OVERLAY REPORT

When *Coming to America* was released in June 1988, it was a massive commercial juggernaut but received a surprisingly lukewarm, and at times even negative, reception from mainstream critics. While audiences flocked to theaters, making it the **third highest-grossing film of 1988** (with over $128 million domestically), many professional reviewers felt the film was beneath Eddie Murphy's comedic talents. ### 1. Mixed Critical Reviews Many high-profile critics at the time were disappointed by the film’s screenplay and its shift away from the edgy, "kinetic" energy Murphy was known for. * **The New York Times (Vincent Canby):** Canby was particularly harsh, describing the screenplay as one that seemed to have "escaped its doctors before it was entirely well." He felt the film was "limp" and lacked the sharp wit of Murphy’s previous work like *Trading Places*. * **Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times):** Ebert gave the film a mixed review, calling the plot "so old-fashioned, and so hackneyed" that the movie’s energy level felt low. However, his partner **Gene Siskel** disagreed, finding the film "charming and very funny." * **Variety:** Their staff review complained that the film "wanders in search of something equally original for Eddie Murphy to do" after an initial bathroom joke, suggesting the narrative was too thin for its two-hour runtime. * **The Hollywood Reporter (Duane Byrge):** This review famously used the term **"homogenized"** to describe Murphy’s performance, arguing that he had been "drained of his kinetic comic charm and smiling sass" in favor of a "tame and sappy" romantic lead. ### 2. The "Homogenization" of Eddie Murphy A major talking point at the time was Murphy’s attempt to pivot into a "gentler" romantic lead. After the R-rated intensity of his stand-up special *Raw* and his street-smart roles in *48 Hrs.* and *Beverly Hills Cop*, critics were split on whether this was a sign of maturity or a loss of his edge. Many viewed Akeem as a "bland" character compared to the more outrageous supporting roles Murphy played under heavy makeup. ### 3. Representation and Cultural Impact While mainstream critics were lukewarm, the film was a landmark for Black representation in Hollywood. * **Groundbreaking Cast:** It was one of the few high-budget Hollywood films of the era to feature a predominantly Black cast. Publications like *The Crisis* (the NAACP's official magazine) praised the "glamorous array of Black people on screen." * **Depiction of Africa:** The portrayal of **Zamunda**—a wealthy, independent, and dignified African kingdom—was revolutionary. Many Black audiences appreciated that it countered the prevailing Hollywood trope of Africa as a place only of poverty or war. However, a "quiet controversy" also existed; some Black editorialists (such as in the *New York Amsterdam News*) questioned whether the film’s "fish-out-of-water" jokes still relied on "backward" stereotypes of Africans for the sake of laughs. * **Studio Pressure:** It was revealed years later (and hinted at in contemporary press) that Paramount executives pressured Murphy to include a white character to ensure "crossover appeal," leading to the casting of Louie Anderson as a fast-food worker. ### 4. Technical Acclaim: Rick Baker’s Makeup One aspect that was almost universally praised was the **special makeup effects by Rick Baker**. Critics and audiences alike were stunned by the transformations of Murphy and Arsenio Hall into multiple characters, particularly Murphy’s turn as the elderly Jewish man, Saul. The makeup was so effective that many viewers (and even some studio executives on set) did not realize Murphy was playing multiple roles until the credits rolled. This work earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Makeup. ### 5. Legal Controversies Shortly after its release, the film became the subject of the famous **Buchwald v. Paramount** lawsuit. Humorist **Art Buchwald** sued the studio, claiming they had stolen his 1982 treatment about a rich African king visiting America. The case became a major industry scandal, exposing the practice of "Hollywood accounting" when Paramount claimed that despite the film’s $288 million global earnings, it had made "no net profit" and therefore owed Buchwald nothing. (Buchwald eventually won a settlement).