SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

StyleSk8r 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.

Helio This movie was so stupid it was funny (at times) - also noted by another reviewer as is my heading - it is what I thought - the kid reminded me of the TV series "Dennis the Menace" behaving like Bart Simpson. However despite other reviewers liking the kid I found his performance wooden - as if he just walked on stage and said his lines one at a time. Also Jon Ritter seemed miscast. I believe Randy Quaid would have been better but none of those that turned down the roll would have suited."Chevy Chase, Kurt Russell, Richard Dreyfuss, Dan Aykroyd and Rick Moranis were all considered for the role of Little Ben Healy."Most of the rest of the cast did well - especially the other children. I don't see how this movie made money but I can see how kids might like it, yet the positive reviews came from adults.Rather alarming was the concern and outrage for the poster showing a cat in the washing machine (which did not happen in the movie) and there was no outcry about the physical abuse against the woman (Mrs Healy) in the the suitcase.

retroguy02 Even though I also spent the better part of my childhood in the 90s (having been born in 1993), somehow I missed the re-runs of this one (or its sequel) on TV - not like I missed out on anything because of it (on the contrary, in fact, having seen it now), but it also means that I'm not familiar with the "I know it's bad but it holds a special memory for me" feelings that many others have for this movie. I just found it to be a plain bad, annoying film about a very, very annoying character. Judging from its all-too-obvious title and production (it looks like a low-budget late 80s/early 90s family comedy, which is what it basically is), I was expecting a cheap knockoff of Home Alone - and it's not like I liked that series either, maybe because I don't find anything cute about hell-raising little spawns of Satan, they're little devils who just tick me off and need to be disciplined.The problem is that – unlike, say, Matilda or even Kevin from Home Alone – this kid's just not likable or even particularly cute. Instead, he comes off as the movie's other characters describe him – a vile little spawn of Satan (the ginger hair, dead eyes, freckles and bad teeth only add to it) who delights in inflicting misery on others until way too late in the movie - it almost feels like the filmmakers decided that they needed to find a way to make the audience not woo for the little devil's death.The film unsuccessfully tries to walk a fine line between a violent naughty-child family comedy (a la Home Alone) or a semi-serious commentary on sensitive issues like abandoned children, adoption and parenthood. Instead, it awkwardly dips in and out of both territories. Adding to the stilted tone is the fact that in some parts it's actually quite dark if one bothers to give a below-surface thought to it – there's one particular scene where the defeated, blanked-out dad contemplates killing his adopted little devil while his wife fornicates with an escaped serial killer in the next room - in a PG-rated family comedy!Virtually every character in the film is paper-thin, overacted to the point of bad unintentional comedy and just plain disengaging or annoying. And my apologies to--let's see--Michael Oliver, who I'm assuming has now vanished in the dustbin of Hollywood's child actor has-beens (like most stars of such movies do), but here he's probably the most annoying kid I've probably seen in any movie with a child protagonist.Unless you've had a childhood with crappy basic cable channels that used to rerun movies like this one back in the 90s - even I caught this movie as a rerun on my crappy local cable (as they say, old habits die hard) - and as a result you have some kind of perverse sentimental value for it, there's no reason anyone should watch this, especially considering that that today (the Modern Golden Age of TV) there are so many great shows on TV to kill your time with.

rbn_lrk-1 The Hub channel just had a promo for this movie.This channel airs many 1990's family movies including this.I would give everything to have a channel like this in our country.Anyway, let's see at the movie.A boy full of trouble is ending up in a suburb with a new family.But then it all breaks loose.The boy crashes a mean girls Birthday party.It all ends with a hilarious chase.This is a typical 1990's suburban comedy with a boy and a criminal.Don't come to see any Cannes Awards performances.Just enjoy the silly things in this movie, and this movie are worth a rent on a weekend.On top it's only nearly an hour long.7/10

CalvinValjean Hey, be sure to check out my video review of the Problem Child series here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKX5QEiVyncThe first Problem Child is a bad but still decent movie. I consider the sequel to be the actual worst movie I've ever seen (check out my review for that one), but in all fairness, the first one is okay; just an average dopey movie.The premise of a mischievous little boy playing pranks is classic, from Dennis the Menace to Tom Sawyer. The character of Junior is much nastier and more mean-spirited than those kids, and the whole movie has a disturbed feel to it; for instance, a scene where he throws a cat at his grandfather and sends him to the hospital. One moment you'll have slapstick in the style of Home Alone, the next you'll have adult sex jokes, next you'll have sitcom-ish acting by John Ritter and Amy Yasbeck, and then for no reason, just random sentimentality where we're supposed to go "aww" that Junior and his dad are bonding.In another scene, Junior is playing a little league game...and ends up attacking all his teammates with the bat, sending them to the hospital. This isn't a funny like bit of mischief; this is out-and-out sadism: a kid hospitalizing other children, and it's played for laughs! Eventually Michael Richards shows up and kidnaps the kid. "Michael Richards?" you'll exclaim, "At least we know that he can be very funny." But he's given too little to do. The "bumbling burglar" character has also been used a lot in kids movies, specifically Home Alone. The thing is, this time he's a bumbling serial killer. Hmm, see what I mean that things are a little dark for a kids movie? I won't deny there are a few funny parts, such as a sight-gag with a fake uterus and the final joke with Yasbeck's character. I know the movie's also been criticized for insensitivity to adoption and orphanages, but I guess I'm not the right one to comment here.So, overall, it's a mediocre movie, but not a terrible one. In fact, if it had never made a sequel, I probably wouldn't even be talking about it now. Sadly it did, and that was a very dark day for humanity.