Home Alone 3
9-year-old Alex Pruitt is home alone with the chicken pox. Turns out, due to a mix-up among nefarious spies, Alex was given a toy car concealing a top-secret microchip. Now Alex must fend off the spies as they try break into his house to get it back.
- Category:Comedy, Family
- Stars:Randi Kolstad, Lalla Carlsen, Per Aabel, Lauritz Falk, Jørn Ording, Wenche Foss, Kari Diesen, Fridtjof Mjøen, Aud Schønemann, Sigrun Otto, Paal Rocky, Guri Stormoen, Anne Lise Wang, Jon Sund, Arne Bang-Hansen, Alex D. Linz, Olek Krupa, Rya Kihlstedt, Lenny von Dohlen, David Thornton, Haviland Morris, Kevin Kilner, Marian Seldes, Seth Smith, Scarlett Johansson, Christopher Curry, Baxter Harris, James Saito, Kevin Gudahl, Richard Hamilton,
- Director:Raja Gosnell,
- Writer:John Hughes
Four high-tech industrial spies, Beaupre, Alice, Jernigan and Unger, steal a top-secret microchip. To fool customs, they hide it in a remote-control toy car. Through a baggage mix-up at the airport, grumpy old Mrs.Hess gets the toy and gives it to her neighbor, 8-year-old Alex. Spies want to get the toy back before their clients get angry and decide to burglarize every house at Alex's street to find the chip. But Alex is prepared for their visit... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Home Alone 3 torrent reviews
(nl) wrote: An enjoyable documentary of DC Comics most infamous villains.
(kr) wrote: A Chinese Take on a Typically British Genre I'm not sure how many British variations I've seen on this basic story. Many, would be the short answer. They all follow the same basic plot, which we'll get to in a minute. However, it's also worth noting that, in most cases, everyone involved will be getting something out of whatever-it-is that they're doing. Usually, there's money, or impressing a girl, or something along those lines, for all. In this version, there isn't. One guy is getting paid, though he's not supposed to mention it to the others, and one man is trying to win the custody dispute that's kind of standard in movies like this, but mostly, these are people trying to help a friend. It's possible that this reflects the collectivist nature that the modern Chinese state wants to project, but it's kind of a nice touch either way. Sometimes, people do ridiculous things because those are things that will help someone they care about. It's part of my definition of friendship. Chen Guilin (Qianyuan Wang) is not having a good life at the moment. The factory he and his friends work for has been closed. His music career isn't exactly taking off. His wife (Shin-yeong Jang) wants a divorce. And his daughter, Shu Xian (Hailu Qin), has decided that she wants to live with whichever of her parents can give her a piano of her very own. Since her mother is in a relationship with a rich conman, it seems pretty obvious which one it will be. (It's worth noting at this juncture that essentially none of the characters are named on either IMDb or Wikipedia.) However, Guilin gets his friends and girlfriend to agree to help him make a piano. They're metalworkers, right? Pianos are largely made of metal, right? So with the help of a Russian-language book on how to make pianos, they go to work. Shu Xian will get her piano, and Guilin will get custody. What could possibly go wrong? One of the things I have to keep reminding myself about is that Shu Xian is a child and probably has no idea how much pianos cost. This is probably made even worse by the fact that they live in China, if you think about it. I really think the Communism thing has something to do with it. The movie I was most comparing it to in my head was [i]The Full Monty[/i], and while it's true that Gaz is trying to earn money to pay his son's child support and that Nate is embarrassed by his father's poverty to a certain extent, it's also true that the requirement that Gaz pay child support is not Nate's. Nate loves his father very much, all other considerations left out of it. I never get the feeling that Shu Xian even appreciates how much her father is willing to do for her. I think she's younger, but what she wants is in a totally different category. Nate has learned not to ask for big things from his father, and his only problem is that even asking for small things is pointless. Shu Xian hasn't learned that lesson. Really, the [i]Full Monty[/i] comparisons are pretty much built in. For one thing, the way one of the characters makes money is through dealing in scrap metal, and when we first met Our Heroes in Sheffield, they were stealing a beam from a factory to sell to pay for Nate's child support. I think most of the characters here were members of the factory band before the factory closed. The mother is doing considerably better than the father, though I'm not sure what the mother's boyfriend did for a living in [i]The Full Monty[/i]. (The mother's boyfriend here sells bogus pills, yet another proof that having more regulation than China isn't necessarily a bad thing in certain aspects of life.) In this case, however, I think the father is less endearing. The child is certainly less endearing. And to be honest, I couldn't tell half his friends apart or figure out what he thought they'd be able to help him build the piano half the time. I mean, I got the black market scrap metal dealer, but that was about it. I do like getting odd films from around the world that I'd never heard of before. As I've said, one of these days, I'm going to work out how many languages I've seen films in, though I suspect this will take some research to determine the languages of films from India and China, for starters. (This is in Mandarin, but [i]Once Upon a Time in China[/i] is in Cantonese--so Jet Li, a Mandarin speaker, is actually dubbed!) And as I said, there are some interesting differences between this story of Plucky Chinese People Fighting Obstacles and the genre of Plucky British People Fighting Obstacles, though it's more interesting in a sociological way than a cinematic way. Still, a sizable percentage of my interest in film is sociological anyway. That's even true of film that's theoretically from my own culture, though no one in the movies quite seems to live in the same world as I do. I suspect but cannot prove that it's universal--life is both nothing like the movies and more like the movies than you can possibly imagine.
(au) wrote: Save Haven is a normal Nicholas Sparks movie - damaged girl finding love with a good looking widower - even in the face of the corrupt cop ex-husband hunting her. I didn't like the last five minutes of the movie - too much Stephen-King-like.
(mx) wrote: nice movie, Jimmy shergill and neeru bajwa's acting was gud, beautiful songs especially ( dil waali kothi) , but I would like to know wht this movie is teaching the young generation? wht kind of message they r giving to the public, if they had shown the results of fighting by changing Jimmy at the end it could hav been the best movie I guess. I think young people should avoid this movie.
(kr) wrote: "Break ke baad" becomes worst after the break (Interval). Good but could have been way too beter. God script spoilt with lot of confusion."
(gb) wrote: Do not know why this movie is rated below average. It is not a landmark in cinematography but I believe it should be somewhat celebrated like Zach Braffs movies are when released. If you stick around for the whole movie you should be pleasently suprised at the writing, acting, and relationship you build with both characters who have a troubled young adult life but try to overcome it with eachother. This movie was acted, written, visioned, and directed by one person(Marianna Palka); and should be seen by the crowd who finds Mr. Braffs movies eloquent since given the similarities of their filmmaking.
(jp) wrote: La mejor pelcula que he visto en espaol
(br) wrote: Strange that a Golf-movie can be such a lovely movie to watch ...fine and fun Dialogues ! Yep . SOMDVD
(ag) wrote: Bogart's breakout performance as the vile Duke Mantee highlights this talky, stage bound production.
(br) wrote: Jean Gabin and Pierre Fresnay are shot down and placed in a German POW camp during WWI in Jean Renoir's anti-war masterpiece. Beyond disputing the idea that war can solve anything (the "Grand Illusion"), he makes several related points along the way: 1) class differences may be wider than national differences (but the upper classes may serve no real purpose); 2) national boundaries are illusory (nature does not recognize them); 3) Jews are just as human and noble as other people (an important point to make in 1937); 4) romance and friendships can easily exist across national, cultural, or religious divides; 5) war is a damn waste of lives, time, etc. Why have we still not learned? Overall, the film is also an enjoyable story of camraderie with nary a shot fired -- indeed, from a contemporary perspective, this view of the experience of war is also very likely to be illusory and yet it continues.
(it) wrote: David Lynch can do weird good
(au) wrote: Natasha Lyonne was a really unique actor. What the hell ever happened to her?!
(mx) wrote: It's good movie to watch
(fr) wrote: A one night revival at the local multiplex. I had never seen it before. Excellent movie.
(ru) wrote: I love this film so much! It is fun and warm! It has such a good story line and should be awarded with some sort of token xx