Well i think that since Michael Oliver and John Ritter weren't going to be in the 3rd Problem Child , they should have forgot altogeter about making it. I mean there's no Problem Child with out Micheal and no Ben with out John. So what was the point.
And... What happened to Annie and Trixie.. The 2nd movie ended off with them together with Ben and Junior .. so.. it should have followed on from there!
Two words and a number for you...
Home Alone 4
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree completely. It is no where near as good as Problem child 2. I mean come on Michal made the movie fun. Then they made it look like Trixie and Anne never existed. I think this movie would have been better with problem child 2's cast.
share[deleted]
i wouldnt go as far to say this is like home alone 4. i dont think its as bad as that. i'll admit the 3rd PC is no way near as good as the 1st and 2nd but its still a good film, i think its more like home alone 3. 1st 2 brilliant, 3rd good but disapointing
still really annoyed how they altered the story about trixie etc as well but least it had a few really good moments. i enjoyed it, a worthy trilogy. sometimes think it may have been better to base this on a different father and son since they changed the story
home alone 4 was rlliant compared to this
shareThey shouldn't have made the first.
shareThe thing you have to consider is that when they made the third Problem Child movie it was done for TV. When you do that then you do not have to worry about paying John Ritter, Michael who played Jr. or any of the other main characters.
I totally agree with you that they ruined this third movie by not including Annie or Trixie in the movie at all. They should have followed up with the sequel by having Little Ben played by John Ritter and Michael playing Jr. and the rest of the cast in the third movie.
The third one should have went out to the movie theaters to be honest with you! The first one did and so did the sequel as well. I remember going to the first Problem Child movie in 1990 and then going to see the sequel as well at the movie theater.
That is what they should have done with the third movie was have it in the movie theater as well.
There's something to be said about the 3rd movie in a series. For some reason, the third film is usually where everything falls apart. It is usually where the words 'made for TV' or 'Direct to Video' come into play (eg. Stuart Little 2, Dr. Dolittle 3, Brady Bunch Movie 3, Revenge of the Nerds 3 and others). It's also the film where the stars from the first two films usually pass on it and they usually nab one 'memorable' supporting actor from the original films and give them a higher-profile role in order to link it with the previous chapters. Sometimes they make a cheap 3rd film just so they can release the films as a 'trilogy' (eg. I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer).
3 seems to be a very unlucky number even for big-budget Hollywood films. Popular film series' have gotten panned by film #3. Films like Godfather part III, Jurassic Park III, Blade -Trinity, Home Alone 3, The Mummy 3, Rush Hour 3, Superman 3, Spiderman 3 and countless others have been seen as 'franchise killers'.
To be fair A Nightmare On Elm Street Three: Dream Warriors was the highest grossing movie in that series and was also considered the highest grossing "independent" movie of all time for about fifteen years years.
"You think you've private lives, think nothing of the kind"
Judas Priest
I notided too that third movies usually suck. Addams Family Reunion, Beethoven's third, Problem Child 3 and Home Alone 3.
shareDeathwish 3
Halloween 3
Return of the Living Dead 3
All great third movies. Some times you can jump the shark and land in a much more entertaining pool.
After rewatching this movie was rather boring the 2nd movie at least had a good finale this felt like a reboot