MovieChat Forums > Trading Places (1983) Discussion > Am I the second person who doesn't like ...

Am I the second person who doesn't like Trading Places?

posted 2 years ago by HerrStrauss (122)
30 replies | jump to latest

Following the recommendation of several websites, I watched Trading Places with my wife, praising it to the sky before even watching it. Big mistake! This was a B-level movie! I didn't even laugh for a second. The story doesn't make sense either. The funny thing is: It is on the same list as Airplane!, The Life of Brian, A Fish Called Wanda, Blazing Saddles, etc. These are brilliant comedies and have nothing to do with this unfunny trainwreck. I still haven't figured out why it is so popular! But it seems that I am not entirely alone. I copy the comment of someone else I found online:

Don't hate me, please?

I just watched Trading Places for the first time last night. I'd heard good things about it being a classic 80s Eddie Murphy movie, but beyond that, I didn't know much going in. Frankly, I was completely underwhelmed. But what was most baffling about the entire experience for me was that I took to the Internet afterwards, curious to see what everyone else's opinion was. I was certain I was going to find lukewarm reviews, maybe some jabs about this wasn't Eddie's best.

But apparently everyone loves Trading Places.

All the reviews I can find online are glowing. Reddit has about five threads full of people talking about how this movie is their favorite 80s movie or best comedy of all time or how they watch it every Christmas. I really just don't get it. I've never been this far off from how everyone else feels before.

I'll try to break down the issues I had with the movie here briefly:

Plot holes. I felt like I was suspending my disbelief every five seconds to get through this movie. Eddie Murphy perfectly understands stock trading after five minutes of explanation? Dan Aykroyd has all of his assets stolen by the bank because he's a criminal (Who never actually faces charges or the legal system or anything)? Aykroyd's big plan to get his job back involves clumsily planting drugs in Eddie Murphy's desk drawer? Clarence Beeks somehow passes for a gorilla in the most cartoonish looking costume long enough to get shipped to Africa? And also can't just take the costume off? The group decides they all need to dress up in costume and risk discovery to make the briefcase switch? I feel like I could keep this section going for another three paragraphs but I'll move on. It just really made it hard to get into the movie.

Bad/convenient writing. This kind of goes with the above point, but there's a lot of small details about the character choices that get under my skin. For instance, Clarence Beeks, who is basically a spy for the Dukes, shoves pretty much everyone to the ground he passes by. Not exactly the most inconspicuous behavior. Also, even before the bathroom scene where the Dukes oh-so-conveniently reveal their entire plan explicitly, they openly discuss it in front of Eddie Murphy when he is there asking them about the payroll. There are many other places in the movie when I just kept asking myself, "Why would this character say/do that?"

The pacing is strange. Both characters basically transform overnight into their polar opposites. Eddie Murphy is immediately fine being a high-powered stockbroker. Dan Aykroyd just totally loses it in what feels like two days. It just doesn't fit quite right to me. Also, Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd have chemistry because...reasons?

Bad acting. Eddie Murphy is really the only saving grace for this movie as far as acting goes, in my opinion. Even as a stodgy, whiny, prissy rich guy, Aykroyd's lines all feel flat and delivered off a piece of paper. Same with the Duke brothers, who seem to yell at random times and otherwise act like cardboard.

I feel like I could keep going for a while, but it's really beside the point. I just don't understand why this is so universally beloved when I really did not enjoy it. I've never been so off the mark before.

Is there anyone else out there? Is it really just me?

[–] aavfreak (2984) 2 years ago

Like many older comedies, if you didn't watch it when it was current, then it's unlikely you'll like it watching now.

All of the highly rated comedies from past decades were (and still are) funny to me, except the ones I've tried to watch for the first time. I can't sit through Animal House, for example.

[–] kwestmo (4288) 2 years ago

It's interesting how taste change over the years. I saw Animal House, Airplane!, and Caddyshack at the cinema. I owned all three on DVD and thought they were hilarious for decades.

Today, I find Caddyshack as fresh as ever and still own the DVD.

The other two I no longer find funny, though I recognize their influence on film comedies. Admittedly, I quit finding Airplane! funny after watching its source Zero Hour!, which in unintentionally funny.

[–] liscarkat (17165) a year ago

I've watched countless comedies made long before I was even born, going back to the 1920s, and many of them hold up just fine. You don't have to be there when a comedy is new in order to like it.

[–] fc31 (4890) 2 years ago

You might have misunderstood the movie, thought it was a comedy, but it is not.

It is trying to answer the question of "nature vs nurture" debate, of course the answer is not quite convincing. Not everyone on the street can be the head of a trading house, but it is possible. A trader does not need to be educated, still not everyone can do it.

But putting a well educated upper class person into desperate situations, now that is a lot more convincing.

It is a drama, not a comedy. If you expected a typical Eddie Murphy vehicle, of course you will be disappointed.

And trading is not complex, most traders at the time were uneducated, they shout in a pit, there was not much chart reading.

[–] Rolltide (964) 2 years ago

It has nothing to do with being funny. It is an idiotic brain dead piece of political propaganda.

[–] moviechatterer (14219) 2 years ago

in what way?
what ideal is it pushing?

[–] csweetleaf2 (3548) 2 years ago

I think "Trading Places" is a very good movie but what keeps it from being a classic is the scene involving a gorilla on the train, I thought that got a little too silly.

[–] Ticketsplease (4024) a year ago

And the blackface.

[–] Miyagido (2944) a year ago

The blackface just enhances it more. Everyone loves Lionel Joseph.

[–] strntz (11315) 6 months ago

It wasn't blackface.

[–] bjensen4 (1281) 2 years ago

You got to see Jamie Lee Curtis’ tits

[–] moviechatterer (14219) 2 years ago

worth the price of admission on their own!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

It’s a mediocrity and the OP is verbose .

No movie that originated from The National Lampoon is funny.

Fuck Harvard.

[–] avortac4 (3676) 2 years ago

"Plot holes. I felt like I was suspending my disbelief every five seconds to get through this movie. Eddie Murphy perfectly understands stock trading after five minutes of explanation? Dan Aykroyd has all of his assets stolen by the bank because he's a criminal (Who never actually faces charges or the legal system or anything)? Aykroyd's big plan to get his job back involves clumsily planting drugs in Eddie Murphy's desk drawer?"

Those are not plot holes. First of all, this quoted poster isn't explaining WHY any of those things are 'plot holes' or wrong in any way. I am not saying they're not, just that listing things without explaining the logic of WHY you are listing them isn't saying anything, it's completely worthless.

Why can't his assets be taken away, since they weren't fully his anyway? Also, taking something back from someone that doesn't own those assets is not stealing. Explain.

Never faces charges? Did you even see the movie? He was arrested and there was a bail. That's how it works, what's so confusing to you about any of this? He would only face charges if someone PRESSES charges, but that might be too difficult for you to comprehend, if you can't even understand what a 'plot hole' actually is.

" Aykroyd's big plan to get his job back involves clumsily planting drugs in Eddie Murphy's desk drawer?"

Yes, and? What are you objecting here, that he HAS a plan, or that the plan is CLUMSY, or that it involves planting drugs? Because all those are very well explained in the movie, it all fits his character perfectly, especially considering he's drunk and desperate. What's 'plot hole' about ANY of this?

[–] avortac4 (3676) 2 years ago

"Clarence Beeks somehow passes for a gorilla in the most cartoonish looking costume long enough to get shipped to Africa?"

People don't look at animals all that closely - as one Columbo episode proved, 'people see what they expect to see'. If there is a real gorilla and this costumed version in a cage, people just see two gorillas and move on. They're not going to inspect every hair just to make sure it's not a costume - assumption pays a big role in what we observe.

It's not that cartoonish a costume, definitely not MOST cartoonish-looking (without hyphen, this means 'cartoonish is doing some looking') costume. Without further clarification, you are talking about ALL EXISTENCE, so you think some donkey kong-costume is LESS cartoonish? Please. You have a 'brain hole' before this movie has a 'plot hole'.

"And also can't just take the costume off?"

Did you even watch the movie?

This was explained in the movie. He's tied and gagged, he CAN'T just take the costume off. Why should he be able to? Explain.

" The group decides they all need to dress up in costume and risk discovery to make the briefcase switch?"

And?

What's 'plot hole' about this? You just LIST what happens in the movie, expecting people to somehow figure out why you think it shouldn't happen or why it's implausible, unrealistic or a 'plot hole'.

This is a costume party, of COURSE they are going to wear a costume. Also, it's not 'dressing up in costumeS (should be plural)', it's 'DISGUISING THEMSELVES'. Try to keep up. No wonder you don't like it, because you clearly don't UNDERSTAND any of it, or you misinterpret it through some kind of toddler-brain that doesn't live in the adult world.

You have proven that you don't understand the movie, or the term 'plot hole', and that's ALL you have proven so far. And someone respects your illogical list enough to quote the whole thing.. unbelievable.

"I feel like I could keep this section going for another three paragraphs but I'll move on."

Of course you feel like that, because all you have to do is LIST things and not explain anything. You never said WHY you think any of this is wrong or a plot hole. Just listing things that happen in the movie is worthless, we know what happens in the movie. For you to actually have ANY validity to anything you are saying, you better explain the REASONS you feel any of this shouldn't happen, and then explain HOW you think things should have happened.

You might still be wrong, but at least your post would have context, at least you could be respected for trying to make a point (and probably failing anyway).

Of course you'll move on, because you weren't saying anything in the first place, the only thing you can do is move on. Sigh. I hate when people do this, they just list stuff and then 'move on' and never make an..

.. _A_C_T_U_A_L___P_O_I_N_T_

..which would make it SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING for the reader!

[–] avortac4 (3676) 2 years ago

"Bad/convenient writing. This kind of goes with the above point,"

No, it doesn't, because YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY POINT so far.

Also, 'convenient writing'? That's BAD WRITING already. You mean 'conveniences in writing' or 'plot contrivances' or something, right? 'Convenient writing' means the writing ITSELF is 'convenient', and this makes no sense. Perhaps the keyboard or typewriter was REALLY good, so the writing itself became convenient. See what I mean?

You can't even write basic english correctly or understand a simple movie parts, and you start writing a hate-post based on that. Your OWN limited understanding of the movie made you think the movie is something it's not, so you are basically only verbally vomiting your own hatred against your own limited understanding, not the actual movie here.

"..there's a lot of small details about the character choices that get under my skin."

There you go again, no clue. First of all, 'there ARE', not 'there's'. Then, you are talking about quantifiable things, so you should use 'many', not 'a lot'. You can have 'a lot of water', but you have 'many pebbles'. If it is quantifiable, you don't use 'a lot', but at least you are consistent in displaying to the world your intelligence level and understanding ability, so no one is surprised that you didn't get anything this movie showed you.

You are probably not smart enough to actually watch movies yet, try to evolve a bit before watching your next movie, or you'll misunderstand everything again and then rant against your own misunderstandings, thinking you're doing a good job criticizing a movie..

"Clarence Beeks, who is basically a spy for the Dukes, shoves pretty much everyone to the ground he passes by."

No, he doesn't. Where does this happen in the movie? He just shouts at someone to get them to stop hovering near him when he's trying to be secretive. Is this really that hard to understand? It establishes that this character is confident, experienced and tough.

[–] avortac4 (3676) 2 years ago

" Not exactly the most inconspicuous behavior."

Who said his behaviour needs to be 'inconspicuous'? He's not as much a spy anyway, as he is an insider trader that sits in a position of power. He's tough, ruthless, he doesn't care about other people's feelings.

In other words, he is EFFICIENT. If he was a timid nerd what you seem to want him to be (first time you at least TRIED to explain something, so at least finally we get something), he couldn't do that kind of job that requires him to be RUTHLESS.

He knows how to get people to do what he wants them to do with the minimum effort. Screaming to someone when they're hovering near you is the perfect way to give a bit of shock to them that makes them intimidated enough to clear off, so he can speak privately.

Where does he push off people to the ground, exactly? You are exaggerating without understanding, and this is your consistent sin here. You just don't understand, and your critique (such as it is), has no validity, because it's based on your own lack of understanding, not anything wrong with the movie itself.

This movie HAS many stupidities, bad sides and wrong things in it, but you have not listed any of the actual, valid ones so far.

"..bathroom scene where the Dukes oh-so-conveniently reveal their entire plan explicitly"

Let me get this straight; you ADMIT they are finding a hiding place to talk about their plan, they even 'make sure' there's no one in the stalls before even talking about it, and you scold them for being 'explicit' and for talking about it 'conveniently' and openly?

Were you dropped as a baby or something? Your brain is not functioning properly, you should return it to the factory and demand refund - but it was probably one of those bargain-bin ones, marked down and all..

"..they openly discuss it in front of Eddie Murphy when he is there asking them about the payroll."

No, they don't.