bauhaus-80370 WTF 3.8 in Ratings for this great movie!? I voted a 7 and i think its fair! its a movie to enjoy with Friends or Family, i dont spoil anything but: it got good Music too :-)

ejonconrad I'm not sure what this movie was even trying for. It's set up like a comedy, except that not one funny thing happens, and it's just too goofy to be considered an adventure. Basically it's just a mess.This movie was released in 2002, but people were trying to make it since 1987, and it looks like all the sets were designed at the beginning. The whole thing looks like an 80s music video. This movie cost $100M (!) and it looks like cheap made for video junk.First of all, it takes place on the Moon, but that's not really relevant at all. I don't expect a movie like this to get the physics right, but they seem to believe gravity is related to air pressure. When people are outside in space suits, they float around in slow motion, but when they're inside, everything behaves like they're on Earth. There are lots of cameos, from Pam Grier to John Cleese, and they all looked like they waited for the check to clear before showing up and lazily reading their parts. I honestly believe John Cleese recorded his part from home. There's a plot of sorts, but it's really just an excuse to have people chase Eddie Murphy and Rosario Dawson.Not so bad it's good, just an hour and a half you won't get back. Skip it.

Chrysanthepop Ron Underwood's 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' is as silly as they come. I mean silly without being too tasteless as the film does succeed only to a small extent in nonsensical entertainment. It is especially in the second half that things start to drag and march from one cliché to another. The humour works in the first half because of fleeting funny characters such as Illeana Douglas's Dr. Mona Zimmer, John Cleese's James the CyberDriver and Pam Grier as the hot mom provide plenty to laugh about. Eddie Murphy has already proved to be one of the most successful comedy actors and while this certainly isn't even close to his being his best movie or his best role, he does make you chuckle a couple of times in the first half and one can easily notice his lack of interest in the second half. Rosario Dawson is pretty much just required to be the damsel in distress type but the actress isn't given much to do other than play the typical quiet heroine that tags along, waiting for the hero to save her. Needless to say, the writing is dreadful. There are but a few amusing lines which is probably why the main cast doesn't look the least bit interested. As forgettable and ridiculous as this is, I could think of worse movies.

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