Home Alone 3 (1997) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
155 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Home Alone 3
Toronto8517 December 2012
Home Alone 3 tells a whole different story then the original two. Instead of the McCallisters, we meet the Pruitt family and in particular the main character Alex. A computer chip worth ten million dollars is placed into a toy car by our four villains in an attempt to get through airport security. There is a mix up at the airport, and the toy car ends up in the possession of an older woman who gives it to little Alex as a gift. The four bad guys track the car to a neighbourhood in Chicago and break into a series of houses looking for the chip. Alex (who is HOME ALONE with chicken pox) see's the crooks breaking into the houses an calls the cops, only to look like a prank caller each time. The villains looking for the chip eventually realize that little Alex has it and that's when the fun begins - Home Alone style.

I actually enjoyed Home Alone 3 as a kid and as an adult now. No, it isn't as good as the original films and no Alex Linz is not Macaulay Culkin. But this movie gets points for breaking off from the McCallister storyline. I mean how many times can that family forget the same kid? Young actor Alex Linz who plays Alex in Home Alone 3 does a great job taking on this big role, he manages to not put in an annoying performance like so many child actors can be do these kind of movies. The crooks include three men and one female, and I like that they added a woman into that villain role. They all are good actors and add plenty to this movie.

The best comedic moments come from the crooks, especially David Thornton as 'Unger'. There are some ho-hum funny moments which fall flat such as the talking parrot and a few scenes with Alex's older brother and sister who "torment" him. Another flaw was the actual "home alone" bit, and the fact that Alex isn't really home alone as we've seen in the first two films. His mother leaves him for a couple of hours as he recuperates from Chicken Pox, hardly the same as Kevin McCallister went through. And I don't like that it doesn't take place ON Christmas. But those drawbacks don't take away from the whole movie at all.

Home Alone 3 isn't great, but it takes some risks by moving from the original plot and adds some smarts it with the computer chip story. These aren't your simple criminals like the wet bandits were, they are after far more than some jewellery and expensive silverware. I recommend Home Alone 3 for sure!

11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Severely under-rated sequel.
Shawn Watson1 January 2007
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!
77 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie is not so bad
manofhollywood@aol.com5 November 2002
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)

93 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
O Kevin, Where Art Thou?
patrick_dunne22 December 2005
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.


Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.
47 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's not the same.
emasterslake19 April 2006
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.
30 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tricks & boobie traps more advanced/high tech than 1+2!
mdm-118 October 2004
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.
28 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
better than expected
Special-K8818 March 2002
Precocious youngster Linz—a target of torment for his older siblings and uptight next door neighbor—is 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
31 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Home Alone 3
Jackson Booth-Millard20 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you liked the first two films starring Macaulay Culkin, then the bad news is that he is replaced by a new kid named Alex D. Linz playing Alex Pruitt, but the good news is that this is actually a good film. The new idea is that he is left at home on purpose, looking after himself. Four criminals, Mr. Beaupre (Olek Krupa), Mr. Jernigan (Lenny Von Dohlen), Mr. Unger (David Thornton) and Alice Ribbons (Rya Kihlstedt), have stolen a computer chip that goes into a missile. They put it into a toy car and accidentally swap bags. The kid has now got the car and is now defending himself with new goofy and dangerous booby traps set for cartoon like comedy. Also starring Haviland Morris as the Mum, Karen, Kevin Kilner as the Dad, Jack, Marian Seldes as Mrs. Hess, Seth Smith as Stan, and a young Scarlett Johansson as Molly. The villains are good and the new kid is pretty good, oh, and the comedy is still good! Good!
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cool Gadgets
presence12 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
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Please! Make them stop!
Kristine1 May 2004
The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!

21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as bad as you'd think, but not as good as some of the reviews either
witster1824 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
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
mediocre entry in middling series
long-ford23 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
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The criminals have got clever but not as clever as the kid!
Messamintoe30 December 2007
Quite often sequels are never as good as the first original film but... there is no difference here. YES Home Alone, i thought was great just like so many other John Hughes films and Home Alone 2 was pretty much the same as the first one with a few obvious differences but really it was not a sequel, it was just another version.

Home Alone 3 is actually different and it's good, they couldn't have used the same characters, that would have just been going against the saying 'lightning never strikes twice in the same place', but really this is a good, well thought out story and it flows, not as much as the first Home Alone but it still flows.

The acting was good, Alex D. Linz was great, some child actors make me cringe but not Alex, he did a great job!

So i would say all the Home Alone films are worth a watch, well the first 3 are, Home Alone 4, is the typical sequel, just made to make money and i doubt it made much,you can tell that one was not written by John Hughes, but still you might enjoy the 4th one, spend a day in watching Home Alone and don't forget the popcorn!
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Fighting Child
tedg4 January 2006
Is there a more interesting case study than John Hughes?

He invented a new genre and incidentally opened a new strain of cinematic techniques.

But writing is like other major enterprises in life. Each hit on the pool ball does three things; it attempts to score, it completely changes the environment and at the same time sets the cue ball up for the next stab at scoring.

Writers beware. Everything you do becomes a legacy that shapes what you can do next. Only a small part of that is what readers expect; the bigger limits are always placed by the writer. Can one ever escape the familiar when you know you can do it well? Its a sort of falling in love and it never leaves you.

Go back and trace the story of his stories. You'll find each one writing himself into a smaller box.

Some details relate to this movie. What he did was take big themes, let's call them adult themes, and transpose them to the world of children. Its a common enough technique, this bit about shifting frames of reference, and he wasn't the first. Dr. Suess comes to mind with kids and naturally we have the root of science fiction.

But Hughes hit a spot that was so sweet because the target frame of reference he chose was one we all have experienced. In fact, he chose only elements of pre-adulthood that were so simple the viewer didn't even have to reminisce. You can trace his own path in this. Over time he became an adult assaulting the world of children.

And over time, the child in us started to fight back, because after a certain point we won't tolerate having our past stolen. We know we are unique. We know each time he uses our past as a generic wrapper it becomes homogenized with millions of other childhoods. So we choose to repel the invader.

That's what makes these home alone movies so fascinating. He gets into a self-referential loop where the charm isn't about how successfully the adult invades the adolescent, but how successfully the child repels it.

The problem is that as time goes on, even though these become more interesting virtual biography of the curse of writing, these become less interesting as amusements.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Somewhat original, fair music... but that's about it
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews17 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
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Recycled plot, uninteresting characters
rebeljenn30 December 2005
'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.
14 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Accidentally got hooked...horribly campy and strangely entertaining.
Robert W.23 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As a kid Home Alone one and two were absolutely iconic classics, and I knew that they went ahead and butchered it with two unrelated sequels. It was two am, my fiancé and I were tired and bored and we were hanging out and suddenly the movie started and fifteen minutes later we were smiling, and a half hour later we were chuckling at the sheer stupidity and craziness and silliness. Maybe this review will be biased by the late hour but while Home Alone 3 doesn't hold a candle to the original films for its key demographic which is likely young, young kids...eight to ten perhaps I think it hits its mark. With virtually no big names in the film it has to rely on the other aspect of the Home Alone franchise which is slapstick comedy, kiddie hi-jinks and ridiculously painful pranks that are taken like Wile Coyote. This film has plenty of that. Ironically the amazing late John Hughes did indeed pen the script for this film as silly as it is. The plot is barely that but Home Alone never relied heavily on any sort of plot. You watch it to see the above listed things. Home Alone 3 is sillier, kiddier, but still entertaining.

Alex Linz headlines the cast as the vivacious youngster with ideal traps and toys. Linz is probably the perfect hero for the younger crowd. He doesn't exactly have enormous chemistry but he's cute and does a good job as the antagonist to the bad guys. Character actor Olek Krupa takes the role of head bad guy from the likes of Joe Pesci and the character is not entirely different. He is kind of a quiet dark brooding bad guy, seems out of place in a light fluff piece like this but maybe that makes his role work. He pulls off the silly comedy very well. Rya Kihlstedt does a good job playing the only lady baddie. She probably gets some of the best pranks and traps played on her. Lenny von Dohlen is the half witted bad guy and fills the shoes of Daniel Stern but loosely because something all three bad guys have in common Krupa, Kihlstedt, and Dohlen have very little character or plot. At least Pesci and Stern were fun characters with a story. This is just entirely about torturing the silly bad guys because kids don't care if the bad guys are people with a story. They are adults that are trying to ruin a kid's fun.

This was directors Raja Gosnell's first entry into directing and he seems to be doing well currently having directed some solid family films and hopefully will exceed expectations at bringing The Smurfs to the big screen. He focuses on the comedy though I think and not necessary character development which works better for kiddie comedies than actual mainstream films. Still if you want to watch a silly movie with your kids you could do worse than Home Alone 3 but whatever you do, don't even begin to hold this in the same breath as either of the first Home Alone films which became a holiday comedy classic. This one is just cute. 6/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Little Kids vs the bad guys
terry-3628 November 1998
If you liked the last 2 you will love this one. Yeah it might be the same old story as the last 2 but if you're in the mood for a good laugh this is it.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Tagline Is Correct
ZookGuy9 April 2007
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.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not As Good As The First Two!
Dana8230 June 1999
When Home Alone 1 & 2 came out, everyone loved Macaulay Culkin and it became a big box office hit because they had some funny scences in the movie. All I have to say about Home Alone 3 is it was very pointless to come out, I feel like they wanted to make it as big as the originals but it got nowhere...I even thought the acting was bad. Some scenes in the movie were okay, so if you liked the originals, its worth seeing on a rainy day.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shouldn't have been called "Home Alone 3"
jre-510 September 2010
When I first watched this movie, I did not like it, but these days I like it a lot. The main reason why I and probably many others don't like it at first is simple- because we're comparing it to the first two movies.

This is NOT a sequel, and it's not a remake either. The characters and story are completely different, so when you compare it to the previous movies and try to treat it as one of them, it's only natural to be unhappy with it. But when you treat it as something different, something new, rather than as part of a series, it's really quite good. There is really only one major thing that it has in common with the others, and that is that they all involve a kid setting up a bunch of traps to stop criminals. But the traps too, are different in many ways, often more complex, and the way they end is almost the opposite from the other movies. I would just about guarantee that if it had been given a different name and was treated as a new movie, rather than as the 3rd in the series, it would have had a significantly higher rating.

When I treat it as something different, I enjoy it a lot, probably almost as much as the first two, and in some ways more. Some parts of it are not very realistic, but it's a lot of fun. And some parts are a bit frustrating, but in the end it all works out well. It's really one of those movies that gets better each time you see it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews