Yesterday I wrote about how much I love Home Alone 2, and then I put in the original tonight. I wasn't lying, I still prefer the hi-jinks in the hotel; however, when it comes down to it, Home Alone (1) is a far superior movie. Macaulay Culkin is younger and cuter. He doesn't have to compete with a huge cast of characters and virtually carries the whole movie himself. Catherine O'Hara gets a lot more to do, which is always a good thing. John Candy is in it. The attack on Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern only lasts about 15 minutes, whereas in the sequel they are tortured to to the point of near death for almost half an hour. The creepy-neighbor-turned-nice-guy is completely endearing. So, yeah, it's actually a better movie. I love both and usually watch number 2 more times each Christmas, but looking back it's easy to see what made the franchise so popular in the first place. That reason is Culkin. And it's safe to say that child actors don't get cuter as they get older. So I have to admit it's probably better to check out this one if given the choice between the two.Till next time,
Bradley
No comments:
Post a Comment