Home Alone 2: Lost in New York

Writer-producer Hughes and director Chris Columbus have wrapped up the same winning story ornaments from 1990's holiday smash, repackaged them in gleaming array and topped them with a sparkling slapstick climax. While some Scrooge-ish adults may niggle that this sequel is merely a superimposition of the original, kids will be delighted by its keeping all their favorite goodies. Read full review

Let's face it: Culkin's self-reliant suburban warrior has entered a whole generations pop mythology. He's their Knight in Shining Parka, safely beyond criticism. Read full review

Better would have been excellent. But, let's face it, better is pretty much irrelevant. Mac takes care of that. Mac takes care of everything. The kid's the biggest child actor since Shirley Temple. Read full review

An uncynical sequel that actually deserves its assured success. Read full review

Although it's slavishly similar to the original Home Alone, which was a colossal hit, this sequel has lots of color and Christmas warmth to recommend it. Read full review

In the middle of their mainstream pandering, Hughes and Columbus have an uncanny knack for developing cleancut sentiment that is calculated yet sweetly sincere. The key to their success lies in having it both ways: Kevin is smarter than all the adults, but he's still just a cute, frightened little boy who wants his mom. [20 Nov 1992, p.3]

Less a sequel, more a virtual remake of Home Alone, this "John Hughes production" follows the same route as its money-spinning predecessor, wheeling out the well-worn precocious-kid-on-his-todd scenario with scant regard for originality. Read full review

The studio has simply re-made the first movie, only with bigger pratfalls. Read full review

The action has been transferred from suburbia to New York City, but otherwise the filmmakers stick like glue to the formula of the original: a little boy from a well-to-do family left on his own is threatened by low-life working-class crooks whom he repeatedly foils and tortures, and upscale property values prevail. Read full review

I didn't much like the first film, and I don't much like this one, with its sadistic little hero who mercilessly hammers a couple of slow-learning crooks. Read full review

This routine sequel has a trio of nice cameos, but no surprises. Read full review

Filmmakers John Hughes and Chris Columbus go for repetition over comedy. Read full review

Even by kid standards, young Macaulay can't act. The boy just races through his dialogue, barely pausing long enough to be understood. And when the script requires him to actually show some emotion, he sounds completely mechanical - as if he were merely parroting a line reading that some adult had given him. [20 Nov 1992, p.16]

The new film does little but repeat the gags and situations of the first movie, with a slight change of venue. [20 Nov 1992, p.A]

This isn't art, it's commerce. [20 Nov 1992, p.1D]

Here, the signs of Culkin’s limitations begin to emerge. Read full review

Whatever was unforced and funny in the first film has become exaggerated here, whatever was slightly sentimental has been laid on with a trowel. The result, with some exceptions, plays like an over-elaborate parody of the first film, reminding us why we enjoyed it without being able to duplicate its appeal. Read full review

A film bursting with enthusiasm for a fresh, appealing fantasy has been replaced by one most eager to maintain the status quo. Read full review

Home Alone 2 pales next to its predecessor. Read full review

That's Home Alone 2's biggest shortcoming. Hughes merely moved his movie to a new locale and wrote a retread. [20 Nov 1992, p.5]

If you loved the 1990 smash hit, Home Alone, you may have similar feelings about its inevitable sequel, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. It's the exact same movie. And then again, you might feel cheated for the same reason - or at least wish you had rented the video of the old one and saved yourself the time, trouble and cost of a baby sitter. [20 Nov 1992]

The John Hughes script must have taken him all of thirty minutes to write – simply a matter of a few name and location changes. It wasn't a good script the first time, either. Read full review