I rewatched Boomerang and checked Rotten Tomatoes to find that that audiences and critics trashed this movie. How is this possible?

Space Cowboy

Allahu Akbar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
4,204
Reputation
846
Daps
14,051
Reppin
CowboysNation
G5hlzfx.png


I wanted to read postmortems about this black classic and checked reviews and wow. How is the movie so offensive? It tells a great story of a man that learns his lesson.

Reading the reviews and it's filled with cac insecurity. It amazes me that we live in two worlds: one where Boomerang is a certified classic, and one where it's utterly forgotten. We know the deal though.

What surprised me most isn't the critic score but the audience score. 59%?!

Thank God for Amazon where this movies reviews are correctly rated and nearly 5 stars.
 

Space Cowboy

Allahu Akbar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
4,204
Reputation
846
Daps
14,051
Reppin
CowboysNation
Film came out years, perhaps decades before Rotten Tomatoes existed.

People posting reviews didn't see it in theaters and watched it on cable TV.

Take the reviews of any random stranger seriously though, brehs
Shut up dumb ass. Reading the history there's controversy about reviews and how the film was dogged by white reviewers to the point where the director of the film had to make a statement.

JULY 1, 1992

You can tell a performer is in trouble when his legal entanglements are more entertaining than his movies. Such is now the case with Eddie Murphy.

Exhibit A is “Boomerang” (citywide), a film that is more listless than funny and could surely use some of the energy that animated both Art Buchwald and Paramount Pictures in the lawsuit surrounding authorship of Murphy’s 1988 “Coming to America.” Basically a multimillion-dollar vanity project, “Boomerang” is also a misguided whatever-Eddie-wants-Eddie-gets attempt to reposition him in the cinematic firmament.


Only 31 years old, Murphy, if “Boomerang” is any indication, is having himself an identity crisis. Once one of the funniest of men, with $1 billion in worldwide grosses to prove it, he now, like Robin Williams before him, seems to feel that comedy isn’t quite good enough. Instead he wants to be thought of as a romantic leading man, a suave successor to Cary Grant and friends. Not only is that a role that Murphy has no particular flair for, it also leads to a squandering of the considerable talent he does have.

Watching Murphy in “Boomerang” it is almost impossible to remember the sharp, high-spirited exhilaration he brought to comedy in films like “48 HRS.” and “Trading Places.” That edge, despite what has been claimed in interviews, is now invisible, and when Murphy deigns to do funny material here, it is very much with an air of noblesse oblige, the generous potentate scattering crumbs to a grateful peasantry.


The first indication that we’re dealing with a new Eddie Murphy comes in the character he plays. Marcus Graham is no hustler, no scrambler after respectability, he is a polished and successful director of marketing for a successful cosmetics corporation. The man dresses beautifully, has an apartment to match, and is absolutely irresistible to women. He’s the type who sends out long-stemmed roses to half a dozen conquests along with notes reading, “Thinking only of you.”


All of this changes when he meets Jacqueline (Robin Givens), the stunning woman who not only becomes his boss after a corporate merger but is his match in romantic game-playing as well. He tries his best lines on her and she finds them, well, pathetic. “When I seduce you, if I decide to seduce you,” she tells him with devastating aplomb, “don’t worry. You’ll know.”


Buried somewhere in the lackluster script by Barry W. Blaustein and David Sheffield (the duo officially credited with “Coming to America”) is the very viable idea of a Casanova who gets his comeuppance. The problem is that Murphy, determined to portray a nice guy no matter what, doesn’t have the nerve to play Marcus as the cad he has to be if his chastisement is to mean anything.


Instead, we get the spectacle of a misunderstood nice guy being maltreated by a heartless woman. Instead of being funny, Murphy spends much of “Boomerang” with a hapless, woe-is-me look on his face, a lovelorn little boy lost who must learn humility and humanity before true happiness can be his. Watching the best wisenheimer in the business determinedly turning himself into a sensitive, New Age guy is an exercise in sheer frustration. Surely there must be a better way to utilize the man’s talents.



Directing this transformation from rascal to caring leading man is the overmatched Reginald Hudlin, whose “House Party” (which Hudlin also wrote) had a kind of playfulness that never really gets untracked in the face of Murphy’s powerful star-vehicle machinery. And though Halle Berry is awfully appealing as the girl everyone wants to bring home to mother, Givens has a problem similar to Hudlin’s, never managing to break out and utilize the sassy flair that brought so much life to “A Rage in Harlem.”


Though its plotting is blandness itself, “Boomerang” (rated R for language and sexuality) has a very definite raunchy streak to it, visible not only in its periodically salty dialogue but in the salacious characterizations of supermodel Strange and cosmetics tyc00n Lady Eloise, played by two actresses (Grace Jones and Eartha Kitt, respectively) who seem a bit perplexed by what the script demands of them.

The most intriguing aspect of “Boomerang” turns out to be not its story but its racial composition, for this film takes pains to create a reverse world from which white people are invisible except when comic relief is called for. Aside from an insipid waitress, a bumbling racist store clerk and four beefy young slaves (the credits coyly lists them as escorts) who are enthusiastically whipped by Strange as they pull her chariot through New York’s World Financial Center (don’t ask), the only pale American face prominently visible belongs to Capt. James Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, eulogized by Marcus as “the coolest white man on the planet.”


On one level, this kind of cinematic affirmative action can be seen as very long overdue, but, unlike the dramatically motivated all-black cast of “A Rage in Harlem,” it feels in its own way as silly and arbitrary as mainstream movies without any people of color on the screen.

While the decisions to show African-Americans as seriously successful and to make sure that the production personnel were fully integrated are exemplary moves, this aspect of “Boomerang” plays not like a social statement but rather as the whim of an emperor, the capricious passion of one who, above all else, must always be obeyed.


Director of the film Reginald Hudlin issued a statement:

There was one infamous review of the film that summed up the ignorance of many critics. The movie was called a science fiction film, because those writers didn’t know about any successful black companies. They didn’t know about Johnson Products, or Johnson Publishing, or Burrell Advertising, or UniWorld Advertising, or any black law firms or… They were just ignorant, which they tried to pass off as wit. It was also frustrating for (Eddie) because he was stretching out, expanding the range of movies he was doing, but instead of applauding him for doing something different, they sneered. So many people love the film, from Lena Horne to Ice Cube. There are people who watch it with their family every Thanksgiving. But there was this crazy generation gap between the white people who ran Hollywood at the time the film was made, and the white people who grew up on hip hop who are players in Hollywood today. There's a much higher percentage of white executives who at least have a basic knowledge of black pop culture today, thank goodness. That’s why you can't sweat the controversy of the moment. Over time, the true value of a movie is revealed. Which is why it's so nice Boomerang has generations of fans.[15]

Be a dumb shyt that can't look up the circumstances in a thread, brehs. You're one of the dumbest people on this damn site.

There's another Coli thread here:

 

Kyle C. Barker

Migos VERZUZ Mahalia Jackson
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
27,844
Reputation
9,283
Daps
119,606
It was sandwiched in between Beverly hills cop, another 48 hours, and the nutty professor which were his mainstream movies if you catch my drift :mjpls:

Harlem Nights was a blassic too but I don't remember it getting much attention outside of black audiences.
 

Wargames

One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
24,629
Reputation
4,225
Daps
92,167
Reppin
New York City
People wasn’t ready to see a successful black bachelor, enjoying the benefits of his labor and running through women like a man in his position should.

I still don’t think they are.

With that said this movie and a Distinguised Gentleman, and Harlem Nights are all gems black people love and white peoples can’t even fully comprehend. It’s too on code for us, for them to appreciate them, let alone show any support.
 

Space Cowboy

Allahu Akbar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
4,204
Reputation
846
Daps
14,051
Reppin
CowboysNation
The actual film was mid

the movie was carried by great actors

so I can see why it’s not reviewed very well


almost a classic imo
How can something be mid and almost a classic? That don’t make damn sense. If something is almost a classic doesn’t this presume it’s pretty good but doesn’t stick the landing? Pretty good isn’t mid.
 

Buddy

Keep my name out of it
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
18,517
Reputation
5,608
Daps
77,134
Shut up dumb ass. Reading the history there's controversy about reviews and how the film was dogged by white reviewers to the point where the director of the film had to make a statement.



Director of the film Reginald Hudlin issued a statement:



Be a dumb shyt that can't look up the circumstances in a thread, brehs. You're one of the dumbest people on this damn site.

There's another Coli thread here:

Who the fukk are you? :dahell:
 

get these nets

Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
53,006
Reputation
14,319
Daps
199,946
Reppin
Above the fray.
Shut up dumb ass. Reading the history there's controversy about reviews and how the film was dogged by white reviewers to the point where the director of the film had to make a statement.



Director of the film Reginald Hudlin issued a statement:



Be a dumb shyt that can't look up the circumstances in a thread, brehs. You're one of the dumbest people on this damn site.

There's another Coli thread here:

I'll tell you what's funnier than you pivoting from reacting to Rotten tomatoes to googling old reviews

Is this post of mine from 2018

.

For some more context into just how much they are bugging..... I saw Coming to America in theater wen it came out. Years later I heard about some of the controversy about it's release. This is pre internet when there were only a handful of important media outlets and forums to promote films.

Some racist film reviewer wrote something along the lines of "Zamunda being an unrealistic portrayal of Africa". Because the citizens are portrayed favorably, he had a problem with it. I tracked down the review years ago, and will try to post it here.

Keep juelzing and patting yourself on the back for thinking you're bringing NEW information to other members, though.
 
Top