countdown boutiques-francophones Learn more vpcflyout Furniture All-New Kindle Music Deals Store sports Tools

Customer Reviews

2.1 out of 5 stars
2.1 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on June 15, 2004
Oh god, how could they do this? If you havent got the original cast of a film, then dont make a seaqull using the same names!
This movie could have worked, and just been an average movie to me. But they had to use the name Makilister. The name from the original 2 movies that starred Macully Culklin. Why oh why oh why would you try to pull off a brand new set of cast as the same people that made the original box office hit's over ten years ago?
The kid in this film looks nothing like the original Kevin Micalister, who resembles Culklin in now way, not to mention he's about 3 foot shorter, 2 pounds larger, and 10 times as less intelegent. Then they tried to pull off the parent's of the first 2, which look nothing like them either, nor did French Stewart trying to be Harry, who was original Daniel Sterns charactor.... they looked nothing like the originals, they didnt act anything like the originals, and why oh why would they even try to use the same name's of the charactors?
If they had have given them new names, and try'd to pull this off as beeing a completly different fammily then the Macalisters, then it could have been an OK, 2 or 3 star movie. But when your sickend by whoever's idea it was to use the same name, and expect the audience to be dumb enough to go with it, then it get's 0 star's.
If they beleive they have made a good movie here by using the original name's, then they might as well make a 5th seaqull to bury the franchise, and get a fully grown Chris Rock to play Kevin Macilster and Leslie Neilson to play the mother, Rosie O'Donnel can be the father, the brother can be played by the rapping granny from The Wedding Singer, and we can get a new guy to play the old man from part 1? hmmm.. maybe Jim Carey? they can expect the audience not to notice the diffrence in age appearence and persinalty to take your mind away from the bad casting arrangment's.
the movie could have worked if it was maybe a different fammily name, and not supposed to be the same fammily as 1 and 2's..or maybe even if they made it a cartoon? But dont mess with classic, reciginised names and charactors and expect people to buy into it? Whoever had that idea made a very big mistake.... ignore the fact that there supposed to be the same fammily, and that the kid is supposed to be Maculy Culklin, and you still will see it's not a great movie anyway. But it was a horrible idea to use the same name's, at least part 3 had a chance, because it wasnt meant to be the same kid!
On a final note: Just look at the rip-off and ridicules price they want for this film?! Then look at how many + how much, used copys are going for!?!?!?! The movie isnt even worth watching for free~!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 2, 2004
I would just love to launch into an abusive diatribe over this film, but I'll make the effort to restrain myself. Personally, I thought it was pathetic. This was not so much the lack of Macaulay Culkin in the role of Kevin. I thought the new kid did an okay job. At least he could act.
However, what completely and utterly ruined this for me was the use of French Stewart as Marv. Now, I'm sorry, but no one will ever equal Daniel Stern's performance as Harry's dopey sidekick. The facial expressions were hysterical, where French Stewart is a one-expression actor: squinty.
That is all he seems to know how to do - squint. Perhaps it's a throwback to his days on 3rd Rock, but if they just had to try to cash in on the Home Alone franchise one more time, why, oh why did they have to choose Stewart as the bad guy?
I'm sorry, I'm starting to rant.
Moving on:
The acting from the rest of cast is actually quite decent, and some of the stunts are funny enough to get some good laughs.
The movie follows the typical Home Alone plot. Child is left alone, for whatever reason. Child uncovers dastardly plot. Child foils dastardly plot, employing various lethal techniques. Child makes friends with social outcast. Child reunites otherwise dysfunctional family in time for end of movie.
Admittedly, they have attempted to provide H.A.4 with a twist or two, particularly involving the bad guy/s. But the decision to have Mother & Father McAllister separated, and Father A. shacked up with a rich girlfriend...? The only plus out of that was the 'automatic house' which Kevin so abely worked to his advantage.
Disasters are aplenty in this movie, the same as with its three predecessors, but unless you're a devoted French Stewart fan, I'd recommend renting this one only. Because the guy is just so damn wooden in his performance, it's painful to watch. (His one-dimensional acting spoiled a potentially good film in Inspector Gadget 2, as well)
Rent if you will, but otherwise don't waste your money.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 25, 2004
By now, most people agree that "Home Alone 1" was/is a classic holiday comedy. I mean, come on, who can ever forget Macaulay Culkin's "AAGGHHH!" face after putting on the after shave? "Home Alone 2" was great, as well. It introduced America to the Talkboy voice recording unit. But instead of going out on a good note, they had to keep pushing their luck. And "Home Alone 3" was just... ugghhh. No Macaulay, no Joe Pesci, no Daniel Stern, no McAllisters. Just another little snotty kid (who went on to have no movie career... at least Macaulay did a couple of other movies after HA 1&2) and some other stupid would-be robbers (one of which looking like David Schwimmer). And now this... I can't even find the words. Now they have some OTHER little punk kid trying to be Macaulay!!!!
That's like someone other than Dan Castellaneta doing the voice of Homer Simpson!! (Well, perhaps not that drastic, but you get the idea.) I wouldn't care about this movie (or at least not enough so to write a review), but it has the "Home Alone" title attached. WITHOUT MACAULAY CULKIN, JOE PESCI, AND DANIEL STERN, IT IS NOT - I REPEAT, NOT - HOME ALONE. Seriously, no more! Let the series die peacefully. Now, while it still might have a shred of dignity left. Anyway, avoid like the Noid. He ruins pizzas. HAH!!!
Seriously, do not view or buy this. Stick with 1 & 2 instead.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 18, 2004
This so called 'fourth' installment in the "Home Alone" movie series is the biggest joke in a movie series since "Batman and Robin" from six years before then. This movie is a disgrace to the 1990 original and the 1992 sequel and even to 1997's "Home Alone 3".
Everything that came together on the first two in the series completely is rearranged and the timeline is altered but the result is totally disastrous on every level. Not even having one's brain turned off for a while is enough to make one enjoy this weak fourth edition.
The acting is increidbly weak by everyone involved. Not to mention how they completely remade the McCallister family. The large extended family of Kevin was a riot to watch and although a bit obnoxious at times, it was funny watching Buzz get ticked off when he saw a bill for 986 dollars at the ending of the "Lost In New York" movie from 1992. "Home Alone 4" robs the family of all of it's charm by making them into just a nuclear family.
Even the plot is utterly pointless with Kevin's parents spitting up and his father living with a new girlfriend at a rich mansion and Kevin stayign with him for Christmas but the mansion is robbed by would-be thieves but the slapstick jokes don't work on this movie. One scene is totally unrealistic where a faucet is left on to stop the thieves and the kitchen almost looks like an aquarium and is totally flooded. Hello! In real life, the water would just seep through cracks on the floors and walls and cause water damage to much of the structure. Plus it's impossible to turn a house into a human aquarium because the overflowing water would simply flood the room, and then the adjacent room and flow outside. You're house is far more likely to become totally filled with water if a flash flood occured (I.E. Hurricane or a large dam failed).
The villain thieves are just incredibly devoid of any character and come off as being obnoxious, crass, petty and awfully stupid. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern were perfect for playing Kevin's adversaries in the first two movies but whoever these clowns here who play them, their acting is weak and it sure looked like they were ready to leave the set.
So this movie was a low-budget flick but even then, all of that money allotted into making this movie is utterly wasted in it's making. Whoever thought up of this should've looked at James Cameron's 1984 classic "The Termintor" to see how a low budget movie is made right!
This movie is completely unworthy of one's time. Even the awkward "Home Alone 3" was miles above this rubbish!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 12, 2003
It's no secret that many despise Home Alone 3. At least it had some kind of technical proffesionalism behind it. The first 2 (and a bit of the 3rd) movies also benefited from a very strong musical score that elevated them far beyond a typical family comedy. Home Alone 4 however has an extremely cheap score and feels rushed and empty.
The very lean running time means there is no house full of traps, not a lot of plot to be wrapped up and no emotional pay-off. Plus, if I am correct in assuming Kevin's age in this film, this happens the same Xmas he was Lost in New York. So what's it to be? Dad's girlfriend's house or New York? Plus Marv is played by French Stewart (who didn't even bother to grow a beard for the part) and the rest of the cast is a bunch of unknowns. And it's obvious this was not filmed anywhere near winter, the lack of snow robs the film further of any Xmas-y feel it might have had. And what's with the constant, terrible ADR? It's very distracting.
There were some funny parts to this film and the new kid playing Kevin did it well. But the hand-held camera thingy, the bare sets and lack of anything to do with Xmas make this film look like a poverty-stricken TV movie.
The DVD is in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen and has a mediocre Dolby 5.1 track.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 2, 2004
I loved the first two because they were classics (well, Home Alone was a classic, Home Alone 2 was very good though). Home Alone 3, I thought, sucked. It was unnecassary. Two movies was enough for the Home Alone franchise. As painfully bad as Home Alone 3 was, this is, in fact, almost FUNNY because it is so bad! I mean, who could replace Culkin as Kevin and Daniel Stern as Marv and so on. NO ONE! But I guess I was wrong. When will Fox stop making this series suffer?! I mean, it's like beating a dead horse. Sorry, Home Alone 1 & 2 fans, with all due respect, please stay away from this. Especially if you expierenced the demise of the series (Home Alone 3)
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 1, 2003
Home Alone was funny.
Home Alone 2 was hilarious.
Home Alone 3.... forget it.
Home Alone 4 is.....what?
Someone else plays Kevin. It looks funny. But you can see this new guy, is not a lookalike. Though the line "Kevin!" is still flowing. So, here is my adivce to you: if you liked Mackuly Culkin playing Kevin, I don't know if you'd be particuarly amuzed with this guy. But for sure, I know that Steve Martin and French Stuart and Queen Lafetah are in this film. They are filling in for the old guys.
Sean Pollock, (I can't promise you anything about this movie).
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 8, 2003
When your a good uncle like me, you have to sit through painfully bad movies with your 5 year old nephew sometimes. I don't get how something like this could or would happen. A forth Home Alone film!! O.k. the first film is a holiday classic, the second was quite funny as well. The third Home Alone film was a Hollywood sin, and an unforgivable one. Now lets end this.. this direct to DVD film is not going to appeal to both adults and children, as the first two films did. It's very much on the same level as the third one. Kids may enjoy it, adults might want to read a book.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 14, 2004
From start to finish, this movie was a huge let down!!!!! It acted as if there was no change in the characters or situation and it REALLY took away from the movie. It was a dissapointment and is nothing like home alnoe 1, 2 or 3. A great example of how you cant take a good thing and keep reproducing it. There is hardly any pranks or anything and it is a very slow moving flick. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a negative 5. My advice: dont waste your time on Home Alone 4, just stick to 1,2, and 3.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 18, 2003
This movie was not as good as the first 2 with Machauly Culkin in it I didn't really like the 3rd movie with Alex D. Linz in it this was disapointed some of it was funny and some of it was stupid I don't know why they planned to make a 4th movie but they are really wrong to do this if they make a Home Alone 5 there in trouble cause all be angry with them. but all and all this was funny but I still say the first 2 were way better.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse