IMDb > Home Alone 3 (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Home Alone 3
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Home Alone 3 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 151 reviews in total 

22 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

A Terrible Excuse For A Movie

Author: ottoman5000 from United States
1 August 2005

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Somewhat original, fair music... but that's about it

Author: TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews from Earth
17 December 2005

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

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

not necessary

Author: Real Critic
29 January 2002

Home Alone 3 is a sequel that really didn't need to be made. It's funnier than you'd expect, and the crooks are smarter, but it basically follows the same formula as the previous two. If you haven't seen the first two you may actually enjoy it. 2/4

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Cool Gadgets

Author: presence from Los Angeles
12 January 1999

I've heard many damaging reviews about this movie saying that it was too similar to the first and everything was just wrong about it. Well, I totally disagree saying that this movie was very creative with the new traps used for the bad guys. Alex Linz did a great job in this film and in my opinion lived up to the performance of Macaulay Culkin. Despite the somewhat simple and unoriginal plot, I was thoroughly entertained by the sheer comedy of this movie and the cool gadgets that Alex got to use. I thought the remote control car scene was brilliant. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as you'd think, but not as good as some of the reviews either

Author: witster18 from United States
24 July 2015

This is a small step down from the first two, but it's still above average. It's definitely not Alex Linz' fault - he's nearly as good Culkin here and nearly makes this a 'good' film. The story is both more implausible AND more interesting than the previous entries.

The problem here is that the final 30 minutes is a little scatterbrained and we start to miss Pesci and Company, AND some of the higher production values of the first two films. Sad too, because Linz and the set-up for the film are as good or better, but overall don't believe the hype that its as good or better than the previous two. First of all, its not. Second of all, the fact that its even close, especially given the new cast, is part of the reason its quality has been deceivingly escalated.

Decent 59/100

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Stop! Just . . . stop!

Author: The_Film_Cricket from Birmingham, Alabama
12 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


I think the problem with trying to turn out sequels to Home Alone is that that the original concept is not something that you can build on. Here you have a premise of a kid left home alone who has to use physical stunts and painful booby traps to defend the house from adults who want to do him harm. That's not exactly an epic idea. It wasn't a thoroughly ingenious concept for the first one and the sequels only make it worse.

Home Alone 3 reeks of desperation. Every element that made the other two films endearing to kids is gone and has been replaced by insufficient copies. Gone are the entire original cast, Macaulay Culkin is now a teenager and wisely turned down an offer to make this movie. Gone are Joe Peschi and Daniel Stern who obviously have better things to do. What remains is a name-only sequel – a remake really – that offers no hints of what turned Home Alone into the best-selling comedy of all time.

Culkin has been replaced by a new kid, Alex D. Linz, a cute little mop-top who probably has screen presence but, for me, is nothing more than your standard Hollywood acting kid. Linz plays Alex Pruitt, a different kid who lives in the same kind of suburban Chicago neighborhood with a smaller family (mom, dad, a brother and a sister, who is played by Scarlett Johannson), and an even smaller house. As the movie opens, he gets the chicken pox, which never seems to spread beyond a few small red dots on his neck. He's one of those kids fused with ingenuity and a room loaded with every toy imaginable, including his own telescope and a large pet mouse named Doris.

The outside forces that invade Alex's space come from four all-star professional criminals who are tracking a computer chip that they have stolen from a North Korean terrorist group. In an effort to get it past airport security, they hide it inside a remote controlled car and put it inside a shopping bag. At the metal detector, the bag is mistakenly picked up by an elderly woman who takes it home. The crooks track her to her neighborhood but can't locate the toy car. That means they will have to search them all one by one.

Alex spots the crooks through his telescope and, unlike Culkin's character, at least has the sense to call the cops right away. The crooks make a break for it before the cops can show up, and that leads to two irritating scenes in which Alex is able to identify the perpetrators AND their car, but the adults are too stupid to do anything but warn him about making phony phone calls . . . twice! As the crooks zero in on Alex, he decides that he has to take care of things himself and that leads to a long, very long, third act in which he sets up a large series of booby traps that include bricks to the head, shots to groin, electrocution, break-away floors, and even a runaway lawnmower. Those scenes are sheer torture, they go on and on and on and on until you just want to wave a white flag. Much to my pain and suffering, as I sat through Home Alone 3, I could imagine that no movie this bad could possibly spawn a Home Alone 4. We'll see.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Wow. And I thought Jaws: The Revenge was bad!

Author: gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297 from United States
23 October 2011

I enjoyed watching the first two Home Alone films for following the charm to the silliness of their stories. You might be wondering why I think this movie is even worse than Jaws: The Revenge. Let's get to the praise first. Shall we? Alex D. Linz was a very entertaining child actor at that time he could possibly live up to Macaulay Culkin, Jake Lloyd, and Bradley Pierce and he was a lot of fun with his performance. So, let's move on to the negative aspects. What's so wrong about this horrible sequel? EVERYTHING!!! The story had nothing to do with Kevin McCalister (If so, then why did it carry the name Home Alone?), the jokes weren't as funny as the first two, the bad guys weren't as interesting as the two bandits from the first two, and the dialogue was just pointless. Avoid this horse crap of a sequel and watch the first two movies. They're funnier than this horrible movie!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

mediocre entry in middling series

Author: long-ford from India
23 February 2009

Home Alone 3 is a mediocre film but not half as bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. In the Home Alone series, which was middling to start with, this is watchable but dull. There are the usual pratfalls with dumb adults being outsmarted (and hurt) by a smart kid. The main difference is that this kid (Alex D. Linz) isn't as 'movie-smart' as Macaulay Culkin. Also the violence is marginally less cruel. On the downside, Joe Pesci's manic energy is sorely missing and the film quickly runs out of ideas. As a family film, this is a decent watch but otherwise, a rather average film.

Overall 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

More of the same

Author: mutty-mcflea from Lincolnshire, UK
3 August 2013

In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy with layered characters and genuine emotional beats. Ten years on he's reduced to recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' for a second time in a lazy film that is not connected to the other movies but is equally uninspired and sadistic.

The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Macaulay Culkin.

You'd think the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would have stopped Hughes from repeating the same old routines a third time, but the only surprise is that he had just enough dignity to skip 'Home Alone 4'.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An awful movie, see why...

Author: Daendyr19
29 December 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've watched every Home Alone movie, and for me, the first two were the best, now they are creating new characters, and those characters are awful, mix that up a little, and you get Home Alone 3. Home Alone 3 sucked so bad that I can't believe I watched it. I do not recommend you to watch this movie, maybe you should rent it, but if you're 8 or higher, you will dislike this movie, I guarantee it. Here's why:


Alex Pruitt is an 8 year old boy who is shown as a genius, he is presented in the movie like he's smarter than any member of his family, and also he's smarter than the so called 'spies'. The four spies are easily fooled into traps that our legendary genius, Alex, built. Even an MIT student wouldn't know how to build traps that Alex built. I think our great hero Alex taught us many things, and mostly he taught us NOT to watch this movie. Alex certainly is smart...

For those too lazy to read all of this, here's some pros and cons.

PROS: --It's a kid's movie; Somewhat funny moments-- CONS: --Alex is a genius; Bad performance, presentation and film direction; The spies are idiots that are not capable of even shooting Alex.

BOTTOM LINE: That's about it, it is a kids movie, so if you're a kid, maybe you'll like it, but I suggest that you don't watch it, or at least rent it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history