MovieChat Forums > Harlem Nights (1989) Discussion > Eddie Murphy the 'weak link' of this mov...

Eddie Murphy the 'weak link' of this movie?

posted 16 years ago by zmystico
9 replies | jump to latest

For someone to write, produce, direct and "star" in a movie, I really felt the "failure" of this film was Eddie pushing Quick too much. When Pryor, Foxx, Della are on-screen they seem more natural with their characters. With Quick, its like Eddie tried to create a "Superman" so to speak the supposedly suave, ruthless, gangster-nightclub owner...his character seemed fake. I think the movie would have faired alot better if Eddie had used the better talent around him more. Pryor was golden, Della Reese & Redd Foxx were hilarious together, but when Eddie was on-screen you just got the feeling "Eddie is REALLY trying to show himself off" and to me thats why this movies failed. I love it, and got the DVD, but I'd really had like if Eddie didn't put himself upfront so much in this film.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zmystico 16 years ago

It "failed" in the sense that I don't sympathize nor care about the "star". If you enjoyed eddie then fine, thats on you, but this is MY opinion.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries

[–] Thomas-FordJr-1 16 years ago

Yeah 'Quick' was a self centered, me first character that didn't take any crap. You can tell this from the first few minutes of the movie when he was a kid. I think Murphy played him perfectly...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] contact-1765 15 years ago

Well said. If Eddie wouldn't have been like that, it would have been a boring movie with no conflict.

[–] charlestheprince2 15 years ago

Agreed... jacob, Thomas $ contact...great points. Some people are really quick to criticize films when they obviously just don't get it.

[–] quinn_larkins 15 years ago

I liked this film but the I have to agree, Eddie Murphy was the weak link of this film. The problem with his character wasn't that he was young, arrogant, and a hot head. The problem is that he tried to act like he was the most suave person in one scene, then like he was the toughest gangster in the next. It was too much of Eddie acting like he was the supreme alpha male in every situation. And the worst part about him, he wasn't funny in most of his scenes.

This seemed to be the trend with Eddie Murphy in a lot of his films following Coming to America. He played the same type of character in this, Boomerang, Metro, and Berverly Hills Cop III.

He was at his funniest when he was playing humble characters who were cocky and funny, like in Coming to America and all of the movies prior to it.

[–] imdb-7503 12 years ago

I suppose I'd choose the word "lazy" instead of "weak". He basically cast himself as himself, slapped on a character name, and dropped it into an outstanding--if purposefully-campy at times--setting. Then, as a result of spending large amounts of screen time in the company of Pryor, Foxx, Reese and Aiello, his acting chops being less then theirs comes starkly to the forefront.

I love "Harlem Nights", but it does feel more like a guilty pleasure or a piece of nostalgia than true praise.

In the end, bad or good, I'm very glad it exists, versus the alternative.

[–] guanzilla 10 years ago

Now that I think about it, I think you are right. I like to "read movies", in that i'll just read the quotes and watch the movie in my head. All of the best parts of the best scenes, were due to the other actors.