Trading Places

As much as anything else, Trading Places is a movie about Jamie Lee Curtis's breasts. They were the most memorable element(s) of the movie, and their prominence in this film really blasted Jamie's career off the slasher launching pad and into the firmament with the other stars.

When the film was first in theaters, I saw it in an urban movie theater near my office in North Fort Myers, Florida, as part of an audience in which I was more or less the only white person. The theater was packed. Eddie Murphy was the star, and he was the up and coming SNL stud hoss on his way to certain movie stardom, fresh off 48 Hours, a major audience draw in all neighborhoods, but especially black ones. All my life I have liked to attend music and other entertainment events with predominantly black female audiences. I like to hear the audience's reaction to what's happening on the stage or screen, and that is the perfect audience to get an uninhibited and unaffected reaction. I will never forget how they reacted when Jamie took off her shirt for the first time. There was an audible group-gasp, a sound of surprise and admiration. We all knew she had nice breasts, but we didn't know they were THAT nice. If Keanu had been there, it would have called for a major "whoa".

That is my clearest memory of the film, but there is plenty of other entertainment here as well. This film not only made Jamie Lee a star, but also completed Eddie Murphy's heavenly ascension as well. Eddie has two brilliant and quintessentially Murphyesque set pieces. Early in the film he plays a homeless street hustler who swindles sympathy donations from passersby in downtown Philadelphia at Christmastime by pretending to be a legless and blind war veteran. When the cops bust him, he is hilarious. Later in the film he plays an exchange student from Cameroon with equally hilarious results.

NUDITY REPORT

Jamie Lee Curtis shows her breasts twice. The first time, she is undressing in front of a mirror. The second time, she is climbing in bed with Ackroyd.

DVD info from Amazon.

widescreen format, 1.85:1
no features

The rest of the movie is not so bad, either, kind of a modern spin on The Prince and the Pauper. A couple of weaselly old Wall Street skinflints are debating the impact of heredity versus environment, and their discussion leads to some friendly wagers. Can they take the lowest lowlife from the streets (Murphy) and train him to replace their Harvard-educated protégé? And how will the Harvard boy (Dan Ackroyd) react when all of his wealth and privileges are suddenly removed?

It sounds heavier than it is. It's a comedy, after all, directed by John Landis, so it all works out, and both of their victims end up better people. After some predictable detours and misanalyses of the situation, Murphy, Ackroyd, a butler (Denholm Elliott), and a hooker (Jamie Lee) eventually team up to give the evil old stockbrokers their comeuppance.

The Critics Vote

General consensus: three stars or better. filmcritic.com 4/5, BBC 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes summary. only six reviews, but 100% positive.

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 7.2/10. That's quite high for a comedy.

with their dollars: a hit! It grossed $90 million in the USA alone, in 1983 dollars.

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a B-. An excellent comedy with a good mixture of laughs and thoughts, with enough mass audience appeal to become a box office smash. If not as good as Landis's Animal House, it is suffused with a similar anarchy and the spirit of reg'lar folks warring against the privileged classes. Tuna says: "While the story is nothing innovative, the talented cast pulls off some laugh out loud funny moments. The proper score is somewhere between B- and C+."