Watch it at Amazon
25 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :- Eddie Murphy's unsatisfying turning point, 13 September 2001 Author: Mika Pykäläaho (bygis80@hotmail.com) from Järvenpää, Finland
I think "Beverly Hills cop III" was an extremely regrettable turning point in the nice career of one of the most talented and funniest black comedians Hollywood has ever seen - Mr. Eddie Murphy. Before it he used to be funny or at least much funnier. He appeared in the rather enjoyable flicks like "48 Hrs.", "Coming to America", "Another 48 Hrs.", "The Distinguished gentleman", "Boomerang" and of course "Beverly Hills cop I & II" - two beloved movies that'll always be his very best works.Then someone decided to add part three in the so far terrific "Beverly Hills cop" saga. This time Axel Foley was on the mission of revenge and the comedy was unfortunately replaced by action. Who forgot that most of the glamour behind these movies came directly from the humor? Even though John Landis - the man behind hit comedies like "The Blues Brothers" and "Three Amigos!" - sat in the director's chair the end result just wasn't that funny anymore or at least it was funny very rarely and that's a bad thing if we compare part three to its absolutely hilarious precursors. ...and as it happened, after "Beverly Hills cop III" Eddie Murphy got roles from the movies like "Vampire in Brooklyn" (with only couple of excellent scenes), "Metro" (that apparently wasn't supposed to be funny in the first place), "Doctor Dolittle" (cute little film for kiddies who love furry animals that talk), "Holy man" (interesting but more confusing than amusing) and "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" (definitely one of his worst movies, waste of his undisputed talents and a model example of a comedy that doesn't make you laugh).Lately I saw "Life" and surprisingly it was pretty brilliant and alongside with fairly good "Bowfinger" it's the only completely clear exception in this course. What I'm saying is, "Beverly Hills cop III" started it all. Was it all just a coincidence or was it meant to be that Eddie Murphy's best years were in the 80's and early 90's? I can't tell. This is just the way I see things.
13 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :- Murphy sells his soul but I hope he kept the receipt, 26 July 2006 Author: Mr Ben from Hampshire, England
As incredible as it seems, the only one of the "Beverly Hills Cop" trilogy I'd seen before the other night was the second one which I've seen more times than I'd care to admit. The original has completely passed me by but if it's as bad as this one then I think I'll give it a miss. If ever a film typified the Eighties and the flash-bang appeal of producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer then, for me anyway, "Beverly Hills Cop 2" is it but this tired addition to the series has none of the charm or style of the early films. Only Eddie Murphy and Judge "Will Work For Food" Reinhold were daft enough to sell their souls for the sake of this disappointing drudgery.Murphy returns as Detroit maverick Axel Foley, who is on the trail on the man who gunned his boss down. After a raid on a chop shop ends in the death of Inspector Todd (Gil Hill), a distraught Foley chases the perps to Beverly Hills following his only lead to the distinctly Disney-ish Wonder World theme park. Teaming up once again with his old buddy Rosewood (Reinhold) and his new partner (Hector Elizondo), they track down a group of security guards at the park led by the popular Ellis De Wald (Timothy Carhart). De Wald secretly leads a complex money printing scheme within the park and Foley, still seeking revenge for Tood's death, defies the wishes of the FBI and goes after him in his own, unique way.Depending on how much you like Eddie Murphy's wide-mouthed shouting and screaming, there isn't a great deal to like about "Beverly Hills Cop 3". Murphy feels out-of-sorts while Reinhold still has the wide-eyed look of someone who is surprised that they're acting in a film at all. The comedy, when it comes, is forced and weak - the bizarre reappearance of the hideously annoying Serge (Bronson Pinchot) signals the sheer desperation of the writers. The plot is so weak that it's difficult to imagine how they sustained it for as long as they did. Remember how Foley tackled heavily armed and highly professional bank robbers in the second film? Here, he faces disgruntled security guards at a theme park. The life and joy of the earlier films is replaced with a lethargic laziness in all areas - acting, story, action, even the predictable romance with the park attendant (Theresa Randle) feels tacked on at the last minute. Throw in some pointless cameos - the most noticeable and enjoyable by George Lucas - and the whole thing feels as fake and tasteless as plastic fruit.Murphy has displayed an erratic choice of movies throughout his career but this is one of the worst. All it does is make you wish you were watching the earlier films or maybe something like "Bad Boys". Whereas "Bad Boys" is the true successor to the earlier "Beverly Hills Cop" films due to its heavily stylish look and comedic approach to the cop genre, this is tired and rehashed filler. Even the classic synthesiser theme music has been mangled, which shouldn't be surprising but it is disappointing. It feels as if it wants to be a restart for the series but it proves to be the death-knell. It badly misses the attention of producers Simpson & Bruckheimer and even Murphy looks like he's not that bothered. Basically, don't even think about watching this unless you wish to watch the whole series in one sitting. But quite frankly, why would you?
13 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- Pretty weak, 1 January 2007 Author: gibbog from St. John's, NL
Watched this for the first time last night, and was pretty disappointed (was on a triple bill with BHC 1 & 2 on Bravo, great way to ring in the New Year!).Not overly funny, the villains were pretty weak, which is odd as John Saxon is usually pretty good as a bad guy, and Tim Carhart was great as Eddie Willows on CSI. Seemed very forced at times, and definitely lacked the Foley-Rosewood-Taggart chemistry that made the first two films so successful. Hector Elizondo is no replacement for John Ashton. The return of Bronson Pinchot as "Serge" was painful to watch.5 out of 10, based more on Eddie Murphy's performance than anything else.
16 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :- The worst in a once promosing series, 15 June 2003 Author: Smooth_Cinema from Woodbridge, VA
Beverly Hills Cop III is the worst in what was a promosing action comedy franchise. Murphy was in a carrer slump and I guess he made this film to help out his carrer but it didn't help just sunk it deeper. The film is full of mistakes such as the loss of Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckhiemer a weak script and a lack of action. John Landos who worked with Murphy before and made good films fails here. The film needed a good action director like Renny Harlin or Dwight H. Little or even Karthyn Bigelow. Skip this one even if you're a die hard Murphy fan.
13 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :- Good but pales in comparison to its predecessors, 28 October 2002 Author: soranno from Las Vegas, Nevada
Eddie Murphy's third outing as Detroit police detective Axel Foley who seems to have made more of a crime fighting contribution to Beverly Hills still generates some power in the series but the first two films are naturally the better ones. The film inexplicably removes the John Taggart (John Ashton) and Andrew Bogomil (Ronny Cox) characters from the series and adds a shallow new character named John Flint (Hector Elizondo). Fortunately, Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold) is still around and he still manages to be a perfect foil for Foley. Foley's third case in Beverly Hills is a little improbable but the action scenes help to make up for the plot which has to do with Foley matching wits with a corrupt head of security (Timothy Carhart) at a popular Beverly Hills amusement park called WonderWorld (a creation of Paramount Parks). The park character costumes and designs are nice and colorful and Theresa Randle helps to pick things up as a potential love interest for Foley but the film doesn't give Murphy very many funny lines and that is a disappointment if one wants to label this film as a comedy. The action is as usual great but Murphy is reknowned as a comedy star and the lack of laughs here prevent this from being a perfect series. Still, it's a very good series.
15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :- Where's Jerry Bruckhimer when you need him?, 15 May 2005 Author: amwcsu from United States
This has to be the worst of the series!! THE WORST!!! The action sequences are a complete joke, as if it were a parody of itself.With Beverly Hills Cop 3, it's like the director forgot this wasn't a music video or a B-Grade horror flick, but an action-comedy....the key word here is: "action", which means realistic gun battles. See, the first two films had cleverly placed comedy relief where it was needed, and it had a very serious gritty side. As far as the dialogue is concerned, PLEASE DON'T ASK!!!! The only element that was pleasing and resembles (not quite,though)the hilarity of the first two movies is when Axel and Rosewood enter a Gun Expo a gaze upon a urban assault weapon with a CD-player and a microwave and the moment when Axel disrupts a speech by Ellis DeWald (the bad guy who killed his boss). THAT'S IT! Of all the people in Hollywood with professional experience to direct a decent action film, and BHC III picks John Landis. Why? And what in the bloody blue hell was he on while he was directing this insult to modern cinema. At least the "Batman" franchise was good through the third movie! What's the deal with this movie being a goddamn amusement park. If it is in Disney-esquire park then make it a "Die Hard" type of fare at least.Almost everything and I mean EVERYTHING is a discouraging mockery even the car chase at the beginning. Why couldn't the producers and director stick to terrorists and political assassins and have it end a violent Lethal Weapon style shootout/bloodbath in the amusement park. "Hey Landis! Stick to directing cheesy-ass videos for billion-dollar diva musicians!! Sadly, I hate myself for saying this, but as absurd as most of Jerry Bruckhiemer's movies are, this is the only franchise where his sensationalist fantasy is needed the most.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- A terrible let-down, 10 August 2000 Author: Mike Allison from Leamington, England
This is a terrible, terrible film.The first two in the series were fairly simple, fun films, relying mainly on Eddie Murphy's performances but nevertheless with strong backup from the rest of the cast (particularly in the first one), and a certain eighties 'cool' factor that, while obviously dated, still charms.In this one though, it Eddie Murphy wears a bit thin, and the plot reads like a McBain (of Simpsons fame) film, with its horrific cliches and awful script. Even the music was redone so that only once in the films do we here it in its classic version.And what was going on with Judge Reinhold?I guess Axel Foley just doesn't belong in the 90's.
6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :- Not enough Murphy wisecracks and only dull action scenes, 9 August 2005 Author: policy134 from Denmark
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
How could they make one more than two films in this series? The Beverly Hills Cop movies is a sign to moviegoers everywhere that putting a big star in whatever familiar thing he has done to death already, and way better by the way, is a total lack of originality. If they had only made the darn thing funny at least but John Landis, who is usually pretty dependable as a comedy director, seems more interested in putting cameos by directors in every scene, so it will at least be something that you can kill the time spotting.Every character is dull, and the reprise of Rosewood and Serge's characters only generate mild interest because we have seen them before.The villain, played by Timothy Carhart, is totally expendable and it's a wonder why they couldn't at least have brought in a stereotype police captain like in the first two parts. That would have generated some mild chuckles at least.Murphy would go on playing cops in two more movies to date, but here the general idea of having the outsider cop solve everything has completely lost it's warranty and try making sense of the rather trite closing showdown between the cop and the villain in the amusement park. It's amazing that rival Warner Bros. could make a movie series where the sequels where ten times more entertaining than the two sequels of BHC but maybe it was because they were all made by the same team of Donner and Silver. Three directors have been assigned to a Beverly Hills Cop movie and I think if there is a fourth on the way a new director is hemline that one too.
8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- Weakest of the three, 18 November 2001 Author: John O'Neill (john_oneill41@hotmail.com) from Leicester, England
The third installment in the Beverley Hills Cop trilogy is by far the weakest of the three. The first problem is that there isn't even s starting theme tune. The whole feel of the movie is much more slapstick than the first two and ads a result it feels very superficial. With the first there was a feeling that this could possibly happen in real life, but this film is just too silly. Practically none of the regulars are there: Todd's there but he is killed in the first five minutes, there is no sign of Bogomil, Taggart is briefly mentioned as having retired and Jeffrey's not there either. There is much more killing here, which is another unbelievable element. Have said all that it does have a few funny moments, especially from Serge. It's not the worst film ever made, but it's nowhere near as good as the first two in the series and indeed doesn't even feel like a Beverley Hill Cop movie.
10 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- Implausible mediocrity., 10 November 2000 Author: (sukd@agrip.com) from NY/NJ Metro
How Landis, Lucas, and even Murphy lent themselves to this debacle is beyond me. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if the many implausibilities didn't make it such a departure from the first movie, which I thought was very good.The one armed rescue from the ferris wheel? Come on! No one has that kind of strength. And how did he escape burning his hand on the rope? How come all the bad guys, who were supposedly from the best security firm in California, couldn't hit the side of a barn with their uzis yet Axel and Co. hit dead center with virtually all of their shots? How did Axel produce counterfeit money with his image on it in like 10 seconds? How come the security guards gave Axel so much hassle when he first tried to enter the park, yet when he enters the corporate center , he is unfettered? The list goes on and on.Now, I know what you are saying. "It's a movie!" "It's not supposed to be real." But you see, the first episode of the series was quite plausible, and in contrast, made the this third film highly suspect and therefore subject to ridicule.Suffice it to say, we won't be seeing BHC IV any time soon. Thank God!
Add another comment
