Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (4 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #28

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992) is both a confident escalation of the original film and a clear illustration of its limits. It doubles down on Kevin McCallister's intelligence, placing him in a larger, more complex environment, while also revealing where repetition starts to blunt the impact that made the first film a classic.

Kevin remains sharply intelligent, arguably more so than before. In the first film, his ingenuity is reactive; he adapts to being left alone. In the sequel, he is proactive. Lost in New York, he immediately exploits adult systems to his advantage, using his father's credit card, navigating hotels, toy shops and public transport with ease and manipulating social expectations to avoid suspicion. His intelligence here is social as much as tactical; he understands how adults see children and weaponises that perception. The Plaza Hotel sequence, in particular, shows Kevin thinking several moves ahead, confidently lying, redirecting attention and maintaining control under pressure.

The traps, once again, are the film's centrepiece. In technical terms, they're more elaborate and inventive than those in the first film. Kevin uses a wider range of tools, more vertical space and more environmental hazards, reflecting both his growth and the urban setting. His planning is still logical, with cause-and-effect thinking that makes the chaos feel earned rather than random. However, the escalation into outright cartoon physics weakens the sense that Kevin is simply a very smart child. Where the first film balanced plausibility with slapstick, the sequel leans harder into exaggeration, making Kevin's intelligence feel more like narrative convenience than hard-won skill.

This is where Home Alone 2 is both better and worse than its predecessor. It is better in scale and confidence. New York is used effectively as a playground for Kevin's independence, giving the film a sense of expansion rather than mere repetition. Kevin himself is more assured, less frightened and more self-aware, which fits his character arc. The emotional subplot with the Pigeon Lady mirrors the first film's neighbour storyline, reinforcing Kevin's growing empathy and maturity.

At the same time, the film is weaker in restraint. The villains are broader, the violence more extreme and the emotional beats more self-conscious. What felt fresh and surprising in the first film now follows a familiar rhythm. Kevin's intelligence, while still entertaining, no longer feels like a revelation; it's expected. The sequel relies on the audience's affection for the formula rather than reshaping it in a meaningful way.

Despite these flaws, Home Alone 2 has earned its own cult status. It's quoted, rewatched and defended with the same seasonal devotion as the original, especially by viewers who grew up with it. Its appeal lies in the fantasy of mastery; a child alone in the biggest city in the world, outthinking adults at every turn. While it may lack the tightness and surprise of the first film, it remains a spirited showcase of Kevin McCallister as one of cinema's most resourceful and intelligent child protagonists.

Success Rate:  + 10.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

IT [1990] (4 Stars)

I'm going to see the new version of "IT" in the cinema tomorrow evening, so I thought it would be an ideal opportunity to watch the original version today. The question everyone is going to ask is "Which version is better?" and I hope to be able to give an answer tomorrow.

After some consideration I've decided to call the film "IT" (with both letters capitalised). I don't usually use stylised spellings, but I want the title to stand out in my review.

"IT" is based on a novel written by Stephen King in 1986. It's claimed to be one of his best-selling novels, and some people say it's his best selling novel outright, but I haven't been able to find reliable sales figures. It's a very well known book. I remember talking to my mother about it, and she told me it's the most terrifying book she had ever read.

The 1990 version wasn't made as a film. It was a two-part mini-series made for television, each part running for 95 minutes. It was later edited into the format of a single film with a running time of 187 minutes. I've watched both versions, and I can verify that it's been done effectively. The cuts are unnoticeable to anyone who's never seen the two-part version. This is in stark contrast to other films edited from mini-series, such as "Joan of Arc", which was savagely cut to reduce the running time.

The story is about an unnamed creature that lives below ground in the town of Derry, Maine. It's been in the town for at least 300 years. It sleeps for 30 years, then wakes up for a few weeks to feed before going back to sleep. It eats children. While it's awake it ventures to the surface disguised as a clown. It also has psychic powers. It can see what is happening in other parts of the world, and it's able to give visions to individuals or groups.

The creature has a type of symbiosis with the town and its residents. When children disappear the police don't take it seriously, and the cases are soon forgotten. In 1960 a group of seven children, aged approximately 10 to 12, make a stand and defeat the creature, though they fail to kill it. In 1990 they reunite to battle it again.

The film is very frightening, but far from perfect. There are some points that are illogical, probably because of things omitted from the book. I've seen this happen in other Stephen King adaptations. When I watched the Tommyknockers mini-series several scenes didn't make sense, but I read the book a few years later and everything was made obvious. I haven't read "IT" yet.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival begins tomorrow and runs for 11 days. Of the 53 films being shown I plan to watch 43. I fear that I shan't have enough time to write reviews for the films. I need to sleep. I'm planning to publish small posts which consist of a photo, the film's description quoted from the festival catalogue and a rating; no words of my own. I might go back and re-edit some of the posts to add my own thoughts after the festival, especially for important films like "IT", but I make no promises.

Charlie's Angels (4 Stars)

I love this film. It's based on the TV series with the same name, but it goes much further in style and action. It was difficult for me to accept the original Angels from the 1970's as independent women. They seemed to be Charlie's puppets. The new Angels, played by Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz, might still work for Charlie, but they're powerful women in their own right. They do their job because it's what they want to do, and they have fun every step of the way.

The only caveat I have is the personal relationships of the Angels: Dylan (Drew Barrymore) with Chad, Alex (Lucy Liu) with Jason, and Natalie (Cameron Diaz) with Pete. These men are so far below their levels, both intellectually and emotionally, that it's difficult to see why they bother with them. Dylan is even weak enough to fall for the charms of the bad guy. In today's society there's a lot of talk about women being strong and independent, but you don't see what a woman is really like by looking at her at work. You have to look at her at home, in her relationship with her husband or boyfriend, if she has one. If she wants a man she'll have a strong man in her life who takes a subordinate role to her. She won't be happy with a wimp (like the three Angels) or a macho who'll attempt to rule over her.

I'm not in favour of women's equality. I never have been. Women are superior by nature, so they can only become equal by lowering themselves to man's level. This isn't just about domination and sex games. This is about the woman's whole life. She should make the decisions about what car to buy, where to go on holiday, which school the children go to, and all the other small choices made in day to day married life. That doesn't mean the man should go unheard. He can tell his wife his opinions and offer arguments to support them if he disagrees with her. Maybe he'll convince his wife and she'll change her mind, but the important thing is that she makes all the decisions in family life.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Charlie's Angels (4½ Stars)

I never liked "Charlie's Angels" as a television series. That might come as a surprise to the people who know me. I like tough girls, and I like sexy girls, and the Angels were both. I'm not sure what it was that prevented the series clicking with me. I'm old enough to have watched it when it was first broadcast in the late 1970's, and I gave it another chance when it was repeated in the early 2000's, but I still didn't like it. Maybe my problem was that I couldn't take the girls seriously. They were supposed to be tough in the series, but they weren't credible to me, unlike Diana Rigg in "The Avengers" who you just knew was tough.

Imagine my surprise when I saw the film. It was released in 2000, but I didn't see it until two years later on television. To me it was everything that the TV series wasn't. The three actresses, Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz, were awe-inspiring as they jumped and kicked their way through the movie. The action was over-the-top, even more camp than the TV series, but it was perfect for what it was: light-hearted escapism. After the first 15 minutes of the film I felt more for the three girls than I had for the original Angels in all the episodes I had watched.

I forget when I last watched this film. I just know that it was before September 2010, otherwise I would have written about it in my blog. I have too many DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. I don't have time to watch them all as often as I would like to.

The Three Musketeers (1993) (4¼ Stars)

I hate double-sided DVDs.

My intention for March was to write only 4-word reviews. I have to give up now, there's way too much I have to say about this film. Or at least I can make a compromise. I'll write 4-word summaries, as above, then add more thoughts if necessary.

I enjoy this film, the 1993 version of "The Three Musketeers", but as far as the DVD release itself is concerned, this is the worst DVD in my collection. To explain: you have to put the DVD in your player. You watch half the film. Then you have to turn the disk over to watch the other half. This is dreadful. Disgusting. Shameful. What is the point in making a double-sided single-layer DVD? Is it cheaper to manufacture than the usual single-sided double-layer DVDs?

I don't like double-sided DVDs anyway, even if they're double-layered. I have a few in my collection, and I hate them all. The "City of Angels" DVD has the film on one side, the extras on the other. "Snatch" has two different versions of the film, one on each side. The "Kung Fu" box set is made up entirely of double sided DVDs to halve the number of discs. Some of the DVDs in the Sopranos box sets are double sided. I despise this. The sides, A or B, are marked in very small writing on the edges of the discs. It's just unacceptable. It's not just a problem that the lettering is so small, and almost illegible. The problem is that the lettering is inconsistent. On some DVDs the "A" means that the side it's written on is the first side, so it should be placed face down in the player. On other DVDs it means that the opposite side is the first side, so the "A" should be face up when putting in the disc. I've solved the problem for myself by always putting the first side face down when I put a DVD back in its case. But it's still no excuse. Double-sided DVDs should be banned.

As for the film itself: "The Three Musketeers" is a novel written by Alexandre Dumas in 1844 that has somehow won the imagination of film makers. It has been filmed at least 30 times from 1903 till today. In fact, it has been filmed twice in the last three years. There must be a psychology to films that are constantly remade over the years. There must be something special about the stories. As far as I know, the story that has been filmed the most often is Bram Stoker's "Dracula", filmed more than 40 times. Other multiply filmed stories are "Cinderella", "Tristan and Isolde" and "Dangerous Liaisons".

This version of "The Three Musketeers" stars Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Charlie Sheen as the title characters, plus Chris O'Donnell as D'Artagnan, who is actually the film's main hero. Tim Curry is his usual evil self, and Rebecca de Mornay is sexier than I have ever seen her in any other film. It's an exciting film from beginning to end. It's just a shame I have to get up half way through to turn over the DVD.