Saturday, February 6, 2016
NUTTY PROFESOR II: THE KLUMPS (2000)
Directed By: Peter Segal
Written By: Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz, Barry W. Blaustein & David Sheffield
Story By: Steve Odenkirk, Barry W. Blaustein & David Sheffield
Based on Characters originally Created By: Jerry Lewis
Cinematography By: Dean Semler
Editor: William Kerr
Cast: Eddie Murphy, Janet Jackson, Larry Miller, John Ales, Richard Gant, Anna Marie Horsford, Jamal Mixon, Wanda Sykes, Kym Whitley, Chris Elliot, Nikki Cox , Earl Boen
*Please note that some trivia and facts have been republished from imdb among other sources In this review*
Professor Sherman Klump is getting married. And the Klump family could not be more delighted for him. But Buddy Love, his Mr. Hyde alter-ego from the first film, is back and trying to make it on his own. Buddy keeps resurfacing in untimely outbursts, and threatening the portly professor's marriage plans to colleague Denise Gaines. Utilizing Denise's cutting-edge DNA research, Sherman decides to rid himself of his monstrous nemesis -and his disruptive outbursts-once and for all by extracting Buddy's DNA from his system. But Buddy bursts full-bodied into Sherman's world and lays claim to the professor's astounding invention - a revolutionary youth serum. Desperate to keep it from Buddy, Sherman hides the serum in the Klump family home, thinking it will be safe. Buddy correctly divines where Sherman has placed the serum, but to get it, he has to deal with the entire Klump family first.
It sounds more like a television spin-off, but the film manages to tie itself together to be a true sequel. That just happens to involve the supporting characters of Sherman Klumps family from the first film. Much more this time. They are still all played by Eddie Murphy under heavy special effects make-up --While this film has it's funny scenes. They seem watered down, few and far in between. The film for some of it's raciness also seems white washed. More family friendly to a degree.
While the film seems like a good idea and a wish come true to fans of the family from the first film. The film clearly shows how this was a bad idea as they wear out their welcome fast and seems like while they give Eddie Murphy plenty of room to riff. It leaves the rest of the film Bare and boring. Including a plot that makes no sense.
The addition of Janet Jackson helps put another big name in the cast, but while her role is pivotal (in the damsel in distress meaning) the film really gives her nothing to play with or really so except smile, frown and act concerned when needed. Jada Pinkett-Smith in the first film didn't have that large a role either but at least you got the feeling of a character and she had something to do. That made her feel essential. Even Larry Miller as the dean, had a small supporting role in the first film and was one of the villains, has a bigger role here and more to do.
This film was more a disappointment after the first film showed the brilliance and talent of Eddie Murphy as an actor and comedian. It was also a royal comeback. Here he tries his best, but the script leaves him with little to work with. That makes the film feel like a wasted opportunity.
The most memorable thing to come out of the film is a hit single by Janet Jackson. It also struck me as odd that two cast members in minor roles. Who at the time were well known and popular one at least was proven comedic talent yet has an almost blink and you miss them role. (Nikki Cox and Chris Elliot)
Eddie Murphy is also missing that element of collaboration. Considering half the scene he is playing off himself as another character in costume.
It might also be a change in directors hurt, Where as Tom Shadyac the original film’s director might have had more of a vision. Here all that matters is jokes rather then story or vision.
As usual this film feels unnecessary as the first film worked well enough as a self contained story. That by the end maybe you wanted to spend more time with these characters, but didn't warrant a continuing storyline and check back in. As the Klumps family was used well enough in the first film. So you don't feel bombarded with them. Sure you want more, but you realize the meaning of too much of a good thing.
The film feels tired and rushed, not worth the effort or considerable time. As the film seems more like an acting exercise where only Eddie Murphy is having fun. While the film seems to think the audience will enjoy cheap gags and jokes.
This film has endured a lot of complaints over having downright revolting content, let alone language and any bathroom humor. Many believed that the magnitude of such content in the first film was bad enough and endurable only up to a point, but It's magnitude in this film bordered on being too revolting to be funny; even compared to the first film.
The one thing that is amazing is that this film has maximum Eddie Murphy as he is in almost every scene. Yet the film still isn’t that funny.
As the first film was a hit. It was no doubt that they would make a sequel. Especially if offered the right amount of money and played into Murphy's preference at the time to do more family and kids movies
He had a good record when his films seemed like one man shows where he would play various characters under heavy make-up. It used to be a go to tactic for him to have a hit film and actually be good starting with the comedic classic COMING TO AMERICA he tried it to devastating results with VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN again a hit with THE NUTTY PROFESSOR and even this film as bad as it might be was a hit as was the next time he used the tactic in NORBIT a horrible film yet still a minor hit.