Released in February 2007—a notorious dumping ground for movies the studio doesn’t quite know what to do with— Norbit was a critical punching bag. It currently holds a paltry 9% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was savaged by reviewers for its crass humor, its reliance on fat suits, and what many perceived as a regressive portrayal of Black womanhood and plus-sized bodies.
However, a modern re-evaluation might argue that is a stealth drama about domestic abuse. Norbit is a male victim of a female abuser, a story rarely told in mainstream comedy. The film never glorifies Rasputia; it holds her up as a force of destruction. The fact that the character is played by a man in a suit highlights the absurdity of the power imbalance, but it also complicates the racial and gender politics in ways the filmmakers likely never intended. The Box Office: Wait, It Made Money? Here is the secret that gets lost in the critical hate: Norbit was a commercial hit. Produced on a budget of $60 million, it grossed over $159 million worldwide. Opening weekend, it dethroned Hannibal Rising . Norbit
Yet, nearly two decades later, refuses to fade away. It has become a cultural touchstone, a meme factory, and for a sizable audience, a genuinely beloved comedy. How did a movie this reviled become so unforgettable? Let’s dive into the strange, gelatinous world of Norbit . The Plot: A Love Story Buried Under Layers of Latex On its surface, Norbit follows a classic, almost fairy-tale structure. The titular character, Norbit Albert Rice (Eddie Murphy), is a meek, perpetually downtrodden doormat of a man. As a child, he was left at the "Golden Wonton" restaurant/orphanage run by the gruff yet paternal Mr. Wong (Eddie Murphy again, under even more makeup). Released in February 2007—a notorious dumping ground for
To watch today is to watch a time capsule of 2000s humor—offensive, loud, and unapologetically stupid. But it is also weirdly sincere. You root for Norbit. You hate Rasputia. You laugh when Mr. Wong says, "I am thinking you are thinking with the wrong head." However, a modern re-evaluation might argue that is