|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Apr 21, 2017 8:28:44 GMT
OK, so I posted two threads in one day, but I am really curious to see the reactions to this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Apr 21, 2017 10:55:30 GMT
4/10
|
|
shawshanked
Sophomore
@shawshanked
Posts: 246
Likes: 66
 
|
Post by shawshanked on Apr 21, 2017 16:26:00 GMT
5/10 and I'm probably being a little generous just because I enjoyed it as a kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by chalk2 on Apr 21, 2017 19:38:37 GMT
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Utpe on Apr 21, 2017 20:43:12 GMT
1/10. No Macaulay Culkin = No Home Alone.
I still wonder to this day what in the world John Hughes was thinking by producing this monstrosity. This isn't even canon with the first two films. Heck, the characters/actors are completely different! I know they tried to dupe people by hiring an actress that bared a striking resemblance to Catherine O'Hara, but thank goodness I didn't fall for it.
I can't really critique a movie I've only seen once in 1998 on VHS. All I know is that I'm glad I didn't bother viewing it in theaters. I was sorely disappointed.
This is simply Home Alone in name only. I guess the studio (Twentieth Century-Fox) thought people were idiots and would believe it if they simply slapped the franchise logo onto it. Well, it didn't work. It still bombed domestically.
I suppose this is why Home Alone 4 (2002) and Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012) were direct-to-video.
What a shame. They pretty much beat this franchise into the ground. When Hughes sold the rights, they kept pumping out more unnecessary sequels. The fourth and fifth installments have different actors again. Some say the fifth was actually pretty good, but I have no desire to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 22, 2017 15:23:49 GMT
1/10. No Macaulay Culkin = No Home Alone. I still wonder to this day what in the world John Hughes was thinking by producing this monstrosity. This isn't even canon with the first two films. Heck, the characters/actors are completely different! I know they tried to dupe people by hiring an actress that bared a striking resemblance to Catherine O'Hara, but thank goodness I didn't fall for it. I can't really critique a movie I've only seen once in 1998 on VHS. All I know is that I'm glad I didn't bother viewing it in theaters. I was sorely disappointed. This is simply Home Alone in name only. I guess the studio (Twentieth Century-Fox) thought people were idiots and would believe it if they simply slapped the franchise logo onto it. Well, it didn't work. It still bombed domestically. I suppose this is why Home Alone 4 (2002) and Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012) were direct-to-video. What a shame. They pretty much beat this franchise into the ground. When Hughes sold the rights, they kept pumping out more unnecessary sequels. The fourth and fifth installments have different actors again. Some say the fifth was actually pretty good, but I have no desire to see it. All of this. 1/10. |
|
prolelol
Sophomore
I love movies, especially drama and horror movies! And also, I'm a big fan of TV shows.
@prolelol
Posts: 377
Likes: 101
|
Post by prolelol on Apr 23, 2017 9:30:57 GMT
Just because Kevin isn't in it doesn't mean it's a bad movie. I liked it a lot! really fun and underrated movie, 9/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 23, 2017 9:40:29 GMT
6/10. It was not comparable to the iconic first ones, but I thought it was quite funny and had its own tone and feel to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 0:40:03 GMT
1/10
|
|
kaasa
Sophomore
@kaasa
Posts: 283
Likes: 72
|
Post by kaasa on May 26, 2017 11:09:37 GMT
Almost as good as the first one. And the casting director needs to be given brownie points for how many gorgeous Women we got in this film. The European villain, the Mother and ScarJo were all 10's in this movie.
Also, screw the McAllister's. We saw enough of them. Home Alone 3 is better than part 2 and it's probably one of Hughes' best movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on May 26, 2017 17:42:30 GMT
4/10
Far away of competing for the title of the worst sequel made after the second one, and it does come with some kind of a "charm", that I guess makes it work better than it should. Also the kid taking over the main role as the unlikely hero, is not all that horrible.
|
|
kaasa
Sophomore
@kaasa
Posts: 283
Likes: 72
|
Post by kaasa on May 27, 2017 0:45:31 GMT
4/10Far away of competing for the title of the worst sequel made after the second one, and it does come with some kind of a "charm", that I guess makes it work better than it should. Also the kid taking over the main role as the unlikely hero, is not all that horrible. So what didn't you like about it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 8:14:47 GMT
3/10. Unnecessary sequel. Home Alone and Home Alone 2 were classics and they should have stopped there. In fact I haven't really watched this one a lot, and yet I watched 1 and 2 a lot because they are classics.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Jun 23, 2018 10:47:39 GMT
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 23, 2018 12:22:04 GMT
5.5/10 (voted 6)
Not terrible, but forgettable.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 23, 2018 12:33:31 GMT
4/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 24, 2018 23:19:44 GMT
1/10. No Macaulay Culkin = No Home Alone. I still wonder to this day what in the world John Hughes was thinking by producing this monstrosity. This isn't even canon with the first two films. Heck, the characters/actors are completely different! I know they tried to dupe people by hiring an actress that bared a striking resemblance to Catherine O'Hara, but thank goodness I didn't fall for it. I can't really critique a movie I've only seen once in 1998 on VHS. All I know is that I'm glad I didn't bother viewing it in theaters. I was sorely disappointed. This is simply Home Alone in name only. I guess the studio (Twentieth Century-Fox) thought people were idiots and would believe it if they simply slapped the franchise logo onto it. Well, it didn't work. It still bombed domestically. I suppose this is why Home Alone 4 (2002) and Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012) were direct-to-video. What a shame. They pretty much beat this franchise into the ground. When Hughes sold the rights, they kept pumping out more unnecessary sequels. The fourth and fifth installments have different actors again. Some say the fifth was actually pretty good, but I have no desire to see it. 5th actually was pretty good,but then again I thought 4 was pretty good. I liked all the home alone movies except for 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 1, 2021 12:10:14 GMT
HOME ALONE 7/10 HOME ALONE PART 2: LOST IN NEW YORK 4/10 HOME ALONE PART 3 1/10 HOME ALONE PART 4: TAKING BACK THE HOUSE 3/10 HOME ALONE PART 5: THE HOLIDAY HEIST 3/10 Ever since HOME ALONE was released, people have made jokes about how the traps set up by Kevin McCallister made him look like a sadist. That's why HOME SWEET HOME ALONE had a lot of potential: The characters who break and enter the house aren't 2 greedy bandits; they're 2 in debt parents (Pam & Jeff McKenzie). And the little boy (Max Mercer) comes off as a little shit from the beginning. What a great idea! I mean, how often do we see a remake that makes the protagonist the antagonist and vice-versa (at least in a way that makes sense)? Unfortunately, the movie doesn't commit to the idea. You see, even though this is revealed to be a sequel (the events from the first 2 installment are acknowledged), it follows a lot of the same story beats like it was a remake (the late John Hughes even gets a "story by" credit, because so much of his script is used here). It gets to the point where Jeff behaves like an idiot during the climax (in order to emulate Marv Murchins), even though his personality was quite different in previous scenes. After he gets knocked out, Max puts V.R. headsets on him. When he wakes up, Jeff thinks that what he's seeing is real. I'm sure the image quality is very realistic, but how can't he feel that device on his head? Now, are there any changes? Actually, there are plenty... but none of them are improvements. A couple of them actually make everything worse. The McKenzies think that Max stole a valuable heirloom from them, so they're trying to get it back in order to sell it, but Max thinks that they want to kidnap him. Also, Max is a mischievous yet likable pre-teen (at least that's how the audience is supposed to see him). That's right: These 3 characters maintain the same roles as their 1990 counterparts, but the situation is a misunderstanding, so there's no villain. Are you kidding me?! The slapstick in the original made us laugh because we were seeing evil people get their comeuppance! Even though HOME ALONE PARTS 2-5 had a lot of problems, at least their makers understood this principle. It's not fun to watch the McKenzies suffer, because they don't deserve it. 1/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
