Beverly Hills Cop 1: 7,1 (15478 votes)
Beverly Hills Cop 2: 5,8 (9861 votes)
Beverly Hills Cop 3: 4,7 (6089 votes)
"Are you kidding me? Get outta here!" BH3 is such a great movie and it's being rated the worst? I can understand the 5,8 for BH2, but BH3 is at least as good as BH1! Especially the final part in Wonderland is awesome!
BHC3 is the worst. The action is bad, the script is a *beep* eddie´s perfomance is ridiculous. I think that they made this film to fast, they didnt do a good script, they dont wait to John asthon.......and the final result is this bad sequel. If they do a 4th BHC they must be take patient with the script and the casting, because another bad sequel will be terrible to Eddie´s carrer.
shareI just spent the last 3 days watching all three movies, and I agree with imdb score, this is the worst of all three, for several reasons:
1)
It doesn't have the comedy as the first two movies had. Why didn't he try to get some nice place to live, like in the first two movies? Why didn't he try do all kinds of crazy stuff (like the banana thing, or walking right into a place where he's not allowed to be, and then act as if he is in charge)
In this movie it was always the same: Walking into Wonderland, where everybody knows him, so he couldn't just start talking like if he owned the place or something (which was the fun parts of the first two movies)
2)
The action was boring as hell. Specially the 'hiding behind bench, trying to figure out weapon' part... WTF was going on there? And the repeated mistakes just got old very quick (what was it? Four times he tried to shoot, but failed?)... and it's not like a bench can give any protection against guns anyway
3)
Not enough characters from the first two movies. We really needed Taggart, or at least one who was similar to him. The one who they put in, in his place was also too much alone. In the first two movies Taggart and Rosewood was inseperatable, but in this one Rosewood and the guy replacing Taggart were only in very few scenes together
4)
What happened to Billy 'Rambo' Rosewood? In the end of BHC2 he went all crazy with the shooting, while in this movie he only fired a few shots?
Lame. Lame. Lame. This movie is the dregs. It was on TV last night. $70 million buys this sort of *beep* BHCII wasn't great but at least it had style, a half-decent script, comedy and some good action. BHCIII plays like an amateur production (look at those camera reaction shots to Eddie and other poor editing/direction). Embarrassing.
Rating: Dreadful.
[deleted]
Your all a bunch of fannies!
BHC3 rules!!!!!!!!!!
bring on no. 4!!!!!!
[deleted]
BHC3 Better than BHC2?¿ Are you kidding me? No way the second has good action and comedy but the third was a complete piece of *beep* with bad action and no comedy. Eddies perfomance was ridiculous, and they paid him 15 million $......:/
shareBeverly Hills Cop II is my fav out of the 3 movies. The 2nd one is just great fun and I love how Billy is so much more psycho and hardcore in this one and not afraid to take risks. The movie has a variety of stars at the time and now and is great with the Axel Foley Theme song being played throughout. The big disadvantage with the 3rd movie is that the story is not as good, not all of the original cast members are not present and the Axel Foley Theme song is a stupid Techno remix.
Don't get me wrong it was a decent flick but no where near as good as the first two movies. Also one other disadvantage is that it was not made in the 80's!
The World Is Yours...
[deleted]
The first was a classic
The second wasnt quite as good but had some decent action
The third wasnt so good, it was ok because of the characters
but it just wasnt very funny and the storyline wasnt as good
either. Its definetly the worst but its not as terrible as some
people make out
To anyone who says BH3 is even slightly comparable to the first two---you obviously wouldn't know a well made movie if it slapped you upside the head. BH3 shouldn't even be considered part of the series. The DVD shouldn't even include it.
share[deleted]
Jesus!!!
Are you guys on drugs?
BHC3 is one of the worst movies I've ever seen! A true turkey!
If BHC2 was a dog of a movie then BHC3 is a worm crawling out the dog's butt!!
Though I wasn't going to post here I think I ought to since half these posts look like they were written by a bunch of twelve to fifteen year olds. True, Beverly Hills Cop 3 was disappointing, but one of the worst movies ever? You people obviously haven't seen enough films to make that judgement in the first place. I look at Beverly Hills Cop 3 as a corny action film which tries too hard to match the previous two films and ultimately fails as a result.
The main reasons for this is that too much of the film is set in the theme park. It makes everything seem more enclosed and automatically means there's less chance of more exciting action pieces taking place (the cement truck sequence from Beverly Hills Cop 2 for example). I think it's a cool place to have some of the action scenes but certainly not mostly all of them.
Also, arguably Beverly Hills Cop films weren't really made for the 90's. The whole soundtrack, which is an important part of the film for me, is much better and feels more at home when you know you're watching an 80's film but seems out of place in any other decade. Plus there aren't enough of the funky tunes from the first two playing in the background.
Furthermore, the comedy wasn't nearly as good as the previous films. So many of the comedic action scenes felt too stupid even for a film which doesn't take itself seriously to begin with. Hiding behind a bench would certainly not protect you from bullets, and the henchmen in the film are just retarded to an unbelievable degree that it ceases to be funny and instead becomes cartoonish.
However, on the positive side at least the film gets going much more quickly than Beverly Hills Cop 2 which seemed to drag on forever. Also, it's good to see Rosewood's charcter back for some more action and still just as funny. And lastly, though Beverly Hills Cop 3 is not what I'd call a good film, it's one of those films that I can watch as a sort of guilty pleasure. By that I mean although I know it's corny and stupid, at least I can sit back after a long day and still be entertained by it.
this film is awful, especially after the grittiness of the first 2.
shareIt's a simple as this: The 3rd one didn't have the same stuff that made the first 2 classics.
1. Axel Foly isn't a con man. He actually pays to get into Wonder World. Axel Foly doesn't pay to get into anything. And if he isn't conning someone, he ain't funny.
2. Inspector Todd was tamed. He didn't go off on Axel for anything. Todd's profane tyrades are great and hilarious; especially when Axel's trying to weasel his way out of trouble.
3. He was welcomed in Beverly Hills. In the first two, he was not welcomed at all. They wanted him back in Detroit.
I can think of about five more things but don't want to bore you as you probably get my point. I think people who like the Third one better might have seen it before they actually sae the first two.
I don't see the problem people have with this movie, I love it, just like I love the 2 previosu films, and I know I will love the (hopefully) coming 4th installment.
Stand-up reviews + more: http://axelfoleypresentsstandup.spaces.msn.com/
This part was doo-doo. It had its moments, like when Axel used the dead guard to tell the other guards "he ran up those stairs" or when Flint gets pissed, lights up the guard shooting at him and ends the scene with "turn that *beep* song off!" But for the most part this movie is on my cornball list, meaning that it will never be played in my house. If part 4 is gonna be as *beep* as this, they can stop now and call it a day.
shareWhat the hell happened to John Landis?
Didn't he have a sense of pace before this?
Just watched this last night, after a looong pause.
Overall, this sequel feels a million miles away from the first two, and not just because it wasn't made in the 1980's. The major flaw has to be the editing in most dialogue scenes : it drags along like my grandma. Damn it, almost all of the scenes in this one are far too long and fail to sustain interest.
The acting sucks, by far the worst performance comes from Theresa Randle.
The script has little logic and would leave a lot of questions behind if anyone gave a damn (How did Axel figure out FBI's Fulbright was with the bad guys? How exactly WAS he involved? Didn't Hector Elizondo's character threaten to kill Axel? How come he's still one of the good guys in the end? WTF??)....
It's not all BS, mind you. The part where Axel rescues the two kids in that Spider attraction is pretty damn exciting, especially the first jump to the other cart's roof... whoah! It was cool then, and it still works now. That's basically the only part in the movie where the music also works... I hated the score after Faltermeyer's cool stuff in part 2.
BHC 3 is by far the worst of the three, but I bet they could make a good 4th movie. Just don't let John Landis direct it!
the movie is great, very funny all the way! i don't get how it's rated a 4.7,
it should be much higher in my opinion.
Everybody here says that this movie was the worst one of the trilogy. I disagree with that because of 2 reasons. First of all, the plot was a pretty good one, running a counterfeit money ring out of an amusement park. Secondly, Eddie Murphy would NEVER have agreed to do this movie if he thought it sucked so bad. He is known for turning down movies if he doesn't like the script. Whoever said that Eddie Murphy did this movie because he was desperate for cash doesn't know anything at all.
I will however agree with most people here that the characters Bogomil and Taggart should not have been deleted. They were, in my opinion, the characters that were essential to the story line, and by not having them in this film was a big disappointment. Still, action-wise it is a decent movie, though I would have liked it to be a lot more funnier. But I think most people here are just bashing the film because they didn't like it.
The first two "Beverly Hills Cop" movies was Eddie Murphy in his prime. In the early '90s, he lost his edge and made a string of flops("Boomerang", The Distinguished Gentleman"). He did BHCIII figuring it would break him out of this slump, but it was terrible and the slump continued. He wasn't funny again until "The Nutty Professor" in 1996. "Beverly Hills Cop III" should have never been made. Eddie sleepwalks through the film with none of the wit or charm he displayed in the first two films. His signature wiseguy ad libs were replaced by dull gunfights, explosions, and car chases. BHCIII is one of the worst sequels of all time.
share[deleted]
You're right. It was much worse than 'bad.'
Much, much worse.
Multiplied by a million.
And you're still nowhere near as to how awful this movie truly is.
NOT.
EVEN.
CLOSE.
i think that maybe this film wasn't as strong as the other beverly hills cops. But how can anyone say worst? They're all great. Maybe you can say, not as good, or less good. But Bverly Hills Cop, and Worse should not be in the same sentence,not matter what number comes after beverly hills cop, except this sentence. And obviously this movie can't be the same as the others, life is always different, Some days you feel like telling a joke, and other days u just feel like doing some action. This movie was probably trying to let the audience know that this was a certain part of Axl Foley's life where he was slightly less interested in doing something funny, and more interested in doing some action. You can't blame Eddie, or the directors. It's Axl's fault.
shareLet me rephrase my earlier statement- "Beverly Hills Cop III" is one of worst sequels to a great movie ever made. The original is probably the best action comedy of all time. It was really the first of it's kind and started a whole new genre. The second one was formulaic but entertaining. Tony Scott replaced Martin Brest as director and cranked up the action a few notches but still stayed true to the spirit of the first film. That spirit and energy was gone in BHCIII- it was like Eddie and co. werent't even trying anymore.
shareavpsniper
I haven't seen enough films to know that BHC3 is a turkey?
Are you for real?
I've seen more movies than you've had hot dinners and I've forgotten more than you'll ever know!
I know a piece of crap when I see one.
Now go back to school and come back when you're a little wiser.
And here's another hint.
The script for BHC3 was so bad (or non-existent) not even the giant megastar John Ashton would do it.
Judge Reinhold needs the work though :)
I hated the new remix of the theme song.
sharefirst one was best, second one was bad, 3th was great
Hail Russia.
he didnt pull no scams in this one, like stealing the house in II
share[deleted]
I have always enjoyed this film. The original is without doubt the best of the 3, but I think this is certainly better than part 2. The comedy isn't always consistent but there is plenty of good action scenes and the overall production looks very slick.
shareThis movie is a piece of ass.Foley spends half the film dressed in Armani,the comedy is unfunny,except for a couple of lines by Elizondo,and the action is purely bollocks.i give it 1 star out of a million and twenty ten.
share