SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

logan vandiver In my whole honest opinion this is one of the Eddie Murphy movies no one remembers or likes such as a lot of his stuff in the 90's Pluto Nash disappoints left and right,also on that note when it comes to Eddie Murphy its either a really good movie or a movie you want to use as toilet paper when you have diareah,i only paid 80 cents but it was the worst 80 cents i ever spent, Pluto Nash was a terrible...TERRIBLE! movie don't watch it unless your a fan of bad movies (im looking at you m.night shamalon fans)it spits in the face of good movies and if you thought signs was crap than OH BOY! wait until you watch Pluto Nash its the WORST ABOMINATION IN CINEMA HISTORY AND FEEL BAD FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS WATCHED THIS TERRIBLE CATASTROPHE OF CINEMA! ~Logan.V

Phil Hubbs Being one of the worse box office bombs ever isn't a good start really is it. Yet to look at the trailer, the sci-fi fantasy aspect and the films title you could be fooled into thinking this might not be too bad. The title is pretty sweet if you ask me, definitely an 80's movie title right there.The plot is set in 2080 and mainly on the moon which is now called Little America. A location where gambling, girls, criminals and all things seedy are rampant, a bit like Las Vegas in the old days. Eddie Murphy is a retired smuggler who runs a nightclub on the moon and wants a quiet life, but this is all messed up when some goons come along and force Murphy out by destroying his club under the orders of a mysterious kingpin. Its now up to 'Pluto Nash' to find out why, who is the man behind it all and try to get his club back, or what's left of it.I think the first issue with the film are the visuals. The film is oldish but not that old and unfortunately the CGI effects are pretty poor. Shots of the moon, moving vehicles, the lunar surface and of course Little America just look average and obviously CGI. When we close in on the urban areas the sets aren't too bad in design but again its terribly obvious its all sets. It all looks like a very mediocre attempt at a 'Blade Runner-esque' grimy neon lit urban district. The colour palette doesn't really help with everything being grey and boring, yes I know its the moon and the moon is typically grey but come on. There were some nice 50's-esque designs on some buildings and vehicles though, there was that element throughout the film but it still felt drab and lifeless, virtually black and white.Then you have all the interior sets, design and costumes...its all grey!! everything is grey! flippin' eck!. Not only that but the interior designs look so dated, like its all been reused from a 60's TV sci-fi show. I understand that doesn't necessarily make it bad, there are plenty of examples where films have deliberately gone down the homage route or retro design/vibe which can work wonders giving a great charm factor. The problem here is the film had a massive budget and you wonder what they actually used it on.Take the robot character played by Quaid (and the maid robot character). What they have done is simply apply a lot of makeup to Quaid to give him a doll-like appearance, then he merely acts out the robot role. Now again this can be done and it can work but probably best in low budget films that have little choice. In a big production it just tends to feel lackluster, the maid robot was the same but dressed up in a sexy French number as if that makes it more acceptable. I did quite like the 50's sci-fi sense I got from Quaid's robot though, like a butch Robbie the Robot in human form...kinda hehe.Whilst watching I also found the plot to be a tad confusing really, or at least it didn't make much sense because it was all a muddle of grey. There are a lot of character names flying about here, a lot of seemingly pointless stuff, aimless boring dialog and not much action believe it or not. We just move from one cheap looking grey set to the next with little to laugh, disappointing seeing as its supposedly a Murphy sci-fi action romp.But is it? you think it is but its not really, its more like a 1950's nightclub murder noir homage, 'Harlem Nights' in space perhaps. I must admit to thinking of 'Total Recall' at times whilst watching, it has that kind of vibe going on, minus all the excellent action and blood of course. Do I get the feeling this was made and acted the way it was on purpose?...was it?! I'm not sure, I'd like to think that but deep down I really doubt it. I just think it was a poorly executed movie which had potential to become a bit of a classic. I can see why people might enjoy bits of it like Quaid's cheesy robotic performance and the minor visual gags dotted throughout, but end of the day this really feels like its trying to achieve what 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai' achieved.I'm still not really sure whether or not this film was intentionally made like a low budget sci-fi B-movie for artistic reasons, or it just came out that way. The more I think about it, this might have worked much better as a short TV series, it certainly has the look and feel.4.5/10

oneguyrambling The Adventures of Pluto Nash isn't the worst film ever made. It just might be the worst value for money though, with a reported budget topping 100M and a box-office of less than 5 it makes Jonah Hex look like a wise investment. But despite this it is more sad than bad.I can't possibly see where they thought the laughs were going to come from… I can't fathom which parts were supposed to be entertaining… Worst of all I can't really see where the money was spent…I just sincerely hope it wasn't Randy Quaid's salary.Pluto Nash was made by the same guy that made Tremors which is the inverse if Pluto Nash, a low budget / high entertainment affair that is remembered fondly by all that have seen it. Pluto Nash wants to be quirky, cool, edgy, funky and hip but is really none of these things.It is 2080 and the Moon has been made hospitable for humans. Pluto Nash (Eddie Murphy) is the guy who everyone on Earth's satellite adores – except the bad guys who want to force him to sell his bumpin' club to them.After a run in leaves his club a smouldering pile of rubble (like this film) Nash sets off with waitress Dana (Rosario Dawson – who obviously spent her paycheck on implants after filming ended) and his faithful robot Bruno (Randy Quaid).The trio traverse the moon trying to lay low out of the gunsights of the bad guys while working towards finding who is ultimately responsible for their situation. Along the way they encounter many recognisable faces that add nothing to the film, Jay Mohr, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, John Cleese and Alec Baldwin among others.I think the aim was for Nash to be cool and likable, Dana the cute love interest and Bruno the comic relief. All fail. As does everything else in the film.But again Pluto Nash is as harmless as it is pointless, unlike the braincell shattering Tank Girl it made me want to sleep more than vomit – admittedly neither is an endorsement for the film – but the issue remains how could something cost so much look so ordinary?Now I know how the Miami Heat must feel.A big budget light comedy set on the moon and featuring its own fading star in Murphy was never going to be a big hit. This can't be the fault of director Ron Underwood but the big-wigs who greenlit it and opened the coffers. The absolute ceiling for this film was Demolition Man, itself decidedly average. The floor was Tank Girl, which Pluto managed to avoid but just barely.Now you tell me; is a ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR investment worth making for a film that at best could end up mediocre?Final Rating – 3.5 / 10. Pluto Nash sucks, but it is isn't the end of the world… unless you happened to be the one who covered the budget.

TheLittleSongbird 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