On November 12, a new 'Home Sweet Home Alone' was released on Disney+. We tell you how bad the film is and if there's anything good in it.
In the run-up to New Year and Christmas, studios start releasing holiday-themed films and series from November. Over a month and a half, projects gain momentum, and by the holidays themselves, it becomes clear which new releases are worth spending the weekend on and which are better left off the watchlist. Some films later end up in viewers' 'My Favorite New Year's Movies' list, but there are also those about which people say: 'I wish I'd never seen this.'
I bet many include the first two parts in the first list, and the rest of the franchise films in the second (assuming you've even heard of them). So, if you don't want to be disappointed in the franchise again, I hope this material will explain why you shouldn't pay attention to the new installment.
What's the Plot?
Max (Archie Yates) and his mom Carol (Aisling Bea) are returning home from a cafe. The boy needs to use the bathroom, so they have to pretend they're interested in buying a house so the spoiled child can relieve himself. The homeowners, Pam (Ellie Kemper) and Jeff (Rob Delaney), are having financial difficulties, which is why they're selling their precious home, but during the visit, Max's mom notices the owner's doll collection and mentions that similar specimens could be worth a lot of money.
Then the mother and child go home to their huge family, and Jeff finds out that the doll with the upside-down head is worth two hundred thousand dollars. Of course, the man rushes to the box of toys, but the right one isn't there. Naturally, suspicion falls on the cheeky boy who used the bathroom at the McKenzies' house that afternoon.
In the morning, Jeff arrives at the noisy house, but Carol Mercer and half the family have already flown to Tokyo for vacation, and the other half are rushing to leave right during the man's visit. By a twist of irony, Max is forgotten in the huge house, because the family is large, you can't count everyone, the flight was split, and on top of that, the family was running late. The boy fell asleep in the garage watching a cartoon in a car whose brand is advertised throughout the film (Where would we be without such a plot device? Otherwise, the movie wouldn't have happened).
Jeff sees Max's jacket through the window, with something sticking out of the pocket, but he's afraid to break into the house (even though he has the key and knows the alarm code). Later, he tells his wife about the situation, and the couple decides to sneak into the house and steal their own doll so that its sale can solve all their problems. However, there's a small problem: Max mistakenly thinks Jeff and Pam are after not the doll, but a lonely child left without protection, so the boy decides to fight back against the daring burglars.
What's Going On?
It's been two years since Disney launched its own streaming service. In this relatively short time, a lot of good content has been released on the platform, but at the same time, the service sometimes 'delights' with projects of rather questionable quality. So the new 'Home Sweet Home Alone' can safely be written off as a 'questionable project.' Almost everything is bad in the film: from the plot to the special effects.
'What special effects could there be?' you might ask. Yes, believe it or not, the film has scenes where the creators couldn't do without graphics. For example, the moment where Jeff McKenzie crashes into a snowman and breaks it. Special effects are used in this very scene. From different angles, chunks of the snow creation fly into the camera. It's obvious that everything is fake, but the authors don't care about the quality of the execution. I have no idea what impression the scene is supposed to make on the viewer. Why was it even necessary to add effects? Who were they trying to impress with the exploding snowman? And in general, why such a pompous technique in a comedy?
However, Nothing New
If you don't delve too deeply into a detailed analysis of 'Home Sweet Home Alone' and talk about the film only in general terms, the number of questions about the movie doesn't decrease much. As for the script, it's incredibly derivative and simply terribly written. It feels as if the text was written with only one goal: 'The main thing is that the scheme works: a boy is left home alone, and some people try to break in to get him.'
First, the thieves in the film are not bad guys, but quite decent people. Yes, the McKenzie family is having financial difficulties, but they are still a respectable and loving family, and at a certain point, the authors turn the characters into pathetic and worthless people.
Second, Pam and Jeff, in essence, don't even want to rob anyone or cause harm to someone else's property or strangers. The McKenzies just want to get their own doll back. As punishment for the couple trying to resolve their financial difficulties as quickly as possible by obtaining and selling the doll, they are tormented by a little devil.
Frankly, while watching, a swarm of questions buzzes in my head like a hive of bees. Why can't you just wait for the people to return from Tokyo, then go to them and explain the whole situation? Why rush to break into the house and take the doll, since you're not being evicted onto the street urgently? Yes, you want to do it quickly, but where will the doll disappear to in an empty house? Even when it turns out that a boy is left in the house, couldn't you come to him during the day and ask him to return the doll? If the kid really stole a valuable item, he'll give it back as soon as you threaten to tell his mother about such a misdeed.
In any case, there was no need to break into the house, but the characters try to do it because without this idiotic plot device, the film can't be stretched to the situation the creators need.
It Was Better Before
Because the 'thieves' in the film are not bad people but a decent family, you don't feel like laughing at them at all. If the characters evoke any feelings at all, it's only feelings of pity and compassion. Not only are these people in a crisis, but they're also being mortally tormented by some ten-year-old brat.
Max's traps don't seem funny and clever like Kevin's traps. In the new film, everything is painted in shades of cruelty. 'Home Sweet Home Alone' no longer looks as funny as the original. In Chris Columbus's film, the child defends himself from a real threat. Kevin protects his life and his fortress, while in Dan Mazer's (the director) film, Max torments decent people, sparing neither the house nor human life. The film 'Home Sweet Home Alone' doesn't seem funny; it looks bloody and extremely cruel.
Even though the project features decent actors, they are not memorable in any way. None of the new cast can stand on par with the performers of the roles in the original film. Yes, Yates is a good actor and performed well in 'Jojo Rabbit,' but in this film, the boy is very bland and unremarkable. His character repeats the role of Macaulay Culkin and brings nothing new, except that it's now the 21st century and the boy is surrounded by technology.
Speaking of progress, the film tries to raise the topic of new technologies, as well as children's interaction with gadgets (parental controls are installed on the computer and home bot for safety). The conversation with the viewer on this topic also turned out to be absurd. It's hard to believe that a ten-year-old boy doesn't have a mobile phone. Of course, if Max had a smartphone, his mother could simply call him and ask if everything is okay, instead of rushing back from Tokyo. Such a development of events, again, doesn't suit the plot. Another idiotic plot device, for the sake of making the film, however poorly, work for the situation the creators need.
A Silver Lining
Despite all the derivativeness, repetition of cinematic techniques, absurd use of graphics, and many other drawbacks, I still managed to find two pluses in 'Home Sweet Home Alone.'
The first is the main musical theme, which is slightly reworked but still recognizable. Thank you, John Williams, for once agreeing to create the musical accompaniment for a relatively cheap project that no one really believed in. The melody evokes the atmosphere of the original, and when you hear it, your heart immediately feels warmer. You remember the original warm film, which reveals to the viewer the true value of Christmas.
The second plus is the appearance of Devin Ratray in the role of Buzz McCallister. His character also plays on nostalgia and makes the viewer remember the original film.
Otherwise, the new 'Home Sweet Home Alone' is a cheap fake with clumsy editing, collages of several shots, absurd slow-motion, and terrible flashbacks superimposed on the present-day narrative, which hardly move the story forward.
What's the Verdict?
You can criticize the new film in the franchise for a long time, but I don't even want to spend much time on it, because, frankly, I already feel sorry for the 93 minutes of runtime I watched. I just want to ask the creators: 'Why did you need to do this? What was the point of making such a parody of the original? Wasn't it obvious that the project was simply doomed to fail?'
The film is unlikely to bring in profit, and as a piece of cinema art, it's just another dark stain on the reputation of the franchise and the studio. The authors couldn't achieve either self-irony or originality.
The classic 'Home Alone' in its time managed to win the hearts of millions of viewers, stay at the top of the box office for five months, become a classic, and generally influence New Year's comedies, while in 2021, viewers are given an absolutely talentless hybrid of a sequel and a remake, which is completely unappealing. It's a shame, a real shame.
Comments
0No comments yet.
Sign in to join the discussion.