颠倒乾坤

颠倒乾坤，洛克兄弟用了一美元打赌，将两个截然不同的人对换，差点毁了原本诚实努力的人！剧中白的那个人差点走向歧途其实很真实的，一个从小衣食无忧，突然之间从天堂掉到地狱，这里心里落差是很大的，尤其在加上当时的背景，是很真实的写照，而黑的那个，真的，不得不让人承认，黑人穿西装真的特别有范，这个人的存在，我觉得是为了体现真善美的，即使环境在恶劣，也会存在善良的人。这是一个颠倒，另一个颠倒，是黑白联手报复洛克兄弟的那场橙子的期货交易。似乎老天都在惩罚恶意的人，环境并没有影响橘子的数量，最后，主导的洛克兄弟成为被主导者，这是第二颠倒！而最后，哥哥对于倒在地上的弟弟没有一点亲情存在，令人不经觉得唏嘘

因为感兴趣商业看的这部片子，商业的东西看到的不多，人性的东西却看到的不少。我一直知道环境对人的影响大，这部片子正好展现了这一幕，比较典型的“马太效应”和“破窗效应”。

1. 很多时候一个人站到现在能到的位置并不一定因为他本身的能力比别人高多少，有时候因为他已经站在了机遇里面。所以说，若是有条件将自己置于合适的环境，那么就努力让自己进入，马太效应会助你一臂之力

2.能在逆境站起来的人尤其显得高大，因为我们未曾想到过当我们跌入谷底的时候，哪些朋友才是真正的朋友，而在这个时候扶你起来的人，才是真正值得珍惜的人。曾逆风而上的人能走的更远。

3.在大资本面前，我们很多时候就像是小丑，被金钱、名利、地位所控制着，如同牵线木偶般被摆布，这让人觉得很悲凉。而只有当我们活出自己的独立意识的时候，当我们不将权钱看为我们的全部时，我们才能拾回自由的灵魂，才能活出真正的样子。

比较意外的是节奏蛮轻松的，前两天看了《华尔街》，这部属于不费脑子的，作为一个非金融商业相关专业的姑娘，从刚开始的摸不着头脑，到现在能摸着一点头发梢。

《颠倒乾坤》一块钱的人生赌注

颠倒乾坤？翻天覆地？乾坤大挪移？这部电影的名字汉化有点失败啊，原名叫做Trading Places。颠倒乾坤总给我武侠故事的感觉，而这部电影是一部喜剧。

杜克兄弟是期货代理公司的大老板，腰缠万贯却极度吝啬，喜欢打赌。一天他们争论一个优秀的人是生来如此还是受周围环境的影响？为了验证各自观点的正确性，两兄弟决定去做一个实验。

路易是哈弗毕业生，工作努力，为人诚实，有一个漂亮而又门当户对的未婚妻，关键是杜克公司的经理，他显然是个世俗上的成功人士。瓦伦汀是来自贫民窟的黑人青年，整日在大街上招摇撞骗，热爱吹嘘。

两个社会地位、修养、品质等完全不同的年轻人相遇了，他们是杜克兄弟的完美实验对象。接下来杜克兄弟只需要让路易和瓦伦汀互换身份即可。

杜克兄弟将瓦伦汀保释出狱，给他原本是路易的一切，房子、管家和工作。而路易就惨了，从一个衣着光鲜的公司经理被杜克兄弟栽赃偷钱抓进监狱，又被陷害为毒品贩子，在局子里面被胖揍一顿还差点失了身，好不容易被无罪释放，又被未婚妻无情抛弃，回到家中，管家又将其赶了出来，银行资金被全部冻结。分无分文，无家可归，最后只得和妓女奥菲利亚住在一起。

瓦伦汀在把他那一群狐朋狗友赶出家中的时候，他似乎很快就适应了期货经理的身份地位，而且他还未杜克兄弟在期货交易中大赚了一笔。

相反，路易生活越来越惨，他试着想朋友和杜克兄弟及解释清除，却不受任何人待见，醉酒，买枪，连自杀都未遂。

此时赌局胜负已分，环境影响论胜利，杜克兄弟的赌约兑现：一美元。二人还声称不久后把瓦伦汀打回原形，送回贫民窟。

杜克兄弟的对话正好被藏在一边的瓦伦汀听到，他找到路易，讲出事情真相。二人联手复仇，而最好的方式就是让杜克兄弟破产。

此时杜克兄弟通过内幕，搞到了农产品产业报告单，二人想垄断橙汁获取大量不义之财。这一切都被瓦伦汀监听到，他联合管家、奥菲利亚和路易四人掉包报告单。

交易所内，杜克兄弟得到橙汁稀缺的假内幕，决定高价购买橙汁的期权。路易和瓦伦汀则坐等着产业报告公布，这直接导致橙汁价格猛跌，然后再收购杜克兄弟的低价期权。

最终导致杜克兄弟破产，受到应有的惩罚。四人暴富外出旅行，路易也和奥菲利亚走到一起，故事完满结束。

A 1980s American satire about capitalism and Reagan-era’s wealth accumulation, John Landis’s TRADING PLACES is an essentially “nature versus nurture” debate transposed to the racial soil of USA’s class echelons. Saliently launching Eddie Murphy’s superstar career, to a lesser extent, reviving Dan Aykroyd’s swindling box office clout, and introducing James Lee Curtis to the mainstream audience for the first time, the film ages well courtesy to the performances and its absorbing tempo and jollification, though on the debit side, in lieu of revealing the sordid side of American Dream, it chooses a conformable coda that leaves today’s audience a less toothsome taste.

In Philadelphia, life circumstances are wantonly swapped between white upper-class commodity broker Louis Winthorpe III (Aykroyd) and Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy), a black street punk, all because of a spontaneous bet of Winthorpe’s bosses, Randolph and Mortimer Duke (Bellamy and Ameche, both exceed audience’s expectation with their time-honored comedic bent and faux-respectability), two wealthy brothers have nothing better to do than callously putting a lid on their competent employee’s posh life. The entrenched racism is flagged up by Louis’s knee-jerking reaction about Billy Ray’s black usurpation, with the former instantly pegging the latter as his sworn enemy. It never occurs to Louis that obviously it should be the Dukes who are answerable for his untoward misery, and his encounter with Ophelia (Curtis) fits the stock a-guy-down-on-his-luck-meets-a-prostitute-with-a-golden-heart scenario. However, an invigorating Curtis does her best against the character’s exploitative designation, gratuitous nudity, that is, and engenders enough pizzazz and intelligence to make Ophelia an eyeful.

Meantime, Valentine’s reaction toward such a ginormous windfall is mined less for his psychological reasoning and dubiety than a colorblind affirmation that he is equally capable. Valentine simply accepts the offer and plays along with a distinctly elevated flair, acting priggish toward his prior bottom-feeding trappings and ever smooth in inhabiting a white-people privileged surrounding, that is until the story teams him up with Louis to exact revenge on the Dukes, to euchre them in their own game. A self-defeating third act, toying with future contracts, commodities trading and other perplexing financial ploys, only reverts to a retrogressive validation of the filthy lucre the films ostensibly sets about to ridicule, which also betrays the sign of the times.

Jettisoning any illusion of progressive profundity, a viewer can satisfactorily enjoy the film as a delightful comedy, Winthorpe’s downward adversity is contrived too on the nose and framing him as a petty pilferer is a cheap invention, but the gorilla joke is goofily off-color and TRADING PLACES is studded with heartily funny cameos (Frank Oz, Jim Belushi, Bo Diddley, among others), not to mention the main cast is uniformly game and enterprising. To my lights, the best parts are Murphy’s street-smart wiles (still far from unbridled but the potential is there) and a pitch-perfect Denholm Elliott as the British butler Coleman, whose loyalty wavers inexplicably but who can always bring subtle amusement and incredibility to the plot’s tickling nonsensicality.

referential entries: Ivan Reitman’s GHOSTBUSTERS (1984, 7.3/10); John G. Avildsen’s ROCKY (1976, 7.5/10); PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES (1987,7.3/10).

Title: Trading Places

Year: 1983

Genre: Comedy

Country: USA

Language: English

Director: John Landis

Screenwriters: Timothy Harris, Herschel Weingrod

Music: Elmer Bernstein

Cinematography: Robert Paynter

Editor: Malcolm Campbell

Cast:

Dan Aykroyd

Eddie Murphy

Jamie Lee Curtis

Denholm Elliott

Ralph Bellamy

Don Ameche

Paul Gleason

Kristin Holby

Robert Curtis-Brown

Jim Belushi

Bo Diddley

Alfred Drake

Frank Oz

Richard Hunt

Tom Davis

Al Franken

Ron Taylor

J.T. Turner

Giancarlo Esposito

Avon Long

Rating: 7.0/10