Critics’ reviews

Trading Places (1983)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 69: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Trading Places

69
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics like Trading Places, and the praise lands almost entirely on the cast. Murphy is named in nearly every review as the reason to watch, with Aykroyd as his foil, and the veterans Ameche and Bellamy, as the wagering brothers, come in for nearly as much credit. The reviews settle on it as a polished, likeable farce: an old role-reversal story told with confidence rather than anything new, and warmer for its Christmas setting.

The reservations cluster around the satire. Several critics think the jabs at money and class are softer than the film believes, with Landis choosing slapstick over bite, and one or two find the message laid on heavily. Variety notes a stretch in the middle without laughs. The spread is narrow, most reviews landing around seventy, with one dissent: The New Yorker finds it drab and static, carried by Murphy alone. Den of Geek sits at the other end, calling it a sharp comedy too often overlooked at Christmas.

Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

This is a rattling comedy showcase for the talents of Murphy and Aykroyd, with acting honors going to veterans Ameche and Bellamy as the wagering businessmen. Landis pulls his satirical punches and settles for slapstick, but the film remains very entertaining.

Read the full review →
Time Out
11 November 2014 · CPea
75*

The critic describes the premise as a re-run of the Prince and the Pauper theme with Christmas warmth, praising Murphy's confident performance as fulfilling his promise from 48 HRS. The satire on Reaganite capitalism is not as biting as it thinks, but the film is still the best hoot since Arthur.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Pat Reid
70*

The critic finds the film a solid, funny update of classic role-reversal tales with some social commentary, though the message is delivered a bit heavily. Murphy's energetic performance as the hustler is singled out for particular praise as a career highlight.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
9 June 1983 · Roger Ebert
70*

The critic praises the film as good comedy that develops its characters' quirks beyond sitcom tropes or obvious racial commentary. The engaging performances, especially by Murphy and Aykroyd as perfect foils, stand out alongside strong supporting turns.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
8 June 1983 · Janet Maslin
70*

The critic calls it a shrewd but likable, polished farce geared to a wide audience, more slick than Landis's prior work. It features an amusing turnabout gimmick and strong performances from the well-chosen cast, especially Aykroyd and Murphy.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1982 · Variety Staff
70*

The review describes it as a light romp powered by Aykroyd and Murphy's schtick, aided greatly by veterans Bellamy, Ameche, and Elliott. Both leads are in top form reacting to their swapped situations, though there is a mid-section stretch without laughs.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
13 June 2007 · Nathan Rabin
65*

The critic sees Trading Places as a solid but overrated comedy that channels Frank Capra's social farces through its premise of swapped fortunes between a con man and a wealthy trader. It praises the perfectly cast ensemble including Murphy, Aykroyd, Bellamy, Ameche, and Curtis, along with the retro grandeur of the score and cinematography.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
11 July 1983
40*

The critic finds the film drab, arch and static, with overly rigid setups that feel like an attempt at a mock-thirties style. Eddie Murphy’s performance carries the picture despite its flaws.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
19 December 2008 · Seb Patrick
85*

The critic calls Trading Places a terrific, sharp and witty classic comedy that is often overlooked as a Christmas film. They single out the uniformly superb cast and Eddie Murphy's funniest performance for particular praise.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate