How do you feel about the non-Culkin sequels?
They don't even come close to the original Home Alone. I don't know why they didn't just use unique names for these films. Oh wait, I do know why...
share3 was enjoyable. Not the other ones.
share
MovieChat Forums > Home Alone (1990) Discussion > How do you feel about the non-Culkin seq...
Home Alone 3: Bad but was entertaining enough to watch one afternoon when I had nothing better to do
Home Alone 4: Complete garbage, turned it off half way through and I never finished it
Home Alone 5: Never even saw
"Home Alone 4: Complete garbage, turned it off half way through and I never finished it"
I watched the whole thing and believe me... You miss nothing lol.
I made it up to the "Jingle Bells" montage and that was about all I could take.
shareOh man, you watched the "best" part of the movie. Believe me you don't need the garbage especially the end. I would gladly make a list of things that don't work but I think it's worth my time lol.
shareYeah the smart house remote controls were a big WTF moment for me ("Alarm Off", LOL) but the Jingle Bell Montage was when I finally had enough and couldn't take it anymore. And what exactly happened to Linny and Jeff? Where was it ever established that Peter and Kate were having marital problems? How did Marv escape from prison?
share"And what exactly happened to Linny and Jeff?"
They probably didn't have enough budget to hire other actors. Probably even the producers knew they were making a total piece of shit, that's why it went straight to DVD. So they well like "well why bother? Let's just erase these characters, no one will give a shit anyways."
"Where was it ever established that Peter and Kate were having marital problems?"
Give them a chance, this was probably the strongest plot element.
"How did Marv escape from prison?"
Probably using a Smart Remote. They definitely don't explain it in the movie. I guess even the script writer wouldn't have an answer seeing how good he seems to be when it comes to character development.
Ha, I guess they assumed the audience were a couple of idiots who didn't see the first two movies.
I feel like if they were going to go the route that Peter and Kate were divorced it should have been established in the first two movies that they were having issues. I mean in Home Alone 2 they seemed to be happily married. That actually brings up another point, why is Kevin younger than he was in Home Alone 2?
LOL, given how brainless this movie is I wouldn't be surprised at all if he used a smart remote to escape. The whole smart remote thing wasn't very well thought out, first of all anyone who gets one can deactivate the alarm simply by saying "Alarm off", plus why was it even possible in the first place for the shower to eject so much water? I mean that is the kind of power a circus hose would need to clean off elephants. If the shower really was powerful enough to flood the entire house then the flood was Natalie's fault because she was the one who gave Kevin a remote to begin with, that and the incredibly poorly thought out shower system that was capable of being on such high blast.
Dude, don't overthink it. It all happened just "because". XD
And I have my doubts that the people who wrote the script ever really watched the first two movies. I don't know if it was intended to follow the first two movies or reboot the series. Unfortunately it failed and as a sequel, and as a remake.
Also, in the second movie Marv and Harry's faces were on the cover of newspapers. How come he could come into a house full of people without even covering himself and not only no one recognized him, but everyone simply ignores what Kevin is trying to tell them.
Why the hell do they even take a risk to have Kevin around?? Marv knows that Kevin is able to kick his ass, wouldn't he at least try to get rid of him before going there uncover acting as subtle as a squirrel that wants food?
Dumbass movie.
And Marv had the perfect chance to kill Kevin right after the shower incident but what does he do, he just makes a "scary" face and walks away.
sharePart 3 was OK but 4 and 5 were horrible.
share"I don't know why they didn't just use unique names for these films. Oh wait, I do know why..."
Haha, nice one. And well I personally enjoy Home Alone 3. I know people tend to dislike it and of course it doesn't come anywhere close from the first two installments. But imo it was a fun family movie and the traps were funny as hell.
Then there are the other sequels...... Let's just pretend they don't exist, all right?
It's funny. This topic reminds me that last month in my local Walmart I saw a 5 movie boxset of the Home Alone movies and thought, "Who in their right mind would buy that?"
shareHome Alone 3 is ok, though the premise of the criminals working for a "North Korean terrorist organization" is a serious eyeroller. I don't know why they couldn't have just been regular burglars. But at least, in terms of the kid putting them through hell and their bumbling failed attempts to overcome him, it was fairly well in the spirit of the first two. Not as good, but nothing ever will be. The traps and stuff were hilarious though, and the kid was likable.
Home Alone 4 was one of the worst things ever put on film. And I mean that seriously, it's not a rhetorical "omg this movie sucked, worst movie ever". I mean it was absolutely, literally, one of the worst movies of all time. I actually feel sorry for the kid who played in it. I honestly don't know why they even bothered.
Home Alone 5, I haven't seen, but it looks about as bad as 4. This one isn't going to get an hour and a half of my life, no sir. I've learned my lesson.
I wish they'd just stop trying to drag it out. They will never, ever regain the quality of the first two Home Alone movies.