Am I the second person who doesn't like Trading Places?

"There are many other places in the movie when I just kept asking myself, "Why would this character say/do that?"

And yet you fail to list ANY of them, or explain WHY the character wouldn't say or do that. You are a miracle; you fail in every single possible way when trying to scold a movie.

Come on, this movie HAS its faults, why can't you get to the real ones already? Even if what you are saying is true (and so far, there's ONE explanation and just a lot of 'listing', together with many misunderstandings about what's going on, as if you didn't even watch the movie, or understand it AT ALL), these would be nitpicks at best, nothing that would bring down a whole movie.

It almost seems as if you were expecting something completely different, and when this movie is a bit more silly or whatnot, than you wanted it to be, you get angry and list the parts you didn't like (claiming they are 'plot holes'), without explaining why you don't like them (let alone why they would be 'plot holes' - they aren't).

You are supposed to take something that actually makes no sense, then write about it, and then EXPLAIN why it doesn't make sense. This is the basis of good, valid criticism. It might still be wrong, but at least then we could debate about it or have a proper discussion.

Now you are just a toddler throwing your own poop on the wall claiming the wallpaper is all wrong, without explaining why, and then just screaming WAAAAHHHH!!! for the rest of the evening.

Not good enough.

"The pacing is strange."

So what? Can't movies have unique pacing, can't movies do their own thing? Besides, how do you define 'strange', and how can a pacing be 'strange', unless there's some unified pacing every movie always conforms to? You are not making ANY sense with these non-arguments.

The correct way to phrase your 'criticism' is, "I don't like the pacing". This is truthful and honest. What you wrote is just nonsensical garbage, that has nothing to do with the movie. You would have to explain this point quite a lot for it to become valid - how is the pacing strange compared to any other movies? There can be fast pacing, slow pacing, incongruent pacing, fluctuating pacing, pacing that ruins something because [reasons explained], and so on. But there can't be just universally 'STRANGE' pacing without quite a lot of explanation.

"Both characters basically transform overnight into their polar opposites. Eddie Murphy is immediately fine being a high-powered stockbroker."

This has nothing to do with pacing, so you fail again.

Second, no, they don't. It takes time, and even then, the movie CLEARLY explains the reasons why it can happen like that. There ARE suspicious and implausible things about Eddie's character change (like over-protecting his new house, when in reality, he wouldn't give a crap where anyone vomits, he can't get so attached to something so new so quickly, he would be one of the people just breaking everything and making a mess everywhere and treating the house as a toilet -- see, valid point backed up by an explanation, please learn), but that's not it.

Eddie's character knows human nature, he's smart and capable, and his street-smarts surprisingly come in handy in the stock market-scenarios. There's nothing 'strange' here, nothing 'plot-hole' here, it's just using a character's talent in a different environment. 'Street smart' people can sometimes have better intuition than stuffy office workers, that's ALL the movie was underlining.

"Dan Aykroyd just totally loses it in what feels like two days. It just doesn't fit quite right to me."

It's not Dan that loses anything, it's the character. Try to at least understand the difference between movie and reality, sheesh.

So what if he 'totally loses it' (do you mean his possessions, or are you using an idiom here, it's not clear - not that any of your writing is, but maybe you can at least learn) in two days? Wouldn't you?

You think things happen too fast - that's fine. That's just your opinion, though, that you don't back up other than saying 'it just doesn't fit quite right' - whatever this means. Why use such weird language, when you can just say 'You don't like it', which is ALL you seem to mean anyway.

You don't like this movie, because things happen in this movie that you don't like, and you THINK things are strange and 'plot holes', because you don't actually UNDERSTAND what's actually happening in the movie, or realize why things happen the way they do, ALTHOUGH they are very well explained in the movie.

I thought you were going to say something about implausible clichés this movie is built around, the predictable, boring structure, or the unrealistically angelic personality of Eddie's character. Instead, you go off about nitpicks at best, and just listing what happens in the movie without explaining why it would be wrong, it all amounting just to: "You didn't like the movie because you didn't like the movie".

How profound.

"Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd have chemistry because...reasons?"

I don't even know what to say about this. Are you talking about the actors or the characters? They don't have 'chemistry' (whatever this stupid cliché means anyway), they are just actors doing their job in a movie. What are you even talking about? The hooker's motivations are clearly explained, Dan's character is just desperate, so his actions are completely understandable. What's 'chemistry' about it?

Also, why shouldn't they have it?

"This was a B-level movie! I didn't even laugh for a second. The story doesn't make sense either. "

You must be the same poster you supposedly 'quoted', because you didn't add -anything- valid or valuable to the garbage post, and you seem to think it was a good idea to quite something that crappy, which makes me question your intelligence and character.

What the heck is a 'B-level movie'? Do you mean this movie is (in some way) on par with B-movies?

The 'B' doesn't stand for some kind of LEVEL rank, it's just a very specific movie group that this movie definitely does not belong to, and just because you don't like or understand a movie, isn't what dictates whether a movie is a B-movie or not.

Let me educate you:

"A B-movie or B-film is a low-budget commercial motion picture. In its original usage, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the term more precisely identified films intended for distribution as the less-publicized bottom half of a double feature (akin to B-sides for recorded music)."

This movie is not that funny, I agree about that part. It's probably not meant to be a 'laugh-out-loud'-type comedy, it's just a silly, wacky movie that underlines some problems of capitalism and this world, and then succumbs to the typical hollyweird clichés, predictable plot patterns and confusing conclusion that feels a bit weird, even if it slightly satisfying. However, this is not a valid criticism towards this movie - I didn't laugh that many times watching 'The Matrix', so it's a B-movie now? Come on, you should be able to do better than that.

So, the story doesn't make sense - it's easy to just say this and leave it at that, but it's still not a valid criticism.

What about it doesn't make sense? Why do you think it doesn't make sense? What would have to change for it to make sense? What kind of stories make sense to you?

See, how you neglected to answer any of these questions, you just slam a movie without explaining anything, then quote yourself..?

Just to nitpick your title a bit - 'second person' makes no sense. I know you are taking the 'I am the only one', and then editing it as if there are only two people, but it makes NO sense the way you wrote it. Second means something that comes after 'first', not something you can use to add another unit to 'only'.

Also, you are not a person, because person is just legal fiction, but I am convinced this goes beyond the capacity of understanding you were endowed with.

The correct way to say this, of course, would've been something like: "Am I one of the only two people that hated this movie", or something.

Yes, I think it'd be better to use the word 'hate' than 'dislike' or 'didn't like'. It's more direct and honest language. 'Didn't like' leaves the 'completely neutral' option open. But if you are gonna hate something, hate it openly and honestly, damnit, just like I hate your post and ignorance and all the frustration I had to endure because of both.

i think it's a great movie and i grew up with it but i would probably not recommend it to anyone at all these days unless i knew them very well. i would probably recommend spies like us as a good 80s comedy over this.

I hate MFs that overanalyze comedies.

It was Saturday Night Live stretched to nearly 2 hours. SNL WAS good at short sketches but was never going to construct a long coherent story.