Skip to main content

Gerard. Did you know your pops had a mushroom belt on?

Boomerang
(1992)

(SPOILERS) Eddie Murphy was trying to recover his footing in 1992. He’d experienced a couple of missteps, most notably the underwhelming reception of his self-penned, self-directed vanity project Harlem Nights and tired, desperate and unwanted sequel Another 48 Hrs (which one imagines Murphy must have agreed to do as an easy hit maker, but he even came up with the story). Neither came close to his run of 80s hits. Boomerang represented a reinvention, with Murphy as a romantic lead and essaying an actual character arc. But it only half works.

Part of that is down to Murphy, who as ever-watchable as he is, just isn’t Cary Grant. He’s closer to Jerry Seinfeld in the way he manoeuvres emotional territory, never quite comfortable (at this point anyway) with the bare acting required. Looked at now, Boomerang seems like a wild leap into the unknown for him, even with the comfort factor of SNL writers he knew and trusted – David Sheffield and Barry W Blaustein had previously penned Coming to America, going on to write both Nutty Professors, and are credited on the forthcoming Coming 2 America – and more of an ensemble vibe than he’d been accustomed to. Eddie’s in there, of course, but he barely gets a chance to be funny.

The other part of it is that the romcom premise never quite lands. Boomerang’s trying too hard with the lothario who has the tables turned device, such that Murphy’s Marcus Graham being treated as a toy boy, or a one-night stand, or having his feelings hurt or – in possibly Boomerang’s most on-its-head moment – given a sex scene where his climaxing is reverse gendered tend to forget to milk these scenes for laughs. They best they can come up with is mild bemusement. The picture feels essentially conflicted, unsure if it wants to subvert the male gaze or pay lip service to the same because it is, essentially, insincere.

Murphy picked Reginald Hudlin to direct, who had scored a couple of years previously with the low-budget House Party. He brought along Martin Lawrence and paired him with the always under-appreciated David Alan Grier – easily taking the honours in the comedians-as-proper-thesps stakes – as Murphy’s best buds (Chris Rock also shows up). Hudlin cited Annie Hall and His Girl Friday as influences, but I wondered how much When Harry Met Sally… inspired the best pal conversations. These run from attitudes to the opposite sex (Lawrence referring to women as bitches) to racism, to homophobia (Lawrence, of course) and homophobia apologia (Murphy’s stand-up history – in an attempt to dispel Grace Jones’ attentions, Marcus claims to be gay, but Boomerang then contrives a macho get-out with her assertion that he is lying. She can always spot a gay man). The oddest aspect is that Hudlin takes an age to inject any rhythm or form into the movie. The buddy conversations have evident chemistry between the stars, but they don’t play very well, and they aren’t very inspired or hugely amusing.

It isn’t until Murphy’s nemesis, his female mirror in the form of fellow advertising exec (and now his boss, thanks to a corporate merger) Robin Givens enters the scene that Boomerang begins to discover a flow, but still, it never feels assured in its tone or plotting. Givens, sly, confident and controlling, is exactly what Boomerang needs, even clearer with a quarter of a century distance and the Mike Tyson baggage divested. Then there’s Halle Berry in the tried-and-tested role of the real catch the protagonist doesn’t even notice until he does.

It’s quite a revelation to recall her in a “relaxed” early role, before she became all about steely posing as the likes of Storm and Jinx and… er, Catwoman. Berry and Murphy enjoy several solid scenes together, but they’re definitely ones where he’s allowing himself to mess around – with the kids she teaches, including a very of its time riff on the disappearing ozone layer, or professing his love for Star Trek: “Ain’t Captain Kirk the coolest white man on the planet?” – rather than espousing his sincere feelings; it’s notable that Murphy hasn’t gone there since. At least, unaided by prosthetics.

Consequently, the strongest evidence that Boomerang doesn’t really work is that the best material doesn’t feature Murphy, or only as an adjunct. Bebe Drake-Massey and particularly John Witherspoon are hilarious as Grier’s wholly over the top, rampantly sexual parents (just look at the scene where Grier’s parents arrive and Murphy’s clearly in awe of Witherspoon’s riffing, loving every moment of it). And Geoffrey Holder is pure dynamite as Nelson, the camp ad director with a penchant for suggestive fruit, and responsible for the show-stopping Strange (Jones’ character) perfume ad in which she gives birth to a bottle of the stuff. Jones is a good sport too, delivering a terrifying riff on herself (Eartha Kitt, meanwhile, is just plain scary).

It’s telling that Murphy had been away for two years, but Boomerang still made significantly less money than the generally derided 48 Hrs sequel. Credit to him for seeing he needed to change things, but it wouldn’t be until the second half of the decade, following commercial and or critical stumbles The Distinguished Gentlemen, Vampire in Brooklyn and the calamitous Beverly Hills Cop III that he hit the bullseye again with Sherman Klump. From that point, he was able to withstand frequent bombs thanks to remakes, sequels to remakes, and a certain donkey. And then he just disappeared. Until very recently. Boomerang stands as something of a curio as a result. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.