IMDb रेटिंग
3.9/10
28 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
भविष्य में, एक व्यक्ति अपने लूनर नाइट क्लब को माफिया के हाथों से बचाय रखने के लिए संघर्ष करता है.भविष्य में, एक व्यक्ति अपने लूनर नाइट क्लब को माफिया के हाथों से बचाय रखने के लिए संघर्ष करता है.भविष्य में, एक व्यक्ति अपने लूनर नाइट क्लब को माफिया के हाथों से बचाय रखने के लिए संघर्ष करता है.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 12 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I go to the movies to be entertained and this one certainly did that for me. The biggest source of fun was seeing the juxtaposition of old movie cliches - gangsters, seedy nightclubs, and hot wired cars - placed in the futuristic setting of a campy lunar colony. I laughed from start to finish and enjoyed the surprise ending. I found "Pluto Nash" to be a very entertaining diversion.
This was a really cool movie considering no one makes cool sci-fi movies much. It had a pretty good story, like a remake of a 1950's nightclub noir film. It really had an early R. Heinlein or Phillip K. Dick feel to it, sort of. The effects were neat if not ground breaking and Eddie Murphy did a credible job. Randy Quaid was funny and annoying at the same time. Also had a really funny cameo of Pam Greir as Eddie's mom. A nice, solid movie. Not perfect by any means with lots of science mistakes but then Hollywood does that a lot anyway. This movie reminds me of Total Recall if I had to put a name on it.
The humor was much more sophisticated than I expected and there were no Uranus jokes, contrary to other reviews. If you are going to lie, try a little harder.
The humor was much more sophisticated than I expected and there were no Uranus jokes, contrary to other reviews. If you are going to lie, try a little harder.
There's maybe one laugh (if you're lucky) in this universally-panned disaster, but that doesn't mean THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH is a complete loss. Eddie Murphy is the title character, a reformed felon operating the most successful club in the "Little America" part of the Moon. But after he turns down an offer to sell to a shyster for $10 million, the laser bullets begin flying in his direction. Now he and gal pal Rosario Dawson, along with robot bodyguard Randy Quaid, are on the run.
Murphy is generally appealing, but his comic touch just doesn't jive with the sci-fi environment. The plot is at times incoherent and suffers from trying to roll comedy, action and excitement all into one. It's kind of amazing this clunker ever made it beyond the idea phase, particularly with talents such as Murphy and director Ron Underwood (CITY SLICKERS) involved.
What does PLUTO NASH have going for it? Though it's supposed to be a comedy, it actually works to some degree as a sci-fi adventure. The massive $100 million budget and futuristic setting make for some interesting visuals. And the picture moves along at a fair pace, with a tidy running time of 95 minutes.
For all its flaws, I would not use the term "boring" to describe PLUTO NASH. Hollywood has done much better, but it's also done far worse.
Murphy is generally appealing, but his comic touch just doesn't jive with the sci-fi environment. The plot is at times incoherent and suffers from trying to roll comedy, action and excitement all into one. It's kind of amazing this clunker ever made it beyond the idea phase, particularly with talents such as Murphy and director Ron Underwood (CITY SLICKERS) involved.
What does PLUTO NASH have going for it? Though it's supposed to be a comedy, it actually works to some degree as a sci-fi adventure. The massive $100 million budget and futuristic setting make for some interesting visuals. And the picture moves along at a fair pace, with a tidy running time of 95 minutes.
For all its flaws, I would not use the term "boring" to describe PLUTO NASH. Hollywood has done much better, but it's also done far worse.
"The Adventures of Pluto Nash" was made and shelved for two years....a clear sign that the studio knew they had a box office bomb on their hands. The picture ended up costing $100,000,000 to make and earned back only a little over $11,000,000 worldwide! Because of this, it's the biggest financial disaster in film history. However, after seeing it I realized that is not that bad...even if it is on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List...and has a horrid overall score of 3,8!!
All this being said, I don't think it's really that bad a film. I think the problem, more than anything else, was that according to some sources, the star, Eddie Murphy, really burned a lot of bridges while making this film...insisting on re-writes and overruling the director repeatedly. And, it seems that the studio got sick of him and the controversy...and word of this leaked out and killed the movie. And, so, as often happens with movies like "Gigli", people just start getting on the bandwagon...and heap tons of hate on the picture. However, after seeing it, I thought the movie was actually not bad. Would I pay to go see it? No. Would I pay to rent it? No. But if it was available to see for free on TV, then it's worth seeing.
So apart from its horrible reputation, there is one big problme with the film....it's not a comedy. Now perhaps it was intended as one....but there isn't a laugh in the story and it's more an unusual action/adventure film....and I can enjoy it on that level. It also doesn't help that it's very obvious that the film was written and re-written and edited and re-edited...with entire story lines dropped and inexplicably so!
The story is set in the future ...a future when the moon is colonized and is a nice place to live...unless you are Pluto. This is because some mobsters want to take his successful nightclub...and they offer him a fraction of what it's worth. He rejects their offer...and they almost immediately blow the place up and try to kill him. Most of the film consists of Pluto and his companions (Rosario Dawson and Randy Quaid...who plays a robot) on the run until the final boss battle.
So what did I like about it? Well, the film looks nice for 2002 with decent special effects, costumes and CGI. Compared to today's CGI it's kinda shabby...but that is to be expected after 17 years...technology simply improves and improves over time. Also, the story isn't terrible and the acting is generally decent.
So, on whole, the story just isn't funny, parts are obviously missing due to hack editing and re-writes but it looks good and isn't annoying or hellish....like a Bottom 100 film should be. Watchable.
By the way, a couple final comments. First, I saw a review which said that they 'laughed from start to finish'. I can only assume this person laughs at ANYTHING....funerals, dramas, Coke commercials, etc....as the film simply isn't funny and doesn't look at all like a comedy. Second, it's become in fashion to hate Eddie Murphy in recent years. While he has had some serious box office stinkers, he's STILL amazingly talented. See "Dreamgirls" or "Bowfinger" and you'll know what I mean. But I also think he'd benefit from realizing that he alone cannot make a great film...it takes teamwork and a good script.
All this being said, I don't think it's really that bad a film. I think the problem, more than anything else, was that according to some sources, the star, Eddie Murphy, really burned a lot of bridges while making this film...insisting on re-writes and overruling the director repeatedly. And, it seems that the studio got sick of him and the controversy...and word of this leaked out and killed the movie. And, so, as often happens with movies like "Gigli", people just start getting on the bandwagon...and heap tons of hate on the picture. However, after seeing it, I thought the movie was actually not bad. Would I pay to go see it? No. Would I pay to rent it? No. But if it was available to see for free on TV, then it's worth seeing.
So apart from its horrible reputation, there is one big problme with the film....it's not a comedy. Now perhaps it was intended as one....but there isn't a laugh in the story and it's more an unusual action/adventure film....and I can enjoy it on that level. It also doesn't help that it's very obvious that the film was written and re-written and edited and re-edited...with entire story lines dropped and inexplicably so!
The story is set in the future ...a future when the moon is colonized and is a nice place to live...unless you are Pluto. This is because some mobsters want to take his successful nightclub...and they offer him a fraction of what it's worth. He rejects their offer...and they almost immediately blow the place up and try to kill him. Most of the film consists of Pluto and his companions (Rosario Dawson and Randy Quaid...who plays a robot) on the run until the final boss battle.
So what did I like about it? Well, the film looks nice for 2002 with decent special effects, costumes and CGI. Compared to today's CGI it's kinda shabby...but that is to be expected after 17 years...technology simply improves and improves over time. Also, the story isn't terrible and the acting is generally decent.
So, on whole, the story just isn't funny, parts are obviously missing due to hack editing and re-writes but it looks good and isn't annoying or hellish....like a Bottom 100 film should be. Watchable.
By the way, a couple final comments. First, I saw a review which said that they 'laughed from start to finish'. I can only assume this person laughs at ANYTHING....funerals, dramas, Coke commercials, etc....as the film simply isn't funny and doesn't look at all like a comedy. Second, it's become in fashion to hate Eddie Murphy in recent years. While he has had some serious box office stinkers, he's STILL amazingly talented. See "Dreamgirls" or "Bowfinger" and you'll know what I mean. But I also think he'd benefit from realizing that he alone cannot make a great film...it takes teamwork and a good script.
Kids( 11, 9, 7 ) and I enjoyed this this afternoon and must agree with others that tghe critics have this all wrong. The special effects are top class and the CGI workers deserve kudos. Sure the plot was holywood boiler plate but it really surpassed Total Recall and Mr. Murphy was still able to project his exceptional talent and gift for dramatic comedy. Why didn't Warner Bros. plug this better? Why the release delay? Obviously putting it on DVD/VHS there was somebody with brains, sense, and guts to know it had quality. Bad rap and poor business judgement are it's only shortcomings. (7/10)
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn absolute terms, this movie made the largest financial loss of any movie to date, with a budget of $100 million and a total US gross of $4.41 million (loss of $95.59 million) and a lifetime worldwide gross of $7,103,973 for a total loss of $92,896,027
- गूफ़When Pluto, Dina, and Bruno leave town in the stolen car, they pass under a road sign announcing the "Neil Armstrong Monument," but the photo on the sign is of Buzz Aldrin, that Armstrong took during the Apollo 11 mission.
- भाव
Pluto Nash: You blew up my wood bar stools. You know how hard it is to get wood on the moon?
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: The Worst Films of 2002 (2003)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Adventures of Pluto Nash?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Pluto Nash
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $10,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $44,20,080
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $21,82,900
- 18 अग॰ 2002
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $71,03,973
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 35 मि(95 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें