Avatar image for max_cherry
#1 Edited by Max_Cherry (1578 posts) -

Why isn't this movie good? First of all, where's John Taggart ? He was always a great straight man to Murphy's Foley. Instead, they have him replaced with the concierge from pretty woman. Secondly, this is a John Landis movie? This is the worst... okay, the second worst thing he's ever done. Thirdly, where is all of Foley's fast talking? That was the whole crux of the first two movies. Finally, why didn't this movie come out on time in 1990 instead of 1994. That would have only been a short 3 year hop from Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Eddie Murphy would have still been trying at that point instead of making "Another 48 Hours."

The sad thing is that this could of been a good movie given a better script that was closer to the source material that would have retained John Taggart in its core cast. What happened?

Avatar image for max_cherry
#2 Posted by Max_Cherry (1578 posts) -

What do you think of Beverly Hills Cop 3? Either as a part of the Beverly Hills Cop franchise or a standalone movie? Bueller,Bueller...

Avatar image for deactivated-5ba16609964d9
#3 Posted by deactivated-5ba16609964d9 (3361 posts) -

Going to be honest I didn't think Beverly Hills Cop 2 was all that good. It's watchable which is more than I can say for 3 but it's falls short of recapturing what made the original so good.

Avatar image for stordoff
#4 Posted by stordoff (1361 posts) -

First of all, where's John Taggart

I wonder if it's the same thing that happened to Bogomil: "They wanted me to be in Beverly Hills Cop III, but...I read the script."

Thirdly, where is all of Foley's fast talking?

Quite possibly Murphy's comments prior to BHC3 lead to it taking that direction: "How often can you have Axel Foley talk fast and get into a place he doesn't belong? But these motherfuckers are developing scripts for it."

What do you think of Beverly Hills Cop 3?

I love it. It's so terrible that it's fun to watch, but boy it is not a good movie (it has it's moments). It almost feels like a slight misguided parody of the first film.

Looking up those quotes I discovered apparently at one point there was going to be a TV show: "What I'm [Murphy] trying to do now is produce a TV show starring Axel Foley's son, and Axel is the chief of police now in Detroit. I'd do the pilot, show up here and there.". Gotta say, Foley as chief of police sounds so wrong.

Avatar image for bmccann42
#5 Posted by bmccann42 (395 posts) -

Basically they took it from R-rated Beverly Hills Cop, to PG-13 Beverly Hills Cop 3, directed by John Landis (if my memory serves), and then put every comedic character they could into it (bear in mind I havent watched it in a loooong time).

I always got the feeling of this being a sequel green lit wiht a name but no script.

Avatar image for quarters
#6 Posted by Quarters (2658 posts) -

It has a strong opening, but yeah, it's not good. The team dynamic from the first two is completely jacked up in the third, and it just felt a lot more soulless in general.

Avatar image for sammo21
#7 Posted by sammo21 (5963 posts) -

Honestly, there are of reasons. One of the big ones is even Eddie's spirits during the filming of the movie. He was going through a big slump in his career. Several scenes in the film were shot without him even on set where John Landis stood in for him. They would then bring EM back in to film the closeup portions of the shots. Apparently EM was also going through depression at the time.

The film also didn't have Jerry Bruckheimer or Don Simpson in the producer, many of the beloved cast members, etc. John Landis has said that the script for the first BHC was really bad but Eddie Murphy, the cast, and the unscripted moments in that film elevated it and he hoped the same thing would happen in 3. He also said EM seemed upset that actors like Denzel and Snipes were doing more serious roles so he wanted to approach BHC3 as Foley being more mature now and not a kid.

I don't think the film is hot garbage but its definitely not great. Still fun. I would say the same of Die Hard 2, honestly.

Avatar image for finaldasa
#8 Edited by FinalDasa (3170 posts) -

Murphy pretty much stated he'd never do a third film unless Paramount paid him and paid him WELL. Out of the $70 million it cost to make this movie, $15 million went to Murphy.

Landis, the director, and plenty of others have since said Murphy wasn't the same on set and as sammo21 mentioned wasn't his usual, high spirited self.

So even with a terrible, overly expensive, film to make you had a depressed Eddie Murphy going through the Axel Foley motions mainly to get paid.