culkin, Hughes and director Chris Columbus provide a raucous tale of a little boy left by himself by accident while the rest of his family head to France for Christmas.

Overlooked by his frantic family, young Kevin McCallister has to cope with being the “man of the house” and fending for himself. It’s bad enough that he’s scared of the basement and his neighbor but a pair of bumbling cat burglars has set their sights on his home as well. Out of options, Kevin must defend his home against the invaders.

Very little of what happens in Home Alone is believable, let alone plausible. I mean, how many eight-year-olds do you know that would take on two dangerous men over calling the cops? Also, how many people would fall for the traps that Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) do? Lastly, how many parents would get all the way to the airport and get on the plane before realizing one of their kids is missing?

A cynic would have very harsh things to say about the foolhardiness of Kevin, the idiocy of Harry and Marv, the parenting skills of the McCallisters and the lack of a bond between Kevin and his numerous siblings. The rest of us take the film for what it is- a ridiculously escalated version of something that happens more frequently than most parents would like to admit. I myself was accidentally left at home alone once as a child (though merely for a matter of a few hours) and I’m sure that I am not the only one who can say this.

Home Alone is the kind of film where you can turn your brain off for the most part and just have fun. Many viewers will find themselves getting in touch with their inner child once more as Kevin wanders around in a world full of adults. Using a child as young as Macaulay Culkin was at the time is critical to the film’s success. No one would believe a child younger than eight capable of the things Kevin gets into. Using a teenager would also not have worked because, by that age, a child should know better and just call the cops.

Using a young child works because it enables the filmmakers to hit two powerful demographics. Younger children will be able to identify with Kevin’s sense of wonder at the world of adults. Moms and dads will be able to relate to the panic and worry that fill Kevin’s parents as they try to get home to their son. Everyone meets in the middle for some quirky, slapstick fun. If you really want to overanalyze things, then the slapstick crosses the line of believability numerous times and shouldn’t be so funny. But if you just sit back and enjoy the ride, you’ll be in stitches.

Home Alone does not try to be believable in every way. The filmmakers are keenly aware of how absurd and unlikely their film is and they milk it for all it is worth. The fun is expertly supplemented throughout the film with brief lessons for Kevin and his parents on what it means to be a family. This blend of comedy and moral lesson is a tough feat to pull off without compromising the humor at the wrong moment. Instead, this film is memorable for both its hilarity and its tale about a family in need of some serious mending.

A modern Christmas classic, Home Alone stands out among the myriad of cheesy family holiday tales, many of which came after its release and failed to replicate the harmony of laughs and lessons. If you don’t watch this film every year then you’re missing out.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Raging Bull* (1980)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This film helped further solidify Robert DeNiro as a Hollywood powerhouse actor. Ironically, while Raging Bull is quite a good movie, it is hardly an enjoyable one. DeNiro plays real-life boxer Jake LaMotta as he rises up the boxing ranks and spirals downward in the ranks as a decent human being.

While at first, LaMotta’s talent and rising fame simply goes to his head. He talks tough and acts tough because he thinks he’s the best. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a chump. His pride in his own abilities as a boxer soon takes its toll on him. He becomes genuinely egomaniacal, thinking that everyone might as well kiss the ground he walks on. Paranoia sets in as his abilities decline. He doesn’t see it, so he assumes that everyone else has a problem but him. He begins to suspect his wife is cheating on him. At one point he accuses his brother of sleeping with her. He becomes violent, abusive and repugnant. He’s one unlikable guy.

The film gets deeper and deeper into LaMotta’s wretchedness, but eventually he loses his wife and kids, and his brother. He apologizes to his brother towards the end, but I wasn’t left feeling convinced that his apologies and attempted turnaround was sincere.

Probably the most infamous aspect of this film is DeNiro’s decision to gain over 60 pounds to resemble LaMotta later in life. It’s truly shocking to see how much different he looks, and it seems like DeNiro never could quite shed that weight back off. Raging Bull is a tough film to watch and certainly won’t leave you in a cheery mood, but its refusal to spare the ugly details makes it very good.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

The Lethal Weapon catchphrase “too old for this sh*t” is about as tired as Danny Glover and Mel Gibson look in this film. Riggs and Murtaugh are older- eleven years older than when they paired up in the first installment of this “buddy cop” franchise.

The film adds yet another supporting character with Chris Rock as the fiancé of Murtaugh’s daughter. Rene Russo returns in her role from 3 and is pregnant with Riggs' child. Joe Pesci is back and is, well, Joe Pesci.

The bad guys are Chinese, so we get to see old cops fight kung fu masters (and win!). A bit recycled and repetitive, Lethal Weapon 4 brings the series to a close in a fitting manner. It entertains, but one has to wonder if they really needed to make this one.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)

Detectives Riggs and Murtaugh have a habit of saying that they’re “too old for this sh*t.” By the end of Lethal Weapon 3, I’m starting to believe them. While it’s still entertaining, most of why this movie works comes from our familiarity with the characters and their quirks.

Joe Pesci returns as a supporting character and Rene Russo joins the party as a government agent. She’s a feisty one, so naturally there’s some sexual tension between her and Riggs. The plot isn’t so memorable, but it’s the further adventures of Riggs and Murtaugh. If you liked the first two, you’re bound to watch this one, right? That’s basically the filmmakers' hopes with Lethal Weapon 3, and they’re more or less right.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Isn’t it annoying when sequels try and go deeper than their predecessor and try tackling some kind of major issue while still providing a similar amount of punch and wit as the first? I think it is.

Fortunately, Lethal Weapon 2 doesn’t get too heavy handed in this common pitfall. The bad guys this time around are South African. This means nothing to the current generation but when this movie was made, South Africa was still operating under apartheid government. The bad guys are white and rather racist, which only makes sense if you are aware of history. Since Detective Murtaugh is black, some interesting point and counterpoint is played out subtly throughout the film which younger viewers won’t understand at all.

Fortunately, the filmmakers reduce this potentially heavy-handed race issue by injecting a new source of humor for the series- Joe Pesci. He plays an annoying little creep named Leo who Riggs and Murtaugh are assigned to protect. Of course, protecting Leo leads them into a larger foray against organized crime and drug lords.

Somewhat predictable, but still entertaining, Lethal Weapon 2 retains enough of the original’s magic to keep you entertained.

RATING: 3 out of 5