ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

johnmkirby I think this movie is poor, but not as bad as many of the reviews. (I am also surprised at the high number of people who praise this movie.) I find it difficult to say where this went wrong. The best I can figure is that it is stuck between a sci-fi movie and a comedy, and in doing so it fails at both. The comedy is not strong enough to support the movie. And the sci-fi is likewise not strong enough to keep the viewer's attention. Many people praise the sci-fi aspect of the movie, but part of the problem is that the attempts at comedy tend to detract from creating a true sci-fi tenor. For example, Quaid's performance is decent as a comedic part, but he is just goofy and so it's difficult to take the plot or the movie seriously. By comparison, Total Recall has some comedic parts, but they are effective and brief enough to not affect the sci-fi tenor. On the other hand, something like Spaceballs (or Dark Star) doesn't take itself too seriously and works as a comedy. Perhaps another matter is that we have high expectations for Eddie Murphy, and thus we are more critical of his work. Also, perhaps we have seen and heard his mannerisms so many times that the humor has worn off (e.g. Eddie's classic laugh).

Python Hyena The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002): Dir: Ron Underwood / Cast: Eddie Murphy, Rosario Dawson, Jay Mohr, Randy Quaid, Peter Boyle: A likeness to Blade Runner in Disney Land with a cheesy production. It is 2087 on the moon where Pluto Nash, former earthling who spent time in prison for illegal gambling, owns a nightclub and reverses his lifestyle. When he refuses the mob's offer on his nightclub they retaliate. He escapes with a young woman and his trusty robotic bodyguard. Ridiculous plot with lame situations and despite an interesting play on identities in the conclusion it is still one of the worst films of the year. Director Ron Underwood loses control early with laughable special effects. He explored different worlds from various standpoints with City Slickers and Mighty Joe Young. Eddie Murphy is obviously attempting comedy from a different viewpoint but regardless of his efforts this material is never fueled by humour. Rosario Dawson plays a singer who waits tables. So basically she the romantic tease. Randy Quaid overacts as Bruno the robot in what may be the worst role he has ever attempted to tackle. Jay Mohr is cardboard as a pathetic nightclub comedian. Peter Boyle plays a retired cop in what is about as pathetic as every other career choice in this travesty. It's candy-coated garbage that dies down like the battery in Bruno's head. Score: 1 / 10

thesar-2 "Obviously, you did something stupid," says John Cleese. To the director, writer, Eddie Murphy, hell…everyone, anyone involved. (At least, I imagined that line from the movie being used more accurately.)Wait a moon minute, was The Adventures of Pluto Nash supposed to be a comedy? Or funny at all? I waited one hour of 90 minutes for one laugh, one chuckle. Not a won. Not once did I even smirk.If it was supposed to be a Sci-Fi adventure, it also had no gravity or originality. Or fun. It was just listless with poorly designed sets that looked like they were stolen from far superior films.Was it supposed to be a romantic drama? Nope. No chemistry here from any of the actors, male/female or otherwise.Finally, I guess it could've been attempting to be a futuristic, action flick. This had as much action in it and looked as futuristic as Schindler's List did.Never once, since 2002, had I ever wanted to see this movie. Had it not be for those awesome guys over at the How Did This Get Made podcast, I would have lived out the rest of my days oblivious to how horrid this picture was.Pretty much, in this failed sitcom pilot of a feature-length, (hasn't been funny in about two decades) Eddie Murray plays the title character on the moon and when his nightclub is threatened by the building of a casino – wait, stop. I know it's been a couple of weeks since I've seen this, but is there not A WHOLE LOTTA ROOM ON THE MOON to build this casino without having to do the age old "if you don't sell, I'll make your life hell so I can become rich on your land" plot?Actually, screw this movie. There is absolutely nothing here worth mentioning or thinking about. Eddie looked bored and uninterested, as did most of the other cast. I do, however recommend you listen to the How Did This Get Made podcast on this. Not only is it enormously hilarious, but they give you a bunch of fun background information that makes this project all the more worthless.* * * Final thoughts: Okay, I've never been an Eddie Murphy fan. Mostly, these days, I watch his movies to laugh AT him instead of because of him. That said, of the about a dozen movies I've seen of his, I did favor: 1996's The Nutty Professor and his turn as Donkey in the Shrek films. Yep, that's about it.

januaryman-1 Which came first Independence Day or The Adventures of Pluto Nash? Independence Day was released six years before Pluto Nash. The connection between the two? James Rebhorn appeared in both. Seeing him looking younger in Pluto Nash than he did in ID added to my sense that Pluto Nash was a late 80s or early 90s film. It just has that look and feel to it. Pluto Nash resembles 1986's Howard the Duck more than its 2002 brethren Star Wars Episode II, Lord of the Rings II, Spider Man, or MIB II (which also included Rosario Dawson). The reason that Pluto Nash seems out of place is that its genesis came in the mid-80s. For some reason, no one stuck a fork in it. Going into production 15 years (in 2000) after its conception is odd to say the least. The mid-80s were not the early 2000s. What might have been entertaining in 1985 wasn't so in 2002. The 80s were just a very different time. Pluto Nash has such an 80s feel to it that I distinctly remember watching it repeatedly on HBO while in my apartment. The thing is, I had moved from that apartment in 1988. Freaky false memory, huh? Other 80s features of Pluto Nash are its dialog, sets, coloration, and special effects. Cheesy is the word that describes the general feel of Pluto Nash. What perplexes me is that this movie cost about $125 million dollars. I could not see anything or any combination of things in Pluto Nash that should have added up to $125 million. A fifth of that? A fourth of that? Maybe. Maybe Eddie Murphy made a killing with his salary. Maybe Warner Brothers worked with the federales to funnel cash to the NSA, and Pluto Nash really cost only $1 million to make. The extra $124 million would buy a lot of flash drives.As cheesy and unbelievably expensive as this movie is, it is still moderately entertaining. Eddie Murphy (who hit his stride in the 80s and probably peaked just before this movie) is an entertainer through and through. I can't think of many roles where I haven't felt good from watching him work. (Delirious is one funny standup performance with him in that red leather jumpsuit and all.) Rosario Dawson spent a lot of the movie doing nothing but looking cute, and she excelled in that. (She's another performer who seldom disappoints.) Randy Quaid made a good performance as an outdated android. The part didn't have much depth or opportunities, but he scored some of the movie's best lines. All of the humor in Pluto Nash was subtle. Very subtle, but there nonetheless.Pluto Nash is a good movie to have on as background stimulus. Maybe at a family holiday gathering when the movie is secondary.