Received: October 27th, 2015 / Written: December 3rd-12th, 2015
Published: December 12th, 2015
Year: 1992 | Developed by: Imagineering
Published by: THQ
Hello everyone, StarBoy91 here; passionate about video games, big retrophile, and fan of all things 16-bit. When Home Alone became such a sensational hit during its 1990 theatrical run it took everyone by storm and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Christmas classics, even twenty-five years later. It not only benefitted from Chris Columbus' well-done tender direction and that well-loved John Hughes touch, but it also turned its lead child actor Macaulay Culkin into a star overnight. =) He would also appear in movies like My Girl and Only the Lonely, and even once hosted for Saturday Night Live, all in the following year 1991 (yay, my birthyear!). But alas, the sheen from his star was not meant to last forever. =(
Judging by the very low box office numbers and/or negative reaction to the following movies he would star in afterwards--The Good Son, Emile Ardolino's The Nutcracker, Getting Even with Dad, The Pagemaster, and the live action Richie Rich movie--you would think that the audience was intentionally skipping out on them. But what started the downhill slope for Culkin? Let's recap for a brief moment:
Image from WikipediaHome Alone was a charming and quaint little 1990 Christmas family film that was entertaining to watch (even as it was self-contained), and while it had gotten mixed to generally positive reviews at the time of release (and even today) it still has aged remarkably well all these years later. The direction was good, it is arguably the high point of Macaulay Culkin's career, and the idea of a boy trying to take care of and provide for himself plus defending his home against crooks was rarely explored before then. The way it bookended itself was perfect and its moral was sound; the worst you could do is throw said moral away and undermine its message for the sake of a sequel.
Image from WikipediaWhich is exactly what happened in 1992, two years later (thanks, Hollywood), in the form of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York; and while it did not rack up as many numbers as its predecessor, it still made a killing at the box office. With Chris Columbus returning to direct, John Hughes resuming producing and writing duties, and the bulk of the cast and crew from the first movie reprising their roles (reportedly Culkin was given a $5 million check to come back and replay the role that gave him celebrity status... a child star doing a movie just for a paycheck is a bad sign), you'd think that because Home Alone was a hit that everyone would be enamored of this Hollywood-backed theatrical sequel. Not so, for upon release the second Home Alone has gotten (and is still getting) negative reviews from critics alike, for various reasons. But why is that?
I haven't seen Home Alone 2 since I was very little, so allow me to paraphrase as best I can its plot synopsis provided by Wikipedia. *clears throat* One year after the events of Home Alone, nine-year old Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) gets in trouble with his family (just like the first film) the night before a Christmas flight is to take place (just like the first film); a strange series of circumstances causes him to be separated from his family (just like the first film) whereas they rush to the airport so as to not miss their flight rendering him alone (just like the first film); the Sticky Bandits (formerly the Wet Bandits) Harry Lime (Joe Pesci) and Marvin "Marv" Merchants (Daniel Stern) are out on the loose and may potentially encounter and might want to cause harm to Kevin (just like the first film); Kevin's mother Kate (Catherine O'Hara) splits from the family to find and reunite with her son (which does not at all sound familiar).
Kevin initially fears someone (Brenda Fricker's Pigeon Lady) he eventually learns to get along with (not at all like his relationship with Roberts Blossom's Marley from the previous movie); Kevin sets up traps for Harry and Marv that winds up getting them arrested in the end (*sigh* which happened before); Kate and Kevin get back together again and he ends up saving Christmas (again); then later an offscreen voice tells him he's in trouble, Kevin runs offscreen, cut to credits. The end. We saw this before! So,... yyyeah, general consensus states that Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is basically the Ghostbusters II of Home Alone (i.e. same story, same beats, different circumstances) and...... they're right--and before you say anything if you like the second film, I'd like to point out that the director Columbus has admitted to sharing that exact sentiment. =< But it did find itself a small following with audiences despite the "Been There, Done That Syndrome" (which is far from the only reason critics hated it, but let's not worry about that right now).
But despite the fact Kevin is now in New York as opposed to his hometown Winnetka, Illinois, he's not really home alone (like the title implies) this time around but lost in the Big Apple; the only reason it's called Home Alone 2 is because if 20th Century Fox didn't name it that then people would not immediately recognize that it's a sequel to the original, but at the expense of being a big misnomer. But Kevin not only has to deal with Harry and Marv this time around, but even the suspicious Mr. Hector the Plaza Hotel concierge played by the ever great Tim Curry;
who's not this guy, by the way; he looks like a douchebag. Imagineering probably did not have Curry's likeness rights when making the game, despite the fact that unlike their Nintendo 16-bit video game adaptation of the first Home Alone where it came out a full year after the 1990 hit came out, their Nintendo 16-bit video game adaptation of the sequel came out a month prior to its November 1992 theatrical sequel's release.
|Look out! It's Pale Concierge Not Tim Curry!|
|Dashing through the fourteenth floor|
|"Hand over that Ice Bear plushie and no one gets hurt!"|
|About to set a fiery 10 Ton trap|
|Worn and torn buildings are not a good place for a|
kid to do maze-like exploration in
|"Hi!" "Hello!" *pellet fired*|
And if you thought the digitized stills of the first movie during the first game looked bad, then the digitized stills of Home Alone 2 look absolutely worse here. While the backgrounds are black during these cutscenes (to hide the obvious outlines around the characters), the problem is that they are too pixelated for their own good. There is a time and place for pixilation when it comes to Nintendo 16-bit games, but this is not one of them.
|Kevin, stop aping the spin jump from Sonic and|
Magical Pop'n--it will not do you favors =<
|An "exit" sign? I wasn't under the impression that I|
was playing Probe Software's The Pagemaster
A game I would much rather play than this one, mind
|"Eeek! Get away from me you creep!"|
|Climbing downward, downward, downward|
It is an oft-forgotten fact that before Home Alone came out in theatres there were no expectations for it as this was a very new idea being put on the silver screen. But after audiences and critics saw it for the first time they were surprised at how well the premise was executed; Kevin had an arc that was fulfilled: going from helplessness, cowardice, and brat to independent, brave, and responsible. The message about Christmas being about family was exceptionally sweet, which touched (and occasionally tickled the funny bone of) viewers alike and worked at a reasonable 103 minutes.
But when Home Alone 2 was announced by 20th Century Fox there were expectations for it since its predecessor was a huge success and its premise was thoroughly explored, but it did leave a negative impression on critics when it actually came out in '92. It was bad enough that (as mentioned before) it was essentially a rehash of the first film (which made them feel antsy throughout because they knew exactly what beats were going to be used and just wanted it to end) only set in New York but critics were so disheartened that Kevin and his family had learned nothing from the events of Home Alone that it ended up making the whole Kevin arc in the prior feature a moot point and the key message forgotten, and that left a very sour taste in their mouths. I'm not sure how I'll feel if I watch Home Alone 2: Lost in New York as a young adult, but I'm not sure that making it 120 minutes--the longest running time for a movie with John Hughes' name attached to it--was a sound move (that's seventeen minutes longer than before, a stark contrast).
But the audiences and families that went to see it didn't care what critics said; yeah, they recognized instantly what it was when watching it (a "been there, done that" sequel), but they just wanted to view it as a fun family outing and were happy to see the characters and actors they liked from the first film on the big screen again. And maybe... that might just be enough for them, and why Home Alone 2 has garnered a bit of a following.
Home Alone may have been a success, but it was one with a double-edged sword: you can't help but feel sorry for Macaulay Culkin post-Home Alone; it's not his fault, you know (not really), but it was at that point when maybe stardom was becoming too much for him and ultimately relied on scripts that let him down during his fallout period as a child star. And that's a shame because he started out with such promise. =( Poor John Hughes, it's too bad what happened to his career after the fact; it was clear at this point that he could not recapture his glory days of the '80s that helped make him a household name. He liked working on Home Alone so much that he wanted to relive those moments by injecting some similar slapstick in some of his future work (even if it was extremely out of place; live-action 101 Dalmations and Flubber, anyone?), but even more unfortunate was how the bulk of his post-Home Alone efforts largely garnered negative reviews (Home Alone 2 did not help)--that is, all except Chris Columbus' Only the Lonely (which Hughes co-produced) and the 1994 Les Mayfield remake of Miracle on 34th Street (written and produced by Hughes) which both received mixed to somewhat positive praise. =( Could you possibly go too far by transforming Home Alone into a franchise?
Image from WikipediaThe answer to that question would be "yes" because on December 1997 cinema-going crowds were treated to Home Alone 3; and if you thought Home Alone 2: Lost in New York was a misnomer then Home Alone 3 is an even bigger one because it neither transpires in the same setting(s) nor stars the same cast and characters from the two Columbus-directed Home Alone features. With none of the cast and crew returning to the series, except Home Alone editor Raja Gosnell in his directorial debut and John Hughes once again writing and producing, this movie starring Max Keeble himself Alex D. Linz as the kid who's home alone was a modest success at the box-office (and didn't rack anywhere near as many numbers as the first two movies) but was received poorly by both critics and Home Alone fans alike. I remember liking it when I saw it on TV as a child (long before I developed my taste in movies), but chances are it does not hold up well for it's generally regarded as a silly kids film, unlike the first two movies where they respected both the child and adult audience. Home Alone 3 was also the film that put the final nail in the coffin for John Hughes' career, for which he never got a chance to recover from. It's so sad to see a man who had such good talent and potential squander it all and fall from grace. =( Whatever happened to you, man, may you rest in peace.
Image from WikipediaSo with three theatrical releases under 20th Century Fox's belt, you'd think you had seen the last of Home Alone, right? Sadly no, for in 2002 a made-for-TV feature called Home Alone 4 (Home Alone: Taking Back the House in North America) was created, which reprised the McCallister family and Marv (without Harry) but with completely different actors (which included the awesome Jason Beghe as Kevin's father) as Kevin must defend the home of his stepmother to be from Marv and his wife Vera. Originally it was set to be the start of a brand new Home Alone TV series, but when there were not enough viewings and positive ratings the plans fell through much to the relief of everyone. It's a telling sign that it was destined to fail when one of the actors from the first movie Daniel Stern not only refused to reprise his role as Marv (here played by French Stewart) but outright called the movie "an insult, total garbage" afterwards; give him some props for not holding back. I only saw bits and pieces of it when I was younger, and I feel no desire to watch it in its full context.
Image from WikipediaFinally after a ten-year gap in 2012 another made-for-TV installation was made for the series called Home Alone: The Holiday Heist, which once again focused on a family whose name wasn't McCallister, and to date is the final movie in the series (let's hope it stays that way)--among the largely unknown cast were big names in it like Malcom McDowell and Edward Asner. Reception towards it was unpleasant, and apparently instead of one kid fending off thieves and robbers there's two defending their home, which kind of negates the whole "alone" aspect of the title; you know, as in by your lonesome? ~_0 I never saw it, but I don't think I'm missing out on anything. Home Alone worked as a self-contained feature, and it's clear that becoming a franchise did not do it wonders, and frankly after four (")sequels(") I think it's time to lay this series to rest.
Imagineering's first Home Alone on the Nintendo 16-bit (which I actually played when I was a child, unlike its sequel) wasn't a good game by any means, but it was playable and had some of the spirit of the movie it was based on, especially due to its simplistic nature. It was harmless fare overall but because of the lack of challenge it provided it ended up becoming bland and mediocre as a result.
If Home Alone 2: Lost in New York was guilty of feeling to much like the first movie, then the same goes for Imagineering's video game adaptation of each respective game. While the goal is more widespread than just gathering vital items to secure in a safe like the first game, the controls and structure are similar in feel (despite the extension) and Imagineering has done nothing to benefit it in terms of offering it a good sense of challenge or fun. It's still easy and short if you memorize all the patterns, though to be honest there were a couple moments that seemed to show genuine promise (namely in the Uncle's Cabin stage) but sadly those were too few and far between. =( I'm thinking Imagineering might have attempted to make a better game than its predecessor, but ultimately they just winded up making the game inferior as a result, but it is still playable if you know exactly what to do.
If you're the least bit curious about the SNES Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (or are a Home Alone completest) then it's harmless (but less than mediocre) if you know what to do but aside from that just stick with the first two movies and skip the game altogether. If you want my honest opinion, though:
then I recommend you go for Probe Software's fun open-ended platformer The Pagemaster instead, which is actually a bit good in its own right. =) It's funny how the Macaulay Culkin film which was received less favorably than either Home Alone would wind up getting the superior video game adaptation than the two films about Kevin McCallister.
Whatever you decide, your mileage may vary.
My Personal Score: 4.0/10
<( v-v)>TO EACH THEIR OWN<(v-v )>
P.S. I'm aware about the PlayStation 2 Home Alone game developed by Coyote Console and published by Blast! Entertainment that was only released in Europe in 2006. I never played it, so I'm not going to cover it.
Thank you for reading my review, my readers, please leave me a comment and let me know what you think. I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and take care!
Look forward to my next video game review: