Home Alone 4: Taking Back the House

The first 2 Home Alone films were very successful in the early 90s. At this point Macaulay Culkin was one of the most sought after child actors in the business.However his success was short-lived and is now only known for his part in the Michael Jackson trial. The makers must have thought that Home Alone 3 was going to be as big a success. However the makers didn't realise that a new child star and a different formula was not what the viewing public craved .However regardless of this the third installment was a moderate success and actually was't that bad. Then in 2002 some bright spark decided to unleash another sequel onto the unsuspecting public. To make matters worse they decided to use the same character names and as a result Kevin McCallister looks even younger than he was in part 1.Combine this with the fact that he was't even "home alone" once during the whole film and you will see why the film is so bad .Worse still the acting is terrible and the ending so predictable you can guess what is going to happen from the opening scene. Avoid this at all costs as the first 3 (which were by no means flawless) are classics in comparison.

Inarguably one of the worst movies ever made. "Movie" flatters it. This is a home video and I would think any one of 200 million families could be handed a camcorder and come up with a more interesting 89 minutes.

What the HELL is this? well, apart from a lingering insult to the first two Home Alone movies...who's to say! The second sequel was unmitigated trash, but compared to this, eligible for "best picture!" Everything from the script, the acting to the sets, seemingly knocked-up from left-overs at the nearest Reject shop, smack of Z-grade involvement. How this ever made it to a boxed set of four Home Alone movies, beats me.

Kevin's age doesn't even tally with the series...he's younger here than he was in New York...by his OWN admission. A screaming disaster from the opening scenes. Shoddy, wooden, synthetic, cheap and ultimately embarrassing for all concerned - but no more so than for the viewer!

Completely deserving of a minus one rating!

I strenuously recommend that you give this shonk a wide berth!

Home Alone 4 is so bad, it makes Home Alone 3 look like a masterpiece. in reality, Home Alone 3 is only adequate, but the first two movies are sterling entertainment, I can promise you that. I am just wondering whether I am the only one who honestly thought Home Alone 3 would be the worst, because the characters were changed, but was proved wrong by this abomination. This movie has nothing to recommend it, not even the gadget-filled house. At least Home Alone 3 had some enjoyable scenes.

The first problem is that no one from the first two movies return, which is a really bad sign. Even the director was different, and obviously had little experience behind the camera. The plot was laughable, and don't get me started on how inconsistent it was with the first two films.

The acting was pretty terrible. Michael Wineburg could have been a great Kevin, if the script had been better. The reality, no one can top Macaulay Culkin as Kevin. Whereas Culkin was cute and self-assured, Wineburg tried to put some enthusiasm into the role, had the script allowed him to act. Instead he was the only redeeming merit, if you call it a redeeming merit, of the movie, whereas everyone else lumbered through their scenes. French Stewart also struggled with the script, and could have also have been great, had he the goofiness and charm of Daniel Stern. Really, he has the charisma of a squashed cabbage. The others were just as bad, if worse.

The script was full of tired and stale parallels of the predecessors, there was nothing else new. As a matter of fact, I don't think I laughed once when watching this movie. Not even when Marv falls off the chandelier. That raised a small curl of the mouth, but you can't help thinking you've seen it all before.

The script was absolutely repulsive, the direction was incompetent and the acting was stiff. Plus, it was perfectly obvious it was a TV movie, you could tell by the flat camera-work. Avoid! 1/10. (very seldom do I give a 1, but this abysmal film deserves lower!)Bethany Cox

I thought this movie was going to be inventive, un-recycled and have new punch lines. Instead, they have to make this movie stupid, campy, and bland.

Kevin is a little brat now, just leeching off Natalie and his dad, who separated from his nice mom for a sybaritic, selfish twad. He disrespects the butler, who is an infinitely better actor than the others in this film. And most of all, MARV LOOKS LIKE HARRY FROM THE OTHER 2 FILMS! He even has a stupid hooker wife named Vera. French Stewart does a horrid rendition of Harry and Marv. They don't even do robberies anymore! It's now staged to the more dismal subject of child abduction.

It is also accompanied by atrociously bland dialogue, pitiful acting, hilariously bad sound effects, and the picture quality makes it look like it was filmed in the mid-1980's. There is even a shot of the houses at night done with a cheap home camcorder.

It's a good thing I spent only 1.00 on a crappy dollar-store tape for this movie! I was seriously disappointed. I've seen some MST3K films and some are way more noble than this crap!

Standing out 24 hrs in 10 degrees Fahrenheit is way cooler than watching this movie. -No pun intended

Macaulay- who is probably sitting at home after watching this and going why? why? did I ever start this madness?- is probably horrified that they turned his great movie series into a horrible, disgraceful, peice of trash? I liked, no, loved, the first two Home Alone movies. Why, I ask you...why? They should at least stay with the original actors, and it could have Kevin be like 20 years old, and visiting his father for Christmas.