|Page 5 of 5:||    |
|Index||48 reviews in total|
Richard Pryor steals the show in this one as a minor league baseball player who must spend $30,000,000 in 30 days. He can't give it away. Whew! That's a lot of money! But if he can spend it, he inherits ten times that much. Pryor is hilarious as he tries to think of ways to spend this money. Half his plans go awry and he's forced to use Plan b, then C, then D on and on. This is a pretty funny film and you'll laugh hard! I did.
"Brewster's Millions" is funny the first or even the second time you see it,
but it's never outrageously funny or really worth recommending. Richard
Pryor's performance isn't extremely memorable; the actor to see this film
for is John Candy, who steals the show as soon as we see
Pryor plays Brewster, a man who is offered a strange proposition by some elderly men. If he can blow 30 million dollars in a month, he inherits 300 million left to him in a will. If he doesn't, he's left with the remainder of what they give him. And he can NOT tell anyone about their deal. So Brewster agrees, and starts wasting the cash. But soon this turns bad as his good pal John Candy innocently tries to make him money, and people begin to suspect something is wrong. Why is Brewster wasting away his money like it's paper with no value?
"Brewster's Millions" has been done seven times before, apparently, but I could only trace down five: a 1914 version, a 1921 version, a 1926 version, a 1935 version, and a 1945 remake with Dennis O'Keefe. That last version ranked in about a half hour shorter than the Richard Pryor film, and this 1985 version probably would have been better off with that length as well.
Pryor doesn't really stand out as Brewster. I can think of others who would have fit the part better. But I guess it's good they chose him over Eddie Murphy.
John Candy is really the one to keep an eye on during the film, and you can't help but keep an eye on him since he draws your attention from the start. His character is sweet, good-natured, but at the same time a businessman trying to make some dough for him and his pal Pryor. Candy really envelops his character, as always, and steals the show. It's nowhere near his best performance, but it's still great.
This is the first comedy outing for director Walter Hill, who went on to film comedies such as "Red Heat" with Schwarzenegger and Belushi. He uses many of the same formulas as he did in "Red Heat," as well. It's never that funny, but worth seeing once or twice.
Herschel Weingrad & Timothy Harris, who both wrote the film "Trading Places" (*see below), use the same humor (see below) in this film as they did in "Trading Places." Funny people in odd situations doing odd things. They use a simple theme and expand it. Unfortunately, it didn't expand here as much as it could--and should--have.
The beginning of the movie is funny, I'll give it that. When Brewster first gets the money and is trying to blow it--those are the funny parts. It's a bit like films where the hero is learning to adapt to his new abilities ("Spider-Man") or the movies where something is very original and funny but starts to get a tiny bit tiresome later on ("Delirious"). The same goes for "Brewster's Millions": it is funny in the beginning, but it starts to get a bit tiresome after a while. There are only so many gags available when you are talking about a man having to waste money in a certain amount of days.
For some reason, the eighties comedies really sparked an interest in films with people in odd places doing odd things. *"Trading Places," "Delirious," just to name a few. They are fanciful, imaginative, and sometimes not that funny. "Brewster's Millions" is the half-way point between funny and average. It is one of those comedies from the eighties retreading familiar terrain. Its humor is that of many comedies from the eighties with famous comedians. I'll be more specific: "Trading Places" with Dan Akyroyd and Eddie Murphy pops to mind--the film I mentioned above. Its humor is a bit like that. If you like "Trading Places," and all those other campy comedies from the eighties where people are put in odd situations, see "Brewster's Millions." The only other reason to see it would be if you are a fan of the actors. I'm a fan of one of them, and I think you can guess who.
2.5/5 stars -
Monty Brewster is a minor league baseball player who finds himself with a
rich relative who leaves him £300 million. However to prove he knows the
value of money Brewster must spend £30 million in 30 days and have no assets
to show for it. The catch is he can't tell anyone about this
A search for this title in the database will confirm that this is a very old idea that has been done for almost a century! This means to me that perhaps we didn't need yet another remake of it. I say this because it feels like nothing new has been added and that it has nothing really resembling invention or spark. The story feels like it sags far too often and really only is relying on the lead of Pryor to get by.
Pryor is a very funny man when I see him in stand up, however to me this didn't adequately come across in this film. He still manages to be funny but it's the difference between seeing a lion in a zoo or in the wild Pryor seemed a little like he was hemmed in by the material here. Candy manages to be funny alongside him however and it is reasonably enjoyable.
It's worth a watch maybe once if you see it on TV or something. But as you watch it you can't help but feel that Pryor deserved a better vehicle to show how funny he can be. Still passable though!
Luckily, this movie had a running time of just over one and a half hour.
Longer than that, it would have been too much. This is not the comedy of
century but it's still enjoyable. You know the story, Brewster (played
by Richard Pryor) has 30 days to spend 30 millions. I which I would have
that opportunity... John Candy is funny as the friend/manager who wants to
make the money profitable.
It's good for a 6 out 10.
Pryor and Candy generate few laughs in this comedy about a man who stands to inherit a vast fortune with one: He must spend $30 million in thirty days and have no tangible assets at the end.
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.
Yechh! Richard Pryor is funny? I think not. I almost stomped on the DVD
when I was done watching. Then decided to use it as a coffee coaster to
remind me not to buy before renting.
Real comedy has got to consist of more than just gaping pop-eyed and gesticulating wildly. If not, it quickly deteriorates into boredom and irritation. I cannot understand what others found funny in Richard Pryor's performance. Give me one memorable quip of his from this movie. One memorable scene of his that makes you chuckle when you think back about it. I cannot think of even one. In this particular movie (at least) he is nothing more than an immortal bore, a hack trying too hard to amuse, an actor with zero histrionic ability, and a total lack of any consequence.
John Candy on the other hand is a born comic. His body language, acting talents, and facial dexterity are truly cut out for hilarity. Unfortunately, even his presence does little to uplift this celluloid catastrophe.
The storyline is absurd. Got to spend 30 million dollars in 30 days without gaining any assets or destroying any assets. OK, what is so hard about this? Lots of reviewers have already provided tons of possibilities. Rent an island or a theme park for 30 days, and bring your friends and family along. Oh come on, this is not even worth the exercise of thinking about. There are SO many possibilities.
A movie with not a single redeeming factor. Bah!
Pryor simply is not funny in this film. Plus the rags to riches story is for me too unreal with complications of paying back money you've inherited that is spending 300 million in 30 days to keep 30 million and get this you cannot own any assets how unreal! Please don't waste your time watching this film no matter how much the TV. cable networks show this movie. Pryor has much better comedic talent than this waste of a movie.
|Page 5 of 5:||    |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|