By The Numbers: Eddie Murphy

The thing about reviewing Eddie Murphy's body of work is that it's like looking at two different people. There's good Eddie (48 hours, Beverly Hills Cop) and there's bad Eddie (Norbit, Klumps). The question is, which is the more dominant personality in a schizoid resume?

First a quick rundown for those new to how this works.

I take all the films an actor or actress has been in and break them down into three categories, 'Good' 'Bad' and 'Ok.' I do not count TV appearances or Made for TV movies. Afterwards a quick analysis will show whether or not they're a good actor by the numbers. Invariably there is a 2-3 +/- point bias on a person to person basis. Also, since 'ok' movies are not bad they count towards the positive column in the overall figuring. If by the numbers they fall in the 50 - 60% range, they're a bad actor; 61 - 70% good actor, and 71 - 80% great actor. Anything higher is unlikely, but will be classified as "elite."


Now let's see those numbers:

A lot of people are quick to jump on his case and say that at some point he gave up and stopped making good movies. They tend to present his early career as sparkling. In the past I tended to think highly of the early part of his career too. Then I actually looked through his credits and realized all the clunkers he's been in. I guess the true complaint here is that he doesn't really deliver the same edgy performances he used to. Other than Dreamgirls, he's really been lost in a maze of mostly fourth rate kid's films. I'm actually more generous than most of the people rating his movies, as I liked a few that were largely panned. But even with that, at only a measly 57% positive over 43% negative, he falls short of being categorized as good. I hope he'll get back to making some more good films and push that rating up, but for the time being his name is to me, synonymous with caution.

Thanks to Jerry for this week's pick! 

And if anyone has a suggestion for who they'd like to see covered in the future, just let me know.