MovieChat Forums > Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) Discussion > Why Does Eddie Murphy Hate the Third Mov...

Why Does Eddie Murphy Hate the Third Movie But Not the Second?

posted 11 years ago by TMC-4
21 replies | jump to latest

I'm not necessarily saying that BHCIII is any better than the second, but I find it weird that to the best of my knowledge, he never said anything about how he looks back at the other sequel in embarrassment to. For starters, I'm extremely annoyed at how unabashedly misogynistic and sexist this movie is (I actually agree w/ Leonard Maltin on this one). Everything in BHCII is loud and obnoxious (Axel Foley here, comes across as an just angry, overly cocky jerk here). Why does practically everybody on this movie have to shout when they talk from Axel, to Gilbert Gottfried, to Inspector Todd, Chris Rock, that new BH police chief, etc.? It's like the '80s version of Michael Bay's Bad Boys II. And yet, we're supposed to take it's goofy "Alphabet crimes" plot (and the idea that Axel and Bogomill were good fishing buddies after the events of the first movie) seriously.

[–] PghSportsNation 11 years ago

So three years have passed since BHC 1&2 and in that time due to the case they solved in 1 that its not possible for all of them to become good friends?

[–] MartyScorsey 11 years ago

It may lack the class of the first film but it DID add a lot more gloss. The script was worse but the action was better. And it made a lot of money in its day, so despite being a mixed bag it was still a hit.

I've always thought it's great for what it is: a perfectly-paced police action comedy that has its moments of cheese and vanity but still works in different ways to its predecessor.

-----------------------------

Challenging Endeavours: A tale of two shuttles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-8CR6i5a5Y

[–] okwong-e 10 years ago

For the record Murphy dislikes the second movie as well.

[–] monstermayhem32 10 years ago

I think Eddie Murphy hated the third film even more because at that time his career wasn't doing too well and it was nutty professor that revived his career.

[–] TMC-4 (19392) 2 years ago

I wonder if one reason why the script in BHCII may be worst is because they had different screenwriters. BHCI was written by Daniel Petrie Jr. (with assistance by Danilo Bach) whereas BHCII was written by Larry Ferguson and Warren Skaaren (with the story by Eddie Murphy himself and Robert D. Wachs).

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/beverly-hills-cop-ii/

https://www.arizonasportsfans.com/forum/threads/movie-a-day-410-beverly-hills-cop-2.162931/

[–] I_Guard_Tanelorn 10 years ago

Until I came to this board I had no idea people didn't like this movie. I thought everybody thought it was the best of the bunch. It's one of my all time favourite movies.

"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"

[–] Verdugo85 10 years ago

BHC2 is a good sequel.

[–] gbean2397 7 years ago

I really like BHC2. While it's not certainly as pitch-perfect as the first film, what I think the sequel's big strength is its action scenes; The first film didn't have a lot of action in it, not even a car chase, which is fine, but with the sequel it did what it was supposed to do, and that is to make everything bigger, so it muscles up its action and makes it crazy, which is what I like about it. And the already budding friendship between Axel/Taggart/Rosewood/Bogomil certainly helps the film, I love seeing the first three guys now working together without Taggart and Rosewood having to try to kick Axel out of BH.

So yeah, BHC2 is a helluva lot better than BHC3.

[–] TheGoldenChild1986 9 years ago

If you guys listen to the extras section on the Beverly Hills Cop II DVD and read the 1987-1988 period of his Frank Sanello Jr. biography on Eddie Murphy called The Life and Times of a Comic On the Edge you'll see that Eddie didn't want to make the second Cop. But he was contractually obligated to do it by Paramount and that studio was even thinking about replacing him.

But that's one of the reasons why I like John Ashton because on screen and off screen he comes off as a REAL person. He said that he would have found it hard for Paramount to find another Eddie Murphy out there to play Axel Foley and he was right.

Some of you wonder why Eddie was such or seemed like an overconfident *beep* in BHC II. He didn't want to do the film in the first place and Eddie wanted to move on from Axel Foley but Paramount didn't.

I read in a Rolling Stone article from 1989 (Rolling Stone.com) that Eddie felt that BHC II was one of the most average box office hits of all time.

BHC II was formulaic and it was an obvious attempt to cash in on Eddie's astronomical success in the 1980s. But it had some bomb-ass action scenes and I enjoyed Eddie (as always) and I liked how Rosewood came out of his shell.

Plus I loved how movie/music composer Harold Faltermeyer added some extra notes and layers to his iconic Axel F score.

[–] TMC-4 9 years ago

I always thought it was pathetic how the sequels always had to contrive another excuse to have Axel Foley drive from Detroit to Beverly Hills. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be buddies w/ Axel, since I will likely get shot. I mean, why not put him in a new scenario/location for every movie like w/ the Die Hard franchise.

[–] TheGoldenChild1986 8 years ago

But you gotta realize driving from Detroit to Los Angeles is part of the plot of the series and I've learned to live with it, seeing as how I have an unhealthy obsession withy the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy.

That was funny what you said about being friends with Axel which can result in getting shot or killed.

In all three films, people close to him got shot or died. Mike (BHC I-died), Lt. Bogamil (BHC II-shot, anybody else would have died the way he got shot and was left for dead on that curb), Lt. Todd (BHC III-died).

But judging from all those instances, you have to chalk that *beep* up to being in law enforcement. They tell you from day one that may you die in this line of work or get shot. That's the breaks.

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

True, but you have to admit that the whole idea of Axel Foley driving from Detroit to Los Angeles every-time one of his buddies gets shot got extremely redundant and creatively bankrupt by the third movie. Now, there's really no fish out of water/clash of cultures to work with.

[–] moviechatterer (13225) 3 years ago

becasue "beverley hills " is in the title.

[–] TMC-4 (19392) 3 years ago

It seems like Beverly Hills Cop was one of those movies, where they didn't have a full-proof plan for sequels. If you rewatch the first one, was the door really that open for a franchise? At the end, Axel along with Taggart and Rosewood solve the case and Axel is about to leave Beverly Hills and go back to Detroit. That is pretty open and shut in regards to what you could do with Axel Foley at least in Beverly Hills. Because like I said, he wasn't exactly a fish out of water anymore come the sequels.

I suspect that Eddie Murphy nor Paramount were prepared for the first BHC to be such a monster box office success. If I'm not mistaken, it was the highest grossing movie of 1984, or at the very least, it was neck and neck with Ghostbusters. That's not too shabby for a movie that started off as a Sylvester Stallone vehicle and didn't have a workable script.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Artisan (3464) 3 years ago

Been a while since I have seen any of them but from memory the 3rd one has very little humour or any of the magic of the first one. It is more an action flick and I think it was probably the original script/idea when they were thinking of casting Stallone originally.

[–] moviechatterer (13225) 3 years ago

1) axel didnt pull no scams , like when he moved himself into that renovation house in pt2
2) toned down violence and swearing , im guessing , cant remember

[–] GetWokeGoBroke (638) 2 years ago

[deleted]