I'm not necessarily saying that
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Beverly Hills Cop II
TMC-4 — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 01:23 AM)
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. -
MartyScorsey — 13 years ago(February 14, 2013 03:59 PM)
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 -
I_Guard_Tanelorn — 11 years ago(June 09, 2014 01:55 PM)
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?" -
gbean2397 — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 10:42 PM)
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 — 11 years ago(March 08, 2015 01:56 PM)
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 — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 12:18 AM)
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 — 10 years ago(December 01, 2015 12:52 AM)
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 — 9 years ago(July 23, 2016 10:21 PM)
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.