As this is December, we are devoting the entire section of I’ll Review Anything to take a look at Christmas movies and television specials. However, I do think it would be boring to just look at the usual films most people think of when it comes to the Holidays. Sure, we may tackle some Christmas classics here or there. But I do want to think outside the box but still look at stuff that people think of when it comes to the season. You know, films like Die Hard and the like.

So, for this week, we go all the way to Italy where, for one reason or another, the 1983 comedy Trading Places has become a Christmas tradition. Well, who am I to question an entire country? If I can say Die Hard is indeed a Christmas movie, why not Trading Places?

As this is a pretty old film and every one in Italy has probably seen it at least nine times by now, I will be making this a SPOILER FILLED review. Just letting you know in advance.

The basic summary of Trading Places is kind of like a misshapen version of My Fair Lady and/or Pretty Woman. The Duke brothers, a couple of rich tycoons, have an argument regarding the idea of nature vs. nature. One brother believes that a person’s behavior is mostly reliant on their DNA while the other argues it’s due to their upbringing. The two make a bet to test the theory by causing Louis Winthorpe, a smart but uptight stockbroker, to lose all of his money, job and friends. At the same time, they get Billy Ray Valentine, a street smart hustler and con man, to take over Louis Winthorpe’s cushy life.

Now, there is a lot to like about Trading Places. But there are some problems with it that may have worked during the 80’s but not necessarily by some more modern standards as there are some really weird plot holes and things aren’t explained in a satisfactory manner. Things like how Billy Ray Valentine becomes a genius in predicting the stock market in a single day needed some more exploration but I guess they did have to speed things up for everything to fit during the briskly paced 116-minute runtime.

Another good example of this would be the big closing scene in the end. You do get the basic concept that buying a certain “stock” at a low price is good while buying at a high price is bad. Seems simple enough, right? But it’s also shown that both Louis and Billy Ray make a ton of money during the chaos. So, how did they do that exactly? You do have to know the concept of “short selling” “futures” stock but, as that’s never really explained in the movie, you just have to kind of shrug and accept that they made a mint somehow. A lot of 80’s movies can be like that.

The acting overall is pretty solid even though they do feel a little miscast as they can come off as underutilized in some scenes. Dan Ackroyd‘s take on the snobby Louis Winthorpe is pretty good as he does annunciate his words a whole lot. But as I’ve seen Dan Ackroyd in order more wacky roles, I kind of wish he could’ve done a bit more when he was shown to be down on his luck. Eddie Murphy does shine here as, although he does have to restrain himself once he gets transplanted into the upscale world, the transition does come off as believable. That’s actually something I like about the movie: it actually answers the Duke brothers’ bet with each other. While that may or may not be scientifically true, I do like how Eddie Murphy’s performance is pretty much the proof of the concept.

I also do like everyone else in their roles as they make their roles rather memorable. The Duke brothers are written in such a way that you do kind of hate them and hope they get their comeuppance. That wouldn’t be possible if Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy didn’t have such good chemistry with each other. I also did like Delholm Elliot as Coleman, Louis Winthorpe and Billy Ray Valentine’s butler. The only real sticking point for me is Jamie Lee Curtis as Ophelia, the “working girl” with a heart of gold who takes in Louis Winthorpe after he is forcibly hit with a rough patch. I can’t really say Jamie Lee Curtis’ performance is bad. But the character Ophelia is just not written well and she feels more like a story convenience to give Dan Ackroyd’s character a safe haven after his luck gets turned around. Oh, and to show some nudity here and there. Maybe this is another reason why Italy is such a big fan of Trading Places? Not throwing shade… just thinking it might be a factor.

The nudity isn’t the only thing that may raise the hackles out of modern viewers. There’s also stereotyping people, poking fun at suicide as well as that one scene where Dan Ackroyd’s character dresses up in blackface. Now, as I grew up during the 80’s, I have no real issue with those things as they were considered the norm when Trading Places was made. Still, this is just a warning to those who may have issues with these topics as it may detract from the humor.

Speaking of the humor, I will say Trading Places is funny but I can’t say it’s uproariously funny. Seeing as this movie was made in the early 80’s, some of the jokes may come off as outdated and worn out. Still, there are still some jokes that still hit pretty good. Things like Dan Ackroyd’s character eating a fish out of his Santa beard is uncomfortably hilarious and that bit where Eddie Murphy slyly breaks the fourth wall when the Duke brothers are trying to explain their business model. Oh, and the fact that he understands it perfectly and the Duke brothers understanding that he gets it is low key funny.

Overall, while I do think Trading Places is a good movie, there are some bits and pieces which does keep it from being a truly great comedy. It still gets a recommendation from me but I have to temper that recommendation by keeping your expectations somewhat low. I do understand why it’s become a Christmas tradition in Italy but, well, it’s no Die Hard as it’s just not Christmas if Hans Gruber isn’t falling from the top of the Nakatomi Plaza for me. Let’s just say that.

Have you seen Trading Places? How does it stack up to other non-traditional Holiday movie traditions? Let me know in the comments section below!