The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) User Reviews

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

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 7 March 2019]

"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.

Not Great, But Not A Total Loss

[ReelCheese · 4/10 · 6 August 2006]

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.

I have seen worse

[dmann73 · 5/10 · 27 November 2005]

I just saw this movie for the first time on TV. and it I did find it as bad as the box office made it out to be.Now don't get me wrong, this was far from the best movie. One thing I would like to say is that just in resent times (the last 4 month (date Nov, 27, 2005)) I can name 2 movies that were worse BY FAR!! Stealth and JarHead have to be 2 of the worse movies that I have ever seen. Anyways, I do see some of the points that people have made about this movie. I grew up in the 70's and 80's and like some one said this would have been a better success then. My main point is if I were to judge this move on the basis of the movies I have seen in the last year or so I would have given it a 8 out of 10.

Old Fashioned Sci-Fi

[kathmandu · 24 August 2002]

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.

Shiver

[Surprisemayo · 1/10 · 25 September 2005]

I can't even decide how to begin this. This movie was one of two movies that almost ruined my life (the other was a "Lifetime" movie called "Cloned", in case you're interested). To be perfectly honest, I cannot even write this review without getting worked into a frenzy of anger. This movie was quite possibly the worst excuse for a film-making venture that I have ever encountered in my entire life. If you can gain anything from this short rant, please: 1) Don't rent the movie 2) Don't look at the box 3) Don't read plot summaries or spoilers 4) Don't rent movies containing the featured "Pluto Nash" actors within a radius of 1 year from it's production.

To gain some idea of how I feel, imagine having just watched that videotape from "The Ring". I know my doom is coming soon, I cannot prevent it, and there is only one certainty: This film can only do harm.

Poor Randy Quaid!

[rosscinema · 2/10 · 9 November 2003]

This is just another example of the continuing downward spiral of Eddie Murphy's once exciting career. Murphy will always have scripts handed to him and he'll always be working in films but the once edgy comedian has lost his edge a long time ago. This story takes place in the future where Earth has populated the Moon and a former smuggler named Pluto Nash (Murphy) takes over a nightclub from a friend and Nash makes it a big success and moneymaker. A young woman and aspiring singer named Dina Lake (Rosario Dawson) asks for a job but all Nash gives her is the opportunity to waitress. Some mobsters have been buying up the local business's and they want Nash's club but he won't sell. So they blow the place up and try to kill him but Nash, Dina and a robot named Bruno (Randy Quaid) escape and the mobsters try and find him. This film was directed by Ron Underwood who is usually reliable with lightweight comedy like this but this film fails from the outset. The special effects are adequate but not overly impressive. Many of the scenes are clearly filmed on a soundstage and in one shot Underwood resorts to actors being hoisted by wires for the gravity effect. Didn't they stop doing that in the 60's? And poor Randy Quaid has to play a horny and overly sensitive robot. Were we really suppose to find it amusing that he tries to get it on with other robots? But the big flaw comes from Murphy himself. This once exciting comedian use to be so reliable for edgy performances but here he plays his character totally straight. As you watch this you keep waiting for Murphy to say something witty and off the cuff but it never happens. It looks like Murphy has decided to try and be an action star or be the romantic lead. Murphy has become boring to watch and its sad to watch his films now. Pam Grier pops up as Murphy's mother but she has nothing to do. She has maybe two scenes and then she runs off (Literally). This film wastes opportunities and the script has nothing new to offer. Along with Murphy's boring and drab performance this film was dead on arrival!

Yup, it's an irredeemable flop!

[BadWebDiver · 2/10 · 6 April 2005]

And to think my all-time fav genre is sci-fi comedy! Here's a prime textbook case at how not to do one.

It's a comedy with only a microscopic trace of humor, a sci-fi that really could just have easily been set in present-day Earth with no sci-fi elements at all, and an action film that contains only the standard D-grade action story setups and climaxes - and done at a lackadaisical by-the numbers contract-delivery pace.

The only element that has the slight bit of remote interest is Randy Quaid as a rather quirky bodyguard robot. At least it's an interesting exercise at how to play a totally fanciful out-of-this world concept with no real-life equivalent. Yeah - the sort of role that your standard modern drama school graduate would be scratching their heads trying to get a grip on; and your academic drama scholar would be tearing their hair out till they looked like Homer Simpson over the fact "its not the type of role -or story for that matter- that has any credibility or truth to the human experience" (blah blah!) The fact that he is even a tiny bit watchable in that deserves a bit of a finger-clap - maybe.

It could have been so much better - a few puppet-type aliens hanging around, a bit more showing of the light gravity bits, a dig at your serious Arthur C Clarke space drama like MOONDUST - anything at all to make this remotely interesting as a cinema experience - or even a storyline.

But what we actually get is the real sort of movie that the conservative critics have accused all summer-style movies of being: brainless formulaic uncreative popcorn entertainment plying to the lowest common denominator that is churned out when the bloated Hollywood studio system is working on autopilot.

Actually - this is the movie that makes the normal summer blockbuster movies look like works of literary genius. The critics should have been aware of the old saying: "Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it."

Weak script and big budget handed to an incapable director!

[robo8 · 4/10 · 5 January 2007]

See a lot of guys giving this a one out of ten, not really fair I feel. To me there are lots of worse movies in all categories. But that said - it's not a top notch movie.

I've never been a fan of director Ron Underwood - he might be decent for TV but features aren't his strong side in my opinion. You'll notice best when it comes to the comedy parts (the attempts I should say) and the actions sequences.

As for comedy, the directing does nothing to enhance the seemingly weak script. Since comedy seems to be what this movie was to be about and the pace seems intended to be rather fast - maybe they should have gone for a director who could make something out of it? The action sequences are incredibly lame. It resembles grown people playing war without saying "pow pow". Here the director's at a loss as well, which shows in sequences as when Randy Quaid's robot character is taking out his two canons for guns. I take it, this is supposed to be a "cool" shot but the angle of camera, timing and pace makes it about as cool as when your dad hangs up his coat upon returning home from work.

The budget ($100 million allegedly) didn't seem to be a problem and the special effects as well as the sets seem pretty well done, along with a pretty nice cast (even tiny sub-minute parts are mostly done by actors you at least recognize). This must be seen as further critique of the director, since he seemed to have all the necessary tools at hand.

The actors put in from a half-hearted to a decent effort. A lot of great character actors (Joe Pantoliano) didn't get enough space to be interesting and there is a lot of untapped comedy resource in both Jay Mohr and Eddie Murphy. Though it has to be said – Pam Grier put in what has to be her worst performance ever as the mother of Eddie Murphy's character. One you can always trust to give his spirit is Luis Guzmán, and he doesn't disappoint in this one either.

All in all I would say there was a weak script to start with, that grew even weaker when it was handed to a director that couldn't handle the sort of comedy it was supposed to be, nor the action it was supposed to contain. Probably actors underachieved, especially in the comedy department, due to this directing. The end result was nor a comedy, nor an action – simply a bleak sci-fi that was one of the biggest net-losses in movie history if I got it right. My guess is that the guys at Warner Brothers probably are killing themselves for not picking a more suitable director.

Pluto Nash, more like Pluto A**

[Neal19 · 1/10 · 18 August 2002]

I am a projectionist at a theater in my home town. The night before a movie comes out we are forced to watch them to make sure nothing is wrong with the print. I've seen some bad ones in my day (i.e. Pokemon, and Battle Field Earth), but this one takes the cake. I am convinced that this is the on-flight movie on the plane to hell. As funny as Eddie Murphy is the writers could not find a way to make this movie at all humorous. As an Eddie Murphy fan I hope this movie does not damage his legacy. What an awful, awful movie.

I was prepared to hate this... But "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" was a Pleasant Surprise!

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 7/10 · 10 January 2011]

3.7. A 3.7 out of 10. As I sit here, writing this review, this film has a user-average rating of 3.7 out of 10. I'm going out on a limb here, and assume that there are many people who blindly voted low scores to bring down the rating, based solely on the negative publicity. Because, I honestly can't believe that they all witnessed the same film I did. (Not to mention, mass negative voting from people who haven't seen the film is a problem here for movies with hype or notoriety.)

I knew the story, I heard about it all. The film was shelved for two years, didn't get much publicity, and was released August of 2002. Releasing a major comedy with a huge budget 2 years after completion, with little publicity on almost the exact date of the 1-year anniversary of one of the biggest tragedies to ever hit the US... Seriously, did the studio even think when they tried to push this film out? I can only assume not. Critics crucified it. Audiences ignored it. It was a flop.

I went along, blindly following the notion that because it flopped, it sucked. (Although, I have found out that many great films flopped, among them "It's a Wonderful Life.") Finally a few months ago, a friend of mine said: "Hey Adam, let's watch 'Pluto Nash'! It's on NetFlix!" I scoffed, but after he persisted, I agreed.

I'm glad I did.

"Pluto Nash" was refreshingly entertaining, and in no way was it the abysmal slight against cinema I had been told it was.

The film centers on Pluto Nash (Eddie Murphy in a fun performance), his sidekick robot Bruno (Randy Quaid in perhaps my favorite performance in the film) and Dina Lake (the astonishingly beautiful Rosario Dawson), with numerous other actors in supporting roles. Nash is the owner the nightclub "Club Nash", on the moon, some time in the future. He bought the club to save the life of a friend (Jay Mohr), who has since become a famous "singer" in a snazzy upscale part of the moon, leaving Nash behind. Dina arrives, hoping to work for Nash in order to earn money to buy her way back to Earth.

Soon, henchmen sent by the mysterious Rex Crater arrive, interested in buying Nash's club. When Nash turns them down, they destroy the place. Nash, Dina and Bruno vow to discover who this Rex Carter is, and stop him.

And so begins this fun action/comedy/sci-fi feature. In all honesty, the story is cliché, but it actually works quite well. This isn't supposed to be a revolutionary masterpiece, it's meant to be a fun good-guys-VS-bad-guys-buddy-movie type film, only set on the moon in the future. The characters are quite endearing and likable as well. They feel like people you'd want to hang out with.

The special effects (which were unfairly criticized at the time) are surprisingly good, considering they were from 2000 (remember, the film was finished but shelved for two years), and the direction of Ron Underwood is quite nice. Visually, the film is a treat.

The cast works. Murphy, Dawson and Quaid are all great in their roles, and supporting characters are played very well by some big names, such as Peter Boyle, Pam Greir, Burt Young and even a cameo by Alec Baldwin.

The music is fun, the editing is great, the set design is exquisite, the acting is generally very good, the direction is fantastic, the story is decent enough. I really can't say much. The craftsmanship is very competent. It's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination from any conceivable way you look at it. Is it a particularly strong film? No. But is it a halfway decent film with some laughs and some heart? Yes, it is most definitely. I also admire the fact that this film isn't ashamed of being light-hearted and positive. A lot of films (especially these days) try to be dark and gritty. It's nice to see just a positive, fun film.

I honestly can't understand how this was so hated by critics upon release, and so ignored by the general public. It's a very fun movie, and I had a blast watching it. I will gladly be buying this flick sometime soon, and sharing it with others, so they can finally see this treat they missed out on.

I give "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" a good 7 out of 10. It's lighthearted fun.

This is the WORST MOVIE EVER! PERIOD!

[kidcontra1 · 1/10 · 12 June 2005]

This is the WORST MOVIE EVER! PERIOD! There isn't much more to be said about the worst movie of all time. I have never seen anything this bad and I couldn't imagine anything this bad ever being made again. What makes this debacle of a film ever worst, is the fact that it has, what should be a great cast. Eddie Murphy and Rosario Dawson star in the Misadventures, oops I mean the Adventures of Pluto Nash, which is a movie that was dead in the water before it ever came out. The release date kept getting pushed back, I guess someone actually saw the finished product and tried to delay the inevitable, but once it was realized that the movie had to eventually come out, it crashed landed into theaters more than a year after its scheduled release date and was headed toward DVD a week later. Its not even cheesy bad, its not one of those movies that you and your friends and sit back and watch and laugh at how bad it is. It is a train wreck that should be avoided at all cost and will forever be synonymous with the term " box-office bomb."

Better than the ratings would imply

[Kunovega · 8/10 · 5 August 2015]

This is a movie full of cliché and predictable twists. But it's still Eddie Murphy being funny and filled with cute little moments.

I'm not sure why this film attracts so much hate, it doesn't bother doing anything so terrible that it deserves the vitriol level of criticism that seems to be thrown at it.

It's at worst a movie that's easy to classify as "average", but personally I actually really enjoy this film. It's a non offensive, straight forward sci-fi comedy that doesn't require any deeper understanding or intellectual delving.

There's no deeper meaning here than some funny people having an adventure on a future moon city. You could do a lot worse with your time than to sit back, turn off your brain for an hour and just enjoy the show.

Honestly this is one of my go to movies for multitasking, something funny on in the background that doesn't require my 100% attention to still make me laugh while I'm doing other things. And it ends up getting watched more often than some of the "better" movies that I would rate at 10 simply because those are often a chore to watch and require actually thinking to understand them.

Yes if you understood that correctly: I do enjoy a deeper movie and would rate them higher, but it's also not what I would typically grab from day to day when I just want to laugh while getting through the grind: The Adventures of Pluto Nash "is".

Good...not bad...and not great...murphy does it again! 7/10

[berht-2 · 7/10 · 28 December 2002]

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)

Absolutely awful, forgettable comedy

[Rooster99 · 2/10 · 31 January 2005]

It really is too bad. The sets looked great, the special effects on the moon were well done, it's just that the film has no soul at all. Nothing. The script was brutal to put it kindly. It is kind of like what Beverly Hills Cop 7 would have been after they had started to go downhill after the first one. Murphy tries to make it humorous, but there was no humour in any of the lines. They were just frustratingly moronic. It was 3's Company type action, with many bug-eyed looks at other characters, pratfalls, ludicrous plot holes, and juvenile humour. There are no redeeming qualities at all in this movie apart from the set design. It is really sad that a studio would waste that kind of money (100 mil) on garbage like this when the set could have been put to much better use.

There are very few highlights, one in particular involving John Cleese as an automated chauffeur. But that is about it. All of the cast members are wasted in this lackluster effort, including Eddie Murphy himself. He has proved he can carry a film (Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Trading Places), but it has been a long time since he has appeared in anything decent. This could have been it, however the director went for a 3 Stooges approach instead of a much grittier and darker 48 Hours. If this movie had any of 48 Hours grit, or BHC's humour, it might have been halfway decent. Instead it is nothing more than smarmy, predictable, dull, and annoying. The fight between the Murphys at the end was very well done graphically, it wasn't possible to determine exactly how they did it (Murphy fights himself), except of course it was the type of fight that would have been more at home in an Ernest movie. All the special effects are therefore completely wasted, along with the 100 mil some studio sunk into this dog. What were they thinking? 2/10 (I gave an additional point for the sets, NOT for the movie)

Entertaining

[maestro-20 · 16 August 2002]

I happen to think that this movie is entertaining. Sure the jokes are juvenile, but if Austin Powers can do $millions of business with recycled jokes and bathroom humor, I can't see why Eddie Murphy, who's in great form here, can't score with this one (millions, after all, went and see the awful Nutty Professor II). I heard a lot of bad reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised that I totally enjoyed the movie.

It's basically a gangster comedy wrapped in a Sci-fi treatment. There are some genuinely eye-catching set pieces and amusing exchanges. The visuals are great. And Rosario Dawson and Eddie Murphy have genuine chemistry -- much more convincing than that between her and Will Smith in MIB2. Randy Quaid steals the show as the robot bodyguard though. After the disappointing MIB2 and Gold Member, Nash is quite a refreshing change of pace.

The only laughs didn't come from Murphy

[numberonecubsfan · 4/10 · 6 August 2003]

I really don't know why Eddie Murphy signed on to do this movie. The script was terrible, and he didn't seem to be trying in the least. When I'm watching a movie that tries to be funny and fails, I can usually at least see where they were trying to make me laugh. He, however, I couldn't see one instance where Murphy was trying to be funny. I did laugh a few times, but it was at the surprisingly funny Randy Quaid as his robot Bruno, and the brief apperence of John Cleese.

Wanna see what $90 million WB ain't gonna see again looks like?

[mockturtle · 1/10 · 27 August 2002]

"Pluto Nash" really should have been advertised as "From the director of 'Mighty Joe Young' and the writer of 'Mystery Men'" It would have had the same effect as WB's war of malaise against this excavation from development hell. This is a movie that does everything wrong. But the most offensive thing is how needless profanity is injected into what could easily be a PG movie in order to make it barely PG-13, in fact it should have been given an R. Without the profanity this might have made a less grating $90 million dollar babysitter at least, but some smart guy decided to add completely unmotivated cursing to every scene, how many movies that you watch with your five year old have people dropping things and yelling "Sh$T!" And some of the violence didn't need to be so realistic. They could have had another good kids movie here, albeit a horribly scripted one that would have annoyed the sh$T! out of babysitters for years to come, instead they had a $2million opening weekend on a $90million budget. Cheers.

95 minutes of my life I'll never get back

[loki564 · 3/10 · 7 February 2003]

I should have known with this movie being shelved for two years, plus the fact that it lost something like 96 million dollars at the box office that this movie was going to be bad. Maybe that's what made me hit the 'buy' button on the dish, I just wanted to see how bad it was.

Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed, bad acting, lame plot, lousy special effects, and those are the good points!!! Being a HUGE John Cleese fan, even his little part couldn't save this wreck. So where did the 100 million they spent on this flick go? It sure as heck wasn't on the script. Eddie, please, we need a good movie from you soon, I'm sure the only reason they decided to release this was due to your outstanding performance in "Shrek", now that was a good movie. Save your money, and go buy a bucket of paint so you can watch it dry, at least it's more entertaining than any given minute of Pluto Nash.

3/10, only because of John Cleese and Ralphie from The Sopranos

Abysmal

[malevolentmuse · 1/10 · 28 August 2002]

When I write reviews I usually prefer to delve into what I liked or didn't like about a film, but I cannot bare to talk about this horrific piece of junk. I found myself looking at my watch every 5 minutes. Warner Bros. stole part of my life (not to mention my money) and I want them both back. The people who claim to like this movie? Either brain-dead or moles for WB trying to make the film look like less of the total bomb that it is. Remember "Bonfire of the Vanities?" That deserved Oscars compared to this.

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

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 7 September 2003]

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.

Not that bad

[VisionThing · 7/10 · 31 March 2003]

As everybody and their dog seemed to be absolutely certain that The Adventures of Pluto Nash is a steaming pile of excrement, I would have never come to watch it if the DVD hadn't been forgotten on my table by a visiting friend. The next day I had conveniently a couple of hours to kill at home, so I thought I might as well check whether Pluto Nash was just bad or a real turkey.

Much to my surprise I sat through the entire movie mildly entertained. Certainly anyone expecting a movie where Eddie Murphy makes faces, laughs like a horse and tells immature vulgar jokes is indeed in for a sore disappointment, as this film gracefully lacks all those clichés. In fact all kind of humour is scarce, jokes are few and far between and -- frankly -- vacuous at best. However, The Adventures of Pluto Nash is not half-bad as a sci-fi adventure. Effects are quite nice, and although the script does not blow one's mind with innovativeness, it keeps the story flowing fluently with no dead moments. 7/10.

so much wasted

[ImmortalCorruptor · 2/10 · 26 December 2002]

Every now and then, a movie will make fun of the formula Hollywood action/comedy movie. You know, a short scene from a terrible movie inserted into another movie. For example, the commercial in 'Scrooged' for the Lee Majors movie, or 'Good Will Hunting 2' in 'Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.' Well, this is the kind of movie they're making fun of.

It has good special effects. That's about the only good thing I can say. They're not great, but good. The rest of the movie was horrible and cliched. I laughed once, but that's because I started daydreaming and thought about something funny one of my friends said earlier that day.

Be sure to watch this to get rid of those annoying excess brain cells.

I like this movie. Hence, I will doubtlessly never be employed as a professional movie critic.

[madkaugh · 8/10 · 13 April 2009]

I picked this up in a bargain bin, and was shocked. Nothing major is wrong with this movie. It's not a great movie, but it is imaginative, clever, technically head and shoulders better than most sci fi, has great CGI. The set design was on par with Total Recall.

I'm not connecting with the criticisms at all. I can see it not winning awards. I cannot see it garnering the universal criticism it did.

Someone called the action scenes weak and wooden. For 1/6 g? Have you seen footage of the astronauts walking on the moon? I wouldn't even call the plot weak. The twist ending was genuinely surprising, certainly as good as Freejack.

In fact, the thing that bugged me the most seemed to be among many people's favorite. I thought Randy Quaid's libidinous android felt unrealistic, and marred the overall emphasis on a possible future. Imagine Marvin the paranoid robot taking Data's place. A bit hard to take seriously, no?

I'm glad I took the minor risk and made the purchase. I will keep the DVD and watch it again occasionally.

Way better than a 3.8 out of 10.

[mobadizhere · 7/10 · 10 September 2018]

To be honest, I thought Pluto Nash was going to be a disaster from what the reviews suggested. This film was actually enjoyable, and I liked alot about what they did. A sci-fi comedy that has people living in Little America located on the moon because Earth is basically dying, and they use laser guns while also having advanced robots as body guards. So much originality was included, and I was quite surprised.

Pluto Nash.....Did Eddie need cash ???

[elroy_geronimo · 1/10 · 31 August 2002]

The worst Eddie Murphy movie ever. Set in the future. But why ?? I don't know, probably to let us believe this is an original movie, completely different from his other movies, which it isn't. Same old story; Bad boy (again?)/ex-space smuggler Pluto opens a Night Club (like in Harlem Nights), which gets wasted by some Russian gangsters and Pluto wants revenge`(again!?). Oh and there 's a girl at first reluctant and later deeply in love(again!!?). Boooooooooooooring. A waste of time for everyone involved. Don't walk away.....Run ! Run !! Run !!!