While the late film criticRoger Ebertremains one of the most respected reviewers who ever lived, he had some opinions that left us scratching our heads. Although his insightful reviews usually focused on the emotional impact and artistic merits of moviemaking, not all of his opinions stand up to intense scrutiny.
Onewild take from Ebertcame in 1997, when he championedHome Alone 3asthe best in the franchiseand complimented it as splendid wish fulfillment for young viewers. WhileEbert’s opinion goes against the grain, he makes a strong argument for the film’s appeal in a way that has encouraged us to revisit this much-maligned family comedy.
Roger Ebert Thought Home Alone 3 Was Better Than The First 2 Movies
Ebert Praised Child Actor Alex D. Linz’s Performance
Roger Ebert wasn’t the biggest fan of Macaulay Culkin’sHome Alonemovies, and even stated inhisHome Alone 2review, “Please don’t call me if they make Home Alone 3.” However, when the third movie in the series came out in 1997, he was forced to eat his words, and despite poor reviews from everyone else, he praised the film.
Ebert appreciated the wayHome Alone 3has a far better reason for the child Alex (Alex D. Linz) being left home alone, as he’s got chicken pox, his dad is out of town, and his mom has an emergency meeting. Which makes a lot more sense than Kevin McAllister’s parents simply forgetting him and boarding a plane.
WhenAlex accidentally finds himself in possession of a $10 million missile-cloaking microchip, he becomes the target of a group of internationally wanted criminals working for a terrorist organization. Much like Kevin McAllister must protect himself from the robbers Harry and Marv, Alex was forced to use his wits to continually foil the crooks' plans to steal back the microchip.
With an impressive three out of four stars, Ebert thought Linz was incredible in the lead role of an eight-year-old prankster and that the booby traps were much funnier than the first two movies. WhileHome Alone 3follows the same familiar formula as its predecessor, Ebert enjoyed that the traps were more focused on slapstick than special effects.
Gene Siskel Hated Home Alone 3 And Called It A “Stupid, Slapstick Piece Of Juvenilia”
The Two Film Critics Often Butted Heads
While Ebert waxed lyrical about the merits ofHome Alone 3in his written review, he was forced to debate his opinion with his TV partner, Gene Siskel, on their seriesSiskel & Ebert.Siskel was a fan of the original movies, but he hatedHome Alone 3and dismissed it as a “stupid, slapstick piece of juvenilia.”
Siskel thought the story of Home Alone 3 made no sense and said he felt sorry for any family who’s going to be “suckered into” seeing it.
Siskel started his review by dismissing the film and stating, “Boy, has this franchise ever run out of gas?” As a film that just “goes on and on to the point of nausea,” Siskel thought the story ofHome Alone 3made no sense and said he felt sorry for any family who’s going to be “suckered into” seeing it.
Ebert argued thatHome Alone 3empowers little kids, and when he praised Linz’s performance, Siskel called him a “generic moptop.” As two highly respected film critics, it’s surprising just how much Ebert and Siskel’s views differed in this case. Although history tends to agree with Siskel’s take that the film didn’t live up to the legacy of the originals.
Is Home Alone 3 A Forgotten Classic Or A Disappointing Dud?
Home Alone 3did well at the box office, butthe absence of Macaulay Culkinwas sorely felt, and the reviews were mostly negative.Ebert was a rare dissenting voice in the discourse aroundHome Alone 3, but most will agree that although it was a serviceable kids' film, it didn’t have the same magic as what came before.
A made-for-TV fourth film titledHome Alone 4featuring a new star was released in 2002, and a fifth movie,Home Alone: The Holiday Heist, premiered on ABC Family in 2012. Both received negative reviews.
Although Ebert feltHome Alone 3was more logical than the previous movies, its plot about a child protecting himself from a dangerous group of international criminals working for a North Korean terrorist organization was absurd, as was anything that came before. Without any returning cast members, it’s understandable that Siskel felt this franchise had run its course.
Ebert’s positive opinions aboutHome Alone 3mean it’s worth checking outfor those who feel like they’ve already seen the Culkin movies too many times and want to experience something slightly different. However, it will by no means replace the first two in the hearts and minds of nostalgic viewers, and the absence of Culkin’s undeniable charisma is felt.
Home Alone 3might be better than its reputation suggests, but it falls short of the original’s charm. Ebert’s glowing review stands as a fascinating outlier, but it’s not enough to change its legacy, and Siskel’s opinion remains the consensus. The truth is, you should watchHome Alone 3to satisfy your curiosity, but it’s unlikely to become an annual tradition.
