Murphy movement grows

email this story
read comments (62)
post a comment

Traction on the Stop Eddie Murphy movement is starting to happen....maybe. I've made it clear from a personal perspective that I'd like to see him denied the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his Dreamgirls work, but there might be more happening than just that. People aren't exactly lighting torches and preparing to march on Versailles, but...

Two days ago (i.e., the day after Monday's Murphy-dissing piece in this column), I was interviewed by a N.Y. Post guy who's writing a story for Sunday's edition about Murphy's supposed political weaknesses, the perception that he's more than a bit of an egoistic asshole, how he's never made anything other than mainstream big-buck comedies, how he's never tried to stretch or risk anything in a smaller-budgeted film, plus the ongoing Norbit effect (i.e., that one-sheet image reiterating who Murphy is and challenging the notion that he's somehow turned a corner with his Dreamgirls performance) upon Academy voters.

Murphy encapsulates everything that is smug, arrogant, closed-off and reac- tionary about today's Hollywood elite. Denying him the Best Supporting Actor Oscar would be, no exaggeration, an affirmation of positive, open-hearted values. It would amount to the Academy saying en masse, "We will not reward insecure downmarket egotists, no matter how successful their films have been....we're not necessarily refusing to celebrate movie stars who ride around in big fat SUVs and wear jet-black shades and live behind electrified iron gates, but we chose not to this time."

As the recent Murphy profile in Entertainment Weekly says, "[Murphy] carries some baggage: a reputation for being prickly and egotistical, rumors of odd idiosyncrasies, a couple of high-profile tabloid scandals.

"Even with the tremendous acclaim for his work in Dreamgirls, some believe he won't fully stabilize his bumpy career until he overcomes a long-standing image problem. His defenders dispute that idea, saying that with cumulative career box office grosses in the neighborhood of $3 billion, Murphy has a vast reservoir of goodwill in Hollywood and among moviegoers."

Latest tracking<< previous | next >>"Departed" sequel

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 1, 2007 at 12:56 PM

comment #1

qwiggles says ...

Okay then.

Posted by qwiggles at February 1, 2007 1:32 PM

comment #2

JD says ...

He gives the weakest performance in Dreamgirls. Even the subdued work by Knowles and Foxx -- which has been unfairly maligned -- is much better than Murphy's. I can't think of one moment in the movie where Murphy isn't mugging or doing some kind of ridiculous, over-the-top facial expression. There's nothing real or honest about his performance at all. Jennifer Hudson is ten times more authentic and it's her first movie.

Posted by JD at February 1, 2007 1:34 PM

comment #3

wayne76 says ...

You know, I actually enjoyed Eddie in DG, but his work is far from the best in that category. I say, Go Wahlberg!

Speaking of, Jeff, what are your thoughts about the possible Departed follow-up with Wahlberg in the lead role?

Posted by wayne76 at February 1, 2007 1:37 PM

comment #4

storymark says ...

So, if Murphy looses, does this mean we can look forward to aa year's worth of Jeff gloating over another of his "take-downs"?

Posted by storymark at February 1, 2007 1:40 PM

comment #5

alynch says ...

I have not seen Dreamgirls so I can't judge it on its merits, but is Jeff actually saying that we should refrain from giving awards to people who are assholes even if they deserve them. That's ridiculous. Some of the most talented people of all time have been assholes.

Posted by alynch at February 1, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #6

lesterg says ...

While I understand that they've made vastly different career choices, I don't see how Jeff can repeatedly defend Russell Crowe's off-screen behavior and not Murphy's. Has Eddie ever assaulted someone?

Posted by lesterg at February 1, 2007 2:06 PM

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to storymark: I've never taken down anything. As I've tried to say before about "Munich," I was only a grunt trudging along in the mud, fighting the worthy fight, etc.

Posted by gruver1 at February 1, 2007 2:07 PM

comment #8

lesterg says ...

Alynch: "Some of the most talented people of all time have been assholes."

A point made in this column over and over throughout the years. For whatever reason, it doesn't apply to Murhpy.

Posted by lesterg at February 1, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #9

Mark says ...

Jeffrey endlessly defended Russell Crowe for letting it be known to the Hotel workers of America that no whiff of apathy to his kind will be acceptable.

Both Crowe and Murphy are personally unlikeable divas, though Crowe has a history of being an incredibally violent diva.

Yet Jeffrey of course favors, admires, and forgives Crowe, who won his heart with that holding-out-of-the-hat scene in Cinderella Man, while Eddie apparently gave Jeffrey a swirley following an interview when Jeffrey was still w/ People.

Posted by Mark at February 1, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #10

VedaPierce says ...

Joan Crawford, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Helen Hunt...among the many monsters on Oscars' honor roll. Why single out Eddie?

Posted by VedaPierce at February 1, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #11

Liz says ...

You know, I don't care if Murphy, or any other actor, is an egoistic asshole.

But for god's sake, he's an egoistic asshole who's starring in NORBIT. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded.

I can see the revised TV spots now: "Norbit, starring Academy Award winner Eddie Murphy and Academy Award winner Eddie Murphy..."

Posted by Liz at February 1, 2007 2:11 PM

comment #12

OddDuck says ...

When I first saw a commercial for "Norbit" I thought it was a parody and not a straight up comedy. Is it even possible this movie could be good?

Posted by OddDuck at February 1, 2007 2:14 PM

comment #13

Jesse Perry says ...

Perry to gruver1: "I was only a grunt trudging along in the mud, fighting the worthy fight"

Real soldiers do more than complain about overly praiseworthy magazine covers. Let's get over ourselves just a wee bit.

Posted by Jesse Perry at February 1, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #14

CambridgeCat says ...

This all seems very silly to me but people keep comparing Murphy to other assholes ... who have done GREAT work, when he hasn't.

What's the difference between Murphy and Russell Crowe, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, et al? They may be assholes but they're not -- or, at least, have not ALWAYS BEEN -- cynical douchebags who make nothing but complete dog shit. Seems simple enough to me.

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 1, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #15

Doug Pratt says ...

regardless of whether Norbit is good or is junk, the ads do convey the message that Murphy has verstile skills as an actor, even if, subliminally, they are also reminding you of his narcissism.

Posted by Doug Pratt at February 1, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #16

Chris Molanphy says ...

I'm with Mark â€“ I'll take three Eddie Murphy hissy-fits over one of Russell Crowe's life-threatening tantrums. Life's too short.

Posted by Chris Molanphy at February 1, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #17

OddDuck says ...

But will you then also take his godawful movies over Crowe's?

Posted by OddDuck at February 1, 2007 2:27 PM

comment #18

JD says ...

I don't know what makes Helen Hunt a monster (though I'm willing to play along), but her post-As Good As it Gets career is fascinating. In the span of about six months in 1999, she ended Mad About You, got married, and got divorced. Then there was a time when she was in virtually every movie that came out for 2 or 3 months: Pay It Forward, Dr. T and the Women, Cast Away, What Women Want, etc. Since then, she's done virtually nothing. Strange.

Posted by JD at February 1, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #19

CambridgeCat says ...

Didn't Murphy knock up a Spice Girl and deny it or some such nonesense? What's worse, putting hands on a person -- and I'm not defending Crowe, I would have punched him in the neck -- or not being man enough to father your children?

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 1, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

I can't believe Wells is proud of his Munich takedown, a worthy and honorable movie that was an underdog throughout its run.

Maybe Wells just doesn't like successful people.

Posted by jeffmcm at February 1, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #21

VedaPierce says ...

I just can't stand the bitch. She could be Mother Teresa for all I know.

Posted by VedaPierce at February 1, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #22

Mark says ...

CambridgeCat - You must be under 25 years old to imply that Eddie Murphy is some kind of ungodly no talent. The guy has been in the biz for nearly 30 years, and though he has done dog shit (as has everyone; ever see Virtuosity?), the guy was for some stretches in the 80's, the best and most exciting performer/actor in the game.

I give him some props for lowering his ego and name on the billboard to even attempt to do the Dreamgirls role.

Posted by Mark at February 1, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #23

d manhattan says ...

Russell Crowe might be an asshole, but he did have the guts to do "The Insider" and "Romper Stomper". And he got nominated for three years in a row, for what was at least some pretty solid acting. Until Murphy has accomplished that..

Posted by d manhattan at February 1, 2007 2:34 PM

comment #24

corey3rd says ...

who needs Eddie Murphy when there's Martin Lawrence?

Posted by corey3rd at February 1, 2007 2:39 PM

comment #25

bipedalist says ...

Is the Eddie Murphy thing just being used to stir things up so that A) it's not as boring a race, or B) you have more commenters than usual? :-)

I think it is the most bizarre thing, Jeff, honestly, this Eddie Murphy thing. Is it a joke or is it real? I can't tell. It has to be a joke.

Eddie Murphy is a cool dude. The coolest thing about him is that he doesn't care if he wins an Oscar or not. Are we really reward people with Oscars for being "good people"? That is not the job of the Academy, not by a long shot. Jeez!

Posted by bipedalist at February 1, 2007 2:39 PM

comment #26

johnmoorenc says ...

Why Jeff, why? What is the point of knocking a man down? I don't say this as a fan of Murphy or his film. But why?

Posted by johnmoorenc at February 1, 2007 2:40 PM

comment #27

rocco says ...

Jeff, you take the cake...smug, arrogant, closed-off and reactionary...you are all of those things...ok, reactionary, maybe not, hard to judge from a written context.

You write an empty blog about empty people in a mostly empty industry, and you have the cajones to question the artistic integrity of Eddie Murphy? Wake up and smell what you are shoveling. Self-righteousness is such an ugly quality, not one I prefer to be laced throughout a website I used to find highly entertaining. Really, this is the silliest and pettiest you have ever appeared. Looks like I'll have to start looking for new links from *Drudge* (yes, those stars indicate saracasm)...

Posted by rocco at February 1, 2007 2:43 PM

comment #28

CambridgeCat says ...

Mark -- You would be dead wrong. I'm of the genration that thought Eddie Murphy was going to be the biggest star of all time (hey, I was like 12). I listened to tapes of Delirious maybe 1,000 times with my friends, I saw 48 HOURS and TRADING PLACES (two really good movies, IMO) with those same friends. I think his work on SNL is genius. I saw Raw and Harlem Nights the nights they opened. I held Eddie Murphy down for a long time. Hell, I even like BOOMERANG.

I never said he has no talent, I think he has/had tremendous comedic talent. I said he pissed that talent away (apparently) in favor of stroking his ego ... or for whatever reason. The guy has made more pieces of shit than any actor I can think of, and he never delivered on his initial promise beyond his first two movies (didn't like BHC, and I was probably the only one in my Junior High). Unlike most of the other people mentioned here, Eddie Murphy doesn't have a track record of excellent work. Mentioning his name in the same breath as Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, or even Russell Crowe is a joke, IMO. Anyone who would compare him to those people, and their movies, should apologize.

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 1, 2007 2:44 PM

comment #29

Devin Faraci says ...

Eddie Murphy is a Bling!

Posted by Devin Faraci at February 1, 2007 2:55 PM

comment #30

Mark says ...

Polanski did dogshit for 25 years. Should he not have won for the Pianist just becuz The Ninth Gate was a chore? Name 5 people who've been in the game an extended period and have not had a shit stretch.

I don't understand wanting to punish someone for an apparent return to form; such accomplishments are typically rewarded.

Posted by Mark at February 1, 2007 2:59 PM

comment #31

cockeye says ...

I thought actors were supposed to get Oscars for a single performance, not a body of work. Why is Wells delighting in harnessing his energy to take down a nominee, rather than support one of Murphy's fellow nominees? This is petty and vindictive and seems rather personal.

Posted by cockeye at February 1, 2007 3:01 PM

comment #32

VedaPierce says ...

CambridgeCat - take a pill. Jeffrey started this campaign in part because he has issues with Eddie's character ("I don't hate him" -- yeah, right), not just his bad choice in material. Sure his resume is loaded with dreck, but it also features moments of genuine brilliance of the likes that few other mainstream box office stars who went on to Oscar glory can claim -- Julia Roberts immediately comes to mind. But apparently she isn't an asshole, so we can overlook her track record of mediocrity. I guess the same goes for Kim Basinger.

Posted by VedaPierce at February 1, 2007 3:07 PM

comment #33

CambridgeCat says ...

Mark -- I actually don't care if Eddie Murphy wins an Oscar. I haven't even seen Dream Girls. I can, however, see how someone MIGHT hold Murphy's past and future (NORBIT???) career against him when he's up for an award and his getting it would be, from what I gather, at least partly based on people wanting to reward him for doing what he should have been (at LEAST occasionally) doing for 25 years.

Other than that, comparing Polanksi's career to Murphy's in disingenous, IMO. I think it's fair to say that Polanski was dealing with extenuating circumstances in regards to his career path in Hollywood, some of his own making, some not. Either way, Eddie Murphy hasn't made some of the best movies ever made, so he doesn't have the same goodwill with me.

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 1, 2007 3:12 PM

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

Whoever thought Polanski 'did dogshit for 25 years' obviously never saw Death and the Maiden.

Posted by jeffmcm at February 1, 2007 3:14 PM

comment #35

CambridgeCat says ...

Take a pill? Geez, for what?

The only thing I'm saying is that people comparing Eddie Murphy to people who have actually tried, and suceeded, to deliver great movies and performances is bullshit. I hear Eddie Murphy mentioned in the same breath as Woody Allen, for example, and I do a spit take. Lets just put it this way: Eddie Murphy, Roman Polanski, Russell Crowe, Woody Allen ... one of these things is not like the others.

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 1, 2007 3:22 PM

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

Aha, so Wells thinks Eddie shouldn't win because he's black. Devin was right!

Posted by jeffmcm at February 1, 2007 3:24 PM

comment #37

Craig Kennedy says ...

Forget Murphy, I'm with VedaPierce on the Helen Hunt Take Down Committee. Sure she's not up for an award, but there needs to be some penalty for Pay It Forward, doesn't there? Hell yeah there does! (Lighting torches) Let's get her!

But seriously, Wells. Is your boredom with Oscar so great that you need to keep up this Murphy nonsense? Ok, he's a shallow jerk and yeah, he's made a mind blisteringly enormous collection of awful movies, but is the award for Nicest Actor in a Supporting Role Who Has Also Made the Best Movies Before 2006? No.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at February 1, 2007 3:26 PM

comment #38

L.B. says ...

I'm just letting everyone know: Anyone with a raging ego who acts stand-offish and selfish and has done crappy things in their lives and got an Oscar for a career in addition to a single piece of work should send their Oscars to me.

I'll be retiring after a very lively week on eBay.

Posted by L.B. at February 1, 2007 3:27 PM

comment #39

Mark says ...

Someone else brought up Polanski, and so i used him. It's better to compare him to other actors, virtually all of whom have gone through their own valleys or haven't been around long enough .

(And the 25 years of shit was a broad stroke to paint, i admit. But so is saying the same thing about Eddie; BowFinger and the Nutty Professors were very good comedies, and a good use of Eddie's talents.)

Posted by Mark at February 1, 2007 3:29 PM

comment #40

Glenn Whipp says ...

Glass half-full way of looking at an Eddie Murphy Oscar win: Might such a reward possibly -- just possibly -- encourage Murphy to take more artistic risks in the future? Probably not. I realize that. But the man still has tremendous talent. Whoever dismissed his work in Dreamgirls as being showy or one-note obviously didn't stick around for the third act. Murphy was also brilliant in Bowfinger and pretty damn funny in the Shrek films. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "cool dude," but he still has the chops when sufficiently challenged.

Posted by Glenn Whipp at February 1, 2007 3:31 PM

comment #41

Hillbillly says ...

Forget Murphy Mr. Wells. Did you see Hannibal" Rising" with the GORGEOUS Gong Li last night?

Posted by Hillbillly at February 1, 2007 3:38 PM

comment #42

Dan Revill says ...

Eddie will probably never be nominated again, at least unless he makes a major career tragectory change, so let him have his day! I haven't even seen the film, and I'm rooting for him. He made Trading Places - he deserves an Oscar retroactively for that film.

Posted by Dan Revill at February 1, 2007 3:42 PM

comment #43

VoiceOfReason says ...

Word up. Wells speaks the truth and if you don't dig it, you're gay.

Posted by VoiceOfReason at February 1, 2007 4:05 PM

comment #44

JoeGreenia says ...

It can't help Murphy to have Norbit coming out during peak voting. That looks like one repulsive piece of shit.

Anybody want ot defend that one? Anybody looking at those ads and thinking, "I can't wait!"? Wow.

Posted by JoeGreenia at February 1, 2007 4:07 PM

comment #45

lee says ...

Glad to see someone is pointing out what an overrated performance Murphy's is. He is horrible in "Dreamgirls." Honestly, if he wins, that will go to show just how ridiculous Hollywood is and how unfair these contests are. Whalberg or Haley should win. I don't know if he is a jerk or not, however, he just seems like someone who is full of himself. ill.

Posted by lee at February 1, 2007 4:15 PM

comment #46

wholovesya says ...

Wow. You really are sinking to new depths Jeff. Are you really that bored, that vindictive or that much of an asshole. It's one thing to champion another nominee, but jfc...and I thought Roger Friedman was bad...

Posted by wholovesya at February 1, 2007 4:30 PM

comment #47

Ju-osh says ...

Jeff:
You've yet to answer any of the comments regard R. Crowe's behavior and reputation. They seem a reasonable comparison to me.

For any of you who missed this account of Crowe's ego, paranoia and vindictiveness, a re-posting of the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-russell-crowes-stooge/2006/06/06/1149359738242.html

Posted by Ju-osh at February 1, 2007 4:39 PM

comment #48

donnyboy says ...

is smug, arrogant, closed-off and reactionary ....

Wells are you talking about yourself?

Go Eddie!

The award isn't for being a "nice guy". Maybe he's closed off because he's tired of dealing with people like you Wells that go after him for god knows what reason.

Posted by donnyboy at February 1, 2007 5:25 PM

comment #49

James says ...

Sounds like a bunch of silly people looking for a reason to dislike Eddie, but avoiding the fact that he created a performance this year that had an impact on the public.

Not liking his current performance because they don't THINK they will like Norbitt, or because he's being compared to Roman Polanski and Russel Crow, well, people have to much time on their hands and not enough to think about.

I actually preferred Arkin's performance the best, but I can be gracious enough to appreciate Murphy's contribution. Lighten Up.

Posted by James at February 1, 2007 5:38 PM

comment #50

Ju-osh says ...

James, I agree with you 100% about the stupidity of using the previews of Norbit to discredit Murphy's acting in Dreamgirls. I think you've misread the references to Polanski and Crowe, though. I believe they were brought into this conversation as examples of people who have been 'unliked' in the industry who have gone on to win Oscars, thereby disproving Wells' theory (Crowe's mention being particularly apt as he seems to be in possession of one of Jeff's 'Get Out Of Criticism Free' cards).

Posted by Ju-osh at February 1, 2007 6:25 PM

comment #51

JoeGreenia says ...

Wait a minute. Crowe lost the Beautiful Mind Oscar specifically because he was acting like an ass during awards season (if he hadn't roughed up that BAFTA show producer he would have won).

I haven't seen Norbit. Hell, I haven't see Dreamgirls. But I have to guess that day and night TV commercials shilling the guy's rip-off of Big Momma's House aren't exactly bulking up his credibility.

I was a huge Murphy fan back when he was breaking out in the 80's. But the guy has spent 20 plus years churning out crap, the exceptions to which can be counted on one hand. He has a lot of talent, but no fucking taste. He was given every gift an actor can possess (except for the taste thing) and he blew it.

In any case, he can go ahead and win the Oscar - I won't squawk. He may well deserve it. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying the timing of the release of Norbit is going to hurt his chances. How could it not?

Posted by JoeGreenia at February 1, 2007 8:51 PM

comment #52

dobbsy says ...

Let the record show that Feb. 1, 2007, was the day that the "Eddie Murphy shouldn't win because he's not a nice guy and made lots of successful movies we don't like" blog string began.

This was the one single discussion that ended the so-called "Oscar blogosphere" because it became so clear that this once invigorating dialogue had become the propaganda tool of the corrupt and disgruntled.

A strident campaign to deny somone an honor for a performance because they've "been told" by a lot of people that the actor is a jerk?

What a strange, twisted, silly mutation of McCarthyism. Instead of character assassination in the service of anti-communism, we have character assassination in the service of blog traffic.

Posted by dobbsy at February 2, 2007 12:48 AM

comment #53

Zoidberg says ...

What I want to know is why there is no anti-Jennifer Hudson movement....
She may be everyone's darling at the moment, but let's face it: she has done NOTHING other than Dreamgirls. In a category full of serious, hard-working actresses who have struggled for years to get where they are, Hudson is utterly out of place.

And given some of her recent comments, she's letting the (unjustified) hype go to her head.

At least ONCE UPON A TIME Eddie Murphey did some things of note. Hudson is an American Idol reject, for God's sake.

Posted by Zoidberg at February 2, 2007 12:56 AM

comment #54

houmas says ...

Does Welles have a problem with blacks?

I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he often makes very suspect remarks in regards to African-Americans and films that suggest a very thinly disguised veneer of prejudice. And it's been happening for awhile. Maybe Jeff doesn't like those "uppity" negroes like Murphy. Hollywood is full of assholes, and nobody gives a damn whether they win an award or not. Ben Kingsley is an asshole. Russell Crowe, whose violent and criminal behavior Welles will defend at any turn, is considered a bigger asshole than most.

I think Welles would dearly love to lay into Whitikar and Hudson as well, but that would just be too damned obvious. So Murphy seems to be the fall-guy for his ridiculous vendetta.

The movies are the last bastion of white dominance in the entertainment industry. Blacks dominate large swathes of the sports and musical areas. But movies have always been a the caucasian ideal.

That seems to be changing in a big way. The biggest movie star and box office attraction in the world is a black man, Will Smith (who Jeffrey also hates with a passion. No surprise there). America's favorite movie star, as voted for by the annual Harris poll, is Denzel Washington (replacing Mr Nice Guy Tom Hanks), a black man. I remember Welles being super-duper quick to call Denzel's time travel flick a huge BOMB, because it "only" had a 20 million + opening weekend. Guess what Jeff...Denzel's so-called "bomb" has recently crossed the 100 million dollar mark at
the overseas box-office, and will end up with at least 180 million, when it's theatrical run is finished. That's off a 75 million production budget. Most movie stars would kill to have a "bomb" as succesful as Deja Vu.

So there we have it. Smith the biggest movie star in the world. Denzel is America's favorite star, and now a genuine box office attraction in the rest of the world, able to turn a domestic underperformer into a worldwide hit. Whitikar, Murphy, Hudson all in line to win Oscars. The most promising American leading men of the future (and I mean MEN, not boys like Jake Gyllenhall or Tobey Maguire)are black...Terrence Howard, Jamie Foxx, Derek Luke.

It must be an awful time for Jeffrey. All those "bling" types taking over his beloved industry.

Posted by houmas at February 2, 2007 6:08 AM

comment #55

DavidF says ...

There all kinds of assholes in the biz and many of the "comparisons" in this thread don't add up.

You can be an asshole who makes amazing work (like Russell Crowe). Virtuosity is silly to mention since it was early in his career and he's really done nothing comparable since (unless it was cited to diss Denzel.)

You can be a personality with "baggage" who veers between genius and mediocre or even bad movies (Polanski, Allen).

The difference with Murphy is that he seems to be a major egotistical asshole (obviously I've not met him - this is his "rep") AND it's reflected in the consistently whorish nature of his work. Some of Woody Allen's movies might suck, but not simply because he doesn't give a shit. Certainly not because he's going for the quick buck which is obviously what Murphy is doing.

Don't tell me he thought that Pluto Nash or Daddy Care would be the brilliant script that would take him back to the top. He did it for the money and maybe even in greedy Hollywood his total unwillingness to make an effort at quality (while impregnating Spice Girls, picking up trannies etc.) is enough to put him on the outs.

I have zero problem with that.
Who knows what scripts he has turned down to make the crap he's been making. I have a feeling it would an amazing list.
Apparently he had to be shoved into making Dreamgirls featuring a James Brown-like guy who [SPOILER!] has a pretty easy downer arc - I mean, it's written FOR HIM practically...

Out of the 40-odd movies he has listed on IMDB the only ones I'd watch are:
Shrek (and sequels if need be)
Beverly Hills Cop (and even II, just to be nice)
Bowfinger (an example of potential squandered, but I'm being nice)
Nutty Professor
48 Hours
Coming to America
Trading Places
Raw

And this is a guy I think is a comedic genius.
The most disturbing part of the IMDB listings? Seeing that he has written and/or produced Norbit, Another 48 Hours and worse.

He doesn't have to get on his knees thanking the academy. Personally I don't think he should win because the work is not that AMAZING. It's good and I hope he does more of it, but it's neither the best of his career or this year.

As for his prior baggage - you have to look at different cases.
When Travolta was nominated for Pulp Fiction you could have said, "The guy who did LOOK WHO'S TALKING?" But Travolta was looking for a script to pick him up out of that and, at least for a time, it lead to great movies like GET SHORTY.

Murphy seems content to make stuff that makes LOOK WHO'S TALKING look like Oscar material and, despite the nom, to wallow in stuff like NORBIT.

So, to sum up, when your money-grubbing egotistical nature is manifested, year after year after year after year, in your work - yeah, I think that baggage can cost you an Oscar. If Murphy's going to turn over a new leaf and start giving, say, 85% of what he is capable of giving, I say give him the statue. If he's already prepping Norbit II,, screw him.

(According to IMDB his next few movies include "Starship Dave" [directed by Head of the Class star Brian Robbins!] and a Bret Rattner movie. Colour me unimpressed.)

Posted by DavidF at February 2, 2007 6:37 AM

comment #56

houmas says ...

Oh please. Almost all great comic actors go into terminal decline, especially if they don't often veer into dramatic territory (like the only great comedy survivor of the 1980's, Bill Muarry). It's already happening to Ben Stiller. It happened to Chevy Chase. It's happened to Steve Martin, who makes one decent movie for every 6 Pink Panthers and Cheaper By The Dozens. Comedy is cruel to it's great practioners, and that's why the caualty rate for comic actors is high.

Murphy high ratio of crap output is not a unique case amongst comic actors. If Steve Martin (also something of a prickly egomaniac) knocked out a critically acclaimed performance that had people talking Oscar, I'm almost certain that everybody (including Welles) would be wishing him well for his "body of work" and rooting him to do well because he made The Jerk, Roxanne and LA Story. We'd all conviniently forget the sheer volume of grabage that Martin has knocked out with unerring regularity;

The Pink Panther
Cheaper By The Dozen
Sgt Bilko
Bringing Down The House
Cheaper By The Dozen 2
Looney Tunes; Back In Action
The Out Of Towners
Novocaine
Mixed Nuts
My Blue Heaven
Housesitter
Father Of The Bride 2 (pointless sequel to a good movie).

Martin turns out as much crap as Murphy. The only difference being, that Murphy is still occassionally capable of an inspired comic performance.

This isn't about the crap Murphy has made or will make in the future. There's something far more malicious and sinister in Welles hateful and vicious hate campaign against the guy.

And by the way, I haven'y been a major fan of Murphy since the 80's. And he probably is an asshole. But Welles seriously needs to take a look at himself. Because the stuff he's comig out with says a lot more about him than it does about Murphy.

Posted by houmas at February 2, 2007 7:24 AM

comment #57

DavidF says ...

I'll agree that Wells seems a bit off his rocker lately with his lobbying.
The fact that he gets more and more upset as more and more people agree that Helen Mirren is great seems indicative of something a bit loony.
As does his increasing anti-Murphy lobbing.

I basically don't think Eddie was all that great but I'd like to see him win if it will encourage him to do better work. I think that's a fair trade, even if it isn't mine to make.

Bill Murray was smart enough to be choosy about his roles (save Garfield and, gawd, Garfield 2!). That's how he avoided falling into a trap. He did one bomb of a pet project (Razor's Edge) and still bounced back from it. Even his lesser movies (The Man Who Knew to Little, Larger than Life) seem like movies where you can at least say, "Hey, Bill Murray somehow makes this funnier than it has any right to be."
And when he started doing great dramatic stuff, like Rushmore, the Academy still didn't give him credit.
It's apples and oranges but I'd take Murray's work in Rushmore (or Lost in Translation) over Murphy's in Dreamgirls any day of the week.

And, yeah, I can't figure Steve Martin's choices at all. Still, more than Murphy he has interspersed that crap with great stuff like The Spanish Prisoner and even okay-but-trying stuff like Shopgirl. I get the sense (or at least hope!) he does Cheaper by the Dozen to fund his pet projects. You think Murphy would look at a Mamet thriller if it ended up on his desk?

Chevy Chase on the other hand probably was never quite as great as he thought he was. Read Tom Shales' "Live from New York" to see a portrait of a guy who is well beyond a massive jerk - and far more than he has any right to be, no matter how great Fletch and Vacation were. And you're talking to a guy who has really fond childhood memories of "Oh, Heavenly Dog."

Murphy should look at all these guys and ask whether he wants to end up like Bill Murray or Chevy Chase. It's up to him isn't it?

Posted by DavidF at February 2, 2007 8:07 AM

comment #58

free says ...

"Russell Crowe might be an asshole, but he did have the guts to do "The Insider" and "Romper Stomper". And he got nominated for three years in a row, for what was at least some pretty solid acting. Until Murphy has accomplished that.."

-Okay, I don't know if you're aware of this, but not everyone gets the opportunity to do good movies like Crowe. It's like Hugh Laurie said when he won the SAG, it's not about doing good work, it's about getthing the CHANCE to do good work.

-And it looks like DREAMGIRLS is Eddie's shot to finally do that, but of course, you wanna tear that down by saying 'Well, it's too late to be doing something good.' So if he starts to do one good movie, he sucks. If he never does a good movie, he sucks.

-And yes, stop all this hypocrisy about people in Hollywood being egotistical asses. 90% of them are, Eddie's just the one you hate for whatever reason. You think Marky Marky is humble pie? Please. Russell Crowe, Woody Allen, Meryl Streep, Roman Polanski, George Clooney, Katharine Hepburn, etc. are all full of themselves, yet you don't make the case for them like you do for Murphy.

-But I guess your opinion really doesn't mean to much in the end. Eddie WILL win the Oscar, as both SAG and GLOBES sealed the deal. His only competition was Nicholson, and he's not even nominated.

Posted by free at February 2, 2007 8:36 AM

comment #59

christian says ...

from the ny times 1987:

At the request of Eddie Murphy, Paramount Pictures has bought ''Fences,'' the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by August Wilson that is one of the Broadway season's biggest successes.

so what happened to murphy between 87 and 2006?

Posted by christian at February 2, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #60

CambridgeCat says ...

"-Okay, I don't know if you're aware of this, but not everyone gets the opportunity to do good movies like Crowe. It's like Hugh Laurie said when he won the SAG, it's not about doing good work, it's about getthing the CHANCE to do good work."

I'm calling major BS on this. Eddie Murphy was a star of such magnitude he could have made whatever the fuck he wanted. Acting like he's a victim of the roles given to him is such a sorry exercise in excuse making it boggles the mind. Eddie Murphy doesn't give a rats ass about making good movies, or taking challenging roles, or extending himself, etc. If he did he would have and he hasn't. It's as simple as that.

The excuse making machine (in regards to Murphy's career) in action here is unreal. The guy's not even Tom Cruise (another cynical douchebag) who at least took the occasional chance/role/movie, we're talking a guy who's had the single most cynical career I can think of. Richard Pryor, Murphy's idol, made BLUE COLLAR at the height of his fame. Murphy made HARLEM NIGHTS. Figure out the difference.

Posted by CambridgeCat at February 3, 2007 9:21 AM

comment #61

free says ...

Well, you can 'call BS' if you want, but I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. Murphy could have taken roles that got him big bucks or something like that, but he wouldn't have ever been offered GLADIATOR or THE INSIDER or A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Oscar-worthy roles. So it's not like that's a fair comparison.

But as I stated before, like him or not, come Feb. 23, he'll be the first of the nominated actors to win.

Posted by free at February 5, 2007 3:12 PM

comment #62