It's based on Brewster's Millions, the 1902 novel by George Barr McCutcheon. Clearly that novel is tempting for cinema, to the extent that it got made 6 times in 6 movies produced between 1914 and 1961. Now, this 1985 seventh one isn't any tempting itself. As a comedy, it's filled with dozens of uncomic moments!
It doesn't find funny ideas to make, and when it does, it treats them carelessly. For instance: The running gag of building a hall wasn't utilized for making any laughs. The idea that the decorator was the ex-wife of the lead's co-lawyer didn't add anything to anything. That co-lawyer himself, who's engaged to the lead's love interest, wasn't exploited as a rival. The 2 election candidates were wasted also. And the matter of the title character as a bad baseball pitcher didn't lead to funny stuff, or have eventually any meaning!
Look at a character like the news reporter; he wasn't used in comedic situations, no comedic dialogue was written for him, and it wasn't played by a comedic actor. So with recurring scenes for him, he became so boring to watch! Then look at the serious side of the drama, or the lack of it thereof; was the title character extremely in love with money, materialistic to the bone, so the movie's journey could help him to be more rational and moral? No such luck either!
In quote shown onscreen between scenes, there is a reference to "the road of excess" leading to "the palace of wisdom", an allusion to William Blake's poem "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Well, this is educational. It's indeed. But as far as I know, onscreen quotes are shown whether in the movie's start, or the movie's end, and showing them in its middle is just strange idea that doesn't suit, out of all genres, comedy! And when you see how the last scene is very trivial, and after it the movie wraps up abruptly; it's official, whoever wrote this comedy movie doesn't know much about comedy or movies!
Richard Pryor was out of his comedic shape, and seemed lost sometimes. There is a world of dead silence in his eyes, and rarely when he gives a funny reaction. I believe it has a lot to do with his drug abuse at the moment, of which the movie's director, Walter Hill, stated once.
Yes, Mr. Hill specialized in action, thriller, crime, and western movies, never comedies. But sure the real guilty here is that script, which is composed of missed opportunities, it sounds written in a day or two!
This is a very poor comedy. The thing is it suffers from the same problem of its lead character. Brewster wasted great deal of money on trivialities, and this script wasted its great idea on trivialities as well!
It doesn't find funny ideas to make, and when it does, it treats them carelessly. For instance: The running gag of building a hall wasn't utilized for making any laughs. The idea that the decorator was the ex-wife of the lead's co-lawyer didn't add anything to anything. That co-lawyer himself, who's engaged to the lead's love interest, wasn't exploited as a rival. The 2 election candidates were wasted also. And the matter of the title character as a bad baseball pitcher didn't lead to funny stuff, or have eventually any meaning!
Look at a character like the news reporter; he wasn't used in comedic situations, no comedic dialogue was written for him, and it wasn't played by a comedic actor. So with recurring scenes for him, he became so boring to watch! Then look at the serious side of the drama, or the lack of it thereof; was the title character extremely in love with money, materialistic to the bone, so the movie's journey could help him to be more rational and moral? No such luck either!
In quote shown onscreen between scenes, there is a reference to "the road of excess" leading to "the palace of wisdom", an allusion to William Blake's poem "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Well, this is educational. It's indeed. But as far as I know, onscreen quotes are shown whether in the movie's start, or the movie's end, and showing them in its middle is just strange idea that doesn't suit, out of all genres, comedy! And when you see how the last scene is very trivial, and after it the movie wraps up abruptly; it's official, whoever wrote this comedy movie doesn't know much about comedy or movies!
Richard Pryor was out of his comedic shape, and seemed lost sometimes. There is a world of dead silence in his eyes, and rarely when he gives a funny reaction. I believe it has a lot to do with his drug abuse at the moment, of which the movie's director, Walter Hill, stated once.
Yes, Mr. Hill specialized in action, thriller, crime, and western movies, never comedies. But sure the real guilty here is that script, which is composed of missed opportunities, it sounds written in a day or two!
This is a very poor comedy. The thing is it suffers from the same problem of its lead character. Brewster wasted great deal of money on trivialities, and this script wasted its great idea on trivialities as well!