|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Index||57 reviews in total|
Montgomery Brewster (Richard Pryor) is a down and out baseball player
in the lower leagues along with his best friend Spike Nolan (John
Candy). Out of the blue he inherits 30 Million Dollars that he must
spend in 30 Days and have nothing to show for it, so he can get his
real inheritance of 300 Million Dollars; oh yes and he he can't tell
anyone why he has to waste all this money.
This excellent and hilarious story is played out brilliantly by Pryor and Candy, and it takes us on a spending spree that has its up and downs for poor Mr Brewster. Because of the nature of the movies theme, Brewsters millions is quite firmly rooted in the 80's when it was made, but it still entertains with ease and is well worth watching.
You can imagine that any movie that stars Richard Pryor and John Candy must
be a funny one, and this definitely qualifies.
The plot is disarmingly (and misleadingly) simple. Montgomery Brewster (Pryor) stands to inherit a $300 million fortune from a long lost uncle (played by Hume Cronyn), whose will is videotaped. The catch? To get the money, Brewster must first spend $30 million in 30 days. An additional catch? After spending the $30 million in 30 days, Monty still isn't allowed to own anything. At first I still didn't think there would be that great a challenge, but in fact, as Monty discovers, it's hard to spend $30 million without actually purchasing anything of lasting value.
The movie progresses through Monty's spending spree on hotel rooms, parties, employees, the minor league baseball team he played for and finally his campaign to NOT be elected mayor. Other candidates spend millions to get elected; why not spend millions to convince people not to elect you? It's also interesting to see the reactions of his friends (especially Candy) to his squanderings, because another condition to the will is that he can't tell anyone what's going on.
It's really quite a lot of fun, and Pryor and Candy together make it worth watching.
When people think of the long legacy of Richard Pryor as a comedian, this film may not be at the top of the list. He has achieved greater heights personally and professionally elsewhere. Many Pryor fans may have skipped over this one altogether with a catalog of films to choose from that include luminaries from "Car Wash" to "Stir Crazy" to "Harlem Nights." That's unfortunate really, because as comedic performances go, Pryor strikes pure gold in this unheralded film. His manic energy, his sheer frustration with the impossibility of his dilemma (spend 30 million dollars until you are dead broke and not have a single penny or asset left at the end, in order to inherit three HUNDRED million) and the fact that he channels so much believability into what would otherwise be absurd are highly laudable. With an excellent supporting cast that included the likes of John Candy and Jerry Orbach, it's hard to imagine anyone too jaded to enjoy this film. It's ridiculous and over the top, to be sure, but it's also supremely funny in a way much more pretentious comedies can't touch. Pryor breathes life into the film and the film glows as a result. Whether it's on your personal "best comedy" list or not, it's not a film you can easily excuse not watching whether a Pryor fan or not. From third rate baseball playing bum, to toast of the town millionaire, back to a bum again before a highly rewarding ending comedically and emotionally, "Brewster's Millions" pulls off the best trick of all - it makes the viewer feel like a million bucks for having watched it.
I cant understand the low IMDb rating for what is a very funny film
with two great stars in Richard Pryor and John Candy. Even though its a
re-make and very much of its time (the 1980's) there is till plenty of
entertainment to be had. Some of the areas of the film are still very
relevant if you really could vote for none of the above isn't that a
better vote than many of todays politicians? In tone this film is very
similar to another 80's comedy - Trading Places, although this is the
slightly lesser film it's still very enjoyable with plenty of comedy
highlights. Pryor is outstanding and with the talented John Candy in
support the film certainly doesn't lack laughs. There is even a message
attached in places about the perils of greed and money but the ending
feels quite abrupt and it would be nice to see the other characters
re-action to the outcome.
8/10 - A bright and breezy comedy.
Richard Pryor stars as a minor-league baseball pitcher in New Jersey who gets an inheritance, but the inheritance has a large catch. Pryor will inherit $300 million in 30 days if he can spend $30 million in that time, but he must have nothing of value after that time period. A really smart idea that works due to the comedic talents of Pryor more than anything else. His uncanny ability to portray highly sympathetic characters is also very important here. John Candy shines as Pryor's best friend. A nice little film that toes the line on being something really special. It does not quite reach high levels, but it does come close and overall it is an entertaining and noble work. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
This movie is consistent with it's humor throughout. So many 80s films start out with an original idea but seem to lose site of it halfway through as it becomes a love story. Not this film, Brewster is trying to spend that money right up until the clock chimes midnight. One of my favorites by Richard Pryor. John Candy only added to it's hilarity.
In one of his all time best film performances, Richard Pryor portrays Montgomery Brewster, the pitcher for a minor league baseball team in New Jersey. His wealthy uncle dies and leaves him a $300 million inheritance....but there's a catch. In order to get it, he must spend $30 million in 30 days. It might sound simple enough but a position in the New York stock market as well as a phony election campaign for mayor sometimes keep bringing spent money back to him. Hilarious complications ensue as Pryor attempts to spend all of the money and keep it spent without getting any of it back. Pryor shines in a fine character role that's away from his usual con man typecasting.
The film is a comedy of how Brewster finds creative ways of spending the 30 million dollars and not always getting it right. He is unable to tell anyone of his real intentions of inheriting 300 million by successfully blowing 30 million dollars in 30 days. As soon as he receives news he goes on a wild spending spree and recruits lawyers, security guards, decorators etc. all at very inflated salaries. Eventually the word goes around and soon everyone is jostling to benefit from his generosity. Some of the people close to him are unnerved by his spending prowess and tries to help him acquire more money through investments which is exactly the opposite of what he wants. This all adds up to a series of very comical events which is most enjoyable to watch. Look out for the upcoming remake of this movie.
Brewster's Millions starring Jack Buchanan, Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle,
Edward Abeles, Dennis O'Keefe, and now, Richard Pryor. Yes, this is the
5th reincarnation of this story, and probably the funniest Richard
Pryor movie out there, A simple story: to inherit millions, Monty
(Pryor) must spend a certain amount of money in a certain amount of
time without ending up with anything he didn't originally own. The idea
is to teach the value of a dollar. Oh, yes, he can't tell anyone what
he is doing.
So, of course, everyone thinks he's a nut. including the lovely Lonette McKee (ATL, Men of Honor), who is supposed to oversea his spending.
The film features the late John Candy (Canadian Bacon) as his BFF. If you are not familiar with his work, this is an excellent choice.
I genuinely liked this movie. Richard Pryor in 1985 and before is one of the finest comedians/actors. If you saw "Blue Collar" or "Stir Crazy" or that one with the blind kids on the bus, you will see what I mean. John Candy is without a doubt the funniest comedy actor after Don Knotts (my opinion of course, there are many great comedic actors). I only had one problem with this movie. For instance, when Brewsters rich uncle said that it was against the rules to buy a picasso and then turn it into firewood, how come he was able to buy a valuable stamp, and then have it canceled by mailing (in effect, devaluing it)? I guess it wouldn't matter since he could give some money away, but then why not just give it all to one person and save the time?
|Page 1 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|