IMDb > Home Alone 4 (2002) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Home Alone 4
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 4 (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 16:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 153 reviews in total 

136 out of 147 people found the following review useful:

RIP Harry!

Author: uds3 from Longmont, Colorado
27 November 2004

Inarguably one of the worst movies ever made. "Movie" flatters it. This is a home video and I would think any one of 200 million families could be handed a camcorder and come up with a more interesting 89 minutes.

What the HELL is this? well, apart from a lingering insult to the first two Home Alone movies...who's to say! The second sequel was unmitigated trash, but compared to this, eligible for "best picture!" Everything from the script, the acting to the sets, seemingly knocked-up from left-overs at the nearest Reject shop, smack of Z-grade involvement. How this ever made it to a boxed set of four Home Alone movies, beats me.

Kevin's age doesn't even tally with the series...he's younger here than he was in New his OWN admission. A screaming disaster from the opening scenes. Shoddy, wooden, synthetic, cheap and ultimately embarrassing for all concerned - but no more so than for the viewer!

Completely deserving of a minus one rating!

I strenuously recommend that you give this shonk a wide berth!

Was the above review useful to you?

107 out of 125 people found the following review useful:

What the he** is this crap!

Author: j.eaton ( from Guelph, Ontario, Canada
26 April 2003

Okay Home Alone 1 & 2 were really good. Home Alone 3 isn't worth watching but Home Alone 4.........well it is just piece crap!!! I can't believe there would ever be a 4th installment of Home Alone. Even though Macauley Culkin is too old to portray Kevin now they could have picked an older actor. Like someone in his early teens. Kevin is still 9 more than 10 years later. Also whatever happened Kevin's other brother and sister? In this movie there are only 3 kids and there are originally 5 kids in the first two movies. Let's just hope there are no plans for Home Alone 5 any time soon. Too many holes in the plot as well makes this a bad movie. I give it a 0 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

95 out of 105 people found the following review useful:

This movie sucks!

Author: ENDING-MAN from United States
4 July 2005

I thought this movie was going to be inventive, un-recycled and have new punch lines. Instead, they have to make this movie stupid, campy, and bland.

Kevin is a little brat now, just leeching off Natalie and his dad, who separated from his nice mom for a sybaritic, selfish twad. He disrespects the butler, who is an infinitely better actor than the others in this film. And most of all, MARV LOOKS LIKE HARRY FROM THE OTHER 2 FILMS! He even has a stupid hooker wife named Vera. French Stewart does a horrid rendition of Harry and Marv. They don't even do robberies anymore! It's now staged to the more dismal subject of child abduction.

It is also accompanied by atrociously bland dialogue, pitiful acting, hilariously bad sound effects, and the picture quality makes it look like it was filmed in the mid-1980's. There is even a shot of the houses at night done with a cheap home camcorder.

It's a good thing I spent only 1.00 on a crappy dollar-store tape for this movie! I was seriously disappointed. I've seen some MST3K films and some are way more noble than this crap!

Standing out 24 hrs in 10 degrees Fahrenheit is way cooler than watching this movie. -No pun intended

Was the above review useful to you?

91 out of 102 people found the following review useful:

Completely Unfaithful Sequel

Author: JimRaynor55 from United States
11 April 2005

First, I'll give a little background about what I thought about the previous Home Alone movies: The first two movies were childhood favorites of mine. They basically played on every kid's fantasies of being left alone to do anything they wanted. Kevin got to screw around the house/New York, spend lots of money, watch violent movies, talk back to adults, and beat the bad guys. What little kid wouldn't want to be Kevin? Home Alone 3 was trash. It was obviously just an attempt to cash in on the franchise, and resembled the original two in nothing but name. Replacing badass Kevin was a completely new, annoying kiddie brainiac. Instead of being truly left home alone for an extended period of time, the kid was just staying home sick with the chicken pox. And instead of a simple story about a kid fighting off two bumbling burglars, there was some lame wannabe James Bond plot about international spies working for the North Koreans. The franchise was pretty much dead with the aging of Macauly Culkin, and I couldn't believe this movie was even made. I didn't think the Home Alone series could sink any lower. I was wrong.

Home Alone 4 came out as a made-for-TV movie, on ABC's Wonderful World of Disney. It's TV origins definitely showed in the poor production values and acting. I watched this movie only because I had nothing better to do, and I wanted to see whether this one would be as big a failure as the third. It turned out to be worse.

They at least they got it right by using Kevin as the main character, but it was all downhill from there. It's like the writers didn't even watch the first two movies. I understand the use of younger actors, since the originals are now too old. However, Kevin, Buzz, and everyone else actually seemed younger than they were in the originals.

The kid in this movie was Kevin in name only. The badass Kevin from the originals was reduced to some whiny, 5 year old crybaby. His parents were now in the middle of a divorce, which was very painful to him. Uh, when the hell was the Home Alone series ever about divorce? At one point Kevin's father mentions that his family always stays up to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" because it's one of their traditions. Funny, I never remembered seeing that tradition in the previous movies.

Marv of the Wet Bandits was back, but he too was completely changed. The real Marv was a goofy moron, while this guy was a grumpy grouch (it looked like the writers got him mixed up with his partner Harry from the originals). Harry was gone, replaced by Marv's fat, whiny wife. When the hell was Marv ever married? The jokes were lame and unfunny, and because the movie was made by Disney, there was also very little violence. The original Kevin hurled bricks and he laid complex systems of traps involving fire, electricity, and sharp objects. The new Kevin never even had a plan in this movie, and he resorted to such wimpy tactics as locking a burglar into an elevator, and using prerecorded messages to fool the others.

Nothing in this movie, from its attitude to its characters, resembles the originals. It really fails to recapture the greatness of the movies that preceded it. In a way, I guess that's a good thing. The lack of continuity makes it easier for us to just forget about this piece of trash.

Was the above review useful to you?

77 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

1st time, I can see it happen, 2nd time, maybe, 3rd, I don't think so, 4th, child services.

Author: canadian_eh88 from Merritt, British Columbia
5 November 2002

Macaulay- who is probably sitting at home after watching this and going why? why? did I ever start this madness?- is probably horrified that they turned his great movie series into a horrible, disgraceful, peice of trash? I liked, no, loved, the first two Home Alone movies. Why, I ask you...why? They should at least stay with the original actors, and it could have Kevin be like 20 years old, and visiting his father for Christmas.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 57 people found the following review useful:


Author: skcollob
22 April 2005

The first 2 Home Alone films were very successful in the early 90s. At this point Macaulay Culkin was one of the most sought after child actors in the business.However his success was short-lived and is now only known for his part in the Michael Jackson trial. The makers must have thought that Home Alone 3 was going to be as big a success. However the makers didn't realise that a new child star and a different formula was not what the viewing public craved .However regardless of this the third installment was a moderate success and actually was't that bad. Then in 2002 some bright spark decided to unleash another sequel onto the unsuspecting public. To make matters worse they decided to use the same character names and as a result Kevin McCallister looks even younger than he was in part 1.Combine this with the fact that he was't even "home alone" once during the whole film and you will see why the film is so bad .Worse still the acting is terrible and the ending so predictable you can guess what is going to happen from the opening scene. Avoid this at all costs as the first 3 (which were by no means flawless) are classics in comparison.

Was the above review useful to you?

49 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Worse than Home Alone 3

Author: Scott from Bay Area, California
3 November 2002

I found myself questioning the making of yet another Home Alone movie, let alone the making of another Home Alone movie that was to be made-for-tv, being skeptical i thought to myself "they must have a pretty decent script if theyre gonna attempt a made-for-tv sequel to what once was a pretty good franchise before it even was a franchise", but wow, this movie was awful, the young-uns might chuckle but the rest of the audience will be chuckling at the filmmakers.

Whoever was casting director should be fired, Kevins father was decent, well acted, but Kevin, who is now 9 when he was 10 in Home Alone 2, just isnt Kevin anymore, and who the hell decided to make Buzz around the same age as Kevin??? Marv wasnt too bad, but his character shouldnt have been brought back without Daniel Stern, but i give credit to Mr. Stewart.

Throughout the movie i kept asking why this movie was made, and in the beginning i thought i had the answer "What if we take the Home Alone series, and put Kevin in a technologically advanced house and see what he can do to one-half of the original bad guys?" this made me think the movie might actually be worth watching to see what kind of traps Kevin can create this time.

Basically, this movie sucks because he creates almost NO traps, there is a minor encounter in the beginning, and thats about it, Kevin ties together 2 or 3 pots, but thats IT, what the hell was this idiot director/writer/producers thinking, and to think that theyre couldnt possibly be a Home Alone movie worse than 3, at least that kid made some cool traps.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Slightly, remotely funny

Author: Shawn Watson from The Penumbra
7 May 2004

It's no secret that many despise Home Alone 3. At least it had some kind of technical proffesionalism behind it. The first 2 (and a bit of the 3rd) movies also benefited from a very strong musical score that elevated them far beyond a typical family comedy. Home Alone 4 however has an extremely cheap score and feels rushed and empty.

The very lean running time means there is no house full of traps, not a lot of plot to be wrapped up and no emotional pay-off. Plus, if I am correct in assuming Kevin's age in this film, this happens the same Xmas he was Lost in New York. So what's it to be? Dad's girlfriend's house or New York? Plus Marv is played by French Stewart (who didn't even bother to grow a beard for the part) and the rest of the cast is a bunch of unknowns. And it's obvious this was not filmed anywhere near winter, the lack of snow robs the film further of any Xmas-y feel it might have had. And what's with the constant, terrible ADR? It's very distracting.

There were some funny parts to this film and the new kid playing Kevin did it well. But the hand-held camera thingy, the bare sets and lack of anything to do with Xmas make this film look like a poverty-stricken TV movie.

The DVD is in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen and has a mediocre Dolby 5.1 track.

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Just doesn't make the steal

Author: GoMJB12 from Englewood, CO
3 November 2002

Home Alone 4, a made for TV sequel to Home Alone 1 and 2 (part 3 had a different story line) just doesn't make the cut. The casting for Kevin and his brother and sister were terrible. The kids look younger and even in the film Kevin states he is 9 years old, where in the first two he was older, however he remembers one of the burgulars from before. Marv, played by French Stuart this time around, has a new partner, Vera, who isn't any brighter than Marv. They decided to cancel the Harry character, originally played by Joe Pesci, even though they do reference him a few times. Now, Kevin's parents are about to finalize their divorce. His father lives in a huge smart house mansion with his girlfriend Natalie and Kevin stays over for Christmas. But Marv and Vera show up with a new plan - kidnapping. Home Alone 4 makes a failed attempt of returning to the Kevin McCallister storyline, but they were better off using new characters.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 22 people found the following review useful:


Author: LilacPrincess from UK
28 December 2003

Kevin is back once again in this awful fourth installment of the classic home alone films one of the reason this film is so bad is because it has a weak plot and none of the original actors/actresses at all are in it!Kevin [Mike Weinberg]is at Natalie`s home {Joanna Going}his Dads girlfriend because his parents have split up.And you can most likely guess the plot Marv [French Stewart] is back along with his new accomplice Vera To rob his house once again.The plot is weak and the story drags on and does not make sense for the following reasons:

1:None of the original actors are in it and what happened to Harry? 2:Kevin was about 12 in number 2 he is now 10! 3:He had about 4-5 siblings he now has three! 4:Buzz was a scary teenager in the other installments hes now a wimp and hes younger. 5:The actor who plays Kevin in this installment Mike Weinberg has brown hair,Kevin had blond hair. 6:Why would Marv come back and try and rob Kevin again when he has already been caught twice?

My conclusion is that this is a complete waste of time watching and making they have not even tried to get characters to look like they did in the 1st films even though there different actors but thats not the point!Number Three was bad enough but number four was just a lame excuse for bad actors to star in films,i hope the filmmakers know what they have done!!!!!!!!

They have crossed the line!!!!>:[


Was the above review useful to you?

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

Add another review

Related Links

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