"Pluto Nash" Sneaks Into Theatres Under The Radar (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kline]

Although there have been lots of TV spots on this Eddie Murphy starrer, so far as I can see there have been no reviews from the usual gang. Not even one from The Hollywood Reporter. Rotten Tomatoes lists two negs, one in English and one in Spanish.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Definitely means the studio has a stinker on its hands (no press previews at all). Will it be worse than the recent film incarnation of "The Avengers"?

 

[David Rogers]

They never hold reviews unless the movie's tested horribly despite everything they've tried. Is a shame really, I was kinda hoping it would turn out okay ... apparently not.

 

[Ben Menix]

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, as I can't find any supporting info at the moment; but I was thinking that after the test audience release the movie was re-cut extensively?
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[Jeff Gross]

Here's something that was on IMDB yesterday:
Studios Plan To Unload Probable Losers
Castle Rock, one of the studios owned by AOL Time Warner, has decided not to screen The Adventures of Pluto Nash to critics prior to its release on Friday. Today's (Wednesday) New York Daily News quotes a spokesman for Warner Bros., which is releasing the movie, as saying that negative comments posted on the Internet about it reveal a "predisposition" by reviewers to pan it. Release of the film, which stars Eddie Murphy, has been delayed for nearly two years; however, a studio spokesman blamed the delays on complicated and expensive special effects.

 

[Peter Kline]

Gee, the studios are so "sensitive"! If they'd stop producing dreck and start making movies again..... Just an opinion.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Guys,
Have a look at this thread for a little more news on this issue:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=89276

 

[ThomasC]

this is what my local newspaper's (the columbus dispatch) weekender section (released yesterday) had to say about it:

"Opening Friday

The Adventures of Pluto Nash -- This one has a perceptible odor about it. Delayed from last summer and rumored to be a dog of cosmic proportions, the studio isn't previewing the PG-13 comedy. Eddie Murphy plays the title hero, the owner of a nightclub on the moon, battling gangsters for control of his business. The supporting cast is packed with notable names (John Cleese, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, Randy Quaid), and the director, Ron Underwood, has a memorable comedy on his resume (City Slickers). But such negative buzz is rarely wrong."

 

[ChrisMatson]

I heard something on a local radio show saying that the studio would like to NOT release this theatrically, and instead go straight to video/DVD, but would risk pissing off Eddie Murphy by doing so. Therefore, it is being released, sans any reviews and with lots of bad buzz.

 

[Peter Kline]

Sounds more like it has escaped! Too bad. I like Eddie Murphy.

 

[Terrell]

This movie looks like it had disaster written all over it from the beginning. I laughed at the trailer a couple of times, but I'll definitely pass on this one.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I was kind of looking forward to this film due to it's premise and the people involved, but it sounds like I might have to pass on it and if it's as bad as some have suggested then I'm wondering if I should anoint Official Review and Discussion threads?




Crawdaddy

 

[Howard Williams]

I just came back from seeing Pluto Nash. It was playing at 1200 PST and Gold Member started at 1230. We went to the 1200 showing of Pluto Nash which I knew very little about except that it had Eddie Murphy in it. I knew something was wrong right from the start because at the ticket purchase station, there were no posters or banners that listed it's showing times. Also, it wasn't playing in one of the bigger main theaters in the multiplex, and this was it's opening day. It was way in the very back in the smallest most remote theater. We were so dumbfounded we had to ask an usher where it was playing. The opening credits started and when I saw the cast I was very hopeful. To make a long story short, when 1230 finally got there, we walked out and went to catch the 1230 Goldmember showing. If the final 2/3 of Pluto are anything like the first 1/3.....Yuck!

BTW, I didn't think Gold Member was that great either. One lady laughed the entire time at stuff that was by no means funny to me. One thing about comedies, if you want to laugh, you will. If you don't want to laugh, you won't.

 

[Peter Kline]

Howard.... duck! You compounded your error by seeing another film you didn't pay for!

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I had forgotten all about this. I am going to see it regardless cause it has that car-wreck appeal to it. No matter how gruesome, I can't help but see. Something tells me I'm going to kick myself royally, though.

Bruce

 

[Jason Hughes]

This movie is as bad, if not worse, that what most people are saying about it (and I'm about the easiest critic on movies in the world - I like damn near everything). Maybe the only good thing to say about it is that the CGI design of the cities was kind of neat, but far, far more suited for a video game.

You know it is bad when I spent the entire movie wondering how they got the (pretty good) cast they were able to assemble for this dreck. Did somebody have photos of Eddie Murphy molesting a girl scout? Did somebody unearth a video of Randy Quaid felching? What did Luis Guzman get busted for? Seriously, how the hell did anybody agree to be in this? It's not like any of these actors are on skid row and need the paycheck, nor would they have a hard time finding other roles.

The sad thing is that I will probably spending more time thinking about this movie (in a state of total disbelief) than I will thinking about a masterpiece like Road to Perdition or Lord of the Rings.

 

[Peter Kline]

Sometimes actors agree to do a film because of the $$$$$ and nothing else.

 

[LennyP]

Now, Pluto Nash, I've been waiting for it for quite a while, with all the delays, and finally went to see it, Friday night. I haven't been to theaters on Friday night since probably last millennium, 'cause I hate the crowds, but I had to see Pluto Nash, plus it was a comedy so a bunch of idiots laughing wouldn't spoil a "dramatic" moment like in some other movie. So, I went, and as I expected, everyone was either watching xXx or Signs, and some intelligent people probably went to the great Full Frontal, but in the Pluto auditorium there were only 5 other people! You know, first day, opening day, Friday night, there's always a lot of people, even for crappy movies, so I was surprised, and this shows that it won't make any money.
Eddie Murphy plays a former con who's gotten a deal with the mob in 2080 to save his friend and took over a failing club and turned it into a hit spot, and then 7 years later trouble starts.
So, I enjoyed it, first of all check out the cast:
Randy Quaid as the old model '63 robot/bodyguard.
Joey Pants as another bad mafia guy
Peter Boyle as another former cop
Luis Guzman as another crazy latino in a truck, hover truck that is.
Pam Grier as another kick ass... mom
Illeana Douglas
Jay Mohr
and John Cleese as the ...um, car
Oh and Alec Baldwin in a GREAT cameo!
So I was pumped up in those first 2 mins reading the credits, then the special effects were wonderful, nice colorful cities on the Moon under huge domes ala Impostor, and the nightly multi-level neon lit streets with smog and fog and wet asphalt straight out of Blade Runner, as always of course, but I welcome it in every movie. It's mindless, fun, lots of futuristic jokes, like a cryogenicaly frozen chihuahua dog, clones, robot on robot sex action flying cars, big ass shiny silver laser "dirty harry" style guns, etc. I ejoyed it. If you want the above, you'll like it too!
But you know what, it probably is a "turkey", or maybe it was mismarketed as the trailers are terrible.
It's very campy, intentionally, so it's for a particular taste. I know my Top10 DVDs look almost decent but if you check other favorites you might want to go the opposite direction of my so called reviews and recommendations :p

 

[Jason Seaver]

This movie is awful.
There have been a lot of people comparing it to The Avengers, but that's not really fair - you watch The Avengers, and you can see some vestige of love for the material. You can see bits of creativity poking out here and there. And you can see signs that the thing was hacked to pieces as Warner tried to get it down to ninety minutes so that more showtimes could be squeezed in.
There's no such feeling from The Adventures Of Pluto Nash. Indeed, this movie feels padded, with not one, but two unnecessary prologues at the beginning; in fact, there are times when it seems like everybody is saying their lines v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so as to stretch the movie out.
This will be heard from at Oscar time, because the Razzies are awarded the night before. Pluto Nash has one of the all-time great lists of "talented people mailing it in"; Eddie Murphy (who had seemed to have shaken that affliction off), Randy Quaid, Peter Boyle, Jay Mohr, Joey Pants, Luis Guzman, Pam Grier, director Ron Underwood... It's hideous, really. The only people who seemed to be making any effort whatsoever were Rosario Dawson - when is her big break going to come? - and John Cleese, who to be frank, probably shot all his scenes seperately, in an afternoon, and thus didn't realize that it was OK to only give one-quarter effort.
What went wrong here? As much as I've liked much of Ron Underwood's previous work, he's clearly not the right director for this. Even though he's done a fair amount of fantasy before, those movies (Tremors, Heart And Souls, Mighty Joe Young) had a lot of physical effects and location shooting, giving the actors something real to work with. It's like he didn't know what to do with the elaborate sets and digital effects, and hoped it would all work out in the end. The comedy and action don't mix well at all, either.
What this movie needed, I guess, was a surer hand with a vision. Depending on whether you want action or comedy, James Cameron or Barry Sonnenfeld - although, judging from Wild Wild West and Men In Black 2, Sonnenfeld wouldn't have been able to do much with this mess of a screenplay. Maybe Jay Roach (besides, this is an obvious attempt to cash in on the first Men In Black's success.
So why did I even go in the first place? Because, even with the bad buzz, I thought something worthwhile had to come out of a movie with that much talent attached. Sadly, John Cleese's scenes were about it.
:star:½

 

[Anthony_Kleiner]

Well i saw it on Friday and it wasn't that bad. It had its moments but nothing great. I did like the ending though.

Unless you are a total Eddie Murphy fan, have some free time, and money to waste don't bother with this movie.