This movie came out late 1987, and people were dying for a sequel to "Delirious" which was 1983. If you go back and watch Richard Pryor's "live in Concert" or "Here and Now" you see that Eddie used some of Pryor's stuff, but gave it its own shot of himself (In delirious, Murphy does the "bARBQ scene/story" and he describes his aunt falling down the steps. It is the exact same description Pryor does in "Live in Concert" when he describes black women at funerals.) RAW used all the things that made Eddie Murphy famous; his deadon imitations, and his gift for telling stories. I can't even watch Martin Lawrence, DL Hughely, Cedric the Entertainer and a few others without noticing Eddie Murphy's influences right away. People forget how big he was, and how good- wayyy before he started doing bad talking animal movies. There are some debates over which was better Raw or Delirious....they are both hilarious, but you can tell the mindset was much different only 4 years later. In RAW, Murphy compares himself to Johnny Carson, while in Delirious he was just the most popular guy on Saturday Night Live. RAW is one of the best and funniest concert comedies ever, and I dare someone not to laugh out loud when watching it......NOTE: This movie was reviewed in 1987 when it came out by Siskel and Ebert "AT The Movies", which was when they were getting really popular in syndication, and it spurred one of the best on-air disagreements between the two EVER. Siskel likened RAW, and Eddie Murphy overall, as being as funny (or funnier)and outrageous as Pryor, Carlin or Lenny Bruce. He loved the movie. Ebert despised it, and chastised Siskel for being "immature" and he also felt that Murphy's attitudes toward women were patronizing, damaging and even went so far as to call RAW a "pale imitation of a good comedienne". I thought Ebert was nuts at the time, and now that Siskel is dead, I can't find any review of RAW on Ebert's website. I've emailed him numerous times about it, trying to figure out why a movie that was so popular, and not even that long ago, would not be in his database. Does anyone else thinks that sounds fishy?
