| Page 1 of 13: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Index | 129 reviews in total |
63 out of 94 people found the following review useful:
This movie is not so bad, 5 November 2002
Author:
Aaron (manofhollywood@aol.com) from N.Y.C.
Everybody says this movie sucks...i don't think that at
all.
We can't have kevin forever...he's gotta grow up at some
point.
That's why it was good to go with a new family that would keep the spirit of
home alone alive...remember it's for the kids.
plus the bad guys were more advanced then marv & harry (not saying that i
didn't like marv & harry) but these guys had high-tec equitment that was
pretty cool. This movie was new,fresh,well acted & had good direction.
(RAJA GOSNEL)
WAY-TO-GO JOHN HUGHES!!!!
37 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
Severely under-rated sequel., 1 January 2007
![]()
Author:
Shawn Watson (gator_macready@yahoo.com) from The Underverse
Home Alone 3 has a lot of unfair criticism. I mean, how many of you
would really have wanted a 16-year-old Mac Culkin doing the same-old
same-old to Harry and Marv. Of course it was a better idea to do in a
different direction and with John Hughes still producing and writing
you know there's going to be a good amount of imagination and
creativity.
This time around we have 8-year-old Alex Pruitt defend his house
against international criminals. Stuck at home with Chicken Pox with
both his parents tied-up in work matters, Alex suspects foul play on
his snowy street when he witnesses strangers poking around in his
neighbor's house. Of course, no one believes an imaginative 8-year-old
so he has to deal with them himself.
It turns out that a toy car Alex got from the old-lady across the
street is actually a Trojan horse to smuggle a priceless defence
microchip to the North Korean mob. They really ought to hire better
criminals as they fall for every one of Alex's sadistic booby-traps.
Yes, that is basically the whole plot but it gets enough mileage out of
it and it's still very funny. Set in January, it lacks the Xmas feel of
the first two, but I guess that would have just been a distraction.
John Williams' theme only gets a brief recital at the start, but from
then on it's an adequate (if not exceptional) score from Hans Zimmer
pal Nick Glennie-Smith. Despite these key differences of characters and
theme, it still feels like it has enough continuity with the others.
It's a totally worthwhile and enjoyable sequel that has a bad rep for
no reason. Home Alone 4 on the other hand...now THAT is BAD!
31 out of 46 people found the following review useful:
O Kevin, Where Art Thou?, 22 December 2005
![]()
Author:
patrick_dunne (wingkon@comcast.net) from United States
Home Alone 3 is an OK movie, but not as good as the original.
The humor isn't as funny, the plot is the same as before, and worst of
all... they replaced the main character of the originals: Kevin! Sadly,
his substitute is pretty odd, and WAY too smart for his age. Kevin was
one of the things that made the original so fun. But, some of the
stunts are clever, (like the one with the gun) just not clever enough.
Skip this unnecessary installment.
Do yourself a favor and watch the originals, which are much better than
this movie.
5/10
Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.
12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
A Terrible Excuse For A Movie, 1 August 2005
![]()
Author:
ottoman5000 from United States
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums
it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of
which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.
This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible
acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.
Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke
about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to
get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself!
The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home
Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie
to a joke with no moral or plot!
19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Tricks & boobie traps more advanced/high tech than 1+2!, 8 October 2004
Author:
mdm-11 from United States
This is NOT part 3 of "Kevin's Adventures", but rather a brand new
"home Alone" situation. The setting is still suburban Chicago during
the Christmas season, the family is still "upper middle class", and
even the theme music is very similar to the predecessors. This time,
however, the "kid" is NOT abandoned by his entire family who took off
for their Christmas Vacation. This time our pint sized hero is left
unattended only for hours at a time, while he is at home and sick with
the measles. A gang of foreign spys is after a top secret multi-million
dollar computer chip stolen from the US Air Force. Of course, they hide
it in a battery-operated toy that ends up with "the kid".
Although the "boobie trap" routine could be viewed as just another
rip-off from the first two films, the "gags" seem a bit more
sophisticated and less forced in "3". The mere fact that our hero is
not dealing with "wet bandit idiots" this time around makes the whole
show less of a "kiddie circus". The third running is also leaving out
the mushy side plots which would've gotten tiresome by now. All in all
this is a fun show for the whole family. I showed this film to my 4th
grade class and they gave it 20 thumbs up. Not for the "grown-up"
comedy critic, but definitely a winner with kids.
22 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
It's not the same., 19 April 2006
Author:
emasterslake from United States
Has the same title only this ain't the Home Alone you'd all be familiar
with.
No one from the original is in it. And the plot to it isn't as amusing
as the first 2 were.
This one has to do with some secret group of agents accidentally
misplaced there product at the airport which has some important chip in
it that's top secret. They track down where the product is which is in
Chicago, and located in somewhere in a neighborhood. 4 agents now have
to check every house and find that chip.
A kid who's supposed to be the new version of Kevin has the chip only
he doesn't know it yet.
He likes to watch neighbors with his telescope and goof around. When he
notices the agents breaking into the neighbor's homes, he calls the
police. When they get there they didn't find any of the intruders in
the neighbor's home. When the agents plan on breaking into our main
hero's home, he has to prepare himself to set up traps and give them
hell.
This movie was good at first but it's not the same. Those who like the
first 2 Home Alone movies, you might not like this one. Rent it first,
and see for yourself.
10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
The Tagline Is Correct, 9 April 2007
![]()
Author:
ZookGuy from United States
Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it
exposes so much truth about it.
Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a
good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it
tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or
something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but
it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary
and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two
with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those
chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in
which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a
totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll
regret it.
22 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
better than expected, 18 March 2002
Author:
Special-K88
Precocious youngster Linza target of torment for his older siblings and uptight next door neighboris stuck at home with the dreaded chicken pox. He stumbles upon a top secret computer chip that makes him the target of four, high-precision international spies determined to re-obtain it, but the feisty youngster is determined to defend his home at all costs. The whole thing is pretty formulaic, but smarter crooks, an appealing cast, and a surprising amount of unexpected laughs help overcome the script's familiarity and wild leaps of logic. Not very original, but there are more than enough good gags and amusing situations to make it worth a look. **½
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Somewhat original, fair music... but that's about it, 17 December 2005
![]()
Author:
Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark
The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10
12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Recycled plot, uninteresting characters, 30 December 2005
![]()
Author:
rebeljenn from Bath, England
'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.
| Page 1 of 13: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Amazon.com summary |
| Ratings | Awards | Newsgroup reviews |
| External reviews | Parents Guide | Official site |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |