एक बेहद अमीर लड़के के कॉमिक बुक एडवेंचर्स और दुनिया में अच्छा करने के उसके प्रयासों के इस सजीव एक्शन रूपांतरण में मैकॉले कलकिन और जॉन लैरोक्वेट सितारा हैं।एक बेहद अमीर लड़के के कॉमिक बुक एडवेंचर्स और दुनिया में अच्छा करने के उसके प्रयासों के इस सजीव एक्शन रूपांतरण में मैकॉले कलकिन और जॉन लैरोक्वेट सितारा हैं।एक बेहद अमीर लड़के के कॉमिक बुक एडवेंचर्स और दुनिया में अच्छा करने के उसके प्रयासों के इस सजीव एक्शन रूपांतरण में मैकॉले कलकिन और जॉन लैरोक्वेट सितारा हैं।
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 3 कुल नामांकन
Wanda Christine
- Newswoman at Factory
- (as Wandachristine)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
I gave this movie a 7 on a scale of 1-10 because I took into consideration it is a kids movie and should be judged as such. When this movie came out I was 13 and of course I enjoyed it much more then as opposed to now but having watched it as a child and as an adult I do remember how much I enjoyed the film as a kid. From the harsh grade of a 4.4 average I assume people where comparing this to complex movies with great plots. Kids should not be subjected to nothing but adult theme. So when you grade the movie remember what audience it was desighned for.As a child I would have gave this movie a 7. Would you drive a metro and act as if it should perform like a porsche?
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाWhen the film was put into production, Macaulay Culkin was five foot two. A cast of tall grownups were hired to create the illusion that Culkin was shorter than he actually was at the time. Most of the adult cast is taller than six feet.
- गूफ़The fax appears in the fax machine after it has been removed.
- भाव
Herbert Cadbury: Excuse me, sir. It's a telephone call, from the President.
Richard Rich Sr.: Which country?
Herbert Cadbury: This one, sir.
Richard Rich Sr.: Probably needs another loan.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe film's opening/closing titles are accompanied by the opening/closing of a vault door.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe version shown on NBC blurs the Reese's Nutrageous bar during the "taste test" scene for legal reasons.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Doggiewoggiez! Poochiewoochiez! (2012)
- साउंडट्रैकWhat I Like About You
Written by Wally Palmar, James Marinos (as Jimmy Marinos) and Mike Skill
Performed by The Romantics
Courtesy of Epic Associated Records
By arrangement with Sony Music Licensing
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Richie Rich?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Ri¢Hie Ri¢H
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $4,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $3,80,87,756
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $58,30,302
- 26 दिस॰ 1994
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $3,80,87,756
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें