Skip to main content

reviews

16
Based on 14 Reviews
critic reviews (10)
fan reviews ( 1 )
  • 38
    Mike Clark USA Today

    I don't mind that Nights is a potty-mouth benchmark; crude verbiage is appropriate to the leads, as well as the film's subject matter. This is, however, an amazingly mean two hours. Even the funniest gag involves Murphy's fatal shooting of three men. [17 Nov 1989, p.6D] show more

  • 50
    Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times

    People may go to see Eddie Murphy once, twice, three or even six times in disposable movies like Harlem Nights, but if he wants to realize his potential he needs to work with a better writer and director than himself. show more

  • 50
    TV Guide

    Harlem Nights isn't the embarrassing vanity production it might have been, there's still not a lot to be said for it. show more

  • 50
    Jay Carr Boston Globe

    The best thing about the film is the way it allows Richard Pryor to rise above the demeaning buffoon roles he's been playing for the last few years and finally play a character with dignity and style. [17 Nov 1989, p.89] show more

  • 25
    Dave Kehr Chicago Tribune

    In Harlem Nights, Eddie Murphy continues his one-man war against the female gender. Those women he doesn't kill outright are punched, maimed and slugged with garbage cans. But apparently they deserve it-there isn't a single female character in the film who isn't a prostitute. [17 Nov 1989, p.A] show more

  • NA
    The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

    As it stands, Murphy has put his idols and friends in front of a camera, given them a watered down version of The Sting and hoped they'd make the best of it. They don't. [23 Nov 1989, p.C12] show more

  • 20
    Empire

    Self-serving, storyless tripe. show more

  • 20
    Vincent Canby The New York Times

    Harlem Nights is not the disaster some people might have been expecting. Mr. Murphy has appeared in far worse films written and directed by people much more experienced. show more

  • 20
    Jonathan Rosenbaum Chicago Reader

    The plot exposition gets laborious in spots, the period flavor is only occasional and approximate, and the direction tends to be clunky, yet the strong secondary cast helps to take up some of the slack. show more

  • 10
    Michael Wilmington Los Angeles Times

    The movie is full of phallic gags about little-bitty guns and crude jokes at physical or emotional infirmities. [17 Nov 1989, p.6] show more

My Settings

You are currently subscribed as: {email}


Subscriptions

Get the latest reviews, movie news, photos, and trailers sent straight to your inbox.

Weekly Newsletter

Daily alerts

Movies

You're not following any movies.

These are the movies you’re currently following.


    Update settings
    X