Harlem Nights (1989)

That was an excellent one.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I was a kid when I first saw "Harlem Nights" and I laughed my ass off. In fact, some moments made me lose it so much I had tears in my eyes and my stomach hurt.It was the blessed time of the early 90's where every Saturday night, they aired a comedy, and since they were all from the 80's, I was familiar with John Candy, Matthew Broderick Dan Aykryod, Dudley Moore, Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor before all my current favorite (Nicholson, Hoffman, Pacino or De Niro). "Harlem Nights" was the typical movie they would air on Saturday and the premise of Murphy and Pryor sharing the screen together was a delight even for a kid who knew nothing about their stand-up background.And I laughed, I laughed, I laughed... I'm not sure I got everything in the film but I could easily enjoy five 'serious' minutes by reminiscing about the funny scenes I saw before. And there weren't many serious five minutes anyway. Besides, after the unforgettable quarrel between Della Reese and Eddie Murphy and the hilarious cameo of Arsenio Hall as the crying man, the film could have been gone all Bergmanian at the end, I would have loved it all the same.Speaking of Della Reese, it's her sad passing that encouraged me to give this film another look and I enjoyed it as I usually enjoy it whenever I watch it. I have seen many 80's classics before and I know some have aged pretty badly, check my review of "Like Father, Like Son" and "She's Out of Control", they were movies I enjoyed as a child but they're objectively bad but I think I will never be able to put "Harlem Nights" and 'bad' in the same sentence. And why should I?You'll notice that many other reviews mention the critics, and praise the film even in a 'defensive' way, it's perhaps one of the most memorable things about it, its ill-reception. Both Ebert and Siskelfound something unpleasant about Eddie Murphy's directorial debut, whether the use of profanity or that the film possesses the texture and costumes of the 30's gangster pictures without the substance... but then again, they complain about the lack of any juicy dialogue from masters of comedy Pryor or Foxx.I won't be the critics of critics, but I think there was an overreaction as Eddie Murphy's then-popularity had raised more expectations than his film could have ever satisfied. Granted the film isn't "Trading Places" or "Coming to America", but what was so blatantly bad about the screenplay or directing to deserve a Razzie nomination? The directing is 'nothing special' in the worst case and the bad writing maybe 'uninspired' at times, but I fail to see why Murphy was Razzie-nominated. Then again, even "Scarface" and "The Shining" were, which I think speaks for itself."Harlem Nights" is a nice, enjoyable movie where Eddie Murphy doesn't overplay his street-smart shtick, where Pryor is the nice guy and sometimes a touching father-figure who tries to keep things in control and Redd Foxx is the subject of a great running-gag involving his poor sight, his interactions with Della Reese are as enjoyable as Murphy's. In fact, they all have great chemistry all together. But for all its black casting, white actors also play funny and entertaining parts.Michael Lerner steals the show as a believably intimidating mobster with then " Different World" star Jasmine Guy as his mole. I reckon her character could have been more developed, but she inspired an interesting twist on the usual femme-fatale trope... and it prevented the film from a predictable romantic subplot. And Danny Aiello plays with perfection the corrupt cop, his role seems limited, but he carries on with such arrogance and self-confidence he just love to hate him."Harlem Nights" has all the ingredients: cops, thugs, fixed gambling bets, boxing, music halls, heists but these are only decorative aspects, the film is more about relationships and interactions that go from funny to touching, from violent to... well, funny again. If the film isn't flawless, it never goes so bad it deserves to be bashed. I'm pretty sure the film will age better for those who didn't like it first.In a way, maybe the fact that was so badly received will encourage people to watch it and say "hey, it's not so bad?" it's better than "not so bad", you better believe it. The film is a little cult classic not devoid of charm and it's certainly breathtaking if we speak about the way it makes you laugh. Murphy was so shocked by the reception he didn't want to watch it for a long time, if I could meet him, first thing I would tell him is that his movie was good and he's nothing to be ashamed of.

Both Richard Pryor and Redd Foxx are not with us anymore, but this is here. This film shows us the comedic talent of both these men, and to have stars like Eddie Murphy, Danny Aiello, and Della Reese is delicious icing on the cake. Pryor as Sugar Ray and Murphey as Quick try to keep a vicious mobster from taking over their business. As you might think, they turn the tables on the bad buys! Jasmine Guy stands out particularly as the mobster's girlfriend, and so does Della Resse as the hard-fighting madam with a heart of gold.The style and feel of the film is perfectly evocative of the thirties, and although the plot is rather derivative, its pulled together by a great supporting cast including Redd Foxx, Charlie Murphy and Arsenio Hall. The one major flaw is that Richard Pryor is miscast as the straight guy to Eddies hot headed youngster, but on the other hand it shows he could play more subtle roles if needed. Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

The setup: "Sugar" Ray is the owner of an illegal casino, who contend with the pressures of vicious gangster and corrupt policemen who want to see him go out of business. In the world of organized crime and police corruption in the 1920s, any dastardly trick is fair.The verdict: HARLEM NIGHTS is plagued by plot holes and inane dialog. Many scenes do not feel believable, but great performances help to enhance this amazing story. All the characters struggle against a system that has perpetuated falsehoods, and there are verbal fisticuffs back and forth. I think it is still a reasonable film. This film is not as bad as they say.

Eddie Murphy has a enormous talent that has been shown in big blockbuster comedies like Trading Places, 48 HRS., and Beverly Hills Cop. Those three movies jump-started his career in the movie business. Whether playing a streetwise hustler or a wise-cracking convict, Murphy does the job well. But, in 1989, Murphy wrote and directed a movie called Harlem Nights. My only question is since when did Eddie Murphy choose to direct? Well, to start off, let me explained to you what Harlem Nights is all about. The movie takes place in the 1930's in Harlem, where Murphy plays a nightclub owner and his guardian, played by Richard Pryor, who also owned the nightclub as well, deals with some gangsters that we've seen hundreds of times in period pictures. It's no wonder why great period movies that involved gangsters in the story are true to its own right. Harlem Nights doesn't match any great period picture that I've seen. One thing I will say is that Eddie Murphy, who is responsible for this movie, can't direct. Here is a actor, who is talented and has a very good sense of humor. But, why did he pick this project? Obviously enough, he didn't really care about directing this movie. All he wanted to know is where is the next party going to be. Another reason why Harlem Nights is not a good movie is the characters don't talk in 1930's language. Instead, they drop 4-letter words and 12-letter words and act very cruel to women. Even racism is even brought up in this movie. I think you can say that Harlem Nights put Eddie Murphy into a slump after his other film, The Golden Child, which I found interesting and fun, and that slump only lasted 7 years. After 7 years, he starred in The Nutty Professor, which got him out of his slump. Harlem Nights is probably one of the worst movies of 1989. It's unbearable and not funny. And one other thing, Richard Pryor is in the wrong movie. Redd Foxx also shouldn't be in this movie either. He and Pryor shouldn't even been in this mess. ★ 1 star.