Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

kyleinnabi MY FAVORITE CHRISTMAS MOVIE OF ALL TIME !!! ... LOVE THE ANTAGONIST'S AND LOVE THE VIBE ... GAME CHANGER

invisibleunicornninja For some reason we had to watch this movie in math class at the end of the year around Christmas last year in school. Don't ask me why. Honestly I'd have preferred to do algebra equations as opposed to watching this garbage. This movie has no redeeming qualities other than that the camera was on, it was in color, and in focus. It had a theatrical release (I think) and there are people who were involved in making this, and that there are people who were entertained. The acting, cinematography, and story are all terrible. This movie is boring, and I don't see why it is so popular. I guess people are entertained by a child assaulting adults and dumb parents?

DylanW Unlike the original "Home Alone", the situation has developed, spending longer times on the slapstick comedy of the Wet Bandits, depriving the film of its original comfort; the location. Relocating the setting to New York is an act of deprivation of the cosiness of the original. Once more, Kevin (Macaulay Culkin) is cute yet a smart-aleck kid with an attitude that could challenge even the crudest of adults. He once more gets into mischief, somehow getting separated yet again from his family. Not only that, but "Home Alone 2" has basically the same first 10 minutes as the original, which is frustrating to re-watch. Eventually, we learn of the escape of the Wet Bandits, which has excruciatingly painful scenes for any person, let alone child. The acting is fine, with the best scenes of the film including Tim Curry as a hotel concierge, which, by the way, do not involve the bandits.With this sequel, the film has resorted to cheesy lines, exaggerated violence and repetition, as most film franchises eventually succumb to.

Leofwine_draca I've always loved the first HOME ALONE film, ever since I was a kid, but I deliberately put off seeing this sequel after reading the negative reviews back in the day. Watching it now, as an adult, I can see what the reviewers meant: this is an insult, or indeed a kick in the teeth, to anyone who loves the first film.Given that the original movie was a smash hit, it was inevitably that a rushed-out sequel would quickly follow. And rushed out is right; this is a mere remake of the first film, albeit with a different setting (and nobody gets "lost" either, despite the title). The characters are all exactly the same, the gags are the same, everything's the same. A bigger budget doesn't mean improved quality; it means that everyone was in this to grab more dollars.It feels exactly like director Chris Columbus and writer John Hughes are going through the motions here. The bumbling villains are back and have even more ridiculous motives than previously. The crazy pigeon lady replaces the crazy old guy. Even the same TV gag is played out again. Hell, even the climax takes place in a house again, so the whole New York setting turns out to be a cheat. The whole sub-plot with the stressed out parents really drags things down a lot too.HOME ALONE 2: LOST IN NEW YORK isn't a total loss as a film, even though it's a crushing disappointment. It's hard to dislike Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, two actors giving such physical performances. Tim Curry is a fun addition to the cast too. But Macaulay Culkin's self-knowing, superior attitude is becoming annoying already (and, indeed, his Hollywood star was to quickly wane after this) and there's absolutely nothing here that hasn't been done better previously. It's a real disappointment.