why such a low rating?


this movie wasn't bad

reply

it sucked.I hate this movie with the passion of...well,I hate it.

jesus is back!...quick!hide the eggs!

reply

It wasn't bad...It was HORRIBLE!

-Rich & Joe-

reply

Why such a bad rating? Simply, because its bad.

Give her hell from us peeves!
(Blows raspberry)
HA HA HAAAAA!

reply

If you saw the first 2 you wouldn't be saying that! It's bad enough that NONE of the original cast members were in it and they gave their names to the new actors - that for me is enough to say that this movie is bad!

reply

They didn't give their names to new actors. It's a complete new family. They are just related to the original Newton family.

But then again, it sucked big time !

khou van je voor altijd, cutiepie <3

reply

[deleted]

It's just like Home Alone, but without the shadyness Macaulay gotten himself into when he dumped acting in 1994.

reply

In my opinion:

The Good things: The soundtrack, Beethoven.

The Bad things: Everything else, especially the script.

Verdict: Wanted to enjoy this film as I enjoyed the first two films, but like the fourth film it was mediocre. Sorry!





"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

reply

[deleted]

So you're saying the soundtrack was the best part?

reply

I have to agree...I didn't hate it. Yes, it's a VERY big drop from the first two, but I still wouldn't call it abysmal (which could aptly be applied to most of what was done with the Beethoven character following it. I mean, at least this film maintained its connection with the original.)

So what did I like about it, besides the cute dog and fantastic music? Undoubtedly it's a lot of predictable clichés strung together, and much of it's pretty contrived, tired, hackneyed, cheesy, etc.
We've got the basic "enthusiastic but corny dad really wants family to have an awesome vacation, but there's at least one [probably bratty] kid who doesn't want to go" story combined with the "villains after some kind of ultra-important technology [often surrounded by adorable animals and children]" dilemma. After their first scene and pretty much up until they seriously put themselves and Sara in danger, the two "bumbling baddies" added very little.

I suppose what I liked was the fact that it is, in fact, a road movie, and I love those. Vacations, whether in real life or in a movie, are typically fun. This movie, with its cross-country driving, to-die-for RV, camping, hotel stay, beautiful scenery, and so forth, really conjured up memories and good feelings for me. And in many ways, it was actually quite well made. Even something as seemingly simple as their clothing felt particularly real and familiar (e.g., Beth's pajamas, which I'm guessing are Nick & Nora, or Sara's t-shirt with the screen print of a Bernese Mountain Dog puppy--very similar to things I wore as a kid, and still do.)

reply

Nice post. I pretty much feel the same way that you do about it.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

Thanks. :) Glad someone agrees!

reply

You gotta give props to the creators for trying something clever. And keeping in with the original...briefly when the OG family was mentioned. The soundtrack I found forgettable. The bratty kid you're talking about is Brennan, who replaced Ted. The villains are lame though-Harry and Marv would beat them any day.

reply

The movie does have its own share of educational moments. Like how not every hotel will take pets let alone service animals. And how dogs shouldn't be barking on campgrounds at night to avoid disturbing the neighbors. Don't forget locking up your vehicle at night or it gets broken into and stolen.

reply