 |
| Remember when Eddie Murphy was a selling point? |
Directed by: Ron Underwood
Produced by: Martin Bregman, Michael Scott Bregman, Louis A. Stroller
Written by: Neil Cuthbert
Budget: $100,000,000
Starring: Eddie Murphy, Randy Quaid, Rosario Dawson, Joe Pantoliano, Jay Mohr, Luis Guzman, James Rebhorn, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, Burt Young, John Cleese
In the future when mankind has populated the moon, retired smuggler Pluto Nash (Murphy) leaves prison and buys a nightclub in an attempt to go straight. Things seem to be going well but soon turn chaotic when a mysterious figure dispatches some thugs to intimidate him into selling. Along with a new server at the club (Dawson) and his robot bodyguard (Quaid), Nash has to figure out who's trying to move in on his turf.
Weirdly enough, this is yet another movie where an actor plays two separate characters, but this time it's a clone.
The Adventures of Pluto Nash feels like a combination of an early Saturday Night Live sketch, the Tim Burton Batman movies, and an attempt to ape the style of The Fifth Element. Considering the movie was in production since the 80s and didn't see release until 2002, I have a feeling that all three at one point may have been true.
The Good
I'm a fan of genre blending, and Pluto Nash at least has a good concept behind it. The idea of telling a 40s-style noir film in a science fiction setting appeals to me and is at least an attempt at being creative. The movie is firmly in that goofy science fiction genre that was popular in the 90s, but some of the sci-fi ideas are at least executed well, including the turret handgun, magnetic pool table, references to space and resource scarcity on a moon base, etc.
The Bad
Throughout it feels like the movie suffered from some extensive rewrites or changes, which it almost certainly did over its nearly twenty year life. Certain scenes feel like they've been inserted specifically to .lighten the movie up, and not in a way that feels consistent with the rest of the movie. The scene where Murphy and Dawson go to the cosmetic surgeon reminded me of a very similar scene in the also-bad-90s-scifi movie Theodore Rex.
Though the movie was released in 2000, it sat in stasis for two years until release, at which point it would have already felt dated. The set design consists of crowded building fronts and neon signs when the characters are in the streets, and the costumes are still stuck in that era where everyone wore differently colored space blankets, except for the main characters of course.
Of course, if the characters are fun you can endure a dumb setting. Unfortunately none of the characters are particularly memorable or worth caring about. For bearing his name in the title, Pluto Nash is a pretty forgettable character, which is even weirder because it's Eddie Murphy. Of course, this is post-Norbit Murphy, so take that as you will. Rosario Dawson is also really bad in this movie, with stilted delivery and zero commitment. Randy Quaid seems like he's having fun playing an obsolete robot, and Luis Guzman shows up for a little bit to...be Guzman. John Cleese also has a little role as a car's AI, but it's obvious both from his delivery and character that he earned his paycheck in an afternoon in a recording studio.
The comic moments have a slightly improvisational feel to them, and not in a good way. Sometimes a movie can pull that off, like Ghostbusters, but the ones in Pluto Nash are both unfunny and too long, which is a deadly combination when it comes to an actor who was once the biggest superstar on the planet. Ultimately I'm not really surprised this nearly killed Murphy's acting career, when you take into account the awkward comedic scenes, badly done action, and certain lines that serve just to pull you out of the movie with how weird or awkward they are. That includes Cleese's rape joke.
Finally, the CGI and overall directing is really bad, and it doesn't help that the movie takes time to showcase certain effects shots. Any time a car has to drive or there's an exterior shot of the moonscape it just looks bad. At one point our heroes are on the surface of the moon and it's obviously a fifteen-foot set with a really bad greenscreen. Later on in the film Murphy has to fight a clone of himself, who is also played by Murphy, and the fight uses an obvious double and cuts to hide the really bad editing. As far as directing and editing goes, at one point I'm pretty sure you can see Murphy standing at his spot before the director yells "action" and he starts running.
The Rest
The funniest part of the movie was seeing that Trump Realty apparently financed the moon colony.
Should You Watch It?
No.
Pluto Nash is one of those movies with a reputation for being awful, and I certainly see why. However, it's awful in the way that many science fiction movies in the 90s were awful, with some clear effort put into certain aspects despite the fact that nothing quite comes together in a good way.
Produced by: Martin Bregman, Michael Scott Bregman, Louis A. Stroller
Written by: Neil Cuthbert
Budget: $100,000,000
Starring: Eddie Murphy, Randy Quaid, Rosario Dawson, Joe Pantoliano, Jay Mohr, Luis Guzman, James Rebhorn, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, Burt Young, John Cleese
In the future when mankind has populated the moon, retired smuggler Pluto Nash (Murphy) leaves prison and buys a nightclub in an attempt to go straight. Things seem to be going well but soon turn chaotic when a mysterious figure dispatches some thugs to intimidate him into selling. Along with a new server at the club (Dawson) and his robot bodyguard (Quaid), Nash has to figure out who's trying to move in on his turf.
Weirdly enough, this is yet another movie where an actor plays two separate characters, but this time it's a clone.
The Adventures of Pluto Nash feels like a combination of an early Saturday Night Live sketch, the Tim Burton Batman movies, and an attempt to ape the style of The Fifth Element. Considering the movie was in production since the 80s and didn't see release until 2002, I have a feeling that all three at one point may have been true.
The Good
I'm a fan of genre blending, and Pluto Nash at least has a good concept behind it. The idea of telling a 40s-style noir film in a science fiction setting appeals to me and is at least an attempt at being creative. The movie is firmly in that goofy science fiction genre that was popular in the 90s, but some of the sci-fi ideas are at least executed well, including the turret handgun, magnetic pool table, references to space and resource scarcity on a moon base, etc.
The Bad
Throughout it feels like the movie suffered from some extensive rewrites or changes, which it almost certainly did over its nearly twenty year life. Certain scenes feel like they've been inserted specifically to .lighten the movie up, and not in a way that feels consistent with the rest of the movie. The scene where Murphy and Dawson go to the cosmetic surgeon reminded me of a very similar scene in the also-bad-90s-scifi movie Theodore Rex.
Though the movie was released in 2000, it sat in stasis for two years until release, at which point it would have already felt dated. The set design consists of crowded building fronts and neon signs when the characters are in the streets, and the costumes are still stuck in that era where everyone wore differently colored space blankets, except for the main characters of course.
Of course, if the characters are fun you can endure a dumb setting. Unfortunately none of the characters are particularly memorable or worth caring about. For bearing his name in the title, Pluto Nash is a pretty forgettable character, which is even weirder because it's Eddie Murphy. Of course, this is post-Norbit Murphy, so take that as you will. Rosario Dawson is also really bad in this movie, with stilted delivery and zero commitment. Randy Quaid seems like he's having fun playing an obsolete robot, and Luis Guzman shows up for a little bit to...be Guzman. John Cleese also has a little role as a car's AI, but it's obvious both from his delivery and character that he earned his paycheck in an afternoon in a recording studio.
The comic moments have a slightly improvisational feel to them, and not in a good way. Sometimes a movie can pull that off, like Ghostbusters, but the ones in Pluto Nash are both unfunny and too long, which is a deadly combination when it comes to an actor who was once the biggest superstar on the planet. Ultimately I'm not really surprised this nearly killed Murphy's acting career, when you take into account the awkward comedic scenes, badly done action, and certain lines that serve just to pull you out of the movie with how weird or awkward they are. That includes Cleese's rape joke.
Finally, the CGI and overall directing is really bad, and it doesn't help that the movie takes time to showcase certain effects shots. Any time a car has to drive or there's an exterior shot of the moonscape it just looks bad. At one point our heroes are on the surface of the moon and it's obviously a fifteen-foot set with a really bad greenscreen. Later on in the film Murphy has to fight a clone of himself, who is also played by Murphy, and the fight uses an obvious double and cuts to hide the really bad editing. As far as directing and editing goes, at one point I'm pretty sure you can see Murphy standing at his spot before the director yells "action" and he starts running.
The Rest
The funniest part of the movie was seeing that Trump Realty apparently financed the moon colony.
Should You Watch It?
No.
Pluto Nash is one of those movies with a reputation for being awful, and I certainly see why. However, it's awful in the way that many science fiction movies in the 90s were awful, with some clear effort put into certain aspects despite the fact that nothing quite comes together in a good way.
No comments:
Post a Comment