Reviews by PvtCaboose91

To this day, 1994's The Santa Clause remains a pleasant, sweet family Christmas film and a holiday favourite which is held by some in the same league as A Christmas Story and Miracle on 34th Street. It's certainly a flawed flick, but it beautifully encapsulates the spirit and wonder of Christmas; shining a humorous light on the belief in Santa Claus. It therefore almost goes without saying that the follow-up was burdened with substantial expectations, but alas, 2002's The Santa Clause 2 falls tragically short of them. Helmed by television vet Michael Lembeck, The Santa Clause 2 is inoffensive and harmless enough for family consumption, but it's utterly dull, and - like most sequels - it comes across as a pointless cash-in on its predecessor's name. The 100 minutes one would have to use (waste?) to view this soulless dreck would be better spent doing Christmas shopping.

The Santa Clause 2 picks up eight years after the events of the first film, and Scott Calvin (Allen) is now completely immersed in the role of Santa Claus. However, with less than a month until Christmas, head elf Bernard (Krumholtz) and experimental elf Curtis (Breslin) discover that Scott is in violation of his Santa contract. As it turns out, Scott must find a wife before Christmas Eve or else he will be "de-Santafied", meaning no more Santa, no more North Pole, and no more Christmas. Leaving a facsimile of himself in charge at the North Pole, Scott heads out to begin searching for his Mrs. Claus. As sparks fly between Scott and repressed school principal Carol Newman (Mitchell), Scott is also forced to deal with his now-teenaged son Charlie (Lloyd; reprising his role from the original) whose name is on the "naughty" list due to troubles at school.

Six writers were credited for the screenplay for The Santa Clause 2, which makes the subpar result all the more baffling. For starters, an enormous plot hole emerges almost immediately: if Scott needs a wife to continue reigning as Santa, why has it taken eight years for the elves to inform him? And why does it take eight years for the clause to take effect? Secondly, it would seem the writers figured that kids might not be too interested in a Santa romance, so they conceived of a couple of terrible additional subplots. The first involves a Santa stand-in who adopts Hitler-style dictatorial tendencies. It's not funny or interesting, and doesn’t work because it just gives the narrative an unneeded villain. Meanwhile, the film also deals with a formulaic, painfully trite subplot regarding Charlie's misbehaviour at school - it leads nowhere, and merely exists to give Scott a convenient way to meet his future wife. Even the ending doesn't work; it's silly and overly sentimental. As a result of the unnecessary subplots, the movie feels far too padded out at an interminable 100 minutes. There's simply not enough energy or charm to sustain interest throughout.

Everything within The Santa Clause 2 feels calculated, generic and schmaltzy, to the point that - even though it was produced on a generous $65 million budget - the North Pole feels like a studio soundstage rather than a magical location. Director Michael Lembeck made his feature-film debut here. The lacklustre production values could be attributed to Lembeck who was perhaps unable to make every cent count, or perhaps Disney used most of the budget to pay Tim Allen. The special effects are bad enough to be embarrassing, with painfully obvious digital effects and phoney green-screen work. Making matters worse is the overabundance of cheesy Disney-esque moments, and the fact that the tone is very childish and slapstick (this is a dumbed-down, G-rated sequel to a PG-rated film). While The Santa Clause 2 is inoffensive entertainment, it simply lacks the charm and magic which characterised its predecessor. Granted, there are a few scenes which work and keep things afloat momentarily, but these moments of brilliance are squandered by the tedious, unfunny bullshit surrounding it.

In the role of Scott Calvin/Santa Claus, Tim Allen is at least serviceable. His on-screen charisma has diminished since the first film, but he's by no means grating or unwatchable. Alongside him, Elizabeth Mitchell ably carried out the simplistic role of Carol Newman. Allen and Mitchell do have chemistry, and their scenes together constitute the best moments that the film has to offer. Also in the cast is Eric Lloyd, who - as the result of eight years of natural aging - looks nothing like he did in the original film. Unfortunately, his acting skills did not improve over the years. Judge Reinhold and Wendy Crewson also returned here, but failed to make much of an impact. Newcomer Spencer Breslin, meanwhile, is absolutely intolerable and overreaching. The only bright spot is Liliana Mumy, who's adorable and effective as young Lucy. Not to mention, David Krumholtz is amiable as Bernard. Interestingly, Peter Boyle has a small cameo here as Father Time, and Boyle starred in the original film as a completely different character.

The best children's movies are those which appeal to adults as much as children. 1994's The Santa Clause was a good example of this, and it was therefore solid Christmastime family entertainment. The Santa Clause 2, on the other hand, may appeal to kids but will prove to be a gruelling slog for anyone older than 12 or 13. To give you an idea of how clever the material is, the one and only laugh is in the first 30 seconds - a man describes noise coming from the North Pole as sounding like "tiny hammers". It is safe to say that The Santa Clause 2 did not need to be made, and the laughless, joyless, agonising final product only solidifies this notion.

3.2/10

Johnny Knoxville and his Jackass crew have visibly grown older since Jackass Number Two back in 2006, but this did not dissuade them from making their return to the big screen with yet another round of stupid skits and stunts (this time in 3-D) delivered in the same spirit of cheerful pointlessness as the film's predecessors. In all likelihood, the painful, repulsive slapstick within 2010's Jackass 3D will not appeal to those who prefer tasteful, well-written fictional comedies with a narrative, yet this flick is confidently superior to a lot of other modern comedies. Why can't non-Jackass movies exhibit this amount of energy and boundary-pushing ingenuity? Granted, Jackass 3D is lowbrow and loaded with bad taste. Sure, the film provides more shots of vomit, poo, bare bottoms and penises than viewers should ever have to stomach. And yes, certain skits do drag a tad and affect the pace. Nevertheless, the boys have delivered a hell of a show yet again, and Jackass 3D is the most consistently hilarious instalment in the series.

Fans of the MTV television show and/or previous Jackass movies should know the drill by now. Nothing but a string of vignettes, this third instalment follows the Jackass boys (Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Jason "Wee Man" Acuña, Preston Lacy, Chris Pontius, "Danger" Ehren McGhehey and Dave England) as they play un-PC jokes on unsuspecting civilians and carry out dangerous and/or painful stunts. This entry also boasts an array of cameo appearances - The Dudesons, Will the Farter, Spike Jonze, and even Seann William Scott are all featured fleetingly. There's no thematic relevance here, nor is there a forced conventional narrative to give the skits a purpose, and this is for the best.

It would be unwise to spoil any of the content, as being shocked by the unpredictable insanity is key to enjoying the Jackass films (it's therefore fortunate that the trailer spoiled barely 5% of the laughs). Be warned, though, that some of the material here is truly repulsive. At times, the film is so gross that even the guys on-screen begin puking (one cameraman is particularly susceptible to throwing up, which is the equivalent of a doctor fainting at the sight of blood). What's impressive about this third outing is that after several episodes of the series and a few feature films, the team were still able to concoct so many creative ideas. Yet, while the boys put on a great show, they are starting to show their age, and consequently seem less enthusiastic about punishing themselves on-camera. This stuff has been their career for 10 years, after all.

Earlier in 2010, filmmaker James Cameron criticised Piranha 3D for cheapening the 3-D format, and hence I shudder to ponder what Cameron would say about Jackass 3D (perhaps he'd find it hilarious, just like the rest of us). While embracing 3-D for this Jackass instalment seems like a cheap gimmick to generate extra bucks at the box office, the extra dimension is in fact an inspired choice. It serves to create a sense of bemused dread; allowing you to sit back and wonder (or, in most cases, fear) what type of foul three-dimensional insanity will happen next. A dildo is even sent rocketing towards the camera at one stage. Heck, Mike Judge even created an animated introduction to the film featuring Beavis & Butthead which takes the piss out of the 3-D gimmick. Still, one gets the sense that the crew could have pushed things even farther, and, while Jackass 3D is still satisfying, the full potential of a Jackass film in 3-D was not quite realised.

Interestingly, most likely because of the 3-D format, Jackass 3D is the most polished movie in the series, and thus it's easier to watch compared to the ugly, grainy cinematography of its predecessors. Additionally, director Jeff Tremaine crafted a few blatantly "cinematic" moments in this instalment, most notably the sequences which open and close the film.

Jackass 3D is a truly critic-proof movie if ever there was one. Whether or not you will enjoy it depends on if you're a fan. You either love these movies, or you hate them - there's no in-between. Admittedly, Jackass 3D lacks a true showstopper, and some sequences work better than others (a skit where Pontius wreaks havoc in a gorilla suit outstays its welcome, and Knoxville getting bitten by a dog on the ass is pretty tame). Overall, though, the film is a hoot and a half - I laughed my ass off. It's hilarious enough in its best scenes to make up for a few slow moments. Others are welcome to disagree, though.

8.1/10

The name Theodor Geisel may not mean much to you, but the name "Dr. Seuss" certainly should. Born Theodor Seuss Geisel, the acclaimed author and illustrator was responsible for more than 60 best-selling books which introduced his young readers to new worlds and creatures. Seuss' books were always quirky, and his rhyming narratives always managed to teach an important lesson while remaining eminently enjoyable and amusing. Posthumously, Seuss continues to sell millions of books worldwide. Among the author's most beloved works is How the Grinch Stole Christmas!; a not-so-subtle evisceration of the consumerism of Christmas. In 1966, the story was granted immortality when the legendary Chuck Jones helmed this animated television adaptation which captured hearts and imaginations across the globe. 1966's How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is not just a charming yuletide classic and a perennial Christmas staple, but also a smartly-written and sharply-narrated masterpiece.

The residents of Whoville - a small town brimming with cheer, goodwill and laughter - adore the Christmas season and everything it represents. However, the Grinch detests Christmas. A grouchy hermit living in a mountaintop cave overlooking the town, the Grinch hates the noise, the presents, the celebrations, the rituals and everything associated with Christmas. Nobody knows why, though - "it could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight. Or it could be that his head wasn't screwed on just right. But I think that the most likely reason of all may have been that his heart was two sizes too small." In a fit of maniacal glee, the Grinch decides to don a homemade Santa Claus outfit and head into Whoville on the night of Christmas Eve to steal every stocking, present, tree and anything else relating to the holiday. Yet, it did not occur to the Grinch that the town's joy is about the season rather than their various rituals. As the Grinch undergoes an epiphany, the film becomes an unexpectedly pointed tour de force that's as meaningful today as it was back in 1966.

Adapting a book is a tricky undertaking. Too often, the story of a book is gutted when translated to the screen; losing the traits that made it a classic in the first place. Fortunately, this television special had animator Chuck Jones at the helm. For those unaware, Jones was the creative force behind many classic Looney Tunes cartoons. Jones' claim to fame has always been humour and characterisation, both of which he brought to How the Grinch Stole Christmas! in spades. Also, this television special remains a model of economy. Within the movie's sleek 25-minute runtime, Jones and co-director Ben Washam managed to generate humour and develop a deep moral of the meaning of Christmas that in no way feels underdone. The book version could be read in about 15 minutes, but the makers of this movie felt that by extending the middle section, they would be able to play on the comedic qualities of these scenes. The pace does slow momentarily, but the positive traits compensate for this.

It's another bonus that the animation is superb. The moving parts are eye-catching and lively, and the imagery is marvellous. The animation was hand-drawn, too. For each second of film, 12 pieces of artwork needed to be devised, meaning that a whopping 17,000 hand-drawn animation cells were created for How the Grinch Stole Christmas!. Not only does the movie boast rich animation, but it also benefits from Seuss' terrific writing. The story touches on the dangers of consumerism, and explores the nature of human compassion and goodwill. It also helps that the film is so genuinely entertaining and charming - Jones and co-director Washam used everything at their disposal to reproduce the heart and soul of Seuss' tale. Additionally, Boris Karloff nailed his performance here as both the narrator and the Grinch. Karloff really understood Seuss' style, and he was able to make the oddball words and rhymes sound perfectly natural. To back up Karloff, there's Thurl Ravenscroft (voice of Tony the Tiger) who sung the "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" song, and veteran voice actress June Foray (The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) who voiced Cindy Lou Who.

Will contemporary viewers appreciate everything that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! has to offer? In this reviewer's opinion, they certainly should. In terms of animation, the film shows its age (especially compared to computer animation). However, in terms of story, pacing, comedy, message and emotional undercurrent, the movie is still as powerful today as it was in 1966. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is an exceedingly rare example of a movie aimed at kids that's equally satisfying for adults. It's also one of several pictures which reinforce the tired cliché of "they just don't make 'em like this anymore". Instead, they just remake 'em with Jim Carrey and a consumerist mindset.

9.1/10

When was the last time you remember seeing a genuinely good shark movie? Steven Spielberg's Jaws from 1975 is likely the most popular choice, and it's perhaps the only good shark film in existence. In subsequent years, a few subpar Jaws sequels entered cinemas along with films like Deep Blue Sea, and then, in the noughties, we began seeing a glut of awful, low-budget, straight-to-DVD shark features (Shark Attack 3: Megalodon, anybody?). Thank goodness, then, for 2010's The Reef; an incredibly intense Australian thriller from writer-director Andrew Traucki, who was last seen at the helm of the similarly-themed Black Water back in 2007 (a crocodile flick). Traucki has visibly improved his cinematic technique since his 2007 feature debut, most notably in terms of staging visceral attacks and in his ability to build tension. Consequently, The Reef is a competently-crafted thriller machine that's worthy of Spielberg's Jaws. Those who complained that 2004's Open Water - a similar vérité-style thriller - was too boring or low on shark action should find The Reef to be a far more satisfying experience.

The story kicks off at an airport in north Queensland, where boat peddler Luke (Damian Walshe-Howling) meets his old friend Matt (Gyton Grantley) along with Matt's girlfriend Suzie (Adrienne Pickering) and Matt's sister Kate (Zoe Naylor). Luke and sailing partner Warren (Kieran Darcy-Smith) are scheduled to deliver a yacht, and have invited the three guests along for the trip. Setting off into the crystalline waters of the Great Barrier Reef, the idyllic jaunt is going famously for the group until the boat capsizes when it suffers severe keel damage. Drifting further out to sea thanks to a powerful current, the quintet find themselves faced with an unattractive decision: to wait adrift atop their sinking vessel with little food, water or chance of being rescued, or swim in shark-infested waters for the closest land formation. Soon, their greatest fear is realised: a large great white shark begins stalking the group.

Within the slimmest and most straightforward of narratives, writer-director Traucki manages to skilfully transform a standard plight into an effective, terrifyingly unpredictable shark thriller. Initially, Traucki focuses on exposition, character development and dramatic growth to allow for viewers to become acquainted with the cast before they're plunged into mortal terror. To the credit of the writer-director, Traucki has a palpable talent for tight pacing and tension-building. Due to this, there are no dead spots - not even during the character building. The primary source of tension is the film's unpredictability. From the get-go, you cannot tell when the shark will initially strike, leading to periods of unbearable tension. The shark can strike anytime and from any angle, as the protagonists are frequently vulnerable. Added to this, The Reef at no point succumbs to dumb clichés. The characters are not archetypes - instead, they're just regular Aussies. More importantly, Traucki doesn't force a ridiculous climax pitting the characters against the antagonistic white pointer - instead, the shark strikes, devours its prey, and disappears into the deep blue sea.

Belying its $3.5 million budget with lavish underwater photography and seamless special effects, The Reef is a more polished effort than Traucki's Black Water, yet it's imbued with a gritty realism rarely seen in creature features. Like Black Water, the great white shark in The Reef is a genuine white pointer. The filmmakers photographed real great white sharks rather than utilising digital effects, and as a result the shark never looks phoney at any point. However, this does not mean the shark footage was haphazardly edited into the film, as we actually see the actors with the fish (one assumes there was a team of stuntmen in the water with the shark, or the shark footage was expertly grafted onto footage of the actors). The attacks, meanwhile, are haunting and visceral; they are the best shark attacks ever seen in a motion picture to date. The Reef additionally benefits from the score by Rafeal May, which further amplifies the tension at critical moments and triggers a few bonus scares. The Reef is the most effective edge-of-your seat thriller of recent years. When you're not on the edge of your seat, you'll be chewing your fingernails to the bone.

Generally, thrillers and horror movies are far more terrifying if they are credible and easy to relate to. In the case of The Reef, all of the narrative machinations are believable, despite what some may believe. The notion of a shark stalking a party of humans may seem far-fetched but is not unheard of - the movie is, in fact, based on true events whereby a boat sunk in the Great Barrier Reef and the people aboard tried to swim to shore while a tiger shark stalked them. Also, great white sharks do indeed frequent the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, contrary to what some people may think. Meanwhile, the notion of a boat capsizing and/or sinking in the middle of the ocean is equally credible, and therefore incredibly terrifying. It's easy to put yourself in the shoes of the characters and ask yourself what you would do in such an unnerving situation.

Yet another of The Reef's strengths is the actors, all of whom placed forth compelling portrayals of their respective roles and created distinctive characters. Headlining the movie is Walshe-Howling, who was previously seen in 2006's Macbeth and the acclaimed television series Underbelly. As Luke, Walshe-Howling is an excellent hero who ticks all the boxes: he's charismatic, he's commanding, and he's a great leader. Alongside him is Grantley, who also featured in Underbelly and Balibo. Like his co-stars, Grantley is infinitely likeable, and it's possible to care about his fate once the shark enters the picture. As the females of the picture, Pickering and Naylor are both effortlessly charming, while Darcy-Smith (The Square) holds his own in the more minor supporting role of Warren.

Admittedly, The Reef is not perfect - a few clumsy lines mire an otherwise top-notch script (such as a corny "I love you" exchange), and there's a head-scratching plot hole (the yacht was towing a dinghy, yet it disappears once the boat is capsized). Nevertheless, this is the shark thriller that cinema fans have been anticipating for years. It's low-budget, sure, but the special effects are head over heels superior to other, more generously-budgeted shark features (see Deep Blue Sea or the Jaws sequels). Writer-director Traucki's masterful manipulation of tension levels also ensures that viewers may again be hesitant to partake in a prolonged ocean swim.

8.6/10

Talk about beating a dead horse! Though in the case of the Home Alone franchise, the horse is not merely dead but buried and decomposed as well. The first Home Alone was a pleasant, original Christmas comedy which launched the short-lived career of Macaulay Culkin. 1992's Home Alone 2: Lost in New York was an unoriginal follow-up which nonetheless retained a degree of charm and provided a few hearty laughs. A few years later, 1997's Home Alone 3 debuted without any of the original cast members or characters, and things began going downhill. To continue milking the ailing franchise, the made-for-TV Home Alone 4 arrived in 2002. Alas, the flame that once burned bright in the first two movies is long gone, and Home Alone 4 is a stale, flavourless, abominable feature which simultaneously resurrected and killed the Home Alone series. In comparison, Home Alone 3 is positively brilliant.

Strangely, this fourth film features the McCallister family as well as one of the two villains from the first two Home Alone films, but none of the original actors returned to reprise their roles. Home Alone 3 introduced a new set of characters, so why couldn't this film have followed suit rather than forcing the old characters upon us and forcing us to accept new faces? It's a useless distraction. Kevin is played by Mike Weinberg here, and the story is set at Christmastime once again. Kevin's parents are separated, with Kevin's father (Beghe) living in a mansion with his very wealthy new girlfriend. Following a typical evening in which Kevin is tormented by his siblings, Kevin wishes he was an only child, and runs off to spend Christmas with his dad. Soon, Kevin's old nemesis Marv (Stewart) and his ditzy wife Vera (Pyle) show up with plans to kidnap the Royal Prince who will be coming to stay in a few days. Naturally, nobody believes Kevin's stories about the criminals (not that Marv would be a fugitive, or anything...), and thus it's up to Kevin to thwart the bad guys. Again. Snore.

The timeline surrounding the Home Alone series seems to have been entirely ignored by those who were responsible for Home Alone 4. Kevin is the main character here, but he's become 9 years old again. Additionally, this is a Home Alone movie, but Kevin is never home alone at any point! Worse, nothing interesting happens in this film at all. Instead of something fresh or at least a Home Alone-style plot, Home Alone 4 wastes its time on a well-worn "other woman" plot. You know how it goes - Kevin's dad is dating some new woman, but she'll inevitably be unmasked (to Kevin and the audience first, and to everyone else last) as a heartless, shallow snob. Kevin's dad, meanwhile, is disillusioned, but he eventually remembers that he loves his ex-wife after all. The problem with this narrative machination is that Kevin's dad has an abrupt change of perspective despite nothing happening to trigger it. These characters are slaves to a plot that they were not meant for.

You may think I'm spending too much time analysing the plot when this is a kid's movie with a primary focus on slapstick comedy. However, the slapstick does not come close to making amends. From start to finish, Home Alone 4 is obnoxiously unfunny and uncreative. Clever traps were kept to an absolute minimum. Kevin had a high tech house at his disposal, but the best he could do was smack the bad guys in the face with a frying pan. You could count the number of Kevin-style incidents without running out of fingers. Additionally, the traps which are included here lack the inventiveness of the original Home Alone, and they're all signposted so blatantly that even the young target audience will see them coming a mile away. Simply put, the gags here are just dire, and the dialogue is unbelievably inane.

The awful acting doesn't help matters. Where Macaulay Culkin was cute and charismatic as Kevin in the previous Home Alone movies, newcomer Michael Weinberg comes off as fake and annoying in the same role. Weinberg is the most awkward, broad-gesturing, overreaching, dumb brat to disgrace the medium of cinema for a long time. He delivered his lines in the most obvious fashion imaginable, and as a result sounds like he's trying to act in a kindergarten drama play. Added to this is French Stewart's continuous overacting, and Missi Pyle's grating performance. Seriously, you'll want to put your head in the sand whenever these guys are on the screen. Daniel Stern was approached to reprise his role of Marv, but quickly declined the offer, calling the film "an insult, total garbage".

Kids might - keyword might - enjoy Home Alone 4, but everyone else should avoid it like the plague. It's boring, it's drastically short on comedy, and the acting is insufferable. If you begin watching the film knowing that it will be total shit, you may not be too dissatisfied. If you watch it in the hopes of it being as good as the original film, though, you'll be enormously disappointed.

0.5/10

Home Alone 3 carries all the hallmarks of an unnecessary sequel. After all, it is the third instalment in a series of declining quality (though 1992's Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is still pretty good), neither Chris Columbus nor John Williams chose to return, and the film features a whole new cast of characters because original star Macaulay Culkin retired from acting in the mid-1990s. Plus, the premise does not lend itself to repeat uses. Legendary screenwriter and filmmaker John Hughes returns here after scripting the first two films, though in the interim since Home Alone 2, the filmmaker recycled the same types of villains and situations in other family films (101 Dalmatians, Baby's Day Out). Without the heart or dramatic gravitas of the first two pictures, and with a new director in Raja Gosnell (making his directorial debut), Home Alone 3 is a subpar, at times boring sequel that feels like a slapdash cash grab.

This time around, Culkin's Kevin McCallister has been replaced by the young Alex Pruitt (Alex D. Linz). Alex is not home alone because his family go on a trip and forget about him - instead, he has the chicken pox, so he can't go to school. His dad is away on business and his mum has to run errands, so Alex is by himself during the day for the most part. Through a series of barely acceptable contrivances and coincidences, a top-secret U.S. Air Force microchip comes into Alex's possession. A gang of international terrorists are seeking this chip, and begin searching the neighbourhood for it. Alex witnesses a number of break-ins, but the police are not astute enough to find the crooks after responding to Alex's calls, which are subsequently dismissed as pranks. With nobody able to help as the bad guys start homing in on him, Alex decides to deal with the problem himself. In typical Kevin McCallister tradition, Alex booby traps his house with all sorts of devices designed to humiliate, harm and incapacitate the villains.

Credit where credit is due, Hughes at least learned his lesson after Home Alone 2 and thus penned a script with a few new ideas. Home Alone 3 is, thankfully, not a completely shameful rehash of every plot point from the original Home Alone, though there's nothing too fresh here. The problem, however, is that the narrative is extremely implausible with all of the changes. The idea of four international terrorists against one little 8-year-old kid is absurd. While the concept of a couple of burglars against one child is at least mildly believable, terrorists should be more wise and cunning. But alas, the villains here are even dumber than Harry and Marv. For crying out loud, these incompetent idiots are not even able to retrieve a remote-controlled car. And let's keep in mind that remote-controlled cars cannot possibly outrun a fully grown man... Added to this, it's absurd that Alex is so smart. As a result, it's difficult to feel worried for Alex at any point. In the first two Home Alone movies, one could feel worried for Kevin at times when he made mistakes. Yet, Alex is completely untouchable here, and he's far too smart for his age.

The level of violence within Home Alone 3 is extreme. In fact, like in prior Home Alone films, many of Alex's traps are nasty enough to kill or induce very serious injuries. But because this is a family film, no one dies or is even injured, despite being electrocuted and getting hit on the head by a barbell. Still, at least director Raja Gosnell (editor of the first two Home Alone films) handled the material well enough. From time to time, there are a few mildly entertaining moments, and the craftsmanship makes it an easy watch. With that said, though, the snowflakes do not look remotely believable. The production values are so shoddy, in fact, that a shining sun is visible during scenes set during a near-blizzard. It's a Wonderful Life featured real-looking snow despite being made in the 1940s, and it is therefore baffling that a '90s production with a larger budget and more advanced technology could look so fake.

Alex D. Linz played the main role here of Alex Pruitt, and the only thing he has going for him is terminal cuteness. He's not half as interesting, engaging, or believable as Macaulay Culkin. Meanwhile, the villains are much less engaging than Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern. The group of performers who played the terrorists are serviceable enough, but are nonetheless comparatively subpar. Also in the cast is a youthful Scarlett Johansson as Alex's sister, who would have been about 12 or 13 during filming. Literally, the only cast member here who earns a few laughs is the parrot. That's right - a bird was given the funniest lines in the script, and delivered the most convincing performance.

Home Alone 3 demonstrates the dire consequences of what happens when desperate studio executives endeavour to squeeze a few more drops out of a dying cash cow. This sequel substitutes the drama of its predecessors with scenes of embarrassing schmaltz, such as the trademark "something funny happens, so everyone in the room laughs in a cute fashion to signal that everything is okay and everyone is closer" moment. I guess one could assume that the kids will enjoy this movie, even if it's heavily flawed. Heck, this reviewer enjoyed it tremendously as a youngster. Kids don't really care if the same thing is done over and over - the Home Alone movies are about kids getting revenge against big mean grown-ups in the context of a wish fulfilment fantasy. Unfortunately, while kids will enjoy it, there's very little here that will appeal to adults.

4.2/10

With 1990's Home Alone grossing $476 million at the worldwide box office from an $18 million budget, Twentieth Century Fox immediately pursued a sequel, bringing back screenwriter (and beloved filmmaker) John Hughes to mastermind the follow-up. Sticking with the established formula for success, 1992's Home Alone 2: Lost in New York merely rehashes the original film's story in a new setting, introducing too many coincidences to ignore. Although critics were less enamoured with this follow-up, it remains a cherished Christmas favourite in many households and an entertaining companion piece to the first film. With the sequel arriving a mere two years after its predecessor, Home Alone 2 sees several key creatives returning for the production, including director Chris Columbus, composer John Williams, cinematographer Julio Macat, and much of the original ensemble cast, establishing a strong sense of continuity between the two pictures. Recapturing the first film's winning mix of laughs and heart, Home Alone 2 overcomes the familiar narrative with its robust execution.

One year after Home Alone, the entire McCallister family plans to spend Christmas in Miami, Florida. Before the trip, Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) again gets in trouble when his big brother, Buzz (Devin Ratray), humiliates him during a Christmas pageant, and Kevin physically retaliates. After proclaiming that he would rather spend the holiday season alone, Kevin inadvertently boards the wrong plane after losing his family at the airport and ends up alone in New York City. But an ecstatic Kevin takes advantage of the situation, using his father's credit card to scam his way into renting a luxurious suite at the Plaza Hotel while his family collectively frets in Florida. Little does Kevin realise that the Wet Bandits, Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern), have escaped from prison and made their way to the Big Apple to rob a toy store owned by the kindhearted Mr. Duncan (Eddie Bracken). Harry and Marv capture Kevin, but the shrewd boy slips away and decides to save the prestigious Duncan's Toy Chest by ambushing the burglars with inventive and painful booby traps.

Home Alone 2 is not one of Hughes's best or most creative screenwriting efforts, with the sequel incorporating many familiar elements from the original flick, including the McCallister family making a mad dash to the airport again after oversleeping, Kevin binging on junk food, another fictional black and white gangster picture, the McCallister family watching a foreign-dubbed version of It's a Wonderful Life, and Kevin befriending a mysterious, misunderstood stranger who becomes an ally in his fight against the Wet Bandits. The script introduces further narrative contrivances, with Kevin ending up alone on Christmas again and encountering the same two burglars in New York City's dense expanse when they go to the same toy store on the same day at the same time. It also takes a healthy suspension of disbelief to accept that the nine-year-old Kevin could successfully trick adults with his lies and schemes, allowing him to secure a luxurious NYC hotel room. Then again, this is a film in which a man quickly recovers after being hit in the face with four bricks tossed from the roof of a three-story building. Needless to say, it is a fantasy, and the movie is charming and entertaining enough to make you forget about the logic therein.

Setting the film in New York provides a welcome change of pace and scenery, allowing Kevin to explore the limitless opportunities of NYC. Since Kevin is a child, this includes visiting an enormous toy store. Kevin's creative exploits provide ample laughs, including his resourceful use of a cassette recorder in one of the film's most memorable scenes with Tim Curry as the Plaza Hotel's suspicious concierge. (The recorder, known as a Talkboy, was actually manufactured and sold to tie in with the film's release.) Of course, the script eventually puts Kevin in a position to thwart the Wet Bandits with an array of booby traps in an empty townhouse, leading to a climax in the same vein as the original film. Channelling the energy of the Looney Tunes and the Three Stooges, the antics are more brutal than anything from the first Home Alone - many of the traps here should result in serious injury or death. Columbus again executes the material with honest-to-goodness cinematic style and convincing special effects, ensuring the climax is entertaining and funny instead of mean-spirited. Home Alone 2's soundtrack is another huge asset, with the Oscar-nominated John Williams providing another flavoursome and engaging original score, while the film also features an array of recognisable Christmas songs, including Jingle Bell Rock and Sleigh Ride.

Amidst the enjoyably cartoonish violence, Macaulay Culkin's charm still carries the film, turning in a convincing performance that never feels false or artificial. Also returning from the first film are Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, who mainly exist as human crash test dummies while Kevin puts them through their paces. It is particularly amusing to watch Pesci mumbling family-friendly PG curse words while the wild-eyed, gleefully maniacal Stern remains hilariously incompetent and stupid, often drawing Marv's ire with his behaviour. Home Alone 2 brings back most of the first film's ensemble, with Catherine O'Hara and John Heard returning as Kevin's parents, and even Kieran Culkin (Macaulay's brother) appearing as Kevin's youngest cousin. Whereas the late great John Candy made a delightful cameo appearance in the first film, numerous recognisable performers fill the ensemble here. Ally Sheedy (The Breakfast Club) briefly appears as a ticket agent, while Donald Trump allowed the crew to film in the real Plaza Hotel in exchange for a brief cameo. Speaking of the Plaza Hotel, the great Tim Curry is a scene-stealer as the concierge, while Rob Schneider also shows up as a bellhop named Cedric. Another addition to the ensemble is Eddie Bracken, whose heartfelt and wholesome performance elevates the movie. Rounding out the main cast is Brenda Fricker, who adds warmth and heart to the production as a friendly pigeon lady. (Fricker might look like English broadcaster Piers Morgan, but it definitely is not him.)

Despite its mostly negative critical reception, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is an entertaining and worthwhile sequel with side-splitting comedy and a touch of heart, and it is fun to spend more time in the company of these familiar characters. Like its predecessor, it is easy to see why young viewers find the movie so enamouring and entertaining, particularly since it taps into their fantasies and has a strong moral message at the core of the story about the importance of kindness. Although this (more expensive) sequel earned less money at the box office than the original film, it was still a commercial success, with the studio remaining interested in continuing the Home Alone franchise. Home Alone 3 eventually followed in 1997 with a new cast and no returning characters.

7.2/10

A seminal holiday classic written by the late great John Hughes, 1990's Home Alone is a Christmas film in a more superficial sense compared to other Yuletide-themed titles. Although the story occurs during the festive season, it is not a straight-up Christmas film merely about the turbulent holiday (like A Christmas Story) or the mythology of Santa Claus (like Santa Claus: The Movie); instead, it is a family comedy with a splash of action. Nevertheless, many film-watchers consider Home Alone an essential Christmas favourite, often mentioning it in the same breath as other holiday greats like It's a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street. A hugely enjoyable film for adults and children alike, it is easy to see why Home Alone was a smash hit during its theatrical release - every child has dreamed about enjoying freedom from parents and the household rules they enforce with an iron fist. The film taps into the fantasies of virtually every prepubescent boy, with the young protagonist indulging in stairway sledding, raucous bed jumping, ordering pizza, and binging on junk food.

With Christmas rapidly approaching, the McCallisters are in full holiday mode, with the extended family gathering at the Chicago home of Peter (John Heard) and Kate (Catherine O'Hara) before they all fly to Paris. However, on the eve of the family's departure, eight-year-old Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) seems to get in everyone's way and becomes a target for his older siblings. After the family blame Kevin for a dinner disaster, Kate sends her son to sleep in the attic for the night as punishment. Consequently, Kevin has no hesitation in wishing his entire family would disappear. The following morning, the family oversleeps after heavy winds cause a power outage and disable the alarm clocks, and they forget about Kevin in their mad rush to get to the airport on time. By the time Kevin wakes up, the whole family are already on their way to France. The boy initially believes the universe has granted his wish, and he is thrilled at his newfound freedom without any siblings to pick on him. Kate soon realises that they left Kevin behind and desperately tries to make her way back home despite limited travel options over the Christmas period. Meanwhile, house burglars Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern) - the "Wet Bandits" - are spending their Christmas robbing vacant houses in the affluent neighbourhood, and the McCallister home is on their hit list.

The real meat-and-potatoes of Home Alone is, of course, the grand finale, during which Kevin thwarts Harry and Marv's attempted home invasion with a string of ingenious booby traps. In reality, Kevin's painful traps would result in serious injury or worse, but in this PG-rated fantasy world, the results are side-splitting, turning the robbers into live-action Wily E. Coyote-esque characters who repeatedly find themselves one step behind the smarter, Roadrunner-like Kevin. Although one must suspend their disbelief because the traps almost always conveniently work in Kevin's favour, this hardly matters. However, Home Alone's opening act is slightly less successful, with the chaotic McCallister household feeling artificial instead of natural or authentic as dozens of family members run around with seemingly no purpose while a policeman (Harry in disguise) and a pizza delivery boy stand around in exasperation. Still, the movie efficiently establishes the family and their individual personalities, and one can feel Kevin's seething frustration as his parents punish him while his siblings face no consequences for their behaviour.

Macaulay Culkin's performance as Kevin is another element that makes Home Alone so endearing. He is a likeable boy with a bright screen presence, bringing the right mixture of innocence and mischief to the role. Although not the best or most nuanced child actor in history, he is highly believable, and it is easy to root for him as the Wet Bandits descend on his home. Meanwhile, Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern are iconic as the incompetent, bumbling Wet Bandits, effortlessly generating humour through amusing interplay and physical comedy. It is interesting to see mobster flick mainstay Pesci in a children's film where he could not let his foul mouth run rampant. Roberts Blossom also makes a terrific impression as a caring older gentleman who becomes one of Kevin's allies, while Catherine O'Hara contributes meaningful heart to the story as Kevin's concerned mother. John Candy even makes a small but memorable cameo appearance as a benevolent polka musician, and he is delightful in every frame. Candy's warmth and kindness shine through here, ensuring the actor makes a lasting impression despite limited screen time. Candy appeared in the film as a favour to Hughes, only receiving a few hundred dollars as payment, and according to Columbus, he went off-script and improvised all his dialogue. As a side note, look out for an extra in the background as Candy's character approaches Kate - legend has it, this extra is Elvis Presley, as they bear a remarkable resemblance to the late rock star.

Frequently funny and infinitely rewatchable, Home Alone deserves its continued reputation as one of the most entertaining and successful family Christmas movies of all time, and its appeal continues to endure with each new generation. In addition to its entertainment value, the film remains a Christmastime tradition due to its well-integrated and touching message about the importance of family, leading to an extremely uplifting finale. Although the narrative is predictable, and the climax includes a few absurdly cartoonish moments, the Hughes stamp of excellence is all over Home Alone, supplementing the terrific comedic set pieces with heart. Numerous sequels of declining quality followed the film, beginning with Home Alone 2: Lost in New York a mere two years later. Although filmmakers continue trying to replicate the picture's success (most recently in 2021's Home Sweet Home Alone), the original Home Alone is an untouchable gem in a league of its own.

7.8/10

Written and directed by the inimitable John Hughes, 1987's Planes, Trains & Automobiles unquestionably lives up to its hype and reputation; it is one of the funniest and most heartfelt mainstream comedies in cinema history. Possibly Hughes's best movie, this is a heartwarming and endlessly enjoyable comedy about the importance of kindness and tolerance, and it effortlessly stands the test of time over three decades later. Before Planes, Trains & Automobiles, Hughes had only directed teen comedy films, with seminal movies like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off establishing his trademark for mixing the humorous with the heartfelt, and for creating three-dimensional characters that viewers can care about. Easily on par with Hughes's beloved earlier pictures, Planes, Trains & Automobiles is a rare type of comedy for which the drama is an integral part of the story, but the weightier material does not compromise the pacing or the pervasive sense of fun. It's difficult to imagine this film having many detractors since it is impossible to dislike.

On the eve of Thanksgiving, Chicago marketing executive Neal Page (Steve Martin) only wants to leave New York City and return home in time to spend the holiday with his family. However, this ostensibly simple goal proves to be tricky, as Neal's plans are summarily derailed when his delayed flight is forced to land in Wichita, Kansas, due to a blizzard in Chicago. To make matters worse, Neal is perpetually stuck with the well-meaning but frustrating Del Griffith (John Candy), a slobby shower curtain ring salesman who never closes his mouth. After Del helps Neal secure a motel room in Wichita for the night, the two wind up stuck together despite Del consistently getting on Neal's nerves. Neal and Del set out to use any mode of transport available to get Neal home before the turkey leaves the oven, all the while facing drawbacks in the form of bad weather, robbers, vehicle breakdowns, and other assorted obstacles.

In the tradition of all the best odd-couple comedies, Planes, Trains & Automobiles forces two mismatched characters together as they navigate a neverending series of obstacles and annoyances beyond their control, forcing them to become dependent on one another. Thanks to Hughes's sharp writing and the two superlative lead actors, there are several standout comedic set pieces throughout the movie, and the pacing is exceptionally astute. The humour partly emerges from the outrageous nature of the many unfortunate situations, but it more directly derives from Neal and Del's reactions to each situation...and to each other. The dialogue is razor-sharp, and there are so many memorably uproarious exchanges throughout the picture. Hughes and editor Paul Hirsch (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back) started with a mammoth three-and-a-half-hour assembly cut before whittling the film down to a more manageable 90 minutes while retaining the best material, ensuring that what remains is pure gold. The finished movie shows evidence of the extensive trimming (for example, Del has an unexplained black eye at the end), but it's not noticeable enough to cause a problem, and the resultant film remains astonishingly coherent and cohesive. Everything fits together perfectly, as Planes, Trains & Automobiles naturally flows from one set piece to the next. If anything, watching the reams of deleted material shows that the movie came dangerously close to not working, which is a testament to Hughes and Hirsch's editorial efforts during post-production.

"Those aren't pillows!"

Planes, Trains & Automobiles is primarily a comedic travel farce demonstrating that anything that can go wrong will go wrong, regardless of the mode of transportation. But it worked so well in 1987 and still works today because Hughes imbues the protagonists with real human emotions and flaws. Although Neal and Del are stereotypical character types, they are endearing and feel like real, three-dimensional people with distinctive personalities. It is possible to care about them and empathise with them despite their innate flaws. Additionally, several bittersweet and dramatic moments effectively tug on the heartstrings, and these scenes feel natural instead of forced, manipulative or contrived. The shifts between anger and compassion are astonishingly smooth, and the dramatic material does not feel perfunctory, nor does it grind the pacing to a halt. Although the movie is mainly concerned with the trials and tribulations of holiday travel, a theme of friendship and tolerance runs throughout Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Neal and Del's friendship is unlikely due to their respective personalities, yet the development of said friendship feels organic in the hands of John Hughes. As a result, the emotional payoff at the end is sensational. Admittedly, not everything works - Ira Newborn's score is repetitive and, at times, utterly grating, and a scene in an eccentric cab is somewhat weak - but Planes, Trains & Automobiles gets far more right than wrong.

Steve Martin is the straight man here, delivering a mostly restrained performance with outbursts of pure annoyance. Martin is very likeable, with his rants managing to avoid crossing over into mean-spiritedness - after all, you can understand why Del annoys him. Furthermore, Martin capably creates a character who tries to maintain his dignity and control his temper in extreme situations, which is very relatable and rings true. Starring opposite Martin, the late great John Candy is a standout, creating a memorable character with spot-on comic timing and a lovable doofus persona. Del drives Neal insane with his disgusting habits and irritating personality traits, but he is decent to his core, and his buffoonery hides hard-hitting loneliness and sadness. Candy manages to convey meaning and depth through mere facial expressions - for example, as Neal unleashes a tirade of insults in their Wichita motel room, you can see the palpable pain and hurt on Del's face that escalates with every point Neal mentions. It is fortunate that these two comedic legends appeared in a film together during their '80s primes, and it is even more fortunate that the material effectively serves both of them. Outside of Martin and Candy, nobody in the supporting cast receives much screen time to make an impact, but look out for Kevin Bacon, Michael McKean and Dylan Baker, who make cameo appearances.

Planes, Trains & Automobiles is a wonderful cinematic treat, and an annual viewing on Thanksgiving is a tradition for many households. Hughes relies on honest-to-goodness wit to generate the humour, making it a comedy movie in the classical mould, and the material is mostly PG and family-friendly except for Neal's legendary, side-splitting, profanity-ridden diatribe at the car rental agency. Although it does require a slight suspension of disbelief since the endless misfortunes are somewhat outlandish, the movie nevertheless works. With its endless highlights and a touching message about working together and appreciating others, this is a delightful film with infinite replay value. Be sure to keep watching until the end of the credits, where a joke from the film's beginning receives its brilliant punch-line.

9.0/10

Coming off back-to-back disappointments with Lady in the Water and The Happening, M. Night Shyamalan has fallen quite far since the day in 2002 when he was declared "The Next Spielberg" by Newsweek. 2010's The Last Airbender seemed like Shyamalan's one last chance to win back his fans and prove that he still has the ability to craft a great movie. Alas, it simply was not to be, as the film instead denotes the continuation of Shyamalan's downward spiral. Working for the first time on a project derived from pre-existing material, the filmmaker was at a total loss of how to revamp the Nickelodeon TV series Avatar: The Last Airbender into a free-standing live-action blockbuster that's suitable for general audiences (guess why the Avatar appendage was removed). The finished product is nothing short of an incomprehensible fiasco; a disjointed, painfully generic, utterly boring special effects extravaganza with awful acting, subpar editing, no heart, and no real purpose. If one replaced Shyamalan's name with "Alan Smithee" in the credits, The Last Airbender would just be another big-budget misfire. Yet, with Shyamalan at the helm, the film also seals the fate of a once-talented filmmaker.

The Last Airbender takes place in a fantasy world that's divided among four tribes, each of which represents one of the fundamental elements: Earth, Air, Water and Fire. Within each of these tribes are "benders", who are endowed with the gift of being able to control an element with their minds. It's been 100 years since the four nations have lived in harmony. It has also been 100 years since the disappearance of the Avatar; the only living being able to control, or "bend" all four elements, and thus maintain balance throughout the elemental world. Consequently, the world is on the brink of catastrophe. As fate would have it, two young people - hunter/warrior Sokka (Rathbone) and his water bender sister Katara (Peltz) - stumble upon a mysterious boy named Aang (Ringer), who turns out to be the long-lost Avatar. Soon, Aang begins training in the art of bending all of the elements; honing his skills to fulfil his destiny as the one who can restore balance to the previously harmonious world.

The Last Airbender is something akin to Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon meets The Karate Kid meets Star Wars, but it's not nearly as good as the aforementioned films. The otherworldly sights and lands in the movie were brought to life with virtually seamless visual effects, but the script is botched. The picture limps forward at a snail's pace; treating its own mythology as homework and its characters as burdens. It's hard to express how truly off-putting Shyamalan's screenplay is - it's overwrought and undercooked; a whirlwind of plot points and events without an understanding of cohesion or where to focus attention. There's a lot of awkward, clunky exposition as well. Worse, the characters are ineffectually one-note, emotionally-cold ciphers which move like chess pieces throughout the complex narrative machinations. A romance develops out of nowhere between characters we don't care about, too. And a lot of things, such as Aang's ability to drop in a trance and speak with a dragon spirit, are poorly motivated and baffling.

Shyamalan is a master of suggestion and suspense-building, but The Last Airbender demanded the exact opposite: it's a blockbuster for which nothing is left to the imagination. Thus, the director discarded his traditional approach in favour of something bigger, more obvious, and more in-your-face. The best thing which can be said about the filmmaking is that Shyamalan did not fall prey to the current trend of hacking action scenes into a million incoherent flashes. Instead, Shyamalan and cinematography Andrew Lesnie (who shot the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong for Peter Jackson) used elegant long takes to allow for viewers to soak in the imagery. It makes for an interesting twist on routine summer-movie battles, yet there's no sense that anything is at stake. Consequently, the action never rises above its rapidly diminishing "wow" factor; making the film's final stretches feel long and tiresome, rather than compelling and exhilarating. In addition, as was done with Clash of the Titans, Shyamalan's The Last Airbender was hastily, messily and unnecessarily converted to 3-D for the sole purpose of sucking as much money as possible from unsuspecting consumers. The results are absolutely disastrous; soaking the brightness and clarity out of every frame. ILM's digital effects are impressive, but the 3-D effects ruin the CGI work.

Even Al Pacino and Robert De Niro would be unable to overcome Shyamalan's awful writing and inane dialogue, and thus the film is only worsened by a terrible cast. The only word which can be used to describe the acting is embarrassing. Did Shyamalan try to save money by doing his casting at junior high school drama productions? With thousands of child actors available, it's baffling as to why the director didn't choose performers who could display emotions with conviction or recite lines without sounding as if they're reading from a teleprompter. As Aang, newcomer Noah Ringer is wooden and charisma-free. Jackson Rathbone and Nicola Peltz are similarly contrived, and share no distinguishable sibling camaraderie as Sokka and Katara. Only Dev Patel (last seen in Slumdog Millionaire) is somewhat convincing as Prince Zuko.

The Last Airbender at least enjoys excellent production values, an effective score by James Newton Howard, and a general technical competency which meets usual big-budget production standards. Viewed as a series of fantastical snapshots, The Last Airbender is fairly impressive. Nevertheless, this is a movie rather than a Photoshop portfolio, and it's a woefully empty film at that. If Shyamalan aimed to deliver a message behind all of the action, it was lost in translation. And if the filmmaker hoped to bring some feeling to the characters and story, he missed the mark by a country mile. If only there was a semblance of substance to back up the bold aesthetics. The Last Airbender was produced for a mammoth $150 million, but alas not a cent of that went into script polishing or casting. The biggest kicker is the ending, which boldly sets up a sequel. But honestly, who would want to see a sequel if the first film cannot be done right? It was an interesting experiment to let Shyamalan handle a big-budget spectacle, but The Last Airbender shows that the filmmaker should return to territory that better suits his talents.

3.2/10