In the future, a man struggles to keep his lunar nightclub out of the hands of the Mafia.In the future, a man struggles to keep his lunar nightclub out of the hands of the Mafia.In the future, a man struggles to keep his lunar nightclub out of the hands of the Mafia.
- Awards
- 1 win & 12 nominations
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn absolute terms, this movie made the largest financial loss of any movie to date, with a budget of $100 million and a total US gross of $4.41 million (loss of $95.59 million) and a lifetime worldwide gross of $7,103,973 for a total loss of $92,896,027
- GoofsWhen Pluto, Dina, and Bruno leave town in the stolen car, they pass under a road sign announcing the "Neil Armstrong Monument," but the photo on the sign is of Buzz Aldrin, that Armstrong took during the Apollo 11 mission.
- Quotes
Pluto Nash: You blew up my wood bar stools. You know how hard it is to get wood on the moon?
- ConnectionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert: The Worst Films of 2002 (2003)
Featured review
"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.
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.
- planktonrules
- Mar 6, 2019
- Permalink
- How long is The Adventures of Pluto Nash?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Pluto Nash
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $100,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $4,420,080
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $2,182,900
- Aug 18, 2002
- Gross worldwide
- $7,103,973
- Runtime1 hour 35 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) officially released in India in English?
Answer