Home Alone

Comedians James Acaster, Guz Khan and Alex Brooker have all been obsessed with the classic 1990 comedy Home Alone ever since they were kids.

They’ll find out what damage they would do in real life, figure out how science can help them survive the traps, and then use what they’ve learned to take on the stunts themselves as they attempt to catch their very own Kevin McAllister. Comedians James Acaster, Guz Khan and Alex Brooker have all been obsessed with the classic 1990 comedy Home Alone ever since they were kids. Guz & James will be stepping into the shoes of the Wet Bandits, Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, and will be assisted by an engineer as they build their own versions of some of the most memorable boobytraps from the film such as the ‘The Blowtorch to the Head’ and ‘The Swinging Paint Can’.

This “Home Alone” scenario can be a challenging environment in light of current or likely near-term prospective shareholder and regulatory pressures, but a ...

There may or may not be a viable alternative for the institution, and whether temporary or otherwise the “Home Alone” scenario is one of the many important alternatives to be carefully (and realistically) considered by the board as it analyzes the short and long-term prospects for the institution and the best interests of its constituencies. A successful “Home Alone” experience, whether temporary or permanent, can result in the institution becoming a stronger, healthier, and more profitable organization that is in far better condition to make objective decisions regarding its future in a thoughtful and less-pressured manner. In all instances, the use of experienced advisors and consultants, including financial analysts, investment bankers, and legal counsel, is critical to provide independent and objective advice necessary to examine the relative pros and cons, and to assist the board in its decision-making process. For institutions exploring the potential for a sale without the certainty (or perhaps even the likelihood) of an acquisition by a stronger institution, it is important to be prepared to implement measures necessary to tough it out and to survive independently, at least on an interim basis until a viable transaction environment emerges. In reality, this process or something similar should take place on a regular basis in order to provide the board with needed information in order to remain mindful of the best interests of the institution, which may change from time to time. With historic rate changes and new accounting rules, not to mention inflation, and with caution as the watchword in the financial services industry, bank M&A activity is “cautious” at best in the current environment.

The late Roger Ebert was a notoriously hard taskmaster. After all, he did not become the most eminent film critic for wishy-washy takes.

I don’t know if he’ll have a career like his predecessor, Macaulay Culkin (for his sake, I sort of hope not), but he has the same glint in his eye.” In what might be the most controversial take of his career, in December 1997, Ebert reviewed the third film in the franchise, Home Alone 3. I know the formula, and so does the movie (written, like the first two, by John Hughes). Although Ebert had a problem with many films, two surprising titles particularly irked him: the first two Home Alone instalments. [1967’s Bonnie and Clyde](https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/bonnie-and-clyde-arthur-penn-unveils-the-real-american-dream/) had a defining hand in changing how audiences approached cinema, with the project later celebrated as a “rallying cry” of the counterculture. On the other hand, Ebert was also distinguished for his ability to champion titles that were either unconventional or downright underdogs.