From SHAKES THE CLOWN, perhaps?

I thought it was just a truism.

Like "Clowns scare the bejeesus out of me."

I can remember some late 70's/early 80's stand-up comedian striking comedy gold with a riff on hating mimes and it seemed, at that point, like undiscovered territory. Nowadays, it's fallen into that boring "easy go-to observation", much like the reflection that "clowns are scary."

True or not, it's lazy.

Airplane peanuts - that's still funny, though. Right?

New alterna-comedy observation should tip toward: mimes are amazing, and I can't stand wiseasses who say they hate mimes. Also, circus clowns are hilarious.

It can tip however it likes, as long as it's funny!

Upright Citizen's Brigade were very good at that kind of approach - after the "crazed astronaut in diapers" thing was reported in the news, it brought to mind their deliberately absurd attempts to re-position astronauts as second class citizens who society barely tolerated "riding their moon buggys over people's lawns at all hours of the night!" and such...

Peanuts of any variety was, for awhile, - IMHO :D - heelarious.

That is until people started having allergic reactions to 'em. 'specially on planes.

Comics, except for Bill "the madman" Hicks, of course, sorta steered clear of the subject for awhile.

I believe the water is safe again to broach peanuts.

Is it safe?

Is it Safe?

Is it safe?

Too soon.

First time I saw a bit about hating mimes was the February 11, 1984 episode of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. Brad Hall played a man with a mime roommate. The mime drives the man so crazy that he finally blurts out, "Nobody likes mimes! Everybody HATES mimes!"

When the mime does the mirror-routine, the man pulls out a gun and kills the mime. Neighbors rush in and Hall admits that he just killed a mime. Everyone celebrates.

To tie this all together, the mime was played by Robin Williams, who also appeared in SHAKES THE CLOWN as a mime.

Everybody also hates Robin Williams, which brings the circle together.

True. True.

It begs the additional question: When did Robin Williams go sour?

I think we lost them all (Williams, Martin, Murphy) in the 90's when they started making movies for their kids. (Steve Martin was likely making movies for Robin Williams' kids.)

I humbly submit that NORBIT is funnier than BEVERLY HILLS COP. And the NUTTY PROFESSOR remake series is way, way funnier than TRADING PLACES.

None of this, of course, is as funny as Eddie Murphy on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, and certainly not as funny as his '80s stand up, but I think Murphy's generally spotty film career has been on a kinda-sorta upswing.

I can't wait to read your argument. This is what Mobius is all about.

Wow, great responses. I was probably thinking of that SNL episode.

As for Robin Williams, he is absolutely brilliant as Sy the Photo Guy in ONE HOUR PHOTO. I love it when he plays edgy characters. He's a really good actor...it's just that he's slummed it so much in goopy feel-goody roles.

Haven't caught NORBIT yet, but I always thought BEVERLY HILLS COP was a bit overrated. TRADING PLACES on the other hand is a favorite of mine, right behind 48 HRS... NUTTY PROF 1 was a nice surprise, but it's sequel seemed as awful to me as every other sequel that Murphy's done. He has a bad habit of going back to the troth looooong after it's gone dry.
But you reminded me of BOWFINGER, which I really liked a lot... I was momentarily hopeful for both Martin & Murphy, then came DADDY DAYCARE, BRINGIN DOWN THE HOUSE, PLUTO NASH, CHEAPER PINK PANTHERS BY THE DOZEN & a whole lotta SHREK.

But I respectfully note that "Comedy is hard." :)

I think the appeal of BH Cop isn't strictly how funny it is - it's more an action movie with humor. I revisited it about a year ago and was like, "gee, this really isn't so funny," and was disappointed. But I think if you're someone who would enjoy the car chases and cop vs. drug dealer stuff even without the humor, then you're more its audience.
I haven't seen Norbit, but I second the thumbs up for Bowfinger.

Getting back on topic, I think part of the reason hating mimes has worn out its comedic welcome - besides the fact that it's a really tired, old joke that isn't even really a joke in the first place - is that mimes themselves are pretty much a bygone fad. Unless you live in San Francisco or something, you've probably never even seen a mime, except from previous "I hate mime" gags in TV, film, etc. So you don't really have an opinion on mimes for the comments to strike a chord with. Sorta like telling Calvin Coolidge jokes to your grandkids.

If the mime is a real mime then he can't even deliver the punchline to the famous Calvin Coolidge joke (how do you mime "you lose"?)

But, yes, I agree absolutely.

And I have to ask ... I have a real twisted desire to see PLUTO NASH for all the wrong reasons... is it worth it? I mean, it looks mind-bogglingly stupid-bad. Is it just lame or is there any unintentional comedy to be had (I quit reading the Onion's MY YEAR OF FLOPS around October last year, along with that Box Of Paperback Books column, because the writing seemed to be going downhill - or maybe I was just made painfully aware of how much older I must be than the guys writing them, but I imagine PLUTO NASH is the kind of film that could get an entertaining write-up there). So, grim or "oh man, that's some strong cheese"?

I may have been the only professional (at the time) film critic to give THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH a positive review. It isn't even close to being Eddie Murphy's worst movie (and there are plenty of contenders for that title). Its best quality is that it's so darned likable. Refreshingly free of the urination, deformity and sex jokes that have become a standard in cinematic comedy, PLUTO is an old-fashioned romp with a handsome hero, a cute love interest with whom he shares a platonic attraction, a goofy comic sidekick, snarling heavies and lots of shoot-'em-up action. If this had been made in 1948, it would have been a B-western with sinister George Macready going up against stolid cowboy Rod Cameron.

I think PLUTO NASH is a difficult film to dislike. It contains all the pieces for a fun adventure, and even though they don't fit together totally satisfactorily, enough of them do to provide a brainless good time. This is Eddie Murphy's Cary Grant role, and he fits it as easily as the tuxedo he dons late in the picture. Under the direction of Ron Underwood (CITY SLICKERS), who doesn't distinguish himself much, Murphy seems relaxed and confident, as though he has little idea how let down he is by Neil Cuthbert's (MYSTERY MEN) routine and very padded script. It has a great supporting cast, including a hilarious Alec Baldwin cameo, and John Powell's heroic score is one of his best.

I don't want to give the impression that PLUTO NASH is any better than it is. You're certain to forget about it by the time you've taken the first bite of your post-movie snack. But it also doesn't deserve the scorn it received from critics who seemed to have let their pens be guided by preconceived notions. Warner Brothers kept it languishing on the shelf for more than two years as it wallowed in rumors of re-shoots and behind-the-scenes calamity. Nothing sends out bad word-of-mouth faster than news of a production the studio has no faith in.

That's how BOOMERANG struck me. I liked it quite a bit at the time, but don't know how it would hold up for me these days.

And I hated BOOMERANG, it's worse than PLUTO NASH.

Oh Marty, I was all set to give PLUTO NASH a chance, based on your thoughtful defense of it on the previous page, but now I'm a bit hesitant. I'm a big fan of BOOMERANG and think it's one of Murphy's three or so best films. I'm curious what you "hated" about it. It's a romantic comedy that works (for me) because it's about how characters relate to each other, about the way they interact, particularly men and women. The situations grew out of character not contrivance. Whether it's scenes of Eddie flirting with different women or dealing with his buddies, I liked the honest moments about the ways people interact and negotiate with each other. It wasn't filled with the usual broad Murphy antics nor did it have the usual array of comic stereotypes we're used to in these films. The people behaved like believable human beings and that's such a rare thing in Hollywood films of the last 28 years that I embraced this film for that. Like Jeffrey, I saw this as Murphy's Cary Grant role and I wish he'd done more films like it.

I hated the rampant egoism of BOOMERANG. Virtually every scene in the movie is someone talking about how great Eddie is. Characters can't stop discussing Eddie's awesomeness. It was pretty clear to me that the star was more interested in creating a massive strokefest than a sophisticated comedy, and all the bowing and scraping to the mighty Murphy idol made me angry. I certainly didn't find Murphy's character to be "believable," since he was fawned over as if he were a Kryptonian George Clooney. All the best moments belong to David Alan Grier (the scenes Murphy shares with Grier and Martin Lawrence are fun), who is very funny and sweet and should have had the career that Murphy (who I loved in the '80s) squandered on vanity projects like this and HARLEM NIGHTS and brainless kiddie flicks like DR. DOOLITTLE.

I don't remember that aspect of BOOMERANG myself, but it has been 15 years since I saw it (on rented video not the big screen, which, who knows, might make a difference in how one perceives his performance). But I will agree with you on David Alan Grier. I thought he was the most versatile and consistently funny performer to come out of "In Living Color" and lament that he never got the proper exposure afterwards for his talents.

BOOMERANG seemed to me me as being more *about* egoism than a clueless embodiment of it, with any latent Murphy vanity being par for the course with the actor (as well as nicely dovetailing with the overall theme). Murphy's reaction to being seduced and abandoned by Robin Givens was a particular highlight for me at the time. I also appreciated Murphy leaving the more scene-stealing antics to his supporting cast - rather than *becoming* his own supporting cast as per usual.

Of course, in the end (as always with these movies) the swelled-headed lead learns his lesson so he can truly become what he thought he was at the start - only with 'heart'. Again, par for the course. Would've gone down like that in Grant's day, too.

But, I haven't seen it since release, and it could all strike me very differently today.

While I LOVED BOOMERANG! ("Dif'rent strokes," as Alan Thicke used to sing.) It's my favorite Hudlin Bros. film (alongside HOUSE PARTY) & I second the Murphy as Grant comparison, though Eddie plays a bit more of a cad than I can ever remember Cary playing. Halle Berry's never been more beautiful (in spite of her current status as a Maxim pinup) than she was here... Black girls all over America were sporting that bobbed haircut of hers for years after.
At the time it was a bit surprising to see "Hollywood Murphy" collaborating with Black filmmakers... his previous successes saw him making the most of that "fast talkin' street-wise con-artist" type that sells like Coca Cola... even more surprising was the film's setting of African American affluence. Critics scoffed at its matter-of-fact portrayal of a successful Black corporation perhaps preferring that the movie take place in a schoolyard. Black romantic comedy is still pretty rare in theaters, but BOOMERANG did manage to kick off a small series of them.
(I agree though, Marty, that PLUTO NASH isn't as bad as "they" said.)

Kinda back to mimes, anyone remember Charles Lane's SIDEWALK STORIES?

Yeah... he's like Capt. Kirk in STAR TREK II: if he aint in the scene, someone else is talking about how clever he is!
I always liked how BOOMERANG's romantic leads bond over STAR TREK. It's where we find out Spock's real name, too:
Spock Jenkins.