Home Alone 3 (1997)

Home Alone should have been left alone

I'll admit that I loved the first two Home Alone movies. They had a certain charm to them given the silliness of the story. This third installment oozes with something else other than charm. Everything that was great about the first two HA movies is absent from this movie. Not to mention that the story is much different than the first two.

Plot: Some hi-tech crooks hide a microchip inside of a remote-controlled toy car. During their time in the airport, their luggage gets switched with the luggage of the crotchety middle-aged woman that lives next door to the Pruitt family. The crooks realize that their luggage has been swapped with the old woman and finds out where she lives. On arrival they meet up with the snotty scamp Alex who realizes something is wrong with them and plans to thwart them while his mother is away.

Opinion: After reading the plot, you already know that this has nothing to do with the MCcallister family. That is the least of its problems. What was fresh in the first two HA movies is now mundane. Every gag is the same: people get bonked upside the head with things and fall down. Alex D. Linz is about as bland as tofu. As a matter of fact, the whole cast is about as bland as tofu. The wisecracking parrot has more personality than these cardboard cutouts in this movie. The crooks made Harry and Marv look like geniuses. Did I forget to mention that this movie is lethally dull? Plus this movie is missing what made the first two great: Heart. This movie is emotionally distant like Marla Singer(Helena Bonham Carter's character in Fight Club). Nothing about this movie is redeemable. It's all routine. You've seen it all before done better. Home Alone 3 and 4 are classic examples of "milking the cow". If you love this "movie" you love these: BABY GENIUSES, SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2, LOOK WHO'S TALKING NOW, ARE WE DONE YET, HONEY WE SHRUNK OURSELVES and PROBLEM CHILD 2. May 30, 2008

Forced humor, at best

I understand why they had to use a new actor for this movie... the original is in his 20's! But they could have changed a couple other things while they were at it. It was predictable and not very original. Sure, my kids and I laughed where we were supposed to, but it was just a rehash of the previous 2 Home Alone movies. January 4, 2008

Uhhh

I'll admit it, the first time I saw this movie I was mad that Macaulay Culkin was not featured, but that changed quickly.

The movie was different than the first two because Kevin (or Alex in this one) was not left home for a long amount of time, he was just a Latchkey Kid. On top of that, the mom even without knowing became "aquainted" with the bad guys (because they moved in down the street!!). Ha, I really enjoyed that part!

You can see this movie is different and more entertaining in different ways. I do miss the mom from the original 2 (Catherine O'Hara), I really liked her acting.

So, with all the other reviews telling you what the film is about and how stupid it was, you really should just see for yourself. Heck, if you are to afraid to pay for a potentially dissapointing film, download it the "illegal" way, although I don't recommend that ;-) December 31, 2007

Funny Movie

I enjoyed the first two home alone movie. However, I liked the third one the best because it had more excitement and booby traps. The only thing I disliked was the nude picture they stuck in there and wasn't necessary. Otherwise, it was a good & funny movie. November 27, 2007

Mean spirited and unfunny.

In the first 2 films, the kid was left alone by accident. In this one, it is deliberate. That's right, the mother leaves her small child home alone by choice. The kid is an evil genius type who has more toys than the Mythbusters. His traps are meant to maim or kill the so-called bad guys, who are so unbelievably stupid it is difficult to accept they would be smart enough to steal a computer chip. Speaking of the chip -- something like that would fail if it were handled by so many people; it has to be in an anti-static protective bag, not in a toy car. But most Hollywood types don't seem to know anything about computers. Or the range of a toy car's remote control. Or a TV remote control. Or how a small child could put barbells on a roof. Or move a 4x8 sheet of plywood...or.... In short, just about everything in this movie stretches credulity beyond even cartoon violence. This also proves that to pull off this concept you need a cast of people with talent. The original 2 films work only because of a good cast. It certainly isn't the writing. Left to the writing alone, this type of film just fails. It also leaves one with a sense of mean-spiritedness at the heart of the film. And that is because it is such an unnecessary sequel with ties to the originals in name only. March 19, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...