Money Talks.

Review #1001: Money Talks.

Cast: 
Chris Tucker (Franklin Maurice Hatchett), Charlie Sheen (James Russell), Gerard Ismael (Raymond Villard), Heather Locklear (Grace Cipriani), Elise Neal (Paula), Michael Wright (Aaron), Paul Sorvino (Tony Cipriani), Larry Hankin (Roland), and Paul Gleason (Det. Bobby Pickett) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2, #402 - Rush Hour 3)

Review: 
It is not so much that this movie is not good as it is that it is not worth giving extensive criticism to. Does one really need over 500 words to express how this is just a film I didn't care much for? In the four films that Ratner and Tucker have teamed up together for (with this being their first), I found only one of them (Rush Hour) to actually be satisfyingly entertaining enough, and that was because the duo of Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked out quite well (the same can't be said for the sequels).

In this case, Tucker is paired with Sheen, who can be a decent actor when in a coherent comedy (and occasional drama), but they simply aren't an effective duo together. Sure, you could make the case that they aren't supposed to be like other buddy duos (after all, one is a reporter while the other is a hustler), but I never really found myself wanting to care about what goes on with these two. Tucker (and his shtick) is tolerable to a point, with some likely having more (or less) patience with him and his lines. He falls along the middle for me, but that's not really much of a compliment. He certainly is more interesting than Sheen, who doesn't really have much to do. The villain (Ismael) is fairly generic; the only other interesting supporting character is Sorvino, who seems right at home in this role somehow. Simply put, this is a movie without much fire in it. Why should I care about their attempt to get to sweeps week? Why should I care about the valuable diamonds? Or the random twist involving a minor character at the end? If you have read some of the reviews on this show, you know that I do not try to over-think things in a film or overtly go critical on a film, because what purpose does that serve to you? This is a movie that would likely be easy bait for someone wanting to get irritated while not striving for anything other than just being a piece of entertainment. It's not a movie to use as an example of lazy filmmaking nor is it something worth fawning nostalgic over (even after 20 years), but it's a film that is what it is. I can't say this is an awful movie, and I also can't say I blame someone if they like (or at least tolerate) the film. Take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.