Ri¢hie Ri¢h (1994)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The acting in this movie is really good.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Much like it's sequel in the near future, this Richie Rich movie isn't for the faint of heart. The final cut of the movie isn't nearly what director, Donald Petrie, wanted this to be. In the director's cut, Richie goes all the way in the make out session scene with the old fat woman, but in the final, he just HUGS HER!?! It destroys the whole meaning of the scene. When Richie makes out with the old lady, and puts his tongue all the way up her nostril, and she screams, your touching my brain, it brings realism to the scene. When in the final, theatrical cut, he just hugs and then she kicks him in the shin. If this movie had been left the way Donald Petrie wanted it to be, it would've been a ten out of ten masterpiece. Yet, I find it sort of insulting. Yes, director John Murlowski would go on to make a more interesting and exciting Richie Rich movies, but this is not a good opener. That's not to say that the film is bad. There are many good qualities of the film. The scene where the mom and the dad lick the family dog on Richie's back was left untouched, and was excellent, but right after that scene, they cut to Richie beating his butler with a baseball bat, when in the director's cut, he is beating the butler with a stick covered in maggots, and all of the maggots crawl in his mouth, and eat his insides. I had to search through about a billion websites before I could find the director's cut, and that makes me mad. 7/10/

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

Inspired by the popular Harvey comics comes this above average kids flick from writers Tom S. Parker and Jim Jennewein (original story by Neil Tolkin) which sees our hero "Richie Rich" having to thwart an attempt to assume control of the family fortune. The plot is hardly inspiring, yet the cast make do with it to keep young viewers reasonably entertained.The cast are hardly riveting themselves, and all do better than the precocious Culkin. Evil John Larroquette as the greedy Van Dough and butler Jonathan Hyde do well, while Edward Herrmann and Christine Ebersole play Richard and Regina Rich. Daniel Petrie's direction saves the film as he keeps proceedings bouncing along nicely.Tuesday, September 30, 1997 - T.V.

I know, "Richie Rich" is supposed to be more about making friends than about wealth, but it doesn't work. The whole thing about the cabal trying to seize his money was merely an excuse for what was basically a glorification of money. I think that there's a reason that Macaulay Culkin disappeared after this movie (although that was already coming). There are some clever lines - namely the Michael Jackson comment - but there are plenty of good movies out there, so there's NO REASON to waste your time on this. Also starring John Larroquette, Edward Herrmann, Christine Ebersole and Jonathan Hyde; they probably don't wish to include this on their resumes.