Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed

Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed

I have also had a chance to write about this franchise in this website more than once, when it was it was still only a concept and later when announcements were made. Just as some can engage in auteur criticism, I believe that individual series, and/or franchises for that matter, can dig into their own models on how the benchmarks are set. After all, in the case of focusing on what the film is all about, having been made as an installment, or as a part of a series comes into play.

In my previous post on the Home Alone series and its future, I explained how it is different from the other films in that there is a concept that maintains the continuity. The storyline, which has some basic variations, can be defined as this: there are children or at least one child who is left home alone due to the absence of adult guardians, and those children have to protect their home from all intruders and themselves from being captured. It had to happen that way almost every time.

Aside from the primary flaw which is that in the second installation Kevin does not stay back at home, it is his being away from his family yet again, which is a severe breach of the suspension of disbelief. So it has been already more so, and gratefully has, become a feature whereby it is concept based ideal. Therefore, however all the other points of criticism put to every sequel how Kevin find himself lost again, that is no longer the case. Franchises whose main target is a certain killer, come across a challenge of bringing the one character who always dies, the center of the story, back to life, and shockingly they have survived this is a great burden removed.

As such, when I reported on it, it was basically to assert that one of my outlandish dreams was indeed witnessing a reality. Yes, I do end up being a little more tilted towards the glass being half full rather than half empty, but in this particular instance, I had reasons to be hopeful. From the news regarding the casting and the story that came out, it looked like the film would get back to what these films are all about. The series went out of the tracks in the third part, and the said tracks broke off in the fourth part. Based on the initial indicators, this looked most promising for a restart.

So? Now, it has aired and I have watched it, what is my take on it? To cut the long story short, I am afraid that there is a great amount of scope within this film that could have elevated it much above just a decent entertaining restart had some changes been made in the story and production. That said after the franchise had reached the bottom of the slope, this is a good and much needed course correction. It is just that the scope was there for it to be even beyond my relatively ambitious expectations.

The movie’s best features include: the fact that the booby-trapping motif is designed even before the reality of burglary dawns upon the characters, the in jokes regarding the series are quite a number, the characters of Christian Martyn who in my opinion owns this archetype except for Culkin (who himself is quite good in this film) and Jodelle Ferland, who appears to be an interesting addition and her progression even adds an interesting angle to the film, the contrast of Finn’s character and its subtle but consistent arching; and the presence of a graphic sketched how just about 65 Hannah Davkey neighbor-kid (Peter DaCunha) who sometimes provides comic relief and assists the plot.

What are the lost opportunities in narrative is that there are at least in 1970 too many sought to fit the square pig hole so to speak from watching Home Alone films, including the garrulous stranger who in this case befriends the lead character and does not have a place to go during Christmas time. Yes, there are indeed expected elements, but each heaven does have its own elements and the addition of appropriate molds and formulas at times do constrain the story at hand.

For not wanting to fit a mold the film gives the crooks a great deal of back story and justification which is perhaps unwarranted. The star names of the triad of crooks Malcolm McDowell, Debi Mazar and Eddie Steeples have their image with the film bruised as to them getting too much exposure and overload while the parents appear to be out of character too much and under-written.

Too often the lines written for the characters seem to go wide of the mark and this is unfortunate given that there are some interesting situations which are introduced. There are some good cinematic touches which go beyond the production design; for example, the rotoscope montage that animates the preparation of the booby trap and some setups of the crooks are visually fascinating.

There is, I admit, space for improvement. I particularly liked this film, but what stood out was the missed opportunity for it to be more than a relaxing affair to a well-deserved, well-grounded sequel that would even introduce this series to a new audience. No movie is perfect, but it seems a few of the flaws were in areas not quite expected, whilst certain key aspects were delivered well and others were delivered with less priority. Not great overall, and yes it does fulfill its role as an uplift in the series, but there was room for improvement.

For more movies Visit Gomovies.