The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Review #1930: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash / Rex Carter), Randy Quaid (Bruno), Rosario Dawson (Dina Lake), Jay Mohr (Anthony Frankowski / Tony Francis), Peter Boyle (Rowland), Luis Guzmán (Felix Laranga), Joe Pantoliano (Mogan), James Rebhorn (Belcher), Pam Grier (Flura Nash), John Cleese (James), Burt Young (Gino), Lillo Brancato (Larry), and Victor Varnado (Kelp) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers)

Review: 

"I knew we didn’t have the kind of wit and the fun that I would want...I felt that it was not really working fully...But it wasn't very obvious how to correct it." 

Poor Ron Underwood. He was an exchange student in what is now known as Sri Lanka for AFS Intercultural Programs, and it inspired him to become a filmmaker by what he saw there. He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (after changing his mind from studying at Occidental College as a pre-med student). After doing short film and television projects, Tremors (1990) became his very first film as a director, and he also served as a co-writer. Underwood did four further films in the 1990s such as City Slickers (1991) and Mighty Joe Young (1998). When he was finishing work on the latter film, he received an offer to work on a script by Neil Cuthbert that had Eddie Murphy attached that dealt with a colony on the Moon. The Cuthbert script had been bouncing around Hollywood for years, first being brought as a project at Universal...in 1983. 1989 even saw an attempt to see at Universal with Peter Faiman (the director behind Crocodile Dundee) as director. Keep in mind, when Underwood was brought in, he joined in with the understanding that they had 7-9 months to work on the script before Murphy could join in to help with shooting. Underwood felt that there was an issue with the main core in the script, and yet it never came together. Murphy did not care for the script that was presented to him, nor the handful of scripts presented afterwards, and he seemingly wanted a film that was written for someone like Sylvester Stallone or Harrison Ford that would have him bring the comedy...which meant a straight draft. Underwood stuck with Castle Rock Entertainment because of the obligation he had to friends that worked with there despite the fact he had other offers while the film process "seemed to just be going and on"...the result was that he was on the production for four years.

The film was such a tremendous failure with audiences and critics, being one of the few $100 million movies to not even make ten percent of its budget back. Underwood would direct for television on a fairly regular basis in 2003 (one year after this film) while having just one film credit since that film: In the Mix (2005), although he at least seems happy by what he gets to direct. Even Eddie Murphy made light of the failure of the film, although if anyone is to be blamed for this film, it is him (Underwood, while being charitable about him being nice, thought Murphy wasn't feeling funny in production). The problem with the movie is that it isn't particularly funny, and it desires an actor with some sort of energy to it due to how the bland story is not particularly interesting as an adventure nor as a "mystery". It doesn't feel particularly like a science fiction worth gawking at, looking like the world's cheapest expensive film, never insipiring curiosity over the time or tech beyond demo levels. The only highlight might be Quaid, having a bald head while trying to play an old robot. Somehow, he proves the quirks that are just begging to be let out here, having the rare distinction of being funnier than the actual lead. Murphy has the "in it for the money" face, not inspiring anything for comedy or for adventure, and the fact that he has a double role as the villain doesn't do him any favors either. The only one to possibly pity would be Dawson, adrift in a film with no energy for her to tap into/absorb for fun. John Cleese being in this film in the shape of a hologram is the very definition of "phoned in", as if he was tricked into believing that he had to top Eric Idle in phoned in supporting performances (hey, speaking of Idle movies...next year?). Faking one out with a few seconds of Alec Baldwin is more amusing than the gags presented (such as Hilary Clinton being on a $100 bill or a Trump Realty sign), sadly. The less said about Pantoliano, Boyle, Guzman, and Mohr, the better. As a whole, what we have here is a movie that is not particularly funny, not particularly adventurous, and not particularly fun. It is a snooze fest for 95 minutes that only avoids being called one of the absolute worst after 20 years because there isn't even enough to remember in how bad it is. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Last one: Valley of the Dolls.

Jerry Maguire.

Review #1513: Jerry Maguire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Gerald "Jerry" Maguire), Cuba Gooding Jr (Rodney "Rod" Tidwell), Renée Zellweger (Dorothy Boyd), Kelly Preston (Avery Bishop), Jerry O'Connell (Frank "Cush" Cushman), Jay Mohr (Bob Sugar), Bonnie Hunt (Laurel Boyd), Regina King (Marcee Tidwell), Jonathan Lipnicki (Raymond Boyd), Todd Louiso (Chad the Nanny), Jeremy Suarez (Tyson Tidwell), and Jared Jussim (Dicky Fox) Directed by Cameron Crowe.

Review: 
"I'm proudest of the fact that I've been able to make a few movies in the studio system that are slightly unorthodox and personal. But it's never quite as easy as you dream that it could be."

Cameron Crowe had his own little path towards filmmaking: writing about music. He graduated from high school at 15 before being hired to write for Rolling Stone magazine, travelling with bands such as the Allman Brothers Band about travels on the road with them and their voices. In 1981, nearly ten years after graduating high school, he finished writing his first book based on the idea to pose undercover as a high school student in San Diego, which resulted in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and a film the following year. Crowe wrote another look into teenagers with The Wild Life (1984) before James L. Brooks took interest in the writer that would result in him producing Crowe's first directorial effort: Say Anything... (1989). This and Singles (1992) were mild successful romantic comedy hits with audiences and critics before Crowe did this for his third effort.

Truly, if you work hard enough, you too can make a heartfelt, overproduced romantic comedy just like the ones your parents made, complete with hokey lines (having me at hello goes straight to the garbage can) that threaten to shake the agent parts out of actual interest. Beyond a long 139 minute stretch that seems to be intricately built on too many characters and plot threads while trying way too hard to be anything other than just a decent "sports" film. When it tries its hands at romance, it doesn't really spring as much enthusiasm beyond what you could find in anything else. It is built on the idea that one really wants to hear much about the plight of a sports agent (with Leigh Steinberg being the inspiration that Crowe would follow around for significant amount of time in 1993 for research) and their crisis of conscience (money isn't everything when it comes to customers-I mean clients, story at 11). In a way I care, but if you zero in on just Cruise and Gooding Jr without most of the others in building itself, you may very well have a better film, or at the very least one that doesn't seem so choked in selling itself short. Rom-com clichés or sports clichés, I'll take the latter any day. Sap has become the way to try and teach someone empathy for years so at least Crowe can say he made something that looks different from the typical film without really doing too much different, complete with a third-act breakup after having them marry (ooh, different from the usual breakup before marriage).

I suspect Cruise wanted to do a role to challenge him from the usual charismatic charmers he usually played, one where he has to bring himself up from narcissistic loneliness. It isn't really that hard to like Cruise anyway, and he does fine with generating some carefully controlled interest, wracked with doubts and zeal. In a sense, Zellweger does fine. She has a zip and interest to her that seems to suit her in trying to elicit charm even while having a script that seems lacking in really giving her something to really do beyond idealism and "cute" moments with Cruise or her on-screen son. Actually, it is Preston and her ferocious honesty that seems more suited for this strange little film, amusing in zippy honesty. Gooding delivers a well-faceted performance with charm and humor, confident and well-suited against Cruise when showing the connection of agent and star beyond just the memorable lines of showing one the money, which is a good highlight in of itself, although the scene near the end with them hugging is probably more poignant than anything else in the film. Lipnicki and Mohr seem to be in competition for who I don't care to see more deliver what is meant to be charming/funny lines (whether out of a child actor with one trick of trying to tug at the audience's heart or a comedian with...one trick of trying to be smarmily hilarious), but I actually enjoyed the resistance displayed by Hunt far better in managing to display the point-of-view of the audience in skepticism. On the whole, I did think the film was at least somewhat successful in generating interest in its agency world, where one has to see beyond big profits and egos to really see something fresh in life. If one can't find something to like in life, it will be hard to sell something in it as well. It might be a bit plodding and cliched, but it is at least passable in most of the right places of quippy humor that shows some heart without needing to become consumed in itself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Are We There Yet?

Review #661: Are We There Yet?

Cast
Ice Cube (Nick Persons), Nia Long (Suzanne Kingston), Aleisha Allen (Lindsey Kingston), Philip Daniel Bolden (Kevin Kingston), Jay Mohr (Marty), M. C. Gainey (Al), and Tracy Morgan (Satchel Page Bobblehead) Directed by Brian Levant (#491 - Jingle All The Way and #577 - Beethoven)

Review
It's been almost ten years since this film was made, and in that span a sequel and a television series was made following this movie's...success. I guess this was made in an age where anyone thought they could do a family film no matter what they were before (Such as Vin Diesel with The Pacifier or Dwayne Johnson with The Game Plan), but whatever. This is classified as a "Christmas film" by Wikipedia, but I would compare this to giving your distant relative a fruitcake the day after Christmas. It seems this movie was made with good intentions, but it ultimately fizzles into boredom. The characters seem like they'll make a connection to you, but really you're just going through the motions and wondering how much longer it'll last. At least Ice Cube is decent, though he can't save a movie with stale jokes. The kids may seem nice, but really they just get on your nerves, and while later scenes try to make them look more sympathetic, it doesn't work. It's fitting that the movie has a bobble head in it that talks, because at this point, anything goes. It's a forgettable movie that bores you to the point where you truly wish it was Thanksgiving, because then you could go to your relative's house and forget all about it. And then remember it again after too much turkey.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.