MovieChat Forums > Beverly Hills Cop III (1994) Discussion > Reasons why 'BHC III' stunk

Reasons why 'BHC III' stunk

posted 17 years ago by ediaz8
43 replies | jump to latest

1. Killing off Todd= Todd was an integral part of the "BHC" franchise and he had a key chemistry with Axel. Killing him was like killing off M from the James Bond movies. Bad idea.

2. Scripted humor= You can easily tell the difference between scripted and improvised humor. The humor here was very corny and predictable. Eddie failed to do what he did best in the first two films.

3. John Ashton and Ronny Cox's absence= What was the point of making this film without them two? Now it'd be hard to bring them back for a 4th when they retired in this film.

4. John Landis= He is not an action director, he focuses more on humor than anything else.

5. Very childish plot= I gotta say that the screenplay was a bit inmature and didn't measure up to the first two.

[–] camruud 17 years ago

I liked this movie, but a thing that bothered me was all the badguys who acted too robotic. They were just stiff and mindless goons...

[–] ediaz8 17 years ago

I think that was the whole idea for the goons to be that way, that they'll obey Ellis DeWald all the way.

[–] DrMario 17 years ago

Good points. Especially 2+3; I think the improvised humour is what made the first two so special.

"Now this won't hurt a bit. Well, maybe just a little bit."
-The Tall Man

[–] Gator_MacReady 17 years ago

No Ronny Cox.
No John Ashton.
No Bruckheimer.
No Faltermeyer.
No Paul Reiser.
Crap photography.
Stale action.
Boring villains.
Horrible attempts at humor.
Stupid plot.
No improv.
Really annoying contrivances.

I could go on...

Meh!

[–] ediaz8 17 years ago

I hated the scene when Axel made it to Beverly Hills and stopped at the parking lot machine thingy where it was translating everything in french, that was soooo out of place for this film. The running gag that everyone (cameos from famous directors) was saying "Somebody shot Uncle dave?!!!" was corny as hell. The film was just for laughs and little action. Only that the comedy was cheesy, in the tradition of "Trading Places" and "Coming to America", who were made also by Landis.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcsmith23 17 years ago

He used a wooden park bench for cover from gun shots while taking turns shooting the bad guys with an oversized gun that doubled as a boombox playing Eazy-E and horribly bad folky songs. That's just an example of this really really bad movie, I just watched all 3 in a row, part 3 is really an embarrassment of the series, it's painful to watch, only a couple of scenes are funny, rehashing what it can into an 80's cornball cheese flick in 1994. I really couldn't believe some scenes. Keeping my fingers crossed for part 4, I really like Eddie Murphy but this movie is crap.

[–] qwantae 17 years ago

YEAH GATOR,

John Ashton, Jeffery- Axel's co worker, Ronny Cox and murder of Inspector Todd are the reasons for me to dislike this film, i have the VHS Tape but havent watch it since late 90s. i just got to bored of it. The only part that i like on this movie was that Axel was driving that Red Camero While Fallen apart in pieces.

[–] nickclarke_100 17 years ago

I watched BHC 3 dozens of times growing up and yeah to be honest it is a little boring now, but i think that it was just targeting a younger audience who wernt around for the release of the first two. I remember getting so exiting when it was on telly. But i was only 7 or 8. I am now 18 and when i watch it i feel a bit to mature for it.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT STINKS.....

[–] jayanxiety 17 years ago

Eddie had lost all the raw charm that made the first two classics. He looked as if he just dusted off that old Detroit Lions jacket and pretended to be Axel F. one more time, simply to complete the series as a trilogy (because you really couldn't market it as a series without the industry-standard three films).

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Since when did “no Paul Reiser“ = Bad? You like nudgyey feckless nebbishes? I don’t.

Hey! Paul! Mad about THIS, putz!

[–] krypto_cj 17 years ago

I agree with you on ALL those points... but I don't think BHC III stunk, but it didn't measure up to the sheer genious of the first two films...

[–] bouly 17 years ago

I enjoyed BHC III but it was nothing like the two others espicially the the BHC I because they stopped the laugh and it wasn'as funny

[–] FOLEYAXEL 17 years ago

The previous posts made some good points. When I watch the film I say what happen to the improv humor?????? The scene when Axel is trying to get into the amusement park he would've found a way to get in without having to pay....duh!!!!!

A weak script, plot, and direction! I think it was an attempt to make blockbuster money without a blockbuster script and team!

What made B.H.C. great besides Eddie was the supporting cast, improv humor, and yes the music even for that time the music help propel the story.

[–] drkstr76 17 years ago

How about the fact that Murphy played a totally different character in this movie then he did in the first 2???

[–] fenixlanding 17 years ago

When I was nine this was my favorite movie out of the three.

That's why this movie sucked.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Demonkiller2421 17 years ago

It just lacks the Action/humor mix the other two have. It never feels as gritty, even though the first two arent really THAT gritty mind you. However, even scenes that should be serious and have some weight to them, such as Todd getting killed, just seem like funny scenes minus the dialogue. Side note, the way Todd's death is handled and acted out by murphy is probably the worst bit of acting in the entire series. Absolutely terrible acting. If you cant remember it go back and watch it, its just poorly done. Anyway, that aside, I think the entire visual look of the film is to blame. It just fails.

[–] Cinema1988 17 years ago

-The soundtrack was hammed up to sound more...modern? uhhh, yeah just bad... also, the plot with the theme park was just plain stupid and pretty lame to be honest. And the Annihalator weapon was ridiculous and just idiotic. Does not compare with the prior two installments in the series at all, disappointing. Not surprised at all that this greatly underperformed at the box office when it opened. Too bad.

"Death by stereo" -The Lost Boys

[–] TMC-4 (19411) 2 years ago

Eddie Murphy pretty much admitted that he wasn't too passionate about the project to begin with and really would only do a third BHC movie if Paramount paid him a shitload of money. This is what he said to Rolling Stone back in 1989:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/BeverlyHillsCopIII

There's no reason to do it. I don't need the money and it's not gonna break any new ground. 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. They're in pre-production. The only reason to do a Cop III is to beat the bank, and Paramount ain't gonna write me no check as big as I want to do something like that. In fact, if I do a Cop III, you can safely say, 'Ooh, he must have got a lot of money!'

[–] GabeSolo 17 years ago

Yes. It's because of John Landis. Yes he's not an action guy.

[–] TMC-4 (19411) 2 years ago

I was wondering if John Landis is most to blame for the supposed short-comings in BHCIII:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/olwwjt/beverly_hills_cop_iii_1994/

Plus, on a smaller note, John Landis’ direction doesn’t have the more naturalistic quality of the first film, nor does it retain the larger than life grandeur of the second. This leaves the film feeling somewhat lacking in this department and without a clear aesthetic identity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/olwwjt/comment/h6bn026/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Beverly Hills Cop 3 needed to be a comedy action movie like the first two, with Foley reuniting with Rosewood and Taggart. Otherwise what was the point? It needed a good director too, one who wouldn't fill the movie with distracting cameos.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Which is why American Werewolf in London sucks ass and is in no way a legitimate werewolf movie.

[–] CrazyJim2004 17 years ago

Him complaining about the ticket prices and then giving in and paying was just the exact oppoiste of what we'd expect from Axel Foley and it really just made no sense for him to do that.

I thought the opening 15 minutes at the car shop were good (minus the killing of Todd) but the rest of the movie just sucked.

www.myspace.com/crazyjimfilms
Click here to read my scripts!

[–] mtozer2006 17 years ago

*beep* off u nerd stop overnanalysing it just enjoy the action and comedy on wot i thought was the best of the series u bell end

[–] RunTheWorld 16 years ago

I love this movie. Probably because it is so different from the others, I never really cared for the others, I'm not a big action buff.

Yep. Another Blog.
yepanotherblog.blogspot.com

[–] CromeRose 16 years ago

The opening scene where those two fat guys start performing to the camera set the stupid tone for this dull, inane piece of sh!te. And then that ludicrous scene where Murphy is driving the red car and he's getting sprayed with machine gun fire and everything gets torn up except him... that set the idiocy level for the action scenes throughout the rest of it. But at least Brigit Nielsen was't in it.

Watch Bedbug on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QI_1YSXt8Y

[–] Wombstar 16 years ago

er.. its a movie.
its NOT real.. for god sake.

it was a pretty decent movie.. no better or worse then the others.

and i love the cameo from Ray Harryhausen, thats the best bit.

[–] stevenmcpunisher 16 years ago

These movies are about the comedy , they arent about the action scenes. People wanna see Eddie Murphy do what he dose best.

I personally loved this movie.

[–] mamalovesyosocks 16 years ago

It just would have been better with more rosewood and taggert, I mean taggert wasn't even in the movie. The first two movies it was always a trio of miscreants getting into trouble, everybody was in on it. Also Paul Reiser and the guy who played Bogomil were essential for minor characters. Hector Elizando I love in general, but he was reallly annoying in this movie.

The plot wasn't any stupider than the first two movies, but shifting of the cast really screwed it up.

[–] okwong-e 15 years ago

BHC (the original) was a movie drawn from threadbare, mediocre and cliched material. That it ended up entertaining was due to the producers/director letting most of the main cast improv their scenes. By Part 3 you had a director whose best days were behind him and a leading man who was desperate to get back on 'top' that he no longer cared if he was half-assing it.

[–] errol1909 14 years ago

1. No strip clubs
2. No tity shots
3. No classic Axel Foley humor
4. No cool 80's tune
5. Horrible cinematography
6. Horrible action
7. Too kiddish
8. No adult humor
9. Rosewood was a pussy
10. No European villians such as the first 2 films

The problem I have with this film is why are people doubting Foley. Did they forget what he did in the BHC 1 and 2. He was a hero. It's like let's throw out everything from the other films and portray Foley as someone else. Also Foley is extremely clumsy in this film, compared to other films where he was cleaver.

Big Blooper: No way in hell would security guards carry real guns at a family amusement park. They would carry more like stun guns. Also why so much security. Are they guarding a bank. No there guarding a *beep* amusement park.

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 14 years ago

RE: stevenmcpunisher- "These movies are about the comedy , they arent about the action scenes."

Funny you should say that because since the FIRST Beverly Hills Cop, all buddy cop action comedies that followed mimicked the same fourmula especially with their chase sequences.

"A commitment to cinema means to lead a technically deviant lifestyle."