The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)

That was an excellent one.

So much average

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

I found this movie to be thoroughly entertaining. I have no idea why this movie has such poor ratings. Maybe you just have to be a science fiction fan to enjoy it?I like the entire outer space thing. Then there's the vehicles. The robot thing going on. I also don't think the acting is as bad as some people will have you believe.I think it's a brilliant movie and I would gladly watch it again. I'm confused why this movie has such bad reviews. And according to the internet it was a bomb at the box office? Maybe people have no taste.Over time maybe this can be considered a cult classic. Much like other entertaining films like Lifepod.

Which came first Independence Day or The Adventures of Pluto Nash? Independence Day was released six years before Pluto Nash. The connection between the two? James Rebhorn appeared in both. Seeing him looking younger in Pluto Nash than he did in ID added to my sense that Pluto Nash was a late 80s or early 90s film. It just has that look and feel to it. Pluto Nash resembles 1986's Howard the Duck more than its 2002 brethren Star Wars Episode II, Lord of the Rings II, Spider Man, or MIB II (which also included Rosario Dawson). The reason that Pluto Nash seems out of place is that its genesis came in the mid-80s. For some reason, no one stuck a fork in it. Going into production 15 years (in 2000) after its conception is odd to say the least. The mid-80s were not the early 2000s. What might have been entertaining in 1985 wasn't so in 2002. The 80s were just a very different time. Pluto Nash has such an 80s feel to it that I distinctly remember watching it repeatedly on HBO while in my apartment. The thing is, I had moved from that apartment in 1988. Freaky false memory, huh? Other 80s features of Pluto Nash are its dialog, sets, coloration, and special effects. Cheesy is the word that describes the general feel of Pluto Nash. What perplexes me is that this movie cost about $125 million dollars. I could not see anything or any combination of things in Pluto Nash that should have added up to $125 million. A fifth of that? A fourth of that? Maybe. Maybe Eddie Murphy made a killing with his salary. Maybe Warner Brothers worked with the federales to funnel cash to the NSA, and Pluto Nash really cost only $1 million to make. The extra $124 million would buy a lot of flash drives.As cheesy and unbelievably expensive as this movie is, it is still moderately entertaining. Eddie Murphy (who hit his stride in the 80s and probably peaked just before this movie) is an entertainer through and through. I can't think of many roles where I haven't felt good from watching him work. (Delirious is one funny standup performance with him in that red leather jumpsuit and all.) Rosario Dawson spent a lot of the movie doing nothing but looking cute, and she excelled in that. (She's another performer who seldom disappoints.) Randy Quaid made a good performance as an outdated android. The part didn't have much depth or opportunities, but he scored some of the movie's best lines. All of the humor in Pluto Nash was subtle. Very subtle, but there nonetheless.Pluto Nash is a good movie to have on as background stimulus. Maybe at a family holiday gathering when the movie is secondary.

pluto nash is one of them movies, that was a box office flop, so people like to jump on the bandwagon and say its rubbish, when it is far from it, this is a great eddie murphy movie, and is funny, with a great cast, and a sexy looking rosario dawson, thats a pretty sweet hour and a half to me. most people that badmouthed the movie, didn't even watch it, its just cool to say it isn't good, well let me tell you know, if your a fan of eddie murphy, and why wouldn't you be, then you will enjoy this movie very much, no it isn't one of the best movies of alltime, it isn't even of eddie murphy's best but it is a great comedy, that delivers some good laughs, watch it you'll be surprised

I do not hate Pluto Nash because it was a box-office failure, even if it was, I don't consider that a valid enough reason to hate on a movie. I hate it because it is for me simply not funny and wastes a cast that I think are talented and deserve better.Granted the special effects are elaborate and really quite good and I did like the music, however that is all I have to say that was good. Don't get me wrong I do like Eddie Murphy and his films, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Trading Places and Shrek and classics and I liked Coming to America and Bowfinger too.However, when it comes to talking about his films, the only movie of his I consider worse than Pluto Nash is the atrocity that is Norbit. Murphy is a funny and likable actor, but he is very bland here. He does make too much of an effort to stop his character from being bland and ends up over-compensating.The rest of the cast are wasted. John Cleese phones in, Pam Grier is saddled with tired material and sadly it comes through loud and clear in her performance and Rosario Dawson struggles with a clichéd character in the form of a wannabe singer. Worst of all is Randy Quaid, who not only has some of the film's worst dialogue and gags but his performance is just awful.The cast are not helped by a truly tired and unfunny script, lazy direction from Ron Underwood(was it really the director of Tremors and City Slickers?) and a rushed and predictable story that is filled with poor characters and trite and disconnected scenes.So in conclusion, a very poor film and one of Murphy's worst films. 2/10 Bethany Cox