MovieChat Forums > Home Alone 3 (1997) Discussion > how does this film only get 3.7 ? I was ...

how does this film only get 3.7 ? I was shocked!


I watched this film with my brother when we were little kids(and now Im 21). This is one of the funniest films we've ever watched together. We laughed so hard. and I even watched this again. Im not gonna say this is better than the first two parts but I like part 3 the best. And Im pretty sure kids will like this film.Seriously I don't get it why people don't like it. 3.7 is like unwatchable and it's not true. :(

P/S: probably because I watched this movie first before the first two. But then I watched the original Home Alone and wasn't impressed. This explains.. maybe the first impression was the strongest.

reply

I liked this and I'm surprised by the bad rating too. And the kid was cuter than Macaulay.

----
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

reply

And the kid was cuter than Macaulay.

You cannot be serious.

_________________
Is Rusty still in the Navy?

reply

I watched this many years ago , however..i think this movie could get 5 , but when compared to previous home alone , this one is not as funny , delivers no new jokes , acting isn't as good , kid isn't as cute as previous, plus my biggest minus of this film is -it is completely unrealistic (I know all home alone are) but this one is tottaly impossible, how can kid have and be able to understand all that technology he uses in movie.

reply

[deleted]

the parrot is annoying
the ginger brother is annoying
alex is annoying
even scarlett is annoying

reply

Although it's good it is no way better than the 1st installment.

_________________
Is Rusty still in the Navy?

reply

This movie is very solid and I love it. I still rank it third behind the others, but it should be respected in my opinion.

reply

Al-tough not as bad as the 4th one, it isn't by any means a good film. The thieves are smarter yes. But that's probably the only positive thing I can say about this one.
I think it was a mistake to connect it with the other Home Alone films. It should have been a film on its own or at best a spin-off to the first two films.
This way it just felt as a cheap cash-cow to grab some extra money.
On top on that, the film itself isn't very funny. It feels very tiresome. The jokes are old, the concept has taken it's toll.
The director Raja Gosnell is probably also part of the problem. The worst choice for a film in fact. The first two films at least had some sense for tempo and editing. The third one in contrast just creates stress and tension. So rushed!
Like a TV-film who in last moment was shipped to the cinema!

reply

I think it was a mistake to connect it with the other Home Alone films


How was it connected? did they mention the events of previous films in this one?I don't remember, if they did when was it because I have always been curious if it is set in the same "universe".

reply

The obvious connection is the title: Home Alone 3. That's just a shameful way to earn some quick cash.
It also being set in Chicago and written by Hughes is also a connection. The mother is a red-head here too, if I remember correctly.
So there are some small connection here and there and it is in the same universe, so to speak. Probably some more connections that I can't remember now.

reply

It's a decent movie, my nephew loves it, he said it is his favorite because it has the best traps. I think people forget what it's like to be a kid, they don't care about acting and believability and whatever else, they just want a fun movie and this one delivers. My favorite is the first one though.

reply

It holds up well with age, as well. A lot of stuff I loved as a kid really sucks now that I'm an adult, but I still love this.

reply