Watch Home Alone 3 For Free

How sad is this?

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Despite a script from the legendary John Hughes, this third instalment in the 'Home Alone' series suffers from the law of diminishing returns.Much like the fourth outing that would follow years later, this film tries to replicate the events from the first film, only with a different slant, only for it to plae in comparison to what has gone before.Alex D Linz does well in the lead role, replacing the now too old Mac Culkin, but he, much like the new team of burglars aren't as good as those in the original.It was a nice attempt, but I don't think the public were really ever going to truly buy into this film, as the original was so beloved.

Man, this movie is not for great shakes...but curious as it may seem "Home Alone 3" has not seemed so sloppy as they put it. And at the risk of filling my humble criticism of negative votes I will try to defend, as I can, because it is unnecessary (that is undeniable) third part can be entertaining despite its failures.The story moves away from the McCallister family to present us with a new headline by Alex Pruitt, the new rogue who will pass them on to the bad guys on duty. And it turns out that at the hands of the child comes a toy car with a military chip that high-level thieves want to get at any price. And, as always, Alex will defend his house ... also at the same price. Oh, and it's Scarlett Johansson's sister, almost nothing.Well, when the synopsis is made, the question is: does the movie have fun? Well, in my opinion, of course, as long as you do not have anything better to do, you can enjoy (not laugh out loud, that was in the first two) of this third part. Alex D. Linz I think it plays a good role as a substitute for the original Kevin, I found it funny and nice but it is normal that the shadow of Macaulay is very long. On the other hand this third part has something that improves with respect to his second that no one seems to value: he tries to differentiate himself from the previous ones by putting different situations (Alex is not alone in his house although nobody believes there are thieves lurking) as well as traps totally original Do they make fun? Fair, but the formula is pretty exhausted. But remember that the great evil of his (in my opinion good but somewhat overrated) second part was to be a copy of his predecessor, here does not happen the same, is more original within what fits.For the rest, the film does not give much more than if because, as I said, it is already very seen and it is hard to laugh at something you already know. The family of Alex are quite flat and do not give tender moments but where the film fails miserably is on the subject of the villains. And with better villains, maybe the movie would have been better valued. Now there are not two, but four thieves, but more does not mean better. They are excessively serious and boring, characters identical to each other so their personality is not marked, no doubt you miss the funny Harry and Marv of the first two parts.Finally I will give another reason why I approve this movie: "Home Alone 4". And I have had the "luck" to have seen this insult (not only the saga, but the cinema in general) in the form of a quarter before the third. Given the level of slop that the saga arrives with the 4, I can not but raise a little this third part that is infinitely better.Conclusion, an unnecessary third part but I think you can see, if you do not kill this saga, stay with the first two (especially the original), if you like the tricks of these children, you can give this third party a chance . But stay there, hell really starts from now on.

Home Alone 3 (1997):Dir: Raja Gosnell / Cast: Alex D. Linz, Hoviland Morris, Seth Smith, David Thornton, Olek Krupa: It was bad enough that Home Alone 2 was a Xeroxed copy of Home Alone but Home Alone 3 is a Xerox of a Xerox. A chip has been planted in a toy to make it past airport security but the wrong person picks it up and it ends up in Chicago. The villains seeking the chip are spotted by young Alex D. Linz but police do not buy his story. The parents exists for the purpose of going to work while Linz booby traps the house in wait for the villains. Linz owns a mouse and a parrot that act upon his every command and this is stupid in itself in its dreadful presentation. The mouse crawls up someone's leg while someone else takes a swing at it with a crowbar. No points in guessing where the impact connects. Director Raja Gosnell provides the same story with absolutely no originality. He just adds a couple more crooks. Linz recites Macaulay Culkin and nobody cares. In lame appearances are Hoviland Morris, Seth Smith, and David Thornton who will likely not gain any recognition from this sh*t stain holiday crap. The crooks are four without the name actors wasting their talent looking stupid on camera. If you have seen Home Alone then you have seen Home Alone 3 and if you have seen Home Alone 3 then you have my deepest sympathy. Score: 1 / 10

People complain that this movie is a disgrace to the original 2 'Home Alone' films, that it simply re-hashes their plots and antics, and while they do have a point, what most people fail to realize is that regardless of whether or not it is true to the first 2 films, it belongs on a list of "Movie Plots That Could Have Been Solved in Minutes." The whole plot hinges on 4 criminals getting their bag containing a top-secret device getting mixed-up at the airport with a bag belonging to a senior citizen who lives in the suburbs of Chicago across the street from the hero of the film. They trace the bag to the suburbs, and the movie goes from there.But, the plot of the movie could have been solved in minutes (to the advantage of the villains rather than the hero) had the criminals (or at least the woman criminal who held onto the bag) simply kept the wrong bag and approached the senior citizen who had their bag after landing in Chicago to simply exchange bags. The senior citizen would have wanted her bag rather than the criminals' bag (she later indicates that she is angry about having the wrong bad rather than the correct bag), and the plot would have been solved right there. The criminals would have gotten away and we never would have been introduced to the hero, but the plot would have been as simple as it could be.PROS: It has that late 1990s suburb feel to it, and the booby traps are slightly more realistic (as far as the criminals surviving them is concerned).