Dasher111

I was a Richie Rich fan as a kid, having read the comics and watched the animated series, so when this film came out I was obviously curious to see it. I think it is an entertaining family film that did a respectable job in adapting the source material on which it's based.

Culkin was OK as Richie, cast more for his star power and blonde hair than anything else. He would have worked better in the role if he was a few years younger. Jonathan Hyde was superb as Cadbury and anchors the film. While I missed Irona and wished Reggie had a larger role (since he was a frequent enemy of Richie's in the comics and cartoon), they did give nods to such characters as Bascomb the chauffeur.

The plot drew its inspiration from many of the stories in the comics and cartoon: Richie on an adventure that typically involved saving his family and/or his family's wealth, using his wits and Professor Keenbean's gadgets.

I haven't seen the direct-to-video sequel or the Netflix series, but I've showed this film to both of my children and they enjoyed it.

On a first viewing, I thought the movie was okay, a step down from Pixar's other excursions into the metaphysical realm, "Coco" and "Inside Out," both of which I loved. For me, the high points of the film were: the voice acting, animation, music, the character of Joe, and the overall message. My biggest gripe was its conception of the soul world, the mechanics of which were tedious to sit through and frustrating to unpack. I had no interest in Tina Fey's abstraction-blob character of 22 - none whatsoever - and pleaded for the film to get back to the far more interesting atmosphere of Joe's life in New York City, richly textured in both style and substance here. I wish the film had taken place more, or entirely, in that setting, even if that meant reworking other aspects of the film.

The film has its merits, and I would be willing to give this another watch, but I still feel like this could have been better.