Roger ebert saying this one is better than the first two
Sorry but I've got to disagree with that review roger
shareWhat an idiot. This was terrible.
share
MovieChat Forums > Home Alone 3 (1997) Discussion > Roger ebert saying this one is better th...
As usual he had to be wrong.
_________________
Is Rusty still in the Navy?
Is he serious? Home Alone 3 was not better than the first two the first one was better. He probably hates Macaulay Culkin for saying that.
shareI still enjoyed Home Alone 3 but it wasn't better than the first two.
shareI like Home Alone 3 as some people, and in some ways I considered it better than the first 2. For one, I think the first two are worth seeing only during the Holiday Season as a tradition to get ready for Christmas, but are kind of annoying films with little plot. Movies that show a big family going on vacations for Christmas, and their youngest son gets left behind on both trips. A bratty kid played by Macaulay Culkin who shows his life Home Alone even scenes we hardly care about. This movie has more of a plot with burglars with great technology around a decade before the iPhone was invented, and technology that is cool years later. Also, the characters in this movie seem a little more realistic than the characters in Home Alone.
shareEbert seemed to grow really soft towards films in the later years of that show, he defended some real junk!
shareI know it is so weird that he decided to like it. But he doesn't hold a sequel against an original film, especially if it doesn't star the same people.
shareI tried to re-watch it recently maybe give it another chance but no.. what an effin stinker this film is.
shareI think the guy was slipping in his later years. Either that or he was paid handsomely to say something positive about it.
This film is not part of the "Home Alone" franchise. I don't care if they slap the name on it and call it a sequel. This bears no resemblance other than the fact that some other kid is alone at home. Same with the direct-to-video fourth and fifth installments.
Poor John Hughes. The guy was a huge part of my childhood. He must've been contractually obligated to make "Home Alone" a trilogy. I'm assuming Macaulay Culkin didn't want to appear yet again after the moronic second installment, so John had to whip something out of the blue and this is what he came up with.
Really, how many times were the parents going to forget about Kevin? "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was hardly believable. Plus, Macaulay would have been, what, 17 years old when this was released? Nah, that's really stretching it.
Utpe It's a children's action comedy. How you expect or even want to see realism out of that is beyond my understanding, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion. At the end of the day though what makes home alone 1-2 stand out is that it doesn't take it self seriously, and that the characters are all pretty memorable still to this day by many all around the World.
I saw home alone 3 once or twice and I can't tell you a thing I remember about it. However I remember the originals very well. I remember John Candy's character, the mom being a bitch, the big brother Buzz being a bully, Uncle Frank being...well Uncle Frank. The Bird lady, Kevins antics and of course Harry and Marv. Part 3 will never come close.
yes yes!! thank you for say everything i was thinking about this shit film but could not write down! there is nothing memorabl about this film!!
home alone 1 and 2 are one of best christmas film of time - goats. it is becuase they have so many great thing in them!
home alone 3 is opposite. almost no thing is memorable.