Happy New Year 2024!

For about fourteen months, I've lived in Germany for the third time in my life (second time as an adult). My life here has felt wildly different than the lives I lived in Georgia and Utah. I had forgotten how different Europe in general is--it's not that the place is completely alien to me, but there are hundreds of small, subtle differences that sets its far apart from America. The cities are more ornate. Streets are smaller. Highway traffic is more ordered. Pedestrians and bicyclists are everywhere. Trains are more ubiquitous. You have to put in the effort to separate your garbage accurately. I find some things more desirable here, but there are things to miss about the States as well. I wouldn't say one place is necessarily better than the other, it's just different.

I took the job here with great uncertainty--managing a motorpool is an area of logistics I had rarely become involved with, and it carries its own sets of pressures and expectations. Thankfully, it's never been as heavy as I've experienced with other positions. Part of this could be related to the different people I work with and the nature of the location, but I think I've changed my attitude in a way that makes this business more conductive. As I've seen other personnel antagonize others with negativity and attitude and burn their own bridges, I understand that we all reap what we sow. Attitude can impact any interaction for the better or for the worst, and keeping these interactions positive has led to greater successes. I found that letting certain things go--things like anger, irritation, or fear--has helped make my life more harmonious. I could stand to embrace other practices, like meditation and gratitude, a little more to maintain the right state of mind.

Outside of work, I made the time for a little travel. Biggest highlights this year was visiting my parents in South Carolina, where we went on a drive to the Outer Banks and visited the town of Manteo. In Europe, I had a trip to the Netherlands to see Amsterdam, Volendam, and Zaanse Schans. In touring these places, I had the chance to sample authentic gouda cheese, see how clogs were made, see windmills, and in Amsterdam, I took a boat ride in the canals. More importantly though, I visited the Keukenhof to see the countless tulips in bloom. It was an explosion of color. In the summer, I took a drive to see  Castle Eltz, and even took a tour to see its interior and hear about some of its history. On the drive back, I walked around the towns of Boppard and Bacharach. On sporadic occasions, I would visit the towns of Mainz, Wiesbaden, Rudesheim, Bingen, and Eltville for photos. There were occasional fests as well.

Time flew by as I settled into this location and became accustomed to a new routine. Now that one of our long-standing employees has gone, I expect our workplace to change substantially in the coming months. It might mean more work and running around for me. But while that prospect would have made me anxious before, I find myself at ease more. My confidence stems from knowing and understanding the processes we have to complete the work.

What I need to do in the coming year is to do more--not only in the work that's needed, but also in regards to my goals. Every year I fret about working out, dieting, changing personal habits, reading and writing more. The issue in the end is that I've failed to take action on many of these aspects. For one reason or another, I lose motivation and fill my time with hollow, time-wasting pursuits. If I have any resolution this year, it will be to make the most of my time. I don't want to spent too much time being idle any more, especially knowing that I've been far less idle years ago. My goal this year is to become as productive as I used to be through proactive action.

In the coming year, I expect to take at least a couple of trips--one will be to Venice to see Carnivale, and in a couple more months, I'll visit my parents again in the States. Chances are strong I'll find more sights to visit within Germany in the summer. 2024 could be an exciting and fulfilling year--it's just a matter of taking action and following through.

Film Review: Home Sweet Home Alone (2021)

Max Mercer is left home alone when his family heads out on a trip to Japan and they just kinda forgot to bring him along. While they scramble to get back home, Max discovers that a couple is trying to break into their home with the goal of retrieving a valuable heirloom. When Max mishears their intentions, he believes they're trying to kidnap him, so he sets up a series of dangerous traps to thwart the would-be criminals.

A reboot designed to stream to families for Christmas on Disney+, this might be the most frustrating Home Alone movie to date (which really says something after all the gripes I had about the casting for Home Alone 4). Archie Yates plays Max as an insufferable brat. It'd be understandable if there was a maturity arc to him like there was in the original Home Alone, but not enough time is spent on that kind of development. The worst mistake this film makes is with the burglars. The film puts most of its focus on characterizing them as relatable, down-on-their-luck citizens simply trying to regain possession of their own property. All of the film's conflict is enabled through a fundamental misunderstanding. Literally all of this could have been avoided with a simple talk. They even try to reason towards the end, but the kid choses violence. Our sympathies wind up becoming twisted and confused—we've always rooted for the kid before to outsmart the buffoonish villains, but now it seemed like the kid became unreasonably violent and cruel. This happens precisely because the "villains" are no longer villains. There is a scene where Pam has her feet burned, and she lays on the snow crying—this hit way harder than a Home Alone film should have, and I realized I was rooting for the crooks and not the kid.

I see this as a fundamental failure in storytelling. Even though there seems to always be a big push to make villains relatable, this franchise demonstrates that this is not an approach that works for every story. Previous films worked perfectly fine with one-note villains with simple, selfish motivations that made us love to hate them, and thus we root for the kid. If the goal of Home Sweet Home Alone was to deconstruct that formula, to make the kid a villain, well how messed up is that? And when the final act kicks off, with Max shooting pool balls into Jeff's head, or using a treadmill to hurl weights at them with lethal force, the kid comes across as an absolute psycho. It didn't have to be this way. There is a place for one-dimensional villains, and this was the place for it. Granted, it wouldn't be anything new or interesting, but the film by nature is not new or interesting.

As the film balances multiple POVs (some of which are absolutely unnecessary), the film aims to make us understand all sides of the picture, but the end result is a frustrating situation where all the characters resolve their differences and all the conflict just evaporates. It renders the whole affair pointless. This is the other problem with the film's approach—you wind up walking away from with with a shrug, and maybe the frustrated impression that all of this could have been played out differently. At its worst, it's a waste of time.

It is a shame, because I do feel that the quality of the film is improved from the fourth and fifth movies. Cinematography is not too shabby, often boasting shots with interesting lighting. I'd even say that the jokes are a grade funnier and edgier than the last few movies, and the traps showcased in the finale are pretty inventive. Performances are fine, but none of them were huge standouts one way or the other. It is interesting to see various nods to the first couple of films, strongly suggesting a continuity (even though it's also a reboot? I dunno). As such, Devin Ratray's cameo is probably the most pleasant surprise to the movie. That, and the music, which apes the original themes John Williams initially composed (although any original tunes are not particularly good standouts).

If this was meant to spin things around and make Max a villain and the crooks "good guys," the film fails because why would I want that in a Home Alone movie. This isn't freakin' Eden Lake, where violent kids are a horrific problem that has to be villainized and exposed. If this is meant to be taken as a Home Alone reboot, where we are 100% behind Max and want to see the crooks harmed, the film fails because of the sympathy it garners for those crooks (even if unintentionally). While deep relatable villains have done well for previous Disney hits like Frozen, it has no place here. This film would have worked if it kept things simple, but by toying around with character depth and sympathies, I came out of it troubled and confused. It's easily the worst story I've seen for a Home Alone film (even factoring in the direct-to-video sequels). It's a bummer, because the film itself isn't that bad to look at.

2/10

Film Review: Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012)

When a family moves into a supposedly haunted house, Finn opts to spend the holidays engrossed in his video games. But when thieves attempt to break into the house to steal priceless art that was hidden in a secret room by bootleggers, Finn has to arrange traps and outwit the crooks to defend his house and his sister.

Well, at least they aren't bastardising the McCallister family again. The fifth Home Alone film attempts to stand out on its own with its focus on video game addiction (although, funnily enough, it is gamer techniques and even the help of a stranger online that helps Finn win the day in the end). I'll even say that the way it incorporates a historic house with a secret room used in the bootlegging days is kinda neat. There is a whole shtick where Finn believes the house is haunted, which factors into the story in a few ways, but I think it could have been a stronger element. It's pretty harmless in the end, with some goofy antics, but there are moments where it feels like the film tries to break the mold somewhat. There's even an amusing montage where Finn tries to buy $2K worth of tools at a hardware store, but winds up walking away with a reel of twine.

Sadly, other aspects to the film struggle to impress. The traps and home defense scenes are barely memorable, and easily some of the weakest of the series. The melodrama pads out the movie somewhat, serving little more than to find an excuse for the kid to actually be home alone rather than adding any heart or depth. Nothing in the film's quality helps—it's blandly filmed with functional, but not exceptional, editing. Performances are fair. The biggest name here is Malcolm McDowell as the villain, but a man of his stature deserves better. Christian Martyn plays the lead as Finn, and he's fine—thankfully not as obnoxious as the last couple of leads, but there are moments where I wish this kid could have gotten his act together quicker.

Everything about this production comes across as mundane—from the script to the execution, it exists simply for its own sake. In the age of Internet streaming, it could be pegged as merely "content," offering a familiar story with no real flair or anything of interest. Superficially entertaining, but notably weak.

3/10

Film Review: Home Alone 4: Taking Back The House (2002)

The McCallister family goes through some things, with Peter divorcing his wife and falling for a wealthier woman. When the two finally reveal their intentions to marry, they invite Kevin to their high-tech house and regale him with gifts. But when a familiar crook snoops around the house and causes havoc that Kevin is blamed for, Kevin has no choice but to use his new toys and the house's features to outsmart the burglars and expose their plans.

The first (and sadly not the last) direct-to-video Home Alone sequel doesn't leave a great impression, even from the first frame. With its cheap editing and transition effects, over-the-top acting, and bizarre cinematography that sways from overly mediocre to overly cartoony, it just looks cheap and lame. What makes this entry a hard sell for me, however, is the cast. These are supposed to be the same characters from the first two movies, but they look and act nothing like their respective counterparts. Jason Beghe as the father is probably the best standout, but even then, he's no John Heard. Heard played a father figure who was supportive, assertive, firm when he needed to be, but still loving. Beghe plays this character up as more conflicted and confused than he should be, and it doesn't help that Clare Carey plays Mrs. McCallister as passive. By comparison, Catherine O'Hara played this character with equal parts motherly love and fiery determination. Carey and Beghe both made me realize just how strong the original performances actually were. Sadly though, the weak casting extends to Kevin himself—Mike Weinberg struggles to really nail any emotional depth, and he comes across as just another hyperactive ten-year-old. It's a definite far cry from Macaulay Culkin's take. I'm also a lot less enthused about Giddeon Jacobs as Buzz, who doesn't even look the part with his shorter stature and curly hair—he plays this character strictly as the obnoxious bully. But the one casting choice that really grinds my gears, sadly, is French Stewart playing Marv. He doesn't really bother to inhabit the same character that Daniel Stern brought to life so vividly before—Stewart simply falls back on his usual shtick, focusing on goofy faces, lots of bumbling, and playing a lame, dumb character. This works with enough charm in something like Third Rock From the Sun, but it does not translate into this character at all, because it lacks threat. Even with all the stupid things Marv said and did in the first two movies, Stern could still play the role with menace and angst—Stewart has none of that. 

As if the characterizations alone aren't enough to be distracting, none of these players even look like their respective characters (except maybe Beghe, who sorta looks closer to Heard). It really says something when the cast of Home Alone 3 looks more spot-on than the cast that's actually supposed to re-adapt the McCallisters. Seth Smith looked closer to Buzz than Jacobs. Haviland Morris looked closer to Kate than Carey. And, of course, Weinberg is a weird choice for Kevin, since he looks much smaller and mousier than Culkin.

Casting choices might be the most distracting thing about this movie, but it has a trickle-down effect, since the story hinges on all these characters. Most of it plays out more like a Lifetime drama, with the focus put on the love triangle between Peter, Kate, and Natalie (played by Joana Going in one of the film's better performances). The melodrama is (maybe understandably) sidelined by the cartoony hijinks that occur when Marv and his girlfriend repeatedly attempt to break into the house (all part of a scheme to kidnap a royal prince that's supposed to visit the house, and all of this absolutely feels tacked on and contrived, especially given the unlikely wish-fulfillment outcome of all these threads). There are additional subplots in which Kevin suspects the butler of being an inside man, but any twist the film pulls is as predictable as they come. There are enough jokes, gags, and pratfalls to keep anybody's monkey brain engaged, but it all comes with no real setup or subtlety. God help us, there's even one or two fart jokes in the mix. It's a kid's movie to the core, even though it looks like it also wants to be a family drama too, but it all comes across as goofy and lame.

The production quality is notably weak, with functional photography and editing that looks like something I could have made at home. Despite the unique setting, most of the set design and props look overly-polished and fake, and sometimes cheap. While most of the performances are off-key, I have to admit that the best standouts are in the more original characters. Erick Avari, for example, plays the stuffy butler about as well as you'd expect Avari to play him as, and it works. I also have a soft spot for Missi Pyle, who absolutely goes over-the-top in her role to match Stewart's buffoonery, but at least she comes across as original. Barbara Babcock is fine. Seeming to match the picture itself, the music score is also lame.

Beyond merely being weak, this film is poorly-written tripe that offers nothing really new or original. Even worse, it takes familiar characters we loved from the first two movies and takes them down unbecoming directions, both in the story and with the performances. With lame, cartoony gags spacing out the predictable melodrama, it all comes across as cliched and dumb. If it was made today, you could even accuse it of being AI-generated. Unfortunately, humans are responsible for this, and someday an AI god will probably judge all mankind for the head-scratching decision to bring Home Alone 4 into existence with this god-awful cast and script.

2/10

Film Review: Home Alone 3 (1997)

In a Chicago suburb, Alex is a young mischievous kid who has to stay home from school due to chicken pox. He receives a gift of a remote-controlled car, but little does he know that a series of events lead to a super-secret military microchip being concealed inside of it, and a gang of thieves are actively tracking it down. Alex will need to weaponize his house in order to outsmart the criminals.

I had ignored this sequel for years, pegging it as lame, disconnected trash. My curiosity got the better of me, but now I can confirm that it is indeed lame and disconnected. By 1996, Macaulay Culkin took a break from acting and turned down the chance to play a teenage Kevin McCallister—now we’re given a different group of characters who just can’t hold a candle to the original cast. Outside the hands of Chris Columbus, Raja Gosnell takes the director’s chair and cranks up the slapstick comedy to an obnoxious degree, clearly designed to cater to children with no regard for nuance or maturity. Worst of all though, this is a film that sacrifices credibility for the sake of its gags. You really want me to believe that a kid with an RC car can really outsmart high-tech international thieves that have eluded the FBI for seven years? This only works because the villains are nerfed repeatedly—even to the point of being outsmarted by a parrot on a few occasions. And a rat (although I did laugh at the callback to the “don’t move!” gag that clearly echoes the tarantula scene from the first film—Alice hitting her own teammate in the nether regions to hit a rat dangling from his pants might be the only funny part in this movie, but that might be saying something). It’s one of those comedies where the situations are so stupid and the setups are so weak that the gags have very little payoff. It’s not enough to watch bad guys wallow in mud and ice or get hit on the head with stuff—they bumble too much to be taken seriously, and the plotline fumbles too much to let it be taken seriously.

It is a shame though, because I can tell that this film really wants to jump on the tech-thriller bandwagon that defined the late 90s. The whole MacGuffin of the film definitely echoes the microchip from Sneakers, while using the thieves as villains only reminds me of The Saint, Ronin, and Entrapment. In an age that boasted The Rock, Air Force One, Brosnan’s Bond movies, and the first Mission Impossible movie, invoking terrorism and technology must have seemed like a slam-dunk decision to push this movie as relevant and spicy. And hot dang, even the inclusion of Rya Kihlstedt seemed like a way to make all of this even more modern and sexy, like having Catwoman in the movie (…you know what, it worked. Rya’s performance is my favorite part of this whole thing. Shame the plot demanded that she had to bumble through the climax across some lame gags though). The thing is, none of this should have ever factored into a Home Alone movie. Because it’s freakin’ Home Alone. Adding spy movie nonsense to a Christmas comedy is just coloring way too far outside the box. Could it have worked? Maybe with a lot more finesse. As it is here though, as part of an established franchise, it comes across as hackneyed, try-hard, and stupid.

Sadly, there really isn’t much more to this story. It does play up the whole “boy who cried wolf” angle as it shows grown-ups constantly clashing with Alex, who tries his hardest to do his due diligence and report crime when he sees it. It’s predictable more than it is tense. There is a major subplot in which Alex warms an old lady’s heart and she comes to realize how sweet he is—it’s cute and all, but it comes with the force of a sledgehammer, whereas the heartfelt connections in the last two movies were brush strokes. Worst of all, it feels weirdly disconnected as the film swings from the goofy comedy to super-cereal tech-thriller stuff to comforting Lifetime movie territory. It doesn’t help that Nick Glennie-Smith scored this like a cartoon, which only makes the goofy scenes sound lamer (and certainly a far cry from John Williams’ masterful scores from before).

Aside from Rya Kihlstedt, a very young Scarlett Johansson, and an acceptably fair performances from Olek Krupa and Haviland Morris, the cast is not particularly great. Alex Linz definitely tries to match the lovable mischief and good-hearted nature that Macaulay Culkin brought to Kevin in the previous films, but Alex stands no chance to fill those shoes—the character he plays comes across as superficial at best. The other villain characters (jeez, there are four of them) only exist to be buffoons, and it is frustrating since there are scenes where they actually are competent, until the script demands that they aren’t and have to bumble through buckets of adhesive and other ridiculous hazards. The film is presented with a notably brighter, more colorful flair than before, which makes it look candy-coated. Cinematography is often fast, loose, and in-your-face, catering even further into the kid demographic, but at the loss of depth and gravitas.

If I had seen this as a ten-year-old, I likely would have been sufficiently entertained, but still let down by the drop in quality concerning the writing and performances. Changes in the cast and crew are a large part of it, but the film still flunks out because of how it deviates from its predecessors to embrace the cartoony kid-friendly shenanigans without any sense of discipline. It is superficially entertaining with its gags and focus on ridiculous stakes involving military technology, but it still comes across as stupid. It’s ultimately on-par with movies like Cats and Dogs, Zoom, or the live-action Thunderbirds. Kids might love it, sure, but they deserve quality too. Let them watch the first two Home Alones at the least.

4/10

Film Review: Home Alone 2: Lost In New York (1992)

The McCallister family plans a trip to Florida, but a series of events leads to one of their youngest, Kevin, getting on the wrong flight and becoming stranded in New York City. While the family scrambles to locate and reunite with him, Kevin scams his way into living at a hotel, but a pair of familiar criminals spot him in the city and plot their revenge.

Given the box office success of the first Home Alone, a franchise was likely inevitable. At the very least, the second film remains consistent to the first thanks to the returning cast and crew, to include writer John Hughes and director Chris Columbus. Both of them weave a new story but with the exact same story beats as the first. It does come across a rehash this way, forcing Kevin to undergo a whole new round of discovery, moral lessons, and home defense that feels very familiar (if not utterly derivative). The same elements of comedic, slapstick mischief and cartoony violence play out like they did before, but with a different set of circumstances and different setpieces. While Marv took an iron to the face in the last movie, how he’s hit by many bricks. While Harry had a blowtorch singe his scalp before, now it’s set totally on fire before literally exploding (and somehow he survives this). When you’re an 11 year old boy watching these shenanigans, with paint, toolboxes, kerosene, and pigeons becoming the mechanisms for a new round of vigilante justice, it comes off as so much bigger, bolder, and funnier.

This extends to the story as well. Going far beyond the premise of a boy stuck alone in a house, now the scenery opens up to the grandeur of NYC, which is romanticized to a huge degree but occasionally shows its threatening side. The familiar beats of Kevin splurging and exploring carry over from the first film, but there is something more significant in the way he navigates the city, tests the hotel staff, discovers Duncan’s Toy Chest, and connects with the pigeon lady. It’s a much bigger sand box than before. Even though the story pattern remains the same, it helps that Kevin carries himself with the same maturity he showed in the end of the first film. He came across as a total brat in the opening scenes of Home Alone 1—in the second film, he’s agreeably tempered, and even relatable. It only makes sense that plunging him into a whole city is the next greatest adventure for him, because it pushes his newfound maturity to the next level. His assumptions and perspectives are challenged once again. Threats are bigger and more dangerous. It comes across as an expanded and bigger-scale adventure, as every good sequel should.

One interesting quirk about the script is that it does play up the absurdity that Kevin is abandoned twice across the two movies, leading to scenes where the characters jokes about it. Parallels do factor into most scenes, often mirroring the first film either for contrast, to keep various gags running, or to expand on the family dynamic. If the repetition doesn’t bother you, then it comes across as consistent, and maybe even charming.

A big part of the film’s appeal is in its city setting, which is showcased with quality cinematography. The same qualities from before carry over, with camera movement and placement giving the film some snap where it’s needed, but not always drawing attention to itself. Colors continue to be naturalistic, but factor into key scenes where necessary. Editing is pretty snappy, and it’s especially notable (maybe even a little obnoxious) how it frequently cuts to close-ups with characters delivering a reaction phrase or expression. The cast is well-worn at this point, with Macaulay Culkin, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, Catherine O’Hara, Peter Heard, and many other familiar names delivering spirited and entertaining performances. A few good additions to the cast are Tim Curry, who plays a stuffy hotel concierge with a regal flair, Rob Schneider, who succeeds precisely because he’s toned-down and plays things straight, and Brenda Fricker, who balances menace and emotion with surprising nuance. John Williams returns to score this movie with the same themes as before, and it’s just as effective the second time around. And of course there are some commercial songs in the mix—strangely, I find them more fitting this time around.

I wouldn’t blame anybody for accusing this of being a shameless rehash, but I have a nostalgic bias. Then and now, I always admired how this film expanded the scope while staying true to the formula and gags of the first film. It helps that Hughes and Columbus put in the effort to make the story stick and still deliver wholesome messages and feelings where it counts. It’s much more than can be said about most other Christmas movie sequels.

8/10

Film Review: Home Alone (1990)

When the McCallister family takes a vacation to Paris, a series of events leads the clan to accidentally leave one of their youngest, Kevin, behind. Alone in the home, Kevin learns to take care of himself. When a pair of shady burglars target the house, he takes steps to scare them away, but must eventually confront them and defend the house.

Home Alone was a smash hit in 1990 and it continues to be a regular staple for Christmas time. It has plenty going for it—slapstick comedy and goofy hijinks for the kids, and a few serious narrative threads laid over the scripts to unify its morals and deliver some stronger emotional payoffs. The former is easily the most memorable part that draws the most attention, even to the point of drawing parallels to Die Hard and Saw thanks to the way Kevin choses violence to torment and humiliate the robbers. I’m 76% certain these comparisons are satirical though—it’s easy to see that Home Alone carries a lightweight tone even during its busy climax. When the home defense subplot kicks in, it’s played in a bloodless, cartoony fashion, albeit with some level of creditability and without too much mugging to the audience (something that gets lost in the execution from Home Alone 3 onwards). Somehow, this film straddles a fine line between playing up the buffoonery of the villains and maintaining them as serious, creditable threats (in no small part thanks to Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, both of whom commit to their parts admirably). As a kid, watching Kevin outsmart and torment Harry and Marv was certainly the biggest highlight since these scenes rolled up action and comedy into an exciting bundle. As an adult, I can’t help but to see it as a form of low-key absurdism.

The build-up to the thrilling climax is no less compelling though as the story focuses on Kevin’s shenanigans and his family’s struggle to reunite with him. There are many scenes that show off Kevin just being a wild and crazy kid (a shtick that would define Macaulay Culkin as the most famous wild child actor of the 90s—leave it this kid to make a ridiculous face-slapping scream iconic), but the story’s trajectory firmly propels Kevin on an arc that emphasizes maturity, responsibility, and gaining perspective. The plotline maintains its snap as characters overcome a variety of challenges, both mundane and major. It feels unified and complete thanks to the way it sets up various assumptions in the first act, then forces the characters to discover different truths through their challenges (as any good story should). There are good moral lessons embedded into the story, and with the Christmas setting, it is pleasant (and perhaps enlightening) to see the moments when people are actually good and kind.

This film doesn’t really beat you over the head with style—the photography is firm and steady, but rarely a huge standout. It finds subtle ways to accentuate the story though, so the invisible nature of the cinematography could be one of the reasons why the film succeeds as it does. There are plenty of effective scenes where the camera places us in Kevin’s shoes, invoking a more connected experience. I didn’t think much of the film’s color scheme since it's mostly natural-looking, but I have to admit that the way it contrasts the warm interiors with the cold, gray outside world is likely an inspiring creative choice. It all serves as a comfortable backdrop to let the actors shine—aside from Culkin, Pesci, and Stern, there is a plethora of other great performances from the likes of Catherine O’Hara, John Heard, Gerry Bamman, Devin Ratray, and a bunch of child actors that help breathe life to this massive family. John Candy appears towards the end in a few select scenes (an appearance that he shot for one day only, for a mere $414, and was entirely improv—what a guy). Permeating the entire film is the magical score by John Williams (boasting some classic carols in the mix, in addition to the “Somewhere In My Memory” theme). Its memorable leitmotifs invoke a number of emotions, while some cues (like the whole “Making the Plane” bit) successfully draws inspiration from Tchaikovsky. Naturally, the film also uses its fair share of commercially licensed Christmas songs, some of which have their place and some of which are dully inserted because Christmas. For all that goes, keep your eyes open for a cute nod to It’s A Wonderful Life (although the film noir pastiche, Angels With Filthy Souls, is a funny and creative inclusion that stands out as its own funny centerpiece).

When this film came out, I had taken it for granted, because as a young boy I was more invested in the exciting final act and the rest seemed mundane (although there are a ton of great lines that makes the whole film entertaining all the same). As an adult, I’ve come to appreciate the effort John Hughes and Chris Columbus put into the script. It does a perfect job of setting up a number of gags and delivering good punchlines. Above all though, it sets up the characters in a way that they learn and grow into better people, leading up to a heart-warming denouement where family connection is celebrated. The film is memorable for its slapstick, but it still resonates thanks to the way it invokes heart and the Christmas spirit.

8/10