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.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.