OP is entitled to their opinions, but I enjoyed all three movies. It is a matter of personal taste. I thought all three movies have aged very well, and don't seem as dated as other films from the 80s.
I really didn't understand the success of the Twilight movies, which had no redeeming qualities. People are still fascinated when I say I didn't like Avatar, 300, Guardians of the Galaxy, or almost all of the Transformers movies, I still can't see how these movies are so popular.
To Each is Their Own.

My mom and I just watched tis for the first time and we found this hilariously funny. The cast is spot on and charismatic specially Eddie Murphy. I think it has aged very well.
The jokes probably went over your head.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?

Nigel Tufnel

I almost laughed how you mentioned Temple of doom in your post.considering that POS shouldn't have made any money at all. Lucas and speilberg should both be ashamed of that utter bomb.
And if you think this film isn't funnythen maybe you should stop watching Will farrell/adam sandler films and appreciate real humour. Cause will farrell over-acting isn't really that funny.

Beverley Hills Cop was released in Murphy's golden era, he could do no wrong really. He had a bomb that year called "Best Defense" with Dudley Moore but this movie and his standup helped to keep him on course and made it look easy where other comics may have never recovered. He himself was a franchise for Paramount because his movies made a ton of dough, this series was a lot of it.
One thing that helped BHC was that it had a bigger release plan than either Ghostbusters, Indy, or Gremlins had. It opened up in 1,500 theaters (less than Indy but more than Ghostbusters,) and by the end it had 2,000 theaters showing it (way more than any other film that year,) it was a mega hit and Paramount put their all into it. BHC had it tougher due to the R rating but it was perfect for the film and drove adults in.
Only reason some websites has Ghostbusters #1 is that they are attributing the August 1985 re-release numbers into the total. It made 9 million through that re-release. But looking at the pure 1984 numbers BHC wins.

How? Because its an awesome movie. It's funny, it has an epic car chase scene/opening, Axel Foley is a highly likable character, it has buddy scenes and danger and a great shoot out. And the good guys win. What's not to love? Unless you hate 1980's Eddie Murphy, in which case I feel sorry for you.
"I'd like to confuse bok choy with cabbage, sir."

Combining Action and Comedy, started with Eddie Murphy. Beginning with 48 Hours. Epitomized with BHC. It solidified a new Genre. Comedy fans, and Action fans, both flocked.
If you think about it, every Action film since then, has had a Comedic undertone. Think Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. It was a brand new thing, in 1984. Murphy pulled it off. At that time, I'm not sure anyone else could have.

I am watching it again after only seeing it when I was really young and didn't really remember it. It's an ok movie but I'm guessing it's because the movie is pretty old now. Had I seen it when it first came out (and was old enough) maybe I would have liked it much more.

At one time it was the fourth highest grossing film of all time and it was a surprise how well it did but heck its a great film. Even the critics loved it.
Its that man again!!

According to boxofficemojo Beverly Hills Cop made more money than Ghostbusters:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1984&p=.htm

..to the OP.. it did not make more than Ghostbusters, close, but not more.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1984
your forgetting, the 80's was a time of so many great movies, and a time when Eddie Murphy was on top of his game and still becoming a huge star.
plus, 80's was a time when Police Academy made 81 million in theaters. Comedy was big back then, especially screwball comedies.
.Beverly Hills Cop had serious drama, action, comedy and an interesting plot. And to think Stallone wanted to be the star of the movie lol..
..

Your opinion is your entitlement. There are a few films that I think are utter crap ( toy story 3, fight club, twelve monkeys) that everyone else seems to love. I was born in the early 80's and absolutely love this film.
I REALLY REALLY hope they do not make a 4th if they plan to stick a 12 (pg-13) sticker on it. Also seeing an old ass eddie murphy rehashing old jokes just wont cut it ( see die hard 5
).
In todays market it would probably go straight to Dvd, sorry Blu-Ray and make 180 dollars

I've watched this one 11 years ago and immediately fell in love. I had 14 years then. Think I could watch it (and its sequels) dozen times and never get bore. Gags are equally funny as the first time I saw. And I am big fan of Eddie Murphy.
However, I prefer second part over this. I dunno, probably because it's more fast-paced, kinda frenetic) and more action than comedy and generally I like Tony Scott's style. Third one kinda sucked, but it's OK to watch. R-rated lighthearted action comedy in theme park with kids doesn't work as mixture.
For the forth film, I am reserved. Most of sequels today suck (such as Rambo 4) and Eddie Murphy's career is in decline. And probably he is no funny anymore than back then.

Almost 2 years since I created this thread, never thought I would get this much feedback. I may have been a little blunt with the question, but the confusion still remains.
I was born in the early 90s, so I don't have a nostalgic attachment to this film as so many of you seem to.
The reason I came across this film in the first place was from looking through a list of the highest domestic grossing films of all time. This film, to me, stuck out like a sore thumb. How could one of the most popular films of all time go unnoticed by someone who loves movies?
When I did finally watch the movie a few years back, I left thinking, "Ya, it was alright but by no means the makings of a defining movie the decade". However, I was intrigued enough to pursue the sequels. First one definitely the best and the less said about the third the better.
Now I hear there are rumblings of a fourth film in the works, how do you guys think that would perform in the current box office environment? Similar to the first: $234M, second: $153M, third: $42M?

lots of buzz. but as u said not funny. murphy nvr made a good film

As a kid, I loved all of these movies but if I had to make a choice back then as to the one I watched it would have been Beverly Hills Cops. Each film is good in its own right, but BHC had everything you could imagine. Blood, Violence, Nudity, Awesome soundtrack and the R rating.
I don't need to look it up to know Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones didn't have the R designation.
R films aren't what they once were. You could say beep 100 times in a film and it would sell tickets. BHC is more than curse words but it was just a different era in film.
It's like asking why Die Hard is so good why did it do so well?

kid do ur research first

To the OP:
Not sure how old you are, but I'll be 33 next week. I was 4 when this movie came out, and I'm a fan of all 3 of the movies you mentioned. As a matter of fact, from about '86 on (I was roughly 5 or 6) I watched a VHS tape that had Beverly Hills Cop and Ghostbusters back to back on it.
I'd watch one, and then the other. They were both great, both hilarious, and both different types of humor. I don't see where the hate is coming from. Both films were the works of alumni of some of the most stellar SNL casts ever, and (musical score aside) both hold up extremely well today, IMO. Actually, I'd go as far as to say they are better than most crappy films released today.
I noticed you never answered the question, but just how old are you? It's hard for me to imagine that someone who was even just a child when these films were released (much like my self) could hate any of them.
Maybe you don't like Eddie Murphy? Or is it racism? Or are you just biased?
I mean, it not being your cup of tea is one thing, but to actually say that it's a BAD movie? That's a bit of a stretch. I can't think of one person who played their part poorly, I can't find any major plotholes, flubs, or even annoying characters.
I don't get the hate, and trust meI love hating on thingsI mean, look at my user name.

To the OP:
indianabond: the answer to your question is simple: This movie made more money than other films in 1984 because MORE PEOPLE WENT TO SEE IT.
That's really all we need to know. The appeal of the movie, then or now, is a matter of individual taste. We need not try to explain it, justify it or even understand it. Doesn't matter. Art is subjective, and marketing plays a big part too. 'Nuff said.

ha! I was hear to ask the same thing. I just rented it and well knowing eddie murphy movies, I knew his style and what to expect, but I had slightly higher hopes for this one cuz I heard about it for years being one of the best comedies of the 80's. fact is, its just average 80's buddy cop movie no different those verys similar lethal weapons movies. in fact, I enjoyed lethal weapon a lot more then this. I don't know, maybe it was people of the times that loved this, but how the hell did this make more then ghostbusters and temple of doom??? that's insane! this movie was so lame compared to those other blockbusters, this looks like it was made on a budget.
all in all, in had a few good laughs but nothing that would make me watch it again, especially that 80's soundtrack which I thought was more hilarious then the movie!
and I think ghostbusters had way more action then Beverly hills cop.
Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!

Were you around then? I was, and saw all three. They were different movies to me, not that I'm an expert or anything, Ghostbusters relied mostly on comedy, and a little action, Temple was pure action, and a little comedy, Beverly Hills Cop was a perfect blend of both. God knows that I don't know it all, but to me if a movie can blend both in perfect harmony, then it's a great flick. I loved the other two that you mentioned, but once again just my opinion, I don't think it's fair to compare the three.
So I think it did well because people like me know how to appreciate the difference, what kinds of movies do you like?

The box office gross does seem inordinately high for a film of its type, but it's a good movie.
A $14 million dollar film making well over $300 million world wide before video rentals (as they were then), is very good business.
Just toss in the other factor no one seems to have mentioned which IMO helped the film's success; the Taggart/Rosewood duo was a beauty.
Billy, if you do that again, I'll shoot you myself!

The box office gross does seem inordinately high for a film of its type, but it's a good movie.

Beverly Hills Cop was a very good movie and a very popular attraction in December 1984. With the money it made, you gotta remember this was released to theaters around Christmas of 1984 and it was still playing until about April 1985 before it went to the the then new VHS format. Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom was released in May 1984 and Ghostbusters was released in June 1984. With that said for the year 1984 Beverly Hills Cop would have been in the bottom Top 10 movies of '84, since Indiana and Ghost had all summer and the rest of '84 to bring in the dough if that make any sense. The first Cop movie made the majority of it's money in early '85.

^
BHC came out back in the day when having a popular movie star in the lead, Murphy in this case, was sometimes all a film needed to outgross the competition. It seems weird nowadays because that idea has all but vanished.