MovieChat Forums > Home Alone 3 (1997) Discussion > One word: Horrible.

One word: Horrible.

posted 20 years ago by mattderojas
4 replies | jump to latest

I liked the first Home Alone movie, and probably everything about it. Macaulay, Joe, and Daniel were all good and funny, like the movie itself.

But as the series progressed the films started getting worse. Home Alone 2 was good, but it wasn't as good as the first. (The Plaza hotel did seem nice though and Kevin did convince the staff well enough to use his dad's Visa...)

This one (Home Alone 3) was, in one word, Horrible. It doesn't even seem like a Home Alone movie because 1) it's not Christmas, and 2) the antagonists' plot further distorts the image of the whole film! What's the idea of a 4th one anyway if we saw absolutely no advertising for it and it's just a film for TV?! I believe all films in this series should have advertising AND be made for the cinema.

In summary, I liked the first one better. No other film in the series can compare to it.

[–] Perfect-Dark 20 years ago

I do agree that some parts were horrible, but not the entire movie it's self. I enjoyed watching it and thought that it was funny. The only promblem is that the many obstacles the thieves faced were one: very unlikely to be thought of and created in the time limit shown and two: that it would be very unlikely for a person in those situations to "survive". For example: when the weight falls on the two thieves. At the angle we see it hit them(it looks at though it's going for there heads)and the amount of weight thats on the weight we could clearly see that you could be knocked out, go into a concusion, or most likely be killed on the impact of it hitting your head, so this situation is very unlikely. alot of sences like this go on through out the movie. The thieves were also slightly unrealistic for my taste they didn't seem as smart, out-witting, and cunning as they were cut out to be and this was funny but also dissapointing, but since it is an older movie and since movies have gotten alot better (lord of rings! Awsome movies, great visual effects/actting) , plus it was a "made for kids" movie, so we can't give it too much credit, but i thought it was good even with all it's falts (hard to believe after i said all that huh?)

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

[–] mattderojas 20 years ago

Yes, not the whole movie was a flop. I agree kids would probably like it better. It was a bit funny, really. But of course it's not as good as its predecessors!

[–] pale_was_green 19 years ago

Home Alone and Home Alone 2 were great, three and four are essentially grabs at money and aren't considered real follow-ups to the first two films

in his interviews in support of the film "Saved", Macaulay Culkin mentioned that he had recently been contacted about doing the third official film, this was in 2004, *after* film 3 and 4 were already made, which leads me to believe the major studios which created the first two, don't even cosider these films as existing.

Macaulay turned the film down but Catherine O'Hara and Kieran Culkin both have said they'd gladly take part in a real third film, original cast in tact, theater release in tow.

[–] v-ballchika12 19 years ago

I absolutely loved 3. Alex is an extremely good actor for how old he was at the time of this movie. definitely the best.