there is an interview on you tube in a q and a where Landis talks about how Eddie Murphy wanted to be more mature and John said well Axel is a smart ass.so there was a big debate about the tone of the movie
"On Earth everyone can hear you scream"- Alien 3 trailer
I read the original script and writers wanted a darker more violent movie for the 3rd one but at the end that was rejected and they went the complete opposite direction and made it a more safe almost light hearted family like feel despite it still being rated R.
share[deleted]
I think the original concept with the police convention would have been way better,
shareI was thinking that if you merely took out the f-bombs then Beverly Hills Cop III could've easily been a PG-13 movie. It doesn't have this gritty and sleazy factor like the previous two (especially the second one) had. The fact that the primary action of the film is at an amusement park kind of tells me that it could've appealed to kids.
sharethere is an interview on you tube in a q and a where Landis talks about how Eddie Murphy wanted to be more mature and John said well Axel is a smart ass.so there was a big debate about the tone of the movie
It's not a very good movie, even ignoring the first two flicks. The script is stale, the acting is two dimensional, the camera shots are very static, the soundtrack sounds like a tv show, there's just no life in the movie.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"
The beginning of this movie in Detriot was kinda dark. It's when he left to California that the movie changed to light-hearted..
shareThey just landed in the no man's land, nor here nor there... in the beginning when Foley's boss Insp. Todd is killed, he comically comes back to life to deliver a line.. This was unfunny and considering Insp. Todd is a long time played character in the BHC series, his death should have been dealt with more seriously if they were going for a serious tone or not.
shareYep, the tone of the movie was all over the place. One moment it was quite morbid and the next it was light-hearted. It just didn't work. I'm pretty sure there were themes in the movie about US corporate and government corruption and how they put on this nice, pretty image to the world to cover up their dark underbelly sorta thing. But they weren't successful in portraying that either. On the whole, the trilogy does not hold up today. The first film is good, but they just kept getting worse. Eddie Murphy can get annoying too.
Never let others dictate your opinion on a film:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13340299
Whatever were Landis' one-set problems with Eddie Murphy, he's also to blame for this failure. The film looks like it's been directed by a computer! The action bits have little muscle, the laughs just aren't there, and all the directions the actors seem to have been given are: Be on frame and say your dialogue.
A film student would have made a better job.
The Bad Movie Beatdown review agrees that John Landis was the wrong choice of director:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OStxNR4gg0 (go to the 6:46, 18:06, 21:26, and 24:06 marks).
what actually went wrong was john landis was the wrong choice for director
shareThis doesn't explain why the film looks like a TV movie.
Not for today's standards, save for maybe the Spider scene, and even that's nothing special.
I never considered it to look like a TV movie, but after the poster above described it that way, I can see where he's coming from. The movie has a very bland look and feel to it. Someone else mentioned the direction seemed to just be "stand there and say your lines," and that's pretty accurate.
A lot of scenes have a very cheap feel to them (like all scenes backstage at Wonderworld). It looks really bad that Ashton and Cox didn't rejoin the cast, and that Simpson/Bruckheimer didn't produce this one, as they did the other two. The comedy is almost completely gone, and is in no way like that of the other films. Whatever comedy is in this film drags on and on and/or falls flat (the Serge scene is lifeless and neverending, and Axel's few one-liners are given and followed by a weird silence here, whereas in the other films, he's so full of energy that he's already onto the next joke instead). There's weird, discordant comedy from other characters, like the silly, weird opening dance routine in the body shop. Judge Reinhold looks puffy and old, and whatever charm he had earlier is gone. He just comes across as weird in this movie, and somewhat annoying.
I loved the movie as a kid, but revisiting it as an adult makes it clear that it was really not on par with the other two.
I wonder if Walter Hill, who directed Eddie Muprhy in 48HRs and Another 48HRs could've directed this? The thing with John Landis is that his specialty was making screwball type comedies instead of gritty crime-action thrillers.
shareIt had a PG-13 feel to it, but was still rated R. Part of me wonders if they had just toned down the language and violence a little bit and gotten a lower rating, would it have been more successful? The movie itself wouldn't have been better, but maybe more teens who had watched the previous movies on tv would have been excited to get to see this one in theaters, and boosted up the box office.
shareIMO, the biggest problem was not having John Ashton there. His chemistry with Eddie and Judge Reinhold is great, and their comradery is a big reason why it all works.
shareThey could've in theory, had a female cop (like say, Captain Bogomill's daughter, who was introduced in the previous movie) working with Axel and Rosewood instead of getting Hector Elizondo as a Taggert's not so subtle replacement. Maybe having a female cop would've countered the criticism that BHCII was misogynistic. Also, it wouldn't have been so obvious that she was there simply because they couldn't get John Ashton to come back.
share