Perfect cast and a good story

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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.

"Problem Child" released in late summer 1990 (thus predating "Home Alone" by a few months) was a surprise "hit" despite scathing reviews. How this film became a hit is beyond me because this is a completely inept and awful film. It's amateur hour from beginning to end as to its direction, writing, and acting.The plot: a childless suburban couple consisting of a good-hearted, kind husband (John Ritter) and his shallow, social-status seeking wife (Amy Yasbeck) are conned into adopting the "problem child" of a Catholic orphanage. This repulsive child named "Junior" and played by the repulsive looking and utterly talentless Michael Oliver promptly turns their lives into a dysfunctional hell as he plays pranks on and physically assaults anyone who crosses him. Michael Richards in a pre-Seinfeld role makes an appearance as Junior's idol, a bow-tie wearing serial killer, and Jack Warden collects a paycheck playing John Ritter's creep-politician dad.Director Dennis Dugan, whose career has inexplicably spanned decades thanks to his long working association with Adam Sandler, either is completely talentless (a strong possibility considering his work with Sandler) or he simply didn't care (another strong possibility considering his work with Sandler). The performances across the board are unspeakably awful with the scenes with the kid actors appearing to have been done in one take with minimal direction. The performances of the various child actors shouldn't have passed muster for a grade-school play production, let alone a feature film! Still, the late John Ritter (a very likable actor) and Michael Richards were professionals and did what they could with their horribly written characters, but no one emerged with their reputations enhanced from this film. Due to being it being a surprise hit with undemanding kids, Ritter got roped into the even worse sequel but said never again to continuing on with the series.The ONLY redeeming value of this film is that it's so inept and so awful that its pure wretchedness actually may provide some unintentional entertainment value. One can laugh AT IT rather than WITH IT. Thus, I notched-up my rating to two stars instead of one.

Problem Child is directed by Dennis Dugan and starring John Ritter, Jack Warden, Michael Oliver, Gilbert Gottfried, Michael Richards. Ben Healy (John Ritter) and his social climbing wife Flo adopt Junior, a fun-loving seven year old who is truly acts up badly when they can't bare children of their own. But they soon discover that he is a little monster when he turns a camping trip, a birthday party and even a baseball game into comic nightmares. This is sprite really funny-- that family movies today would be more like they were in the 80's and 90's, if only they were a lot edgier and got away with a lot more,. Today's family's comedy are too tame and politically correct. Great movie, and you hit the nail on the head about all the PC in every damn thing these days. You rarely see raunchy humor in a kid's movie these days…(Animal abuse, sex jokes, etc. etc. and a high speed chase with guns) but it fail to live up to the idea of being "Family-friendly" which kind of hurts the movie in viewer-ship and thus it kind of bomb in the box office. Just because it has a kid in it, doesn't mean it's a family/kid movie. If you watch the movie—you can clearly see that the problem child isn't really the problem, but those who he is surround with. Flo (play by Amy Yasbeck) is a selfish, gold-digging stepmother. Junior's grandpa is a a tyrannical sporting goods dealer who treat his only son play by John Ritter badly. John Ritter's character is the only character in the film that kind of likable. Gilbert Gottfried plays the agent that brings John Ritter's character to Junior and Ben really tries to be the greatest father ever, but fails to keep Junior in check when Junior looks up to the wrong person in Michael Richards. The question is, does Ben save Junior from the wrong path, or does Junior follow Richard's character into a life of crime. Watch it to find out.

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.