Astoria Guys

This could be semi-passable. Or good, even. My insect antennae are sensing Eddie Murphy‘s funniest performance since Bowfinger, or at least the potential of that. Maybe. It’s also nice to see that Gabby Sidibe has scored a post-Precious gig.

44 thoughts on “Astoria Guys

  1. actionman on said:

    Sidibe has been on the Showtime show the Big C for the last two seasons. Annoying-ass character in an otherwise solid (but dark) show.

    This looks TOTALLY VANILLA and completely non-descript. Oh — wait — it’s a Brett Ratner film! The attempts at comedy are weak at best.

  2. When Murphy is on, he’s pretty damn funny. Great cast. Stopped watching the trailer, because it seemed to be giving too much away.

  3. That reminds me, I need to pop Bowfinger in the Netflix queue. I don’t remember one, single moment from that movie as I only saw it once on opening night.

  4. And what about Alan Alda. To me, hand on heart, one of the greatest actors alive. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, JOE TYNAN, MASH, (and to any person who saw it) NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH were pure clinics on great acting – great timing – great substance. he’s about the classiest guy out there.

  5. In this current economic climate this movie will be huge. I’m not a big Ratner fan (not a hater either) but I like the trailer.

  6. That “Seizure Boy” stuff went on too long, but despite its Ratnerness, it doesn’t look awful. Looks like passable in-flight entertainment.

  7. I kept having to insist to a friend who saw this filming in New York City that “Tower Heist” wasn’t a fill-in temporary title, or a made-up name for a movie that didn’t exist, like, “Untitled 3D Shark Thriller.”

    Anyway, fuck off forever, Brett Ratner.

  8. The reason it looks passable is because 1) it’s not a family movie like some of his more recent travesties, and 2) he isn’t playing multiple characters in fat suits. I’m still not sold (that ski hat/mask bit was groan-worthy). Usually I’m all for “innocent until proven guilty,” but with films, it’s the other way around.

  9. “This could be semi-passable. Or good, even. My insect antennae are sensing Eddie Murphy’s funniest performance.”

    Where you watching the same trailer that I was? Sometimes I don’t understand you, Wells.

    I would think that you would find everything about this trailer excruciating, as in I-wanna-stab-myself-in-the-face-coz-I-can’t-take-this-anymore excruciating.

    Although to be fair, I did like all the aerial shots of Manhattan because I always like aerial shots of Manhattan.

  10. I know we’re supposed to hate things, but I think it looks genuinely fun. And Murphy is a GOD, one of those guys who can hack out for ten, twenty years, and we’d all still forgive him in a SPLIT SECOND because he to this day has so much goodwill for his early stuff. It’s encouraging that he reminded me of the “old Eddie” from Trading Places in this trailer. Somewhere around BHC2 or definitely by the time of Harlem Nights, he had become this jacked-up, New Jack Eddie who had lost some of the effortless good cheer and electricity of that first run of features and from his standup. Would love to have a great Eddie performance again (and for the record, I think he’s been very good/great in a lot of subsequent stuff, just that the first four or so movies and Coming to America were like lightning in a bottle.)

  11. Good call on the similarity to Kings of Prosperity (which I thought was a pretty funny series). This looks fun, and I do like the fact that Murphy appears to be channeling his 48 Hours/Beverly Hills Cop persona over his Krump’s persona.

    10 to 1 the money is in the pool, though.

  12. I do get the feeling that if this didn’t say “A Brett Ratner Film” at the end, the general consensus would be more positive.

  13. I wonder who other actors hate acting opposite more:

    1. Eddie Murphy

    2. Jim Carrey

    3. Jack Black

    4. Vince Vaughn

    “Yeah, so, Eddie/Jim/Jack/Vince are going to do their ‘thing’ now. Just let them riff and wait until I say cut.”

    They cast the wrong Murphy. His brother Charlie would have been better in a role like this.

    Fuck Brett Ratner. He’s such a nutsucker.

    And those aerial shots look like they were stolen from ‘Glitter.’

  14. The show was actually called “Knights of Prosperity.” It was one of the many TV programs that never really catch on for Donal Logue. Highlighted by the most excellent and criminally underrated/underwatched “Terriers” on FX and even including “Grounded for Life,” which limped along for five season but always got bounced around the schedule (and even switched networks, I think). As far as traditional “family” sitcoms go that one didn’t really get the respect it deserves. KEVIN CORRIGAN POWER! as some around these parts like to say.

  15. “Tea Leoni! A woman who deserves a bigger career.”

    You mean DESERVED a bigger career. Sadly, she’s past her expiration date. Back me up here, LexG.

  16. So Ben Stiller is now doing retreads of Nick Nolte parts? Because this is 48 HOURS in a skyscraper. With the same black guy.

    That said, I like Eddie’s schtick, always have. Or I’d be happy if the movie carried through on that semi-serious tone in the first part of the trailer: “let’s get even for getting screwed.” But since it’s Bratner, it’ll be some kind of a fucking mess in the middle.

  17. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if this makes any kind of decent dough, then Ratner’s doing Cop 4?

    Recognized the Trump Building on 59th and Central Park West/Columbus Circle. There are at least 10 other buildings in the general vicinity that are MUCH nicer looking than that tacky relic.

  18. Too right, it was Knights of Prosperity. Shame it never got a chance to develop, as there were some very funny ideas (and cameos). I’d bet dollars to donuts that Sofia Vergera got her Modern Family gig based on her role on that show, too.

  19. BHC IV is “in development” for Ratner (IMDb)

    I’m sure Trump was delighted to lend his building to the production, at a price of course.

    Another lame title, but you know what you’re getting.

  20. I was along for the ride, barely, until the words “Brett Ratner” popped up there. Then a little part of me died inside.

    I’m surprised no one mentioned the trailer gave off similar vibes to Horrible Bosses (clueless criminals asking for help, etc.)

    I think the best thing they could have done with this movie– but surely didn’t– was make Eddie Murphy’s character either the same character from 48 Hours or Trading Places. Instead, he’s a *different* fast-talking ex-con… again.

    Still, it’s his wheelhouse, and I’m glad to see he’s back in it.

    (Ditto the call: the money’s in the pool, that shot was too obvious).

  21. Oh, and it took me a moment to realize they were going with the Madoff angle.

    I think the movie would be funnier if Alan Alda was an international financier accused of raping Gabby Sidibe, but that’s just me.

    (Just think of it: Sidibe set Alda up so her pimp Eddie Murphy can rip Alda off! Hilarity ensues!)

  22. Filthy Rich and JAOD just proved my point completely.

    I think Ratner’s shit, I’ve thought that for a while. But fucking hell, when I see a trailer I at least HOPE it’s going to be good. And I was thinking this trailer was semi-decent for the most part. Yeah, it says “a Brett Ratner film,” but MAYBE, just maybe, he made something decent or at least enjoyable this time. Instantly dismissing a movie based on its director is as absurd as instantly loving Where The Wild Things Are just because it was directed by Spike Jonze. Good people can make shit films, bad people can make good films. Just judge each one on its own merits.

    Fucking hell, this place has been ultra-negative lately.

  23. The name of the movie is so bad that an even dumber title would be a step up. This is kind of true.

    Eddie Murphy doing Eddie Murphy is great, but it seems like he’d have better off playing this in the Jamie Foxx role in Horrible Bosses or something else with a little more darkness and edge, like a Soderburgh movie circa The Limey and Out of Sight. When he’s on, he’s so good that you know he could still quadruple it with just the right director but looking at his IMDb page, he NEVER works with those guys.

  24. On an unrelated note, via Ebert, I guess I’m finally validated on Avatar’s box office being a scam. If those numbers hold up, then it no doubt only did as well as Titanic, at best, in terms of actual profit. And considering budget, development, and P+A, it might’ve still been in the red until home video.

  25. Mediocre film-maker makes mediocre film based on bits from other peoples better films (Oceans Eleven, 48 Hours etc). Why can’t someone put Eddie Murphy back in something great?

  26. Hang on DZ, are you actually claiming that the possibility that Avatar ‘only did as well as’ what was then the highest grossing film of all time gives ‘validation’ to your vehement and oft repeated predictions that it would bomb?

    What am I saying, of course you are. I guess I should take it as a sign that the sun is in the sky and all is right with the world.

  27. When he says this could be his funniest performance since Bowfinger, yeah. I can’t remember the last time I sat through a live-action Eddie Murphy performance. Didn’t see Meet Dave, Just Imagine, Pluto Nash… I guess The Haunted Mansion was the last one I saw.

    Oh no, wait. Dreamgirls.

    Despite the Ratner credit, I can hope this is good. Lot of actors with built-up goodwill in this movie.

  28. Everyone keeps saying “when Eddie Murphy is good…”

    When is he ever good? When was the last time he gave a good performance? 1988? Are the Fatsuit movies now considered classics or something? Eddie Murphy has a rancid persona. If he was able to give a little of himself in his movies he might be an interesting actor, but he’s totally full of shit, always, and it was cute and fun when he was 21, but now it’s just sad and kind of creepy. My sister went on two dates with one of his bodyguards in the early 90s and the stories she told me he told her made Eddie Murphy sound like some unholy combination of Jerry Lewis at his oiliest and Michael Jackson sans the side of chickenhawk.

  29. I guess the answer to that would have to be three. Preferably one male and two female. Female on female wont work nor male on male. We need a fertile man and two fertile woman both being fairly healthy. Hopefully the offspring from the couples will be healthy then we are on our way to a new generation. Without major genetic consequences. Hypotheticaly forfait sosh forfait sans engagement forfait illimite forfait sms illimite forfait internet forfait bloque rio orange rio orange rio sfr rio bouygues rio virgin forfait bloque calcul imc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>