Home Alone 2: Lost in New York

Released: 1992
Directed by:Chris Columbus
Starring:
Macaulay Culkin - Kevin McCallister
Joe Pesci - Harry
Daniel Stern - Marv
Tim Curry - Mr Hector

Plot Synopsis: Macaulay Culkin returns as Kevin McCallister, the kid from the original Home Alone. Set one year after the original movie, Kevin and his family are going to Paris for Christmas, and oversleep on the morning of the flight. In the confusion, Kevin accidentally gets a different flight than everyone else and arrives in New York.
At first Kevin has a good time in a high-priced hotel (courtesy of his dad's credit card), but then discovers something from the past.

The "Wet Bandits", Harry and Marv (played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) have escaped from prison and are also roaming New York. Kevin stumbles on their plan to rob a toy store on Christmas Eve and decides to do something about it.
Going to his uncle's abandoned house in New York, he sets up a variety of traps with which to injure and stop the theives, then arrives at the toy store on the day with a camera. Kevin takes a photo of the two breaking in for blackmail purposes and uses it to lure them to the house.
Like in the first film, Kevin also befriends a scary person and teaches them the value of love or family or some such crap. The contrived ending (and I don't think I'm giving anything away there) is a little cheesy, but I don't think that anyone'll mind too much after seeing people get set on fire and dropped off buildings.

Review: This film is essentially more of the same, and if you liked the original then you're bound to like this. The plot is thin at best and the entertainment value is in the "that-guy-should-be-dead-by-now" slapstick and recycled jokes, which have unfortunately become stale.
In all it's not as good as the (and I hate to admit it) fresh original, but more entertaining than Home Alone 3. 4/10

After careful thought, I remembered that Tim Curry is in the movie with his fantastic voice, so it gets two extra points. Then I remembered that Macaulay Culkin does that annoying "screaming" thing, take away a point. End result, 5/10.

After watching Home Alone 2, I realized that the point of the film was not only to make big bucks from a name already established by the first movie, but to show that the characters are incapable of learning anything, thus resulting in a plot almost identical to the first movie.

With that in mind, here is a list of things that people probably should have learned, based on events in the first movie, but didn't:

The McAllister's never learned that they should get a battery for their alarm clock so that when they lose power to it, they don't oversleep.

The other relatives of the McAllister's never learned to bring their own clocks, so they can still wake up when Kevin's parents oversleep.

None of the various commercial drivers ever learn not to hit the bronze statue on the driveway.

The McAllisters didn't learn that they should move the statue, so it doesn't get hit all the time.

Kevin's Dad never learned that he should never let Kevin get access to his credit cards, money, or any other valuable item which may be traded for goods and services.

Kevin's parents never learned that local law enforcement agencies are powerless to help them get their son back when they lose him.

The entire family never learned that they will invariably have a horrible time on their Christmas vacation, and it's a waste of time and money to go in the first place.

The bandits never learned that they should stay the hell away from Kevin, even after the ruthless beating they received the last time they messed with him.

Kevin never learned that the enigmatic stranger will end up being his savior.

Actually, the point of this film was not to make big bucks from a name that was already established. It was to use that name and recognition to advertise the little Tiger tape-recorder doo-dad that Kevin carries around with him during the movie. It not only had a bigger impact on the plot of the film than Kevin, but it got more screen-time than his parents. And seriously, would anyone have actually bought that piece of junk had it not been in the film, and therefore become the ultimate super-toy that every child under 12 needed if they wanted to be the hippest kid on the block?