Richie Rich

I don't know why it has such a low rating. The movie does not want to be taken serious. So it is not serious. The movie is aimed at kids and that makes it great. I watched it in my early twenties and had a good evening watching the movie. Great for family's and kids.

Great movie, edited well and entertaining. Jonathan Hyde's acting is fantastic.

This is definitely teen fare, but it's very entertaining which means adults would get a lot of laughs out of it. As with any comedy, some of the stuff is really stupid and some of it is really funny. Along the way, you get some of modern Hollywood's secular plugs and a few swear words that you wouldn't want your little ones to hear, but overall, I have little to criticize with this one.

There were a number of sight gags, things that made me laugh out loud, such as dollar signs instead of spots on the dog, the dress-ware of the little rich kid (Macauley Culkin), the eccentric characters - good and bad guys - are all fun to watch.

I thought Jonathan Hyde, as the butler, stole the show.

This was Macaulay Culkin's first major flop, when he was finally un-cute enough that viewers noticed he couldn't act. Other than that, compared with other mindless, shallow, hopelessly far-fetched pseudo-adventures designed for either very small or very uncritical children, it's really not worse than one would expect. Well, the comic book on which it's based is not exactly Stan Lee either… From a pedagogical point of view, one must say that Richie takes control of his situation in the absence of his parents, makes decisions that are largely sensible and practical, and carries them out mostly without adult help. He combines emotional and rational qualities without violating his basic identity as a kid. To me, that's all good, and redeems the entertainment value of this movie for a young audience.

I didn't absolutely hate Richie Rich, but for me it wasn't that great either. As usual, there were some good things, but some not so good things as well.

THE GOOD THINGS:

1) Macaulay Culkin, personally I think he is better an actor than people give him credit for. He is one of the main reasons why I love the first two Home Alone movies so much. Here, he gives a very spirited lead performance, admittedly not as cute as he was when he was starring in underrated gems like Uncle Buck, but he shows once again what a talented actor he was.

2) Jonathan Hyde as the butler comes very close to stealing the show, a very funny and sly performance. Also Edward Hermann and Christine Ebersole give humorous performances, while John Larroquette plays the villain of the piece more than adequately.

3) The scenery is quite impressive, captured well by the breezy cinematography. The Biltmore estate was gorgeous.

4) The soundtrack was decent, nice background music especially.

5) I liked the moral the film taught; All the money in the world can't make you happy, thinking about it that is true.

THE NOT SO GOOD THINGS:

1) While I liked the moral of the film, the story itself is predictable and somewhat contrived. it probably doesn't help you have seen it all before.

2) The script is quite weak in general. Don't get me wrong there were some good spots like "Oh my god I look like Michael Jackson!" but the jokes are admittedly very silly and juvenile, and the scripting does fall in the danger of becoming clichéd.

3) The pacing. Now I don't mind films that move fast. I do have more of a problem if the pacing is TOO fast, despite the feel good nature of the film, and its valiant attempt to rise above superficial material, the film feels a little too rushed, the ending particularly felt skimmed over.

4) The characters feel rather stereotypical. Maybe that is an unfair complaint as it probably couldn't be avoided, but I couldn't help thinking yeah I recognise that type of character.

Overall, definitely not a bad film, worth watching at least once, but I personally didn't find it that great. 5/10 Bethany Cox