Welcome back, my dearest, to CraveOnline’s anger-mongering series Trolling, wherein we deliberately espouse opinions opposite to yours. This week’s installment will openly and earnestly defend one of the more notorious bombs of the ‘00s, Ron Underwood’s 2002 sci-fi comedy The Adventures of Pluto Nash starring Eddie Murphy.
Here are the facts of the matter; Pluto Nash was released in mid-August, right in the middle of the post-Summer cinematic dead zone. The studio clearly had no faith in its ability to succeed. Eddie Murphy was once the biggest star in the universe, but after a few not-so-notable semi-bombs like Showtime, The Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, and Doctor Dolittle 2, his high-profile status was flagging. Films like Daddy Day Care, Norbit, and A Thousand Words were still in his future. If it weren’t for Shrek and Dreamgirls, Murphy may have vanished from films altogether.
So The Adventure of Pluto Nash was kind of a tipping point for his career. A lot was riding on it, and its financial failure spelled out an unfortunate future. Not only did the film bomb (the film has made a mere $4.4 million on a – no lie – $100 million budget), but it was openly and stridently panned by critics (it enjoys an unenviable 5% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes). It was nominated for several Razzies that year, and generally holds a reputation as one of the worst films of the decade.
But it is most certainly not one of the worst films of the decade, my friends. Like many bombs, audiences who haven’t seen it assume it to be awful, perpetuating the myth of its terribleness. I will declare the following: this little seen sci-fi comic odyssey is a pretty good film. Indeed, upon analysis we may even discover that The Adventures of Pluto Nash RULES! Let’s look at a few reasons why:
Sure, the plotting isn’t very tight, a lot of the jokes are indeed dumb, and the twist ending is pretty arbitrary – the script could have perhaps gone through one more draft – but The Adventures of Pluto Nash is one of the more delightful sci-fi comedies in Murphy’s canon. It’s an underrated yuk-fest ripe for re-discovery. This is the type of film that a small brave audience will approach, consume, understand, and hold dear, all while the rest of the world unfairly continues to reject it.
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is the head film critic for Nerdist, and a contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
7 Reasons Why Pluto Nash RULES!
-
It’s Funny
Let’s address the most important point immediately: The Adventures of Pluto Nash is actually funny. Sure, not all of the gags really hit home (the scene in the holographic body-disguise warehouse is a little out-of-place), but the slapstick humor and quiet, casual one-liners seem to strike a relaxed, jokey tone, rather than a breathlessly frantic slapstick one. It’s not forcing any of its laughs, and that can be a welcome change to any and all comedy films of a similar vintage.
-
Eddie Murphy is Great
Pluto Nash himself is also laid back and affable, and Murphy – although once again playing a version of himself – plays Nash like a real person. While he has been in some stinkers in his day, Murphy is still a hilarious comedian at heart, and his comic precision is – despite what some critics have said – on full display here. He’s not phoning this one in, playing Nash like a friendly-yet-business-minded club owner with principles to stand for.
-
Bruno is a Cool Character
Randy Quaid plays Pluto Nash’s android bodyguard Bruno, a creaking, out-of-date model that breaks often. He is largely incapable of high-octane action, but was built to last. He seems impatient, loyal, but still prone to malfunctions. He’s like a character out of “Futurama,” in fact, which debuted a few years previous. He has the same sort of anarchic comedic energy, and I like him as a character.
-
Good Supporting Cast
Rosario Dawson is a lovely and talented actress who always sells her roles, even if the movies she’s in aren’t very good. Jay Mohr is an underrated comedic actor whose zip and wit are a welcome addition to any movie. Luis Guzman is always a delight. Joe Pantoliano makes for an interestingly sniveling villain. John Cleese, Peter Boyle, Pam Grier, and Illeana Douglas round out a few notable cameo roles. None of these actors half-ass it.
-
Awesome Look
The production design of Pluto Nash is one of the main reasons it cost so much to make, but it looks wonderful. Filmed largely on real sets (before most sci-fi films tipped into the black hole of blue screens), and infused with an appealingly friendly candy-colored visual schematic, The Adventures of Pluto Nash envisions the Moon as a slightly scuffed, slightly rundown amusement park, full of deadbeats, but still generally safe. A lot like real life Earth cities, actually. One of the first things you see in the movie is a Moon-based movie theater showing The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It’ll still be around in the 2080s. That’s so cool. Add to that an overall Flash Gordon ray-gun aesthetic, and you’ve got a good looking movie.
-
It’s a Loving Spoof
I think most people sort of missed the general thrust of The Adventures of Pluto Nash, assuming it to be more frank than I think it was intended to be. Pluto Nash was not trying to be a hip new sci-fi mega-hit like Men in Black. Pluto Nash was a comedy film, largely spoofing a lot of the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s. It’s more colorful and has a bigger budget, but the art-deco charm of old-timey sci-fi is present in every scene. It works as a comedy, and it also works as a subtle spoof of itself.
-
It’s Generally Good-Natured
Something I hate about a lot of recent comedies (The Hangover, Ted, anything with Will Farrell or Adam Sandler) is that they are typically caustic, deliberately abrasive, and overall very cynical. They only aim to subvert stuffed shirts in the most sub-adolescent fashion imaginable. It’s rare that you’ll find a comedy that does not come from a place of mockery or resentment, and actually seems to be having fun with itself. How often do you feel like a comedy filmmaker wants to make you laugh? I feel that Ron Underwood struck that tone perfectly, making a comedy that wants to shake your hand, not suckerpunch you.
