I have to agree!
shareIn most aspects of the film yes, I didn't think the Piegon woman was as good as Old Man Marley though.
share
I liked the pigeon lady actually. Whereas Old Man Marley was self sufficient and really just needed a nudge to reconnect with his son, the pigeon lady would never get the man back who broke her heart, and really, she would have benefited from an intervention. Marley got his wish, but we don't know if the bird broad would ever change.
The plaza hotel scenes with Tim Curry are very good, but the rest of the film is not up to the same standard.
It was still a good sequel with Chris Columbus & John Hughes returning to write & direct.
Yes. It is better than the original. And that it takes place in New York, makes it even better.
It really isn’t.
It’s enjoyable, but more as a guilty pleasure than anything else. While it does have its charm and some genuinely funny moments, it mostly follows the typical sequel formula of being basically a pointless rehash of the first, only bigger and stupider.
I mean, I think the main point of a sequel is to go bigger which this does.
shareI disagree.
I think the point of a follow up is to further explore a story or concept, which is what most great sequels do.
The Toy Story series is a great example of this: none of the sequels are trying to outdo or be “bigger” than the original, just continue the adventures with the main characters and work their own right.
If a sequel does incorporate more by going bigger it’s usually within reason, like in Aliens (1986) where we learn more about the Xenomorphs and their capabilities.
This is sequel just exists purely for the sake of it and rehashes so much of what we saw in the original, to the point that its existence is barely justified.
The booby traps are less simple slapstick and more outright dangerous - and said sequence drags on too long, pushing the limits of plausibility (even in comedy, suspension of disbelief only goes so far).
Agreed.
shareIts kinda like Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Fransisco where it's not as good as the original, but it's better than most sequels and at least changes the location to make it more than a simple rehash.
shareSo wrong. As far as sequels go it’s… decent, but it’s not a patch on the original.
The domestic setting and turning that into a trap-filled fortress was pure genius. Shifting to some random dilapidated building in New York loses the ‘Home Alone’ aspect.
The pigeon woman is a weak reheating of Old Man Marley.
It’s a rushed sequel by talented people who did a serviceable job but it’s weak-sauce. I’ve only seen it once and have little desire to see it again. The original? I’ll happily watch it every Christmas.
Home Alone 4 is bad. Home Alone 2 is at least a serviceable sequel.
share