Norbit Tagged Articles at Cinematical

It's Eddie Murphy ... in Eddie Murphy!

While the premise for Murphy's latest film, Meet Dave, definitely had some potential (think: Innerspace), I'm not so sure this new trailer brings all the boys to the yard, if you know what I mean. Here, Norbit director Brian Robbins re-teams with Murphy on a film that tells of a crew of miniature human-looking aliens whose human-looking spaceship walks around Earth doing funny things. Though, originally, they set out to save their planet, problems arise when their spaceship (in the form of Eddie Murphy) falls for a regular Earth girl (Elizabeth Banks).

Murphy looks to be using a combination of his Coming to America accent and his usual shtick for the spaceship character, and then he also plays the miniature alien operating said spaceship. Cue up a ton of fish out of water jokes, a few raunchy set pieces and a good amount of special effects -- and, well, Meet Dave. The film's July 11 release date will definitely secure a healthy box office take, especially since all our brains will be in dumb, popcorn summer mode. Check out the trailer above (or in a better quality over at Yahoo), then let us know what you think.

Sure, it's the time of Sundance, and the push towards the Oscars, but it is also the time of the Razzies! There's a million and two fests and awards ceremonies that tout all that is good in the world of cinema, but sometimes, you just want to revel in the bad. So, enter the yearly Golden Raspberry Awards.

Last year, the big, battling losers were Basic Instinct 2 and Little Man. This year, LiLo's I Know Who Killed Me is battling I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and Eddie Murphy's Norbit. Miss Lohan's film has scored the first hurrah by grabbing the most nods (9 over Larry and Norbit's 8), but Eddie got the personal title with a record-setting five nods just for himself.

Rounding out the top stinker nomination-grabbers was Bratz, Daddy Day Camp, and Captivity. On the actor side of things, we've got talent wasting their abilities like Jim Carrey, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Julia Ormond, while others aren't so surprising -- Carmen Electra, Dane Cook, or Jessica Alba. (The last on this list, Alba, also scored herself romantic doom -- she hit the worst on-screen couple nod three times for her work in Awake, Good Luck Chuck, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer).

Also, I give big props to the Razzie folks for their Patty Duke reference. See what I mean after the jump.

Once again, Film Threat has released its annual list of the Coldest People in Hollywood -- the ones whose careers are in the most trouble according to them. Strangely, the actress I would have thought was the natural contender for #1, Nicole Kidman, only makes #6. Of course, if The Golden Compass is a huge hit, it'll reverse a string of box-office misfortunes. Film Threat's advise is for Kidman to seek a job on George Miller's projected Mad Max 4. Hilary Swank, star of a robust contender for worst of '07, is advised to choose her work with more care ("She may have grown up eating sawdust in Gooberville, Washington, or wherever, but it's no longer necessary to accept every script that comes her way"). And there's no arguments here with choices Eli Roth (#8), scandal plagued actress Vanessa Hudgens (above), and Jennifer Lopez ("there doesn't seem to be any measure that can stop her from making more bad movies."). Certainly, Natalie Portman (#41) deserves a remembrance for her dual role in Goya's Ghosts, not even mentioned in the citation.

Naturally, this list offers more bones to pick than a washtub-sized bucket of KFC. Jessicas Alba and Biel share #12 (hey, Jessica Biel can act, you ruffians!); Eddie Murphy (#16) who is still quite A-list, is derided for Norbit, a popular hit that had a few defenders. Quentin Tarantino (#22) is hardly out of the game, despite the mixed feelings people had about Death Proof, and Ray Liotta (#29) has a wicked cameo in a Top Five movie right now. Lindsay Lohan charts at #51 on a list of 50. Guys, where was Eddie Izzard on this list: Across the Universe and Romance and Cigarettes within months of each other! Film Threat's number 1 pick isn't even an actor, though I doubt if anyone feels like returning his phone calls right now. In the meantime, bad-film fans can wait breathlessly for the Golden Raspberry awards coming up later this year.

I just spent the last half hour double-checking the MPAA ratings on my all-time favorite comedies, and I noticed the majority of them are rated R. There's been a real push over the last several years to get films down to a PG-13 rating. Two comedies that did really well this year with audiences, but not critics, were both rated PG-13 (Norbit, Wild Hogs). But let's take a look at the last several comedies that did well with both audiences and critics: Knocked Up, Wedding Crashers, Little Miss Sunshine, The 40 Year-Old Virgin -- all rated R. Around this same time last year, the teen comedy Accepted hit theaters. The film starred an up-and-coming Justin Long, and some new guy (who happened to steal the movie) named Jonah Hill. At the time, I thought it was a nice surprise for a PG-13 comedy -- although now that I know how good Superbad is (a film that stars the same Jonah Hill), I'm left wondering how much better Accepted would've been had it opted to go 'R.'

With Superbad, it's not even like the film carries a ton of nudity. In fact, Superbad is one of those extremely rare R-rated teen sex comedies that doesn't have an ounce of nudity anywhere in it. Instead, we have several references to sex, combined with more foul language than you know what to do with. But, like Jonah and Michael Cera told me during our interview, this is how kids talk. This is how real teenagers act around each other. And like with the majority of Judd Apatow's films (whether he's a producer or director), it's funny because it's relatable. I had a conversation with a friend of mine last night, and Apatow's name came up. In my opinion, Apatow and his crew have achieved in two years (on the big screen) what Kevin Smith should have 10 years ago (although when you factor in budgets versus box office, Smith's films have been very successful) -- writing raunchy, relatable material (sprinkled with pop culture references) that caters to a wide audience. It's not that Smith's stuff isn't funny (it totally is -- my friend and I talked Clerks for an hour last night), it's just that his films unfortunately never found a way to reach the mass audience Apatow has.**. But to get back on track ...

... what do you think: Is a comedy funnier when it's rated R? And, like Accepted, are there comedies that would've been funnier had they gone for the 'R' rating?

**Leave it to me to start a topic within a topic and not explain myself further. That's what happens when caffeine hasn't entered my system yet. But to further explain, what I meant to say is that Apatow and his crew stole a bit of Smith's thunder, and we should remember that Smith could probably be credited for starting this whole "relatable foul-mouthed humor" with little more than a bunch of credit cards and a unique sense of humor. Scott made some great points in his follow-up post, so head on over there to continue this discussion.

I know what you're thinking: "Please don't tell me the guy who directed Norbit is remaking the classic Elvis flick from 1957." Good news -- he's not. This will be an entirely different Jailhouse Rock based on the true story that was written about in an L.A. Weekly article by Joshuah Bearman. Disney has optioned the article and tapped Brian Robbins to direct. The story will follow a musician-turned-detention officer at Arizona's Tent City who decides to hold an American Idol-type singing contest at the jail. Called Inmate Idle Singing Con-Test, the event became so popular that Alice Cooper himself showed up to judge the finals. Something tells me Simon Cowell's snarky attitude wouldn't go off so well here. Whaddya think?

Robbins, who was very vocal towards critics when Norbit received tons of bad reviews, just wrapped his second film in a row with Eddie Murphy as star, Starship Dave (not to be confused with the other Murphy atrocity that was Pluto Nash). Seeing as Disney is putting this one out, I imagine the jail environment will be rather tame -- even though Tent City is one heckuva nasty place. Oh yes, I watch MSNBC's Lock Up -- I've seen the inside of practically every prison in the country. Tent City is outside though, and the inmates have to stay in tents. And since this is Arizona, it gets hot. Real hot. Needless to say, this isn't the sort of place you'd like to end up. But Robbins feels good about the project, telling Variety "I don't see this as a prison movie as much as about the healing power of music." Ah, but can that music help heal his relationship with critics as well? Guess we'll see.

Raise your hand if you love it when Eddie Murphy plays nine different characters in one movie. OK, hands down. Now raise your hand if you thought it was hilarious in Coming to America and The Nutty Professor but movies like The Klumps and Norbit make you nauseous. Yeah, I'm with the second group. (OK, Murphy's dual-role turn in Bowfinger was pretty funny too.) Looks like we'll soon have another such flick to ponder -- and it's not just another "Eddie Murphy in latex" comedy. Nope, this one will also be a "based on a silly old TV series" thing. Because we all know how awesome I Spy was.

Yes, old people, that show you used to watch on Friday nights after The Love Boat is about to make the leap to the silver screen. Multiple incarnations of Eddie Murphy will star in an adaptation of Fantasy Island, which (conveniently enough) comes from the writers who gave us the wonder that is Norbit. Not even remotely surprisingly, The Hollywood Reporter indicates that the movie will be a "family-oriented comedy," which is exactly what the Ricardo Montalban / Herve Villechaize series was: a family-oriented comedy. Ahem. (Oh, wait: I can see it now: Murphy will be playing a Spanish man with a verrrry thick accent AND a squeaky-voiced midget! This stuff writes itself!)

We can thank Sony for this brilliant idea. Murphy will get started on Fantasy Island once he's done shooting Starship Dave and counting all his Shrek the Third money. (And I gotta say it: Murphy opting to star in something called Starship Dave, after once opting to star in Pluto Nash, just reeks of masochism.)

The cast for Norbit Nash, er, Starship Dave is starting to take shape; Gabrielle Union, Ed Helms and Elizabeth Banks have joined the Eddie Murphy comedy, to be directed by Brian Robbins (Norbit). Pic, which kind of reminds me of that awesome 1987 flick Innerspace, tells of a spaceship full of aliens that takes the shape of a human and comes to earth seeking out a way to save their planet. Inside the human (played by Murphy, of course) are 100 human-looking aliens operating its every move. (Don't you hate it when all the aliens look like humans? Knowing Robbins, he probably thinks it's the smartest idea in the history of ever.)

Once on earth, pic switches gears and becomes more like Innerspace meets Coming to America -- the captain of the ship (yes, Murphy) accidentally falls in love with a woman (Banks) who strictly dates losers (who use Soul Glow, we hope). I imagine things will get complicated from there -- there's no way Robbins is ending this flick without at least one attempted sex scene. C'mon, 100 people aliens trying to operate Eddie Murphy having sex. Comedy was invented for scenes like that! Gabrielle Union and Ed Helms will play members of the miniature alien crew; Union as the chief cultural officer and Helms as the uptight second-in-command. Does it have potential? Yes. Will critics hate it? Probably. Will Robbins take a critic hostage and force him (or her) to watch Norbit and Starship Dave back-to-back for 100 hours in a bizarre attempt to somehow convert them and reveal "the light?" Probably not ... although that would be a good idea for Eddie Murphy's next flick.

The divide between critics and audiences has been growing stronger and stronger. This very site has done several reports of late about how studios and directors think critics are snooty, snobby, and out of touch with what the public wants. It seems more and more movies are not even being shown to critics prior to release. That practice used to be reserved solely for the worst of the worst, but now big-budget movies with big stars aren't being submitted for review. In light of recent evidence, critics' opinions don't really seem to have any effect on business at all. These past few months have made for some shocking revelations come Monday morning box office report time, with such critically panned movies as 300, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Wild Hogs all doing huge business.

Now Peter Bart at Variety has chimed in with a new article on the subject. He says that critics "may be shopping around for a new line of work," and states that they "should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Huh? Bart suggests, "if the established media wants to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Well, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean hiring a quote whore to just write about how he or she adores every steaming pile that comes down the chute? Why should critics' tastes have to sync up with what makes money? To me, reading a great film review is like having a conversation after the movie. It's a kick to read an in-depth analysis of something I just saw, whether the reviewer agrees with me or not.

This whole debate has gotten out of hand. Audience poller Cinemascore reports that all four of the aforementioned movies were not just successful financially, but at least reasonably enjoyed by audiences. Is anyone who laughs at Wild Hogs an uneducated hillbilly idiot? Of course not. Does Norbit's success mean that all critics are dumb and should quit their jobs because they personally didn't like it? No way. The old "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" rule doesn't, shouldn't, and can't apply to film criticism.

Following in the footsteps of folks from Disney and Fox -- who recently called out critics for panning films like Norbit and Wild Hogs, even though audiences are eating them up at the box office -- Brian Robbins has popped in to add more fuel to the fire. After all, if there's one man at the center of all this rubbish, it's Robbins; not only did he direct Norbit, but he also produced Wild Hogs -- combined, both films have taken in upwards of $120 million so far. According to Robbins, he cannot -- for the life of him -- understand how a film like Norbit could score so well with audiences, yet be universally panned by critics. He says, "How do you figure that? Is the audience that stupid? Is America's taste that bad? I don't think so."

I don't think so either. It's not that all of America is stupid; I believe it has more to do with what feels familiar. Wild Hogs and Norbit are both "familiar" films; from the actors to the stories being told, audiences have watched and enjoyed similar films, therefore it's easier for them to sit there with a smile because they've already been pre-trained to do so. Robbins continues: "The only films that get good reviews are the ones that nobody sees. I just don't think you can make movies for critics." Well, this is a stupid argument, because plenty of great films simply get butchered when it comes to marketing; studios would much rather spend their money on Eddie Murphy in a fat suit than Clive Owen in a film about the end of the world. And, regardless, a number of big blockbuster films get good reviews ... but those same reviews are conveniently forgotten about when someone like Brian Robbins is trying (but failing) to make a point.

This shouting match is a tired one because, in the end, no one really wins. Hollywood will continue to churn out movies for the masses, and critics will continue to trash the shoddy acting, regurgitated plotlines and lack of originality. Just like an audience is programmed to enjoy what's familiar, a critic is programmed to be, well, critical. And neither party should be blamed for doing their job.

Just as you might expect, many of the recently released, universally-panned movies are bringing in big box-office numbers, while praised films like Zodiac are falling short. Using the Rotten Tomatoes scale, which is usually quite forgiving when it comes to negative reviews: Wild Hogs, which was the number 1 film of last weekend, rests at 18%, Norbit rests at 10%, Ghost Rider came in with 27% and Night at the Museum had the highest with 45%, which is still low for a multi-week #1 hit.

With the box-office squarely on their side, the big honchos of mainstream movies are now, unsurprisingly, picking a fight with critics. An exec at Disney recently went on record saying that "critics are out of touch with their readership," while Tom Rothman of Fox proudly says that his feature wasn't embraced by "highfalutin snooty snoot critics." At least he was creative with his distaste. But when has big money ever equalled big quality? McDonald's rakes in the bucks, but no one calls the Big Mac gourmet. So, why are execs getting ticked off when critics, who are paid to evaluate how well something is done, see a film as a limp fast food burger and not a juicy taste of Kobe beef? You might like the limp burger, but that doesn't mean that it was made just as well as the gourmet one.

There's no winner or loser to this debate because the sides aren't arguing about the same thing. Just because a film does well does not mean that it is good. Can anyone attached to any of those films say that they are as good as some of their highly-regarded, highly-praised films? Would William H. Macy describe Wild Hogs as comparable to Pleasantville or Boogie Nights? No. It's time for these execs to stop getting ticked at critics when their crappy, or questionable big-box-office movie gets panned, and start seeing their mainstream schlock for what it is.