So much average

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Sought by police and criminals, a small-time hustler makes a deal with a TV newsman for protection....You have to love David O' Russell, he gave Tucker a new lease of life, and with Silver Linings Playbook, it proved that Tucker wasn't the living, breathing doppelganger of Jar Jar Binks..But this film is the absolute pits, and consists of nothing more than Tucker trying to upstage everyone who shares the screen with him, by shouting at the top of his voice and thinking that profanity is the height of good humour.Ratner must have thought that Tucker was the new Eddie Murphy, but where them two have similarities, they are both men, at least Murphy showed restraint in his performances, that's why he was so successful in the eighties.But to have to tolerate a film rather than let it entertain you is an ordeal, and it doesn't help that actors like Sheen and Sorvino look thoroughly embarrassed to be in this film.The script is full of awful stereotypes that would even put British seventies sitcoms to shame, and the whole film has an air of misogyny running through its slimy back.

(Joel Cohen) and (Alec Sokolow) wrote a mild script. However there was potential that I waited from the scriptwriters of (Toy Story – 1995) and (Goodbye Lover – 1998) to use, while they didn't. There are situations where the comedy could have been produced better (the party), or produced (the arm dealer's lair), but the action was the main point I guess, so it sure lost more chances for laughs.The buddy formula couldn't be felt. I mean (Charlie Sheen) wasn't given much of a character. All the lights are spotted on (Chris Tucker). Over and above, (Sheen) didn't do anything more than his usual Siberian performance and combing his hair well. They could have easily replaced him with a cardboard cutout !Although he's not that charismatic, and too annoying in many places, (Tucker) proved that he can be a star in a movie. I just hated his method that whenever the camera is rolling; "I must not stop talking and talking and talking" to an extent where they should have renamed the movie (Chris Tucker Talks)!.. It's not funny at all. Anyway, he sure looked better, and talked less in director (Brett Ratner)'s next movies (Rush Hour). But maybe it gives you a hint about the reason why (Tucker) doesn't work much out of that franchise. The start is really good and inspiring. And there is fair action, especially at the third act. However the second act went astray a bit. Some violence bothered me as well, but not like the very last scene, where the 2 leads accept a portion of stolen diamonds for themselves, even the clean-cut reporter. It's a matter that will inflame more loud objections 2 years later in another action comedy; (Money Train).In 1997, the buddy formula was sizzling. I believe it's the (Lethal Weapon)'s effect. Many buddy comedies were released : (Out to Sea), (Fathers' Day), (Gone Fishin'), (Good Burger), (Mousehunt), (Nothing to Lose), and (Trial and Error). Many buddy action too : (Men in Black), (Double Team), and (The Edge). I think (Money Talks) is a reasonable action, somehow far from being a comedy, and originally not a complete "buddy" movie, being so close to one man show. Not bad man, and not excellent show either. Well, averagely entertaining is the word then.Seriously there was nothing super but that chain of explosions at the end, which if there was more like it; it could have fit as better buddy for (Tucker) !

This was a valiant effort by Tucker, in developing the formula he would later use with Jackie Chan. This character's behavior is identical to his later character of the Rush Hour line (trilogy?) with one exception...he was still a bit in Ruby Rod mode from the Fifth Element. That fact alone lends at least some amusement to this almost "workshop" attempt between Charlie Sheen and Chris Tucker. Thankfully, Tucker hit in with Chan whose personality kicks it with Tucker's over the top, sometimes flamboyant, mostly big mouth style. Sheen played it too close to the vest. His character here is rather silent, but that's better than the few scenes in which he actually speaks, as Sheen's dialog delivery here will make most audiences cringe. It seems as though he's attempting the quiet brooding bad guy persona of Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon franchise, but Sheen just doesn't seem to pull it off. Nor does he pull off the "hip" bad boy persona he attempts on again and off again, throughout this work. Sheen must have been off his game here, as we all know that the bad boy is something he CAN do well..or could, at least, when he was younger. This was filmed in 1996/1997, so I have to assume he was just off his game, as that was the heyday of his nefarious bad boy personal life.This work is still a bit entertaining, if you can manage to ignore Sheen, and just enjoy the fun story line, the awesome performance by Paul Sorvino and funny man Chris Tucker, and the somewhat decent action/comedy blend.All in all, if you're bored, this is a fun choice, but if you have to make time for it, it may be somewhat of a disappointment.It rates 5.9/10 from...the Fiend :.

MONEY TALKS is a good showcase for Chris Tucker, who utterly saves the project from being a disappointment. Here, he plays a street hustler who is wrongly accused of murder. Charlie Sheen is the reporter who risks his engagement to his fiancee (Heather Locklear) to help Tucker out. While the action isn't all that good, Sheen and Tucker's chemistry makes up for it in this above-average comedy.3 out of 5