Home Alone 3 (1997) User Reviews

Adequate!

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 5 May 2009]

I don't think the film is as bad as the rating suggests, but it does pale in comparison to the first two films, which are holiday classics to me! There were some bits I liked, but some bits where improvements would have been appreciated.

The positives are that Alex D Linz makes a cute and charming lead, though Macaulay Culkin is definitely better. The film does look lovely, and there is evidence of some detailed direction. And the parrot was awesome. Believe me, this film is much better than the vomitous Home Alone 4.

The negatives are that some of the violence, that was classic in the first two films, seemed to have been reduced to cartoon slapstick. Another problem was that I didn't recognise any of the characters, and the uneven script didn't allow them to develop properly. Also, I do miss the antics of the Wet Bandits, the new villains weren't as effective.

All in all, a perfectly adequate, but uneven film, that is much better than its abysmal follow up. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Home Alone 3

[Toronto85 · 6/10 · 17 December 2012]

Home Alone 3 tells a whole different story then the original two. Instead of the McCallisters, we meet the Pruitt family and in particular the main character Alex. A computer chip worth ten million dollars is placed into a toy car by our four villains in an attempt to get through airport security. There is a mix up at the airport, and the toy car ends up in the possession of an older woman who gives it to little Alex as a gift. The four bad guys track the car to a neighbourhood in Chicago and break into a series of houses looking for the chip. Alex (who is HOME ALONE with chicken pox) see's the crooks breaking into the houses an calls the cops, only to look like a prank caller each time. The villains looking for the chip eventually realize that little Alex has it and that's when the fun begins - Home Alone style.

I actually enjoyed Home Alone 3 as a kid and as an adult now. No, it isn't as good as the original films and no Alex Linz is not Macaulay Culkin. But this movie gets points for breaking off from the McCallister storyline. I mean how many times can that family forget the same kid? Young actor Alex Linz who plays Alex in Home Alone 3 does a great job taking on this big role, he manages to not put in an annoying performance like so many child actors can be do these kind of movies. The crooks include three men and one female, and I like that they added a woman into that villain role. They all are good actors and add plenty to this movie.

The best comedic moments come from the crooks, especially David Thornton as 'Unger'. There are some ho-hum funny moments which fall flat such as the talking parrot and a few scenes with Alex's older brother and sister who "torment" him. Another flaw was the actual "home alone" bit, and the fact that Alex isn't really home alone as we've seen in the first two films. His mother leaves him for a couple of hours as he recuperates from Chicken Pox, hardly the same as Kevin McCallister went through. And I don't like that it doesn't take place ON Christmas. But those drawbacks don't take away from the whole movie at all.

Home Alone 3 isn't great, but it takes some risks by moving from the original plot and adds some smarts it with the computer chip story. These aren't your simple criminals like the wet bandits were, they are after far more than some jewellery and expensive silverware. I recommend Home Alone 3 for sure!

6/10

New kid, same fun

[studioAT · 6/10 · 15 December 2019]

I think this film was always on a hiding to nothing, as the public were never going to accept a 'Kevin clone', so beloved/associated was Macaulay Culkin with this franchise.

But, having said that, 'Home Alone 3' is great fun, and well deserving of a watch with an open mind.

It's got a great script from John Hughes, that actually ups the ante on the scrapes that Kevin got into, and the slapstick is on a par, if not better than what's gone before.

I enjoyed this film, I hope if you give it a chance you will too.

This movie is not so bad

[[e-mail] · 5 November 2002]

Everybody says this movie sucks...i don't think that at all. We can't have kevin forever...he's gotta grow up at some point. That's why it was good to go with a new family that would keep the spirit of home alone alive...remember it's for the kids. plus the bad guys were more advanced then marv & harry (not saying that i didn't like marv & harry) but these guys had high-tec equitment that was pretty cool. This movie was new,fresh,well acted & had good direction. (RAJA GOSNEL)

WAY-TO-GO JOHN HUGHES!!!!

Not terrible, but Macaulay is gone

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 10 December 2013]

Four high-tech industrial spies are trying to smuggle out a top secret military microchip to North Korea. A mixup at airport security leaves Mrs. Hess with the microchip hidden in a remote control car. After Alex shovels Mrs. Hesses' driveway, she gives him the car as payment. The spies have tracked the chip to Alex's neighborhood, and faces off against Alex who is home sick with the chicken pox.

I like the cat and mouse game, but the premise is way too serious. It's not so kid friendly to start. But this is not a horrible sequel. The fact is the kid isn't Macaulay. And the movie doesn't have as much whimsy as the previous two. The bad guys are real bad guys, not the silly Wet Bandits.

For those of us who want to see Scarlett Johansson, she has a minor role as the sister. It's nothing special to write home about. She does have a few scenes.

O Kevin, Where Art Thou?

[patrick_dunne · 5/10 · 22 December 2005]

Home Alone 3 is an OK movie, but not as good as the original.

The humor isn't as funny, the plot is the same as before, and worst of all... they replaced the main character of the originals: Kevin! Sadly, his substitute is pretty odd, and WAY too smart for his age. Kevin was one of the things that made the original so fun. But, some of the stunts are clever, (like the one with the gun) just not clever enough.

Skip this unnecessary installment.

Do yourself a favor and watch the originals, which are much better than this movie.

5/10

Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.

It's not the same.

[emasterslake · 4/10 · 19 April 2006]

Has the same title only this ain't the Home Alone you'd all be familiar with.

No one from the original is in it. And the plot to it isn't as amusing as the first 2 were.

This one has to do with some secret group of agents accidentally misplaced there product at the airport which has some important chip in it that's top secret. They track down where the product is which is in Chicago, and located in somewhere in a neighborhood. 4 agents now have to check every house and find that chip.

A kid who's supposed to be the new version of Kevin has the chip only he doesn't know it yet.

He likes to watch neighbors with his telescope and goof around. When he notices the agents breaking into the neighbor's homes, he calls the police. When they get there they didn't find any of the intruders in the neighbor's home. When the agents plan on breaking into our main hero's home, he has to prepare himself to set up traps and give them hell.

This movie was good at first but it's not the same. Those who like the first 2 Home Alone movies, you might not like this one. Rent it first, and see for yourself.

A Lesser Copy of The First Film

[MikeMvrd · 3/10 · 27 November 2020]

As the title states we once again see the same type of character with the same type of bad guys in the same type of environment.

The story gives almost nothing new to the sequels. Kid gets left home alone by accident, some Burglars/Crooks/Spies seek to a point go after the kid.

It feels like they really didn't try to make this more exciting or different in any way. It's just a lesser version copy of Home Alone that copied the same antics we saw in the first two films. The overall acting reaches Disney standards but nothing really comical.

It should be a hard pass watching this sequel.

Rubbish

[dragandpg · 2/10 · 30 November 2019]

This film has nothing with the original Home Alone 1 and 2. This is some kind of family funny film that didn't achieve much success in its attempt. Bland, empty, boringly dragged to the very end and at the end you have to ask yourself - what I have watched for 1 hour and 43 minutes? My frankly answer to this kind of question is - absolutely nothing!

Severely under-rated sequel.

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 1 January 2007]

Home Alone 3 has a lot of unfair criticism. I mean, how many of you would really have wanted a 16-year-old Mac Culkin doing the same-old same-old to Harry and Marv. Of course it was a better idea to do in a different direction and with John Hughes still producing and writing you know there's going to be a good amount of imagination and creativity.

This time around we have 8-year-old Alex Pruitt defend his house against international criminals. Stuck at home with Chicken Pox with both his parents tied-up in work matters, Alex suspects foul play on his snowy street when he witnesses strangers poking around in his neighbor's house. Of course, no one believes an imaginative 8-year-old so he has to deal with them himself.

It turns out that a toy car Alex got from the old-lady across the street is actually a Trojan horse to smuggle a priceless defence microchip to the North Korean mob. They really ought to hire better criminals as they fall for every one of Alex's sadistic booby-traps.

Yes, that is basically the whole plot but it gets enough mileage out of it and it's still very funny. Set in January, it lacks the Xmas feel of the first two, but I guess that would have just been a distraction. John Williams' theme only gets a brief recital at the start, but from then on it's an adequate (if not exceptional) score from Hans Zimmer pal Nick Glennie-Smith. Despite these key differences of characters and theme, it still feels like it has enough continuity with the others.

It's a totally worthwhile and enjoyable sequel that has a bad rep for no reason. Home Alone 4 on the other hand...now THAT is BAD!

One of the worst movies ever made! A total cash grab!

[benaboo · 1/10 · 4 April 2020]

Ladies and gentlemen this is the sequel that made me like the original a little less. Yes this movie is in the words of Muffy Crosswire from Arthur "Vomitrocious!" It's a cash grab in every meaning of the word. I would have been okay with another Home Alone movie if Macauley Culkin came back but he refused so the studio got desperate and green lit a piece of crap second sequel that takes away the charm, humor, spirit, and heart of the two classics that came before it. It also takes away the star studded cast. Just scroll through the cast list and see if you recognize any names. The only well known people in the cast are Scarlett Johansson and Neil Flynn and this was before either one of them were a big deal. What made the director cast a bunch of no names!? Raja Gosnell is notorious for making generic movies but I think Beverly Hills Chihuahua and The Smurfs are masterpieces compared to this crap. Skip it altogether I say. If there was a Heaven and hell for movies this one would definitely go to hell.

Unpopular Opinion: THIS MOVIE IS GOOD!

[usedforpayments · 9/10 · 9 November 2018]

Hi,

Home Alone 3 would be a really great film if they ( the writer/director/producer) didn't name it "Home Alone 3". I saw the 4.4 rating and immediately understood why. Home 1 & 2 were classic Christmas films. Why wait 5 years to complete the potential trilogy? I understand that this film is nothing like the original and that's what people are expecting. If this was a stand alone film, it probably would've been better received. Either way, I think its a great film. The plot, the actors, the acting, the comedy, the scenes, all were good.

(P.S. Home Alone 4 was trash and they were asking for trouble!)

Somewhat original, fair music... but that's about it

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 3/10 · 17 December 2005]

The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10

Tricks & boobie traps more advanced/high tech than 1+2!

[mdm-11 · 8 October 2004]

This is NOT part 3 of "Kevin's Adventures", but rather a brand new "home Alone" situation. The setting is still suburban Chicago during the Christmas season, the family is still "upper middle class", and even the theme music is very similar to the predecessors. This time, however, the "kid" is NOT abandoned by his entire family who took off for their Christmas Vacation. This time our pint sized hero is left unattended only for hours at a time, while he is at home and sick with the measles. A gang of foreign spys is after a top secret multi-million dollar computer chip stolen from the US Air Force. Of course, they hide it in a battery-operated toy that ends up with "the kid".

Although the "boobie trap" routine could be viewed as just another rip-off from the first two films, the "gags" seem a bit more sophisticated and less forced in "3". The mere fact that our hero is not dealing with "wet bandit idiots" this time around makes the whole show less of a "kiddie circus". The third running is also leaving out the mushy side plots which would've gotten tiresome by now. All in all this is a fun show for the whole family. I showed this film to my 4th grade class and they gave it 20 thumbs up. Not for the "grown-up" comedy critic, but definitely a winner with kids.

Is this Home Alone? They ruined the name of this movie!

[Pierre-Andre-17 · 3/10 · 25 May 2020]

I was so disappointed that I found the movie was not performed by one of my favorite kid actors. The plot is quite cliched and is lack of excitement.

Recycled plot, uninteresting characters

[rebeljenn · 1/10 · 30 December 2005]

'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.

Please! Make them stop!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 1/10 · 1 May 2004]

The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!

1/10

Ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag

[ultiren · 1/10 · 15 November 1999]

I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.

The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.

But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?

If anyone thought Home Alone 2 was a bad sequel, this was a huge step down from that.

[kevin_robbins · 3/10 · 16 February 2022]

Home Alone 3 (1997) is a movie my daughter and I recently watched together on Disney+. The storyline follows a stolen top secret microchip that is accidentally lost at an airport and brought to a Chicago home by an unsuspecting carrier. The carrier gifts the chip to a child thinking it is a remote control car. The people who stole the microchip track it to the Chicago neighborhood and find the kid more challenging than expected in their attempts to steal the microchip back.

This movie is directed by Raja Gosnell (Never Been Kissed) and stars Alex D. Linz (red Dragon), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Marian Seldes (The Haunting), Richard Hamilton (Pale Rider), Kevin Kilner (Raising Helen) and Olek Krupa (Hidden Figures).

The storyline for this was kind of blah and not that great. The characters are okay but not as good as the previous two films. It was fun seeing a young Scarlett Johansson in this, but overall the cast isn't memorable.

The parrot wasn't as funny as they hoped but the butt inspection gloves reference and the boobytraps and hijinks at the end were fun, though a bit too over the top. If anyone thought Home Alone 2 was a bad sequel, this was a huge step down from that.

Overall this was a movie made to capitalize off the greatness of the first film. There's nothing memorable or worth seeing here. I would score this a 2.5/10 and recommend skipping it.

Cute, cute, really cute but goes a bit overboard with the booby traps

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 25 October 2019]

At the airport in Chicago, four international thieves lose an important package and make plans to search a neighborhood where they believe it was delivered. Meanwhile, Alex (Alex D. Linz) is a darling youngest child who, after working for an older neighbor lady, doesn't get paid in money. Instead, she got a remote controlled car delivered to her by mistake and she gives this as payment. Bummer. At home, Alex feels itchy and goes to the bathroom, where, after seeing his reflection, starts screaming. His older brother and sister (Scarlett Johanssen) immediately begin razzing him for what they believe he is screaming about. But, no, its chicken pox. Since mother and father work, Alex will be alone at times, with the neighbor lady keeping an eye on him. This is just the moment the four thieves come into the area, pretending to dogwalk and jog in order to find the package. Inside, you see, is a valuable microchip they could sell for mucho bucks. All too soon, when Alex starts playing with the car, they know what house they want. Will Alex be able to do what Kevin McAlister did and foil the evil adult criminals? This cute third installment of the Home Alone movies has a darling child in Linz and some funny thieves. Watch out for Johanssen, future superstar, as a teen actress. The sets and costumes are great, too. The script, which is indeed from John Hughes, has some funny lines and ideas. But, in truth, how many times can we see the bumbling adults fall into a child's booby traps? Imaginative are the ideas, yes, but they go on and on to almost excess. Nevertheless, for a film with few known actors, this film is a good time for families who want an entertaining choice on movie night.

Moderate sequel

[mikavir · 5/10 · 21 December 2020]

Home Alone 3 is a sequel to Home Alone (1990) and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992). Macaulay Culkin who was an original main actor had stopped acting before making this sequel. The movie should have made outside the Home Alone series because original actors were so memorable. This sequel is just some kind of worse copy of its predecessors. Actors and plot of this movie aren't bad but the atmosphere isn't same. The emotional side remains weaker than in the original Home Alone movies. Still you can watch Home Alone 3 once because it's moderate. However part 1 and 2 are christmas classics. After part 3 this movie series should have stopped.

better than expected

[Special-K88 · 18 March 2002]

Precocious youngster Linz—a target of torment for his older siblings and uptight next door neighbor—is stuck at home with the dreaded chicken pox. He stumbles upon a top secret computer chip that makes him the target of four, high-precision international spies determined to re-obtain it, but the feisty youngster is determined to defend his home at all costs. The whole thing is pretty formulaic, but smarter crooks, an appealing cast, and a surprising amount of unexpected laughs help overcome the script's familiarity and wild leaps of logic. Not very original, but there are more than enough good gags and amusing situations to make it worth a look. **½

A stain upon the Hone Alone franchise

[fischer_patrick · 1/10 · 30 January 2022]

The movie only works if you are four years old. Doesn't feel like a Christmas Movie at all. The gags are forced, the humor doesn't land. Nothing like Home Alone 1 and 2.

The boringest Home Alone ever!!!

[wrestling_fan_20032 · 1/10 · 4 January 2004]

Home Alone 3 was like the stupidest movie I've ever seen. I actually expected it to be like Home Alone 1 & 2, but with a different character in it, but guess what, it was nothing that I expected it to be, it was BORING!! I don't know how they made it so stupid.

One of my least favourite movies...I cringed in pain while watching it

[DaRick89 · 1/10 · 15 January 2006]

Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.

First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.

The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.

The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.

I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this!

So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.

0/5 stars