IMDb > Home Alone 3 (1997) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Home Alone 3
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 7 of 15: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 148 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

**:2 out of 5 stars,a grand example of badly-timed sequels.

Author: PJS-5 from New hampshire
28 April 1999

True we have the same funny hijinx & crazy nearby tool fun,but they took what the 1st two had & litterally threw it away,true macualy culkin really did outgrew the Crook-invading little kid but,but did they really have to replace the wet bandits(Joe pesci,Daniel stern) sure the new crooks were okay for beginners at trying to invade the kids traps but they couldn't compare to the Wet bandits,& the mild sensuality was just low humor-to pathetic attempts to try to get hormone-surged teens to some adults to get interested,1st one when the new kid(Alex D. Linz) fires a li'l toy plunger gun on the Tv screen & it landed right on a female aerobiizer's butt,the 2nd one(the truly pathetic one) is when 1 of the crooks finds & tries to sneak up to a girl in the shower which is actually a (presumably) porno cutout,but remember at least they keep the wacky hijinx alive & well,but that's the only thing they kept alive,everything is basically proof that this is a badly-timed sequel.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

No more house calls . . . please!

Author: adam b
3 January 1999

This movie is downright painful to watch. Any movie that makes you long for Home Alone or the awful sequel has reached new lows. Take the worst part of the first two (cardboard characters, didactic dialogue, pointless plot) and make it even worse with new villains. Gone are the bumbling burglars who only committed property crimes. Now we have four malicious characters who terrorize an old woman, attempt to murder who they believe is a potential witness, and GUESS WHAT ELSE KIDS! There's GUNS in this one! No one ever shoots any of them, but they are drawn and pointed all over the place. How's that for wacky hijinks? Do yourself a favor and leave this home alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good for some...

Author: whitekat from Richarson, Texas
3 January 1999

Sure it was a mass of stupidity, but I don't think we really are SUPPOSED to like it. I mean, it really is more of a kid's movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Really awesome people should give this more credit.

10/10
Author: hazeem-ul-hussain from Sri Lanka
13 October 2012

I recently started to have a home alone marathon from the original to this, so while i reached Home Alone 3 i started to find out more about the supporting actors what they are doing now and all and i could not believe this movie is rated so poorly, as a kid i loved it, the pranks on the crooks are hilarious, but most people wanted Kevin back but the truth is he too grown up by 1997, look at me i am 20 and still watching this movie there has to be a reason why i still enjoy this, this movie is awesome. People should give more credit to this movie, i think Raja Gosnell did a very good job. Too bad John Williams do the music for this music but i think Nick Glennie-Smith did okay. The crooks in this movies are awesome in this movie too. Alex D. Linz acting was great as well as the supporting actors. The fact is people shouldn't compare any sequels to the previous movies unless they have the same characters, if its a new story with new characters and all they should never compare the movie to the originals. This movie falls into my all time favorite list.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

An Excellent movie

10/10
Author: ilovegod24801 from United States
23 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I do not see why people give this movie the harsh reviews that it has gotten. I was around 6 or 7 years old when I first saw this movie, and I still love it now at the age of 18. I saw this movie before I saw the first two Home Alone movies and I gotta say that I love this movie. I think that the first two were great as well, but to me, there is nothing wrong with this movie. The plot is a little different than the first two Home Alones, but yet I believe that variety is something to aim for in film. The cast works really, really well together. When the robbers are trying to get into the house, all of the trouble that they get themselves into is quite funnier, in my opinion, than some of the things in the first two Home Alones. I think people, when they watch this film, need to forget about the first two and enjoy this one for what it is, which is a good family film.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Home Alone. 3

10/10
Author: Ruxandra Coman from Romania
19 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Four experienced spies and industrial technology thieves, with high qualification in their branch, Beaupre, Alice, Jernigan and Unger, steal a top-secret chip from the Air Force. To make sure they pass the security measures in the Chicago Airport, the skillfully burglars of the most sophisticated security systems hide the microchip in a toy car. The only problem is that the toy, hiding a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars gets accidentally at the sullen Mrs. Hess which has a weakness for her eight year old neighbor, the naughty Alex Pruitt. Not knowing what to do, the four thieves decide to break into all the houses on Mrs. Hess's street to find the chip, although they are starting to believe that there are big chances that the lost object is in the Pruitt's house. Alex tells his family that he has seen dangerous delinquents on their street, but because he has a rich imagination, nobody believes him. So, he is left home alone while all the family members are gone with business. But Alex isn't vulnerable without his family by his side. Even though he is only eight years old, only when he's left alone he becomes a real danger for the ones who break into his property. The four burglars have what to fear from: Alex has prepared for their visit. A child with a little paint and some household objects (all used to protect his toy from getting stolen) can get even the American Navy into trouble.

For the third "Home Alone" movie, Alex D. Linz replaced Macaulay Culkin, which did a quite good job having the lead role. The other actors are Olek Krupa, Rya Kihlstedt, Lenny van Dohlen, David Thornton. The responsible for the script and play is Raja Gosnell, the director of "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2".

I personally enjoyed the movie and I have seen it many times, although it is not as good as the first one, and no one can be better that Macaulay Culkin. What I liked best was that the eight year old boy proved to be a very smart and funny character.

written by Alexandra D.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

criminals beware

8/10
Author: disdressed12 from Canada
24 November 2008

as far third movies in a series go,this one isn't half bad.it's not as lite hearted as the previous 2,and none of the cast return for this installment.it's basically the same plot line.kid is home alone,and is the target of criminals.,but these are no ordinary,bungling burglars.these guys are serious.but,this kid is very clever,and once again his house becomes one big booby trap.again we have the slapstick and pratfalls as the crooks become victims of one painful(and hilarious)sequence of events after another.this is actually a very funny movie.i laughed so hard i cried a couple of times.i think it's at least as funny as the two previous movies,but it doesn't have the heart or soul of either of them.but for fun factor alone,it's well worth watching.for me,Home Alone 3 is an 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A chicken pox adventure

9/10
Author: hcalderon1 from United States
15 February 2005

Again another Christmas involving children but this not with Macaulay Culkin but with 5 year old Alex D. Kinz who stuck at home. This movie begins as Alex finds he has the chicken pox which keeps him at home. Unfortunately while staying at home he finds out that there are some suspiscious activties going on across the street. He receives a toy car from his neighbor which helps him find the bad people, but the problem is that he has a hard time getting people to believe him because they this just a kid stuck at home with the chicken pox and making prank calls. Things change when Alex finds a chip in the car that his neighbor gave him. He calls the Air Force in which finds out that the chip was stolen. That's when authorities begin to believe him and that there strange things going on. This movie was real good but John Hughes needs to make things more realistic. The characters were great and this is a movie for everyone to see.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

No brain needed.

Author: KEITH-LANCASTER from St. Catharines, Canada.
26 March 2002

A load of trash like the series which preceded it. Any one who laughs at this should see a psychiatrist as soon as possible. I sat through this garbage and did not smile once. My wife could not believe that I could sit through it, she saw five minutes of it then went to bed. However, as I pointed out to her, you cannot be critical if you have not seen it. TRASH personified.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

what is this?

Author: Vincent Fox (perfpart@ptd.net) from Stevens, PA
18 December 2001

What the heck is this crap? The first two home alone movies were good, but this one sucked. What's the point of doing a Home Alone 3 with a different cast? I don't like Macauley Culkin anyway, but he's the star of the first two films and he can't be replaced. Neither can the rest of the cast. I can't believe people are actually wondering about a Home Alone 4. That will never happen. If it does, I guarentee it will lose money. They'll have to pay people just to see it, because Home Alone 3 was so bad.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 7 of 15: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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