The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024)

It’s weird to think that its been 10 years since the last Hobbit film came out and apart from the Amazon TV series, there hasnt been much in the way of stuff from Middle Earth but despite us getting a Gollum movie (at some point) we now get an animated film which is set 183 years before the Lord of the Rings trilogy and sees a war between Wulf and Helm Hammerhead and Helm killed Wulf’s dad and that is the simple enough plot. It’s nice that there isnt world ending implications in the plot and that its a self contained story.

GOOD POINTS

Nice to be back in Middle Earth

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the greatest trilogies in movie history and whilst the Hobbit trilogy had issues (it shouldn't have been a trilogy), it was nice to be back in middle earth and after a decade away, its good to be back in familiar places. Even though it's 183 years before we would be back here in The Two Towers, the animation manages to take us back there and despite it not being live action, I still felt like I was there.

Brian Cox is a good Helm Hammerhead

It’s nice to see Brian Cox do something where he is playing a nice guy. Having watched and enjoyed him in Succession and his instantly recognisable voice is great to hear and it fits the character perfectly. It's so easy to get casting wrong in animated films but they struck gold when they cast Cox. The character is a likeable person and Cox’s voice makes you like him and want him to be victorious.

Animation is beautiful

The animation does have a feel of a Studio Ghibli and it's stunning from start to finish. The only thing I wasn't keen on was the fire which looked like live action instead of animated. This felt like a weird choice because it didn't need to look real and looked really out of place. That’s the only real criticism with the animation because as I said it looks beautiful and the colours are nice and the grading all add to give us what we have in the film.

Wulf is a good villain 

A film can be successful or not depending on how effective the antagonist is and in the case of this film, Wulf is an effective villain. He is focused on his goal to the point where he forgo logic just to win his personal battle. It might come across as a bit weak to other but sometimes personal motives work just as well as wanting something for power and if its done well then I dont mind personal motives for moving a story along.

BAD POINTS

Bit too long

At 2 hours and 15 minutes it is about 40 minutes to long. It didn't need to be any longer than 90 minutes. Animated films work better when they have a shorter running time. Toy Story is only 81 minutes long so why this film is over two hours is a mystery to me. A shorter run time can lead to a pacier film and that is something that could work in a film's favour.

Slightly pointless

As much as I loved being back in Middle Earth, the film did feel like it was slightly pointless. It doesnt lead into anything that is coming out soon, it doesnt connect to anything beyond the Lord of the Rings films and so it doesnt feel like its a must see thing which is a shame and it is worth seeing but I dont think many people beyond Lord of the Rings fans will bother even tracking it down. 

OVERALL

I enjoyed this animated film. It had a good story which would have benefited from a shorter running time. We are suppose to be getting a Gollum movie at somepoint which will get a lot more attention than this film has received which is a shame because it is worth your time but it might be quite low in your rankings of best Middle Earth stories.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

It was inevitable that we were going to get a sequel to Home Alone but in 1992, a 9 year old me didn't care or think about that sort of thing. I was just excited to get back to Kevin and whilst this is basically the same plot as the second one. The thought of Kevin being lost in one of the biggest cities in the world was still something exciting. The plot is the same except Kevin makes it to the airport but gets separated in the rush and if there was a sign this was a pre 9/11 film, Kevin is able to get on board through a series of events that require a suspension of disbelief. The rest is the same as the first although there is no John Candy.

When Donald Trump had his cameo, I am sure I heard boos. It wasn't loud but it was noticeable and that seemed a bit silly because he is on screen literally for 5 seconds and doesn't impact the plot and regardless of your political beliefs, booing a 32 year old film is childish.

GOOD POINTS

Clever twist on the familiar plot

Whilst there are many similarities to the first film, moving the setting to New York does have some benefits. Starting the time in New York at the hotel allows for the film to be different enough. Once the stuff is finished at the hotel (in hilarious fashion), the action moves to Kevin’s uncle and I would say that there is enough different to justify this movie although the basics are the same.

Traps are still as good as the first

Even though the traps dont happen at the hotel, the traps at the house are just as good as the first film. The one where Marv is pelted with bricks and then gets electrocuted does show that the traps have increased in their terms of severity. I know that some programmes and people try to take the fun out of whether Marv and Harry would survive because thats taking the fun out of the film. Of course they wouldn't survive but its cartoon violence and they take the step up in brutality that they needed to after the first.

Another great performance from Culkin

After two years, Macaulay Culkin is still great as Kevin. He is less whiney as he was before but still manages to capture being a kid really well (not much of a stretch really) but there a lovely side to his performance especially when Kevin has scenes with Pigeon Lady and Mr. Duncan. The scene where Kevin and his mom reunite might be the same as the one in the first but they have such a lovely bond that it still got me teary eyed.

Hotel staff are a nice bit of comedy (even Schneider)

I think that Rob Schneider is a humourless hack and owes his entire career to Adam Sandler but in this he is the good part of a gang of hotel staff that are excellent to the hotel side of the plot. Led by Tim Curry’s Concierge, everyone is fun as they try to get the upper hand on Kevin which takes the inevitable path but there are plenty of laughs along the way. Even ‘actors’ as terrible and unfunny as Schneider have the ability mostly through luck to star in a great film.

Toy Shop subplot was a nice touch

It might be a b-plot but I thought the Toyshop subplot was very good and sweet. Its weird to think that this sort of toyshop would be in business in 2024 without becoming a faceless corporate toyshop but the individuality and innocence of the owner makes the subplot appear on the same emotional level as the old man from the previous film.

Pigeon Lady was a suitable replacement for the old man from the first

Despite the fact that Brenda Fricker does look like Piers Morgan in this film, I still think that she is a suitable replacement for the old guy from the first film. I was aware that Fricker was in a UK show called Casualty around this time and it was my first experience of someone I saw on TV in a movie and she plays the pigeon lady rather well. It’s sad that she doesnt really have a moment where she reunites with family like the old man did in the first one but the interactions with Kevin were lovely to watch.

BAD POINTS

Same plot as the first

This is really nitpicking and I already stated it at the beginning but this is the same plot as the first one just changed and its a trick that most sequels in other films not named Home Alone would try for the rest of time.

OVERALL

Despite the minot bad point, Home Alone 2 is a great film and one of the best sequels in movie history. The setting works and despite not really seeing much of New York beyond the initial shots at the start, the film have a different vibe to the first one and the first two Home Alone films are the best by quite some margin and are regular watches at Christmas time. Lovely stuff.

Home Alone (1990)

Home Alone is not just a great movie but its a great Christmas movie. I remember seeing this film in the cinema when it was released back in December 1990. Now 34 years later I get to watch this film on the big screen and like The Dark Knight Trilogy, I see this film followed by Home Alone 2. It was nice to see this film with an audience where a good portion of the audience were not born when this film was released. So the plot is that Kevin McCallister is left home alone by accident as his family go on a Christmas holiday to France meanwhile two burglars are trying to break in and Kevin has to fight them off.

GOOD POINTS

Great Story

It might be rather straightforward by today's standards and there are plot holes and easy ways to have wrapped this story up very quickly but I still think that it's a great story done really well. All aspects of the film make this story seem better than it actually is. This is made obvious by the fact that the rest of them (apart from the second one) have tried to replicate the formula and failed to various degrees. The subplots of Kevin trying to do everyday things and watching them go wrong is funny and nothing seems like it could have been cut out. Everything is relevant.

Funny double act performance from Stern & Pesci

The double act of Pesci and Stern is really good and whilst they don’t come off as the biggest villains ever, the chemistry they have works and it’s weird to think that Joe Pesci could do a character so different from what he would normally do. It’s great we see Pesci in the very first scene pretending to be a cop and its quite unusual to see the villain so early even if we don't see the twist until a couple of scenes in. Watching a sweary Pesci try to act in a PG film is a sight to behold and Daniel Stern isn't just there to make up the numbers, he is the nicer of the two and I think gets the 

Macaulay Culkin is great and I wanted to be him

I saw this when I was seven years old and like most kids that age, I wanted to be Macaulay Culkin. We all had the dream of being left home alone (maybe not whilst my family went on holiday) but watching this film we were watching Culkin living the dream of most kids and he’s great as Kevin. Yes he’s a bit whiny and pouty but when he realises that he has been left home alone it is like he becomes a different person. 

Nice performance from John Candy

I have a thing called ‘the Samuel L. Jackson effect’ which is that no matter how many times I watch Jurassic Park, I forget (briefly) that Jackson is in it. So I apply this to a few other people and it applies to John Candy. Its a lovely role although I would always argue for more John Candy in any film he is in. It’s a role that anyone could have played (that could apply to anyone I know) but Candy brings a personality to a rather small role and the speech he gives in the van to Kate is lovely and heartbreaking.

Traps are funny and feel like they hurt

When I watched the most recent Home Alone film, a complaint I had was that the traps didnt feel like they hurt. That definitely isn't the case with this and even at 41 years old, I find the traps look like they hurt, especially the one that Marv experiences with the micro machines and baubles which make me wince as well as the nail on the step. Also not being a fan of spiders, I always think the spider on Marv’s face whilst not being painful is still horrible.

Lovely heartfelt ending

Some might say that this film is quite smultzy and whilst that might be true, I think that the film has earned it. We have a complete character arc for Kevin as he goes from not valuing his family to wanting them back and I don't mind admitting that the hug between Kevin and his mom does make me teary eyed. Also the fact that a sub character (Marley) reunites with his son and family was also just added to the teariness. The film ending was perfect and nothing would have been better.

There are no bad points

OVERALL

This is a perfect film. Normally I would say that nostalgia is affecting my judgment but that is a small factor to my overall enjoyment of the film. When I went to the cinema to see this again, there were plenty of people who were probably the same age as Kevin and still enjoyed the film. A film can still entertain an audience even 30 years apart if its told well and is fun and that is something that is missing from a lot of films today. They have forgotten how to entertain and think that lecturing and pushing a message counts as entertainment in 2024.