Cast:
Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.
Review:
From my review on January 1, 2013:
What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.
"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis
Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).
If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes).
The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.
The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.
Review #1482: Little Shop of Horrors.