Home Alone 4 is so bad, it makes Home Alone 3 look like a masterpiece. in reality, Home Alone 3 is only adequate, but the first two movies are sterling entertainment, I can promise you that. I am just wondering whether I am the only one who honestly thought Home Alone 3 would be the worst, because the characters were changed, but was proved wrong by this abomination. This movie has nothing to recommend it, not even the gadget-filled house. At least Home Alone 3 had some enjoyable scenes.
The first problem is that no one from the first two movies return, which is a really bad sign. Even the director was different, and obviously had little experience behind the camera. The plot was laughable, and don't get me started on how inconsistent it was with the first two films.
The acting was pretty terrible. Michael Wineburg could have been a great Kevin, if the script had been better. The reality, no one can top Macaulay Culkin as Kevin. Whereas Culkin was cute and self-assured, Wineburg tried to put some enthusiasm into the role, had the script allowed him to act. Instead he was the only redeeming merit, if you call it a redeeming merit, of the movie, whereas everyone else lumbered through their scenes. French Stewart also struggled with the script, and could have also have been great, had he the goofiness and charm of Daniel Stern. Really, he has the charisma of a squashed cabbage. The others were just as bad, if worse.
The script was full of tired and stale parallels of the predecessors, there was nothing else new. As a matter of fact, I don't think I laughed once when watching this movie. Not even when Marv falls off the chandelier. That raised a small curl of the mouth, but you can't help thinking you've seen it all before.
The script was absolutely repulsive, the direction was incompetent and the acting was stiff. Plus, it was perfectly obvious it was a TV movie, you could tell by the flat camera-work. Avoid! 1/10. (very seldom do I give a 1, but this abysmal film deserves lower!)Bethany Cox
The first problem is that no one from the first two movies return, which is a really bad sign. Even the director was different, and obviously had little experience behind the camera. The plot was laughable, and don't get me started on how inconsistent it was with the first two films.
The acting was pretty terrible. Michael Wineburg could have been a great Kevin, if the script had been better. The reality, no one can top Macaulay Culkin as Kevin. Whereas Culkin was cute and self-assured, Wineburg tried to put some enthusiasm into the role, had the script allowed him to act. Instead he was the only redeeming merit, if you call it a redeeming merit, of the movie, whereas everyone else lumbered through their scenes. French Stewart also struggled with the script, and could have also have been great, had he the goofiness and charm of Daniel Stern. Really, he has the charisma of a squashed cabbage. The others were just as bad, if worse.
The script was full of tired and stale parallels of the predecessors, there was nothing else new. As a matter of fact, I don't think I laughed once when watching this movie. Not even when Marv falls off the chandelier. That raised a small curl of the mouth, but you can't help thinking you've seen it all before.
The script was absolutely repulsive, the direction was incompetent and the acting was stiff. Plus, it was perfectly obvious it was a TV movie, you could tell by the flat camera-work. Avoid! 1/10. (very seldom do I give a 1, but this abysmal film deserves lower!)Bethany Cox