Problem Child (1990)

Very Cool!!!

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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.

I was expecting to really hate this film, but after seeing it, it wasn't that bad. Yes it was mediocre and crude at times, but absolutely awful, no. There are much worse movies out there, and I will probably be here all night listing them and why they are so bad. I'll drop a few hints, Friedberg-Seltzer movies, Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, NeverEnding Story 3 and Superbabies:Baby Geniuses 2 ring a bell? Anyway, the script does have its weak spots, the ending could have been better, Michael Oliver as the truly dysfunctional kid is thoroughly obnoxious at times and the plot is a touch simplistic. That said, it has its good moments, the gags are crude but some of them are amusing, John Ritter is charming in the title role and Gilbert Gottfried is hilarious. The soundtrack ain't half bad either, Amy Yasbeck is effective at playing her character like a total snob,Jack Warden is great and the film is nice to look at. Overall, could have been better but it could have been a hell of a lot worse as well. 6/10 Bethany Cox

This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.

I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.