|Page 5 of 6:||     |
|Index||58 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Brewster has an unknown distant, but wealthy relative who has just
In order to test if Brewster knows the value of money, he is given the task of disposing of $30m in 30 days.
Brewster isn't allowed to have any assets to show for the $30m or waste the money in any way. If successful, Brewster gets to inherit $300m. The biggest problem of all however, is that Brewster can't tell anyone what he's doing, so everyone thinks he's crazy.
But I'd Brewster fails, two scheming trustees will get their hands on the money, so Brewster's task is not an easy one......
It's the old story isn't it, little man overcoming the bigwigs. Everyone likes a long-shot, the poor man outsmarts the rich, its Robin Hood for the fat cats, and we have the profanity free Richard Pryor in the drivers seat.
It's the most predictable type if comedy you can imagine. He's starts doing well, he silly but good spirited friend messes it up a bit, he gets back on track, the villains of the film mess it up big time for him, and just at the last minute, something wonderful happens.
It's been done literally hundreds of times in these sort of family comedies, and in can understand that its a winning formula, but oh to see something different just for once, to see the hero of the piece fail, it would be so refreshing, but seeing that this is almost thirty years old, you can forgive its laziness.
Pryor is as good as he always is, and Candy offers wonderful support, but one cannot help but think that if Trading Places wasn't such a hit two years 'Pryor' (he he), would this have been made?
I'm a huge fan of Richard Pryor and for non-concert movies, it works if the material is right for him. For this movie, IT DOES!! Pryor makes a bizarre plot work -- REALLY work -- especially making you BELIEVE he is a man who has a passion for baseball and trying to be a success. And John Candy does a great job portraying Brewster's best friend who has to be kept in the dark as to the real reason behind the outrageousness of his best friend's spending. There are social comments being made throughout the movie, and it shows normal and understandable outgrowths and conditions, consequences and results with each decision Brewster makes on where each dollar goes despite the feverish attempts to secure no assets anywhere. It's a fun movie, a feel-good movie, and a very FUNNY movie. Definitely not to be missed! This version of the story is well-written, well-produced, and well-made. And this movie should be among the very top of this list of Pryor's movies that displays his pure genius, and his ability to successfully range through the emotions, that you feel you're right there with him, and you feel what he feels, and you're rooting for him.
I have watched this film twice in the last year I love this movie.
Richard Prior has to spend 30 million dollars in thirty days to inherit
300 million dollars sounds easy, not.I won't tell you why not you'll
have to watch it to figure that out. John Candy is great as the side
kick best friend.I love the vote for none of the above thats great. It
has a good story to as you slowly watch Prior begin to hate money,& the
fact he can't tell anybody whats going on, you now why he's spending
money like a mad man makes it even better. Great remake & I hate
remakes now thats saying something.
Prior & Candy will surely be missed in my mind.
Richard Pryor plays an aging minor league ball player that has always
dreamed of pitching in a big league game. Pryor is in line to inherit $300
million dollars, but there is a slight catch. He is challenged to spend 30
million bucks in 30 days and have no monetary gains when he finishes. To
pull this off he gets the help of John Candy. These two guys together can
have you laughing your butt off.
From nobody to someone. From dirt poor to filthy rich. What a horrible situation for a down on his luck guy to be in; yea, sure. A little dead pan humor teams up with silly situations.
Along for the ride in this comedy are: Jerry Orbach, Hume Cronyn, Rick Moranis, Conrad Janis, Stephen Collins and the bubbly Lonette McKee.
If you catch this movie lazing on a Sunday afternoon - it's worth watching -- richard pryor and john candy are good and to hear john candy get all excited over gaining an extra 10 million dollars thru the stock market while pryor is trying to spend 30 million in 30 days makes you want to sing along with candy as he pumps his fists - 10 million 10 million 10 million dollars... now if only a relative would leave me 30 million to spend.. I'd give it a 7/10.
This movie has a minor league pitcher who is down on his luck. He had made it to the big leagues once, but for all intense purposes his chances of returning are zero. Then one day fortune smiles upon him as a rich relative he knew nothing about has left him an inheritance and a little game. He can get 300 million dollars if he can spend 30 million in 30 days, of course he also had the option just to take one million if he did not want to try his luck spending all the money. Well the pitcher who is played by the late great Richard Pryor takes the challenge and begins a spending spree that on the surface would seem to be very easy. I could easily spend thirty million in 30 days, but there is a catch as at the end of the thirty days he must have only what he had at the beginning of the challenge which means he is basically going to have to rent not buy, throw lavish parties and come up with other ways to spend money without actually owning anything. That makes it a bit harder, it also does not help that he can not tell anyone about this game as it were. Hence it becomes increasingly frustrating as he gets this woman accountant to keep track of everything lecturing him about spending so much. I did not like her character at all, I would tell her mind your own business. John Candy is in this one too and he and Richard make a pretty good tandem, however they kind of leave John Candy's character out of the finale all together instead having the pain in the butt accountant. The film also suffers as this guy is getting so much unexpectedly and it is just depressing to watch someone else have that kind of good fortune knowing something like that would basically never happen to you. It has some funny moments though, but the film is just rather annoying in a lot of places too to be a good movie.
Comedy is hard to do. This movies has its moments, but over stay away from this one. It drags, and drags in spots. Pryors carrier is ending in this film and Candys is beginning. Too bad they did not give the lead to Candy. 5/10
This is one of many "Brewster's Millions". It isn't as good as the 1940's
version being too reliant on Richard Pryor in the lead role. I can't wait
for the Robin Williams version (not).
In the 40's version Brewster has to spend a million dollars. In 80's it is 30 million which even considering inflation is a different proposition. This film is as much about Greed is Good as another from the 80's. Why any sane individual would prefer 300 million to 30 million is anybody's guess.... as if it makes a difference ! Why we should empathise with such a character is beyond me.
John Candy's presence lends a warmth and humanity which is otherwise lacking. Without him I would have given it less than the 4/10 it received.
1st watched 6/2/2007 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Walter Hill): Unaffecting seemingly pointless movie overall for who at this point was pretty much the comic king of Hollywood until this. Richard Pryor is just plain not funny and I'm not really sure it was his fault. The story just doesn't seem to provide anything comic for him to do despite his ability to usually provide big laughs. The few laughs that there are come from his partner in the movie, John Candy, but those are even few and far between. The story is a remake of an earlier movie and based on a book about a minor league ball player given an inheritance by his uncle on the condition that he's able to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days and not have one asset to his name after those 30 days are up. Pryor's character is given an out clause and would have received 1 million dollars if he didn't take this challenge. If he takes the challenge and succeeds he gets 300 million, but if he loses he gets nothing. Of course, if he chooses the out option, the movies over -- so he doesn't. What then happens is Pryor's character doing a whirlwind of things to spend his money with an accountant close by to keep track of everything so they know when he's hit the magic number. I don't know what else to say about this movie except that there was no magic. The director, Walter Hill, usually "is" magic with his hard-hitting style, but this movie is just soft all over. I have no answers and apparently nobody else did as this movie was being made, but it definitely is one of the worst movies with some of the most talented people in the business involved. Nuff said -- I guess everyone is entitled a bad year and this one definitely one for Hill and Pryor.
This movie is a good movie. You know if I had 30 million dollars to spend, I would put a million a day into a tax free savings account until I have 30 million in the tax free savings account. The challenges that Richard Pryor has to take because it is difficult and cannot be done. It is also a big problem for me to take such challenges. Now unless Richard Pryor spends 30 million on a homeless woman for that kind of challenge then that sounds like a terrific idea. Then he could help that homeless woman open up a tax free savings account and put a million a day for her. The homeless woman would now have 30 million dollars so she can afford apartment rent, college and university education. Like Richard Pryor should spend 30 million on Erin Brockovich.
|Page 5 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|