filipemanuelneto

This is a good example of a sequel that managed to stand up very well to its original film: despite its flaws and no longer able to surprise us, this film delivers on its promises and manages to satisfy our expectations, even if it's virtually giving us more of the same. Yes, because the differences between this film and the first are almost merely semantic: now the story takes place in New York in a house under renovation that belongs to a relative of Kevin's. The villains are the same: they've escaped from prison and are determined to exact revenge.

The secret to this film's success is the sense of cohesion it builds with the first: the two films fit together perfectly, they're a single work, like a film divided into parts. This was achieved thanks to the successful retention of key production and cast members: Chris Columbus remains the director and continues the work already begun, as do Culkin, Pesci, and Stern, who return to their familiar roles for another round of laughs. Audiences couldn't ask for more. The magic of the New York holiday season, with snow and a suitably magical urban setting-and cleansed of all the grime we know exists in the Big, Dirty Apple-offers us the color and light of the most beautiful time of the year, the human warmth that softens even the hardest hearts of our brutalized society. The city is wonderful in this film, a true Christmas holiday postcard that certainly helped popularize New York as a holiday destination.

Otherwise, there's really not much to say that wasn't already said in the script I wrote for the first film: all the qualities are there, and some logical flaws I pointed out in the first film have been skillfully ironed out and hidden here. The script and dialogue continue to work very cleverly, the slapstick humor is all there (although many of the jokes are copied on carbon paper, which is lazy to say the least), and the hero remains as likable as he was at the beginning. It's not uncommon for this film to be shown right after the first one on mainstream TV, in a movie marathon dedicated to both films, and that makes perfect sense in my opinion.

This is one of the most memorable comedies of the late 20th century. Inexpensive to produce, it's a film based on a very well-written script, with witty dialogues and great moments of slapstick humor, two villains who, while funny, manage to threaten and a protagonist who, overcoming any childish immaturity, proves himself to be completely secure, both in his decisions and in the performance of the actor who brought him to life. The film had a permanent place on Christmas TV schedules practically until 2010, when I think I stopped seeing it as regularly on mainstream channels.

The story is simple and based on a premise that, while not clever or believable, is good enough to sustain the film: an extremely large family decides to get together and travel to Paris together, but there are so many children that one of them, the youngest, ends up staying home, forgotten by everyone. Thus, that boy ends up being the only one who realizes that two thieves are robbing neighboring houses, and their house is the next target.

The film's biggest flaw, for me, is the need to "turn off" logic for the film to fully function: if a situation like that were to happen in real life today, the mother would have to give a lot of explanations to a battalion of social workers if she wanted to maintain parental authority. After all, being a parent nowadays almost means taking psychometric tests and guaranteeing that one has the financial and psychological means to have children! The question remains as to how they could have certain things (like a blowtorch) in places where a child could retrieve them. Even so, parental unconsciousness will always exist, as we see even today when parents give smartphones to their children before they are even fourteen.

The film plays with the situation with fantastic lightness, giving Kevin, the protagonist, the intelligence and maturity necessary to overcome each problem that arises. He understands that he can't tell anyone he's alone, lying when necessary, and defending his castle-his parents' home-with the courage of a medieval warrior and a delightful ability to revel in every mischief he inflicts. For his part, the villains are appropriately clichéd-one is idiotic and clumsy, the other is clever-and the film makes good use of several humorous tropes we've seen in other films or even in the circus.

Chris Columbus provides solid and meticulous direction, treating every detail with the care of a craftsman. The editing and editing are excellent, and the film never feels stale or rushed, with everything happening when it should and without wasting time. The film gives us time to laugh, time to be moved, and time to miss our own childhood. There's a nostalgia factor here that's not to be sniffed at: toys from various generations appear, pranks that were once part of our lives, a pleasant sense of familiarity that culminates in the glorification of the importance of family, the feeling of belonging to a clan. Over all of this, John Williams's wonderful score, nominated for two Oscars, reigns supreme.

The cast was very well-chosen and delivers exactly what the film demands: Joe Pesci, who cinema will forever remember for his more violent roles, shows us his fantastic comedic chops. Daniel Stern is excellent at what he does, and just seeing his face makes us smile. Roberts Blossom does a memorable and tender job, and, of course, Macaulay Culkin is incredible in the lead role. It's a huge shame that this young actor didn't develop his talent as he could have.

The "Robocop" trilogy is one of those that cinema allowed to exist, only to regret it soon after. After a very good film, two films followed, so bad and poorly executed that they buried any chance of a sequel or remake for over twenty-five years.

There's really no point in discussing this film's script; suffice it to say that it's a sort of remake of ideas already presented in the first two films, in which the company that made Robocop is largely responsible for trampling on the rights and freedoms of Detroit's citizens thanks to shady and unscrupulous plans to grow and make easy money. Nothing in this film is truly new or original, and the entire production reeks of "B-movie." The biggest novelty here ends up being the inclusion of a child who is brilliantly good with computers, but it's a novelty that lacks any verisimilitude in the decade in which the film was made. If this were presented in today's world, where children are born from their mothers' wombs with their fingers glued to smartphones, I'd have an easier time believing in the character.

On top of all this, the film offers us an hour of regret and wasted time thanks to basic editing and editing, cheap production design, a cast made up of film students or extras given lines to deliver, miserable and poorly written dialogue, some choreographic violence, and a lot of poorly executed stop-motion animation. It's a difficult film to analyze, given the need to dig deeply to find any positive points to highlight in a text no longer than two paragraphs. I would only highlight the film's relatively short length (which is a blessing in preventing us from wasting our lives uselessly), the somewhat basic but decent cinematography, and the soundtrack, which meets the minimum expected quality standards.