Echo Spot countdown boutiques-francophones Introducing Fire 7 tablet, starting at $59.99 WFM Furniture Kindle Paperwhite fd18 Tools



on December 18, 2016
I don't like that they changed the family dynamic and kept Kevin so young, but it was still a good movie to watch.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on January 21, 2018
The version I received was not our zone. A European version. So the disk is useless to me.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on April 25, 2014
Lags big time and has a plot hole big enough to drive a fleet of semi's through. Good enough for a Home Alone Collection.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on July 7, 2017
Product was suppose to work on North American DVD players. Tried to reformat and still didn't work
|0Comment|Report abuse
on August 10, 2016
ça dit bilingue et il ne l'est même pas pour vrai!!!
|0Comment|Report abuse
on February 18, 2017
Won't play on DVD player in canada
|0Comment|Report abuse
on January 18, 2017
It dosent work so bad bad review
|0Comment|Report abuse
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.
YOU DO NOT TRY AND SELL A MOVIE AS BEEING THE SAME CHARACTORS AS THE ORIGINAL, IF THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINALS, OR DONT EVEN RESEMBLE THE ORIGINAL ACTORS
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|Report 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|Report 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!!!!
WHAT!?!??!
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|Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here