The Adventures of Pluto Nash

2002

Action / Comedy / Sci-Fi

15
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten5%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled19%
IMDb Rating3.81025970

futurenightclubcasinomafia bosslaser gun

Plot summary


Uploaded by: FREEMAN

Top cast

Rosario Dawson Photo
Rosario Dawson as Dina Lake
Eddie Murphy Photo
Eddie Murphy as Pluto Nash
Joe Pantoliano Photo
Joe Pantoliano as Mogan
Pam Grier Photo
Pam Grier as Flura Nash
720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
870.02 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
1 hr 34 min
P/S ...
1.58 GB
1904*1072
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
1 hr 34 min
P/S 1 / 5

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird2 / 10

One of Murphy's worst

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

Reviewed by claudio_carvalho5 / 10

A Movie with Great Budget, Actors, Actresses and Effects, Which Unfortunately Does Not Work Well

Pluto Nash (the decadent Eddie Murphy) is the owner of a successful club in the moon in 2080. A mobster wants to buy his club, threatens him exploding his club and trying to kill him. He will look for this gangster in another city in moon. This movie is amazing: a great budget, for the futuristic scenario (similar to Total Recall),special effects and good actors (Randy Quaid, Joe Pantoliano, Jay Mohr, Luis Gusmán, James Rebhorn, Alec Baldwin, Peter Boyle, John Cleese among others less known) and actresses (Pam Grier, Illeana Douglas, Rosario Dawson),mixes adventure, comedy and science fiction... but unfortunately it does not work. It is boring, the plot is terrible and full of clichés. The action in this flick is not exciting and only Eddie Murphy laughs of his jokes! A complete loss of time and money. My vote is five.

Reviewed by MartinHafer5 / 10

Don't believe anyone when it comes to this movie! Of course, you might wonder if you can trust me as well!

"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.

Read more IMDb reviews