Home Sweet Home Alone (2021)

[BritishHobo]

I've watched a bit more of this, and on reflection it is trying to do something more interesting than I gave it credit for.

Spoiler alert

Kevin 2's 'Home-Alone-in-fast-forward' scenes feel like an afterthought because the robbers are the actual protagonists, it's essentially a subversion of the concept, where you feel empathy for the lengths the couple need to go to avoid losing their own home. You're not really meant to be that invested in Kevin 2's situation at all, except insofar as he's the obstacle that the robber protagonists come up against.

[close]

It's a neat idea, but the problem with that is that nobody is tuning into the sixth Home Alone movie in the mindset to be wrongfooted by a clever subversion. So the first twenty minutes, pretty prime 'will I like this light family film' time, just come off like the film is a muddled, half-hearted rehash where they're speeding through the familiar structure without bothering to put in any detail.

[Noodle Lizard]

We only got up to the beginning of what I presume to be the "final siege" before the kid conked out, but yeah I was very surprised to discover that it's really Rob Delaney and Ellie Kemper's film. Everything else, as you say, feels like it's on fast-forward. The obligatory "kid doing mad kid things whilst home alone" montage felt especially uninspired.

And the kid's a bit weird, honestly. They've given him no personality except for being a bit of a prick to his mum, and he's eerily unchildlike. He sort of huffs and moans about like someone you might find in middle management. One of his "mad home alone" antics was to walk on the treadmill. It's difficult to imagine any actual 10-year-old relating to him, really, whereas the Culkin ones were able to capture something about childhood fantasies and anxieties.

[BritishHobo]

It's very odd, isn't it? I appreciate the idea to flip the perspectives, but the fact that it's proceeding through the same plot structure means that it gives the appearance of being bad writing rather than intentional subversion. You have to actively tell yourself that the reason the kid has no characterisation is because he's not the main character like you expected - which is not an ideal thing to need the viewer to do. And due to his lack of personality, as you point out, he comes off as a fucking unhinged maniac when he sets up all the traps. When nice lovely Ellie Kemper

Spoiler alert

gets set on fire

[close]

, it feels much more jarring than anything in the already-bonkers original.

It's a shame, because I really like the actor, he was lovely in Jojo Rabbit, and despite his weird characterisation, he's never hateful like some child characters in film. It's very odd, because I liked almost nothing about the film, but the main cast (Kemper, Delaney, Yates) are all so affable that the ending scenes were quite nice, and somehow tricked me into thinking I'd actually liked the film. Which I didn't.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's very odd, isn't it? I appreciate the idea to flip the perspectives, but the fact that it's proceeding through the same plot structure means that it gives the appearance of being bad writing rather than intentional subversion. You have to actively tell yourself that the reason the kid has no characterisation is because he's not the main character like you expected - which is not an ideal thing to need the viewer to do. And due to his lack of personality, as you point out, he comes off as a fucking unhinged maniac when he sets up all the traps. When nice lovely Ellie Kemper

Spoiler alert

gets set on fire

[close]

, it feels much more jarring than anything in the already-bonkers original.

It's a shame, because I really like the actor, he was lovely in Jojo Rabbit, and despite his weird characterisation, he's never hateful like some child characters in film. It's very odd, because I liked almost nothing about the film, but the main cast (Kemper, Delaney, Yates) are all so affable that the ending scenes were quite nice, and somehow tricked me into thinking I'd actually liked the film. Which I didn't.

I haven't reached the ending yet (which I'm sure will wrap it all up in a predictably nice way), but the premise of this one is essentially a child from an extremely wealthy family stealing something valuable from some poor(er) parents that might cost them their family's home. Then gleefully beating the absolute shit out of them when they try to get it back. I think there's also a bit where he cons a church Christmas toy drive into giving him something.

Like I say, I'm sure all amends are made by the end, but it's not something I really like my stepson watching for that reason. You could argue that the original was rich kid vs. poor people as well, but at least he was defending himself against actual violent criminals rather than a down-on-their-luck couple that he stole from out of pure spite.

EDIT: Now I think of it, we're actually not certain he stole it from them ... have I figured out the twist???

[BritishHobo]

Spoiler alert

You have.

[close]

Which means there's a tremendously odd moment where

Spoiler alert

the three of them stand in the midst of the rubble and destruction of all of the traps, and everyone including the viewer realises that everything has happened for no reason whatsoever.

[close]

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

So, the twist is that

Spoiler alert

Catastrophe and Kimmy Schmidt are actually hapless victims ( which is actually what they come across as in the trailer)? And Junior John Oliver is actually a spiteful little shit? And Aisling Bea' s accent has still not been determined?

[close]

that actually makes this film sound more like a pretty sharp satire of the original, as opposed to a remake. Almost tempted to watch the fecker now.

[Hat FM]

so ellie kemper, the really nice receptionist from the office, and rob delaney, the guy who gives his sons funny names on twitter, are the people we are meant to be railing against? i find this unlikely. i always really liked aisling bea as a comedian. thought this way up was so basic bitch i couldn't watch after the first three eps.

[Noodle Lizard]

We finished it last night and yeah, good lord. The final siege is more like Straw Dogs than anything that should be in a family film. A lot of weird, lingering close-ups of Delaney and Kemper's tortured faces, and I counted at least 5 attacks that would've been absolutely fatal. The fact that it goes from all of that to

Spoiler alert

them all sitting around becoming the best of friends after the misunderstanding has been revealed

[close]

so quickly is just ... really, really odd. The flash-forward a year is equally strange. It would've been far better if the camera had panned away from the nice family Christmas to the kid gazing gloomily at the house through the bars of his room in a correctional facility for dangerously disturbed youth offenders.

It doesn't seem as though he even got punished for utterly destroying the family home - I think the mum just mentions something like "I wanted to remodel anyway" and they all talk about how wonderful this terrifying maniac is. What the fuck? Some truly horrible messaging there. At least the first two end on the suggestion that Kevin's about to face the wrath of God for fucking up his family's life in one way or another.

On the plus side, Delaney and Kemper gave it their best, and their chemistry was quite good I suppose.

[Replies From View]

I honestly thought it was great.  All my misgivings proved unfounded.

[Noodle Lizard]

I honestly thought it was great.  All my misgivings proved unfounded.

I'm glad to hear that! Although I have to admit it's a little confusing - what were the things you thought were good about it? Aside from Delaney/Kemper doing as good a job as they could with what was given, I didn't find much to enjoy about it at all. It also makes me a bit sad that Jonah off of Veep has resigned himself to playing that character in everything he does, since he's apparently very good at improv (and a big Chris Morris fan, to boot).

[Replies From View]

I found it very watchable, the performances and script amusing and all the twists satisfying.  All the slapstick was impactful this time around - when the doll was thrown in the air and the couple were leaping after it and properly smacking their heads on furniture it became comical in a different way to the intentions of previous Home Alones - not wacky but just absurd in its bizarre viscerality.


Probably also helps that I caught up by watching the only other Home Alone I hadn't yet seen - the fifth one, which was rotten.  My expectations were fully low.

[An tSaoi]

Is Aisling Bea's accent less jarring in context?

[Replies From View]

Is Aisling Bea's accent less jarring in context?

Didn't bother me in the slightest.


Also, jarring elements from the trailer ("nobody even knows I'm here") aren't in the film.

[Noodle Lizard]

I didn't really notice anything about her accent, but her character was such a load of nothing they could've got someone who didn't speak English at all without much difference. She basically does exactly what Catherine O'Hara does in the first film, but less.

Also, I don't remember if they addressed this at all, but it makes no sense in a world of internet and cell phones that she wouldn't be able to contact the kid somehow - or at least a nearby friend or authorities who could go and check in on him. Suspension of disbelief and all that, but 'mon now. Also unrealistic that they wouldn't have a Ring camera or something to go along with their otherwise hi-tech house. These are the kind of things that could've been cleverly included in a present-day Home Alone, but they didn't fancy bothering.

[Replies From View]

Says in the film she hardly knows any of the neighbours yet, and we see the assigned policeman reject the call because he thinks it's a prank.


Also the house isn't super high tech (absurd levels of gadgetry had already been done in either 3 or 4; can't remember which).  It just has an Alexa type device that doesn't seem to do anything they want.


Plenty of scope for disbelief suspension.

[BritishHobo]

I usually watch the first two Home Alones (although didn't bother last year, as a bit of a break), but this has inspired me to go through all the others again. I think it's a great example of a franchise that just sort-of goes through the motions of doing its shtick, without ever really questioning why. The first film is all about feeling small and ignored in a family, and the drawbacks of getting your wish to be alone. Feeling powerless and facing those fears. It's easy to forget the traps at the end are secondary to that plot, because after Home Alone they become the central 'thing' of the franchise. It becomes the Booby-Trapped House franchise, and characterisation for the kid falls by the wayside. Their being home alone becomes an afterthought, the bit of plot the film has to get through in order to get to the traps. In Home Alone 3 he's just off sick from school, and in 4 he's only ever home alone for a few hours at a time while his dad and stepmum are out.

It's how you end up with the daftness in this film, where yer kid sets up all the traps not because that's something he would do, or something he has any real motivation to do, or something with any link to the story or character. He just does it because that's what kids in Home Alone films do.

[Noodle Lizard]

That's an interesting point. I haven't seen Home Alone 3 since it came out when I was, myself, a child plotting the utter annihilation of adults, and I never saw Home Alone 4 (is there a 5 as well?) But I remember Home Alone 2 being an interesting enough development on the first one, or at least transporting it to an entirely different scenario rather than just contriving ways to repeat the plot of the first. And there's all that stuff in there with the toy shop owner and the bird lady and that, which attempts to spread some good cheer, not to mention a good deal of the film focusing on Kevin's genuine longing to have his family back after the initial banter & memes have subsided.

Not that all films need to have positive messages or anything, but that aspect of the original two is certainly something they didn't bother themselves with in this one, and from my memory of being a kid that's the stuff that ultimately resonated with us most. I think the thing that resonates with kids most about this one is how much nicer his house is than theirs and how much stuff he has to play with (and he's still grumpy!). They couldn't give a fuck about Delaney/Kemper's financial difficulties. There are all these scenes where they're talking about remortgaging or what-have-you - who is this film for?

[Replies From View]

The weird thing is that Home Alone 3 actually had a cinema release.  Only films 4, 5 and 6 have been direct to home video/ streaming services.


So if you revisit Home Alone 3, remember that difference of scale.

[Replies From View]

There are all these scenes where they're talking about remortgaging or what-have-you - who is this film for?

When you're a kid, that's what grown-ups sound like.


But I certainly think this film is more for adults who enjoyed the first two films first time around, and expect that the presence of the kid from Jojo Rabbit along with comedy actors they like will probably raise the quality of this one (and to be truthful, they do.  Go back and see films 3-5; this is the best sequel after 2).  Specifically adults who already have a Disney+ subscription.

[Noodle Lizard]

The weird thing is that Home Alone 3 actually had a cinema release.  Only films 4, 5 and 6 have been direct to home video/ streaming services.


So if you revisit Home Alone 3, remember that difference of scale.

Well, it's a very different time now, and Disney is behind it this time (it was one of the first projects Disney greenlit when they got the rights to it in their Fox acquisition). I think HSHA would have absolutely had a cinema release if it weren't for COVID and they weren't flailing to hit their target on Disney+ subscribers.

I don't think anyone's arguing about it being better than the other sequels. With Disney behind it, it'd be astonishing if it weren't.

[Replies From View]

Fair enough.



I'm quite happy to accept Home Sweet Home Alone as a serviceable Home Alone 3 of sorts, but really can't see why this is a franchise or what future it could feasibly have.  It has even less of a world to explore than The Terminator, which has floundered around with exactly the same number of sequels.  To think of Home Alone stretching to six films - it beggars belief.

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm quite happy to accept Home Sweet Home Alone as a serviceable Home Alone 3 of sorts, but really can't see why this is a franchise or what future it could feasibly have.  It has even less of a world to explore than The Terminator, which has floundered around with exactly the same number of sequels.  To think of Home Alone stretching to six films - it beggars belief.

I do think they could've done something more interesting with acknowledging that the primary audience of the first two (the "proper ones") are now in their 30s and 40s. I guess you could say that's why they chose to focus on Delaney/Kemper's characters, but it doesn't really do anything else other than that. As it stands, it ends up being something that's not really interesting for adults or children (your mileage clearly varies, of course).

For all their faults, I think John Hughes and Chris Columbus had a connection with their childhoods (as well as children of their own) that was tangible in the script and on the screen. The creators of this iteration simply don't have that, and it really shows. Indeed, the fact that the kid in this talks and often behaves like a surly millennial in his early-30s makes me wonder if they even have much experience with children in general.

[Avril Lavigne]

The first film is all about feeling small and ignored in a family, and the drawbacks of getting your wish to be alone. Feeling powerless and facing those fears.

Yeah exactly

Well, the first Home Alone was fucking shit

Fuck you.

[Replies From View]

I do think they could've done something more interesting with acknowledging that the primary audience of the first two (the "proper ones") are now in their 30s and 40s. I guess you could say that's why they chose to focus on Delaney/Kemper's characters, but it doesn't really do anything else other than that. As it stands, it ends up being something that's not really interesting for adults or children (your mileage clearly varies, of course).

For all their faults, I think John Hughes and Chris Columbus had a connection with their childhoods (as well as children of their own) that was tangible in the script and on the screen. The creators of this iteration simply don't have that, and it really shows. Indeed, the fact that the kid in this talks and often behaves like a surly millennial in his early-30s makes me wonder if they even have much experience with children in general.

I just think they wanted to flip the situation to see what would happen.  The intruders are sympathetic victims, and the boy is entitled and not very likeable.  You don't need to identify with the child character when you are an adult watching this film - why should you?  The main characters are the less wealthy mother and father who feel like they've had something stolen from them, and you can try to watch it more as an adult with that in mind, with all the slapstick having more of a tragic - albeit absurd - effect than in any other iteration of this formula.

They flip it, and in my mind it works.  If we agree that it's better than any film since the second then there's not much for us to argue about.  It's the sixth film in a franchise that could have stopped at one, felt stretched by two, I went in with the lowest possible expectations and ended up surprisingly entertained and quite fascinated by the approach they took.

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

Is " Bone Alone" considered canon within the franchise, then?

[Replies From View]

Seems to be officially renamed:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alone_for_Christmas

[Avril Lavigne]

Fuck you.

Sorry about that, Catalogue Trousers. I'm just very protective of this film as it's the only one I've ever seen

[JamesTC]

These are the only canon Home Alone films:

[Replies From View]

High Density, that means.  Means your floppy disks hold twice as much.

[SteveDave]

I fucking loved this. Yes, I'm very tired today but it was just what I needed. It was more farcical (in a good way) than the first one and the kid didn't learn a valuable lesson at the end. Other than family is alright.