Skip to main content

You know they don’t give out Oscars in prison?


Beverly Hills Cop III
(1994)

I wasn’t sure I’d ever made it all the way through Beverly Hills Cop III before. But some sequels are so awful, all that remains is an amorphous memory of their fundamental shitness (Robocop 3, Highlander 2: The Quickening). So I thought, best be certain; give it another chance. But, my God, it stinks.


The first sequel to the 1984 phenomenon that really put Eddie Murphy on the map had already experienced diminishing returns but, by inflation adjusted (and worldwide gross) standards, it remains his second most successful non-animated movie. Understandably, ideas had been knocking about for a trilogy-forming addition for some time. Most popular was sending Axel Foley to London. All the regulars would have returned (John Astin as Taggart, Judge Reinhold as gun nut Rosewood, Ronny Cox as Bogomolil) and the plot would have involved Foley rescuing Bogomil from terrorists. Yes, Axel would succumb to the post-Die Hard action movie formula. Possible pairings with Sean Connery and John Cleese were mooted for Foley’s sojourn in Blighty (I can’t imagine Murphy really sparking off either, but at least the producers were spitballing). Terrorists became London gangsters, and Paul Reiser’s Jeffrey was set to buy the farm (Reiser was good at dying in movies around this time).


For various reasons, that concept fell apart (ultimately it seems that producers Simpson and Bruckheimer thought there were too many similarities to Black Rain). A retooling of the same basic concept in New York was briefly considered before the uber-producers exited over budget disputes. Joel Silver then flirted with taking the producer reins but the dreaded budget wrangling saw him depart too. And so Mace Neufield and Robert Rehme ended up shepherding Beverly Hills Cop III to the screen. They were in Paramount’s good books thanks to the cash cow of the Jack Ryan franchise. But the budget concerns didn’t go away.


Back in the early ‘90s Murphy had pretty much fallen from grace. Harlem Nights was a costly and disappointing vanity project which, while no means a financial debacle of the scale of Bruce Willis’ ego-strewn Hudson Hawk a couple of years later, had put a serious dent in Eddie’s stride. He followed it with lazy sequels (Another 48 Hrs) and a series of attempts to try something different. Neither Boomerang nor The Distinguished Gentleman are bad movies (indeed, they’re far superior to much of his feted ‘80s product), but the returns were at best middling. The star was barely 30, but with a decade behind him as a huge draw it seemed like he was already on the wane. In the near distance was the rediscovery of his comic mojo (The Nutty Professor), but there and then Paramount had serious misgivings at throwing money at a star who might not attract sizable audiences. And Axel was very ‘80s, as his signature Harold Faltermeyer theme attests (the music here, from Nile Rodgers, is listless and inappropriate).


So Steven E. de Souza was hired to pen a new script. He seemed to know his action, and had proved his worth with two Die Hard movies (and Another 48Hrs). Looking at his subsequent resume, the studio might have thought twice, but that was then. Quite why “Die Hard at a theme park” was seized upon is anyone’s guess. A dearth of imagination most likely. Foley didn’t need to be derivative, he needed to be his own thing (whatever that was; it is sort of nebulous). Robert Towne had worked on previous screenplay ideas, which again suggests the studio didn’t really have a keen idea of what the character was all about.


Various directors were considered; Towne, purportedly (why they’d give him a broad action franchise is anyone’s guess; perhaps it’s a confusion over his story involvement), Joe Dante (great director, but not him at all) and Kevin Hooks (a safer pair of hands perhaps; no real flair, but he had solid action chops and had delivered a minor sub-Die Hard hit with Passenger 57). But then John Landis was got the offer.


Landis has commented that Murphy may well have suggested him as an apology/olive branch over their falling out on Coming to America. On the face of it, the director might not seem such a strange choice; the Landis of the big, broad, freewheeling destruction derby pile-ups of The Blues Brothers at any rate. But the John Landis of Beverly Hills Cop III is borderline incompetent. Like, Kevin Smith incompetent. It’s as if he has never directed a movie before. Shots are static, the staging is leaden, the editing almost aggressively disinterested in producing thrills or narrative momentum. He brought with him his Oscar and Innocent Blood cinematographer Mac Ahlberg, who worked out fine on the later Brady Bunch movies; his textureless blocks of colour aren’t a problem in “straight” comedy vehicles (few funny movies get raves for their photography, which may be an error in the thinking of filmmakers, but it’s an understandable one if attention is seen to be on yuks). Here, it’s a disaster.  BHCIII looks like a cheap and nasty TV movie, one with an in-network director less interested in the “art” of what he’s doing than ensuring he knocks off at a decent hour.


So it beggars belief that during the shoot costs inflated so much, Paramount took the step of closing down the production. The picture had already taken a budget cut due to Murphy’s diminished standing (he still took home $15m, a third of what the movie ended up grossing), and finished up costing more than $70m (it had been slashed to $55m, so ended up tallying with what de Souza’s screenplay was originally budgeted at). None of that is up there on screen.


Originally rides were supposed to be built for Wonder World (the theme park in the movie), but filming took place at California’s Great America theme park (then owned by Paramount). You’d be forgiven for wondering why anyone would go there. Adapted rides included the Earthquake ride from the Universal Tours (complete with Cylons). I don’t know how popular Great America is, but Landis makes it look semi-deserted (there isn’t a single scene in the film with any care take over it).  When he attempts to shoot an action scene the results are sleep inducing, painful to behold (Axel saves some kids from a malfunctioning ride; it seems to take hours) or resoundingly inept (the climactic showdown(s)). A similar collapse of a once-great (as in making great movies, rather than being the most proficient in the field) director’s career occurred a couple of years later when John Carpenter brought back Snake Plissken. But that film seems Oscar-worthy next to this.


The plot, what there is of it, involves a private security firm running a counterfeiting ring under the guise of the park. Yeah, it’s a stretch by any standards. Axel comes to California to track down whoever shot his boss (an enfeeble motivation following a not dissimilar set up for II). There’s little detective work here; he shows up at Wonder World and it’s immediately obvious that nefarious forces are up to no good. The big villain is Timothy Carhart’s Ellis De Wald; Carhart’s a reliable bad guy in various big and small screen fare, but he has little to work with. The same goes for John Saxon. Theresa Randle’s the not-so-very-much love interest (there’s never much of that in a Murphy film, as with Vin Diesel). Stephen McHattie makes an impression as a Fed, but he’s well-versed in making the best of bullshit.


Such were the production delays that neither Ashton nor Cox returned, a blessing in disguise for both of them. Reinhold is left to wax nostalgically, and he’s game. But the whole affair is so devoid of care that his enthusiasm is for nought. Hector Elizondo, a very likable performer, assumes Ashton’s role (basically they substituted names). There is one other returnee; Bronson Pinchot’s Serge is back for two scenes. There’s so much care in the script department that he’s forsaken hairdressing for arms dealing (with a really cheesy monster gun called The Annihilator 2000). As forced as his involvement is, his are the only scenes that remind you of the BHC of old. You can see him having fun riffing on whatever comes into his head, in particular his tale of colonic irrigation and “a candy bar you ate when you were five coming out”. If Murphy isn’t really engaging with him, it’s because he wasn’t even there for those scenes.


Murphy looks like he can't be arsed, but apparently it’s more complicated than that. The light was gone at the time. Pinchot relates how Murphy was so lacklustre that Landis played opposite him in the scene. Worse, it seems this lack of fun was intentional; he told Landis Axel was an adult now, so he shouldn’t act the wiseass. If you take away that core ingredient of the character, you’re left with nothing. And it shows from the start. I’m not sure Murphy commands a single laugh (okay, “You know they don’t give out Oscars in prison?” made me smile). Even when he arrives on stage for his Cary Grant in North By Northwest improvisation, to a crowded gala event, he’s subdued. Eddie in an elephant suit ought to raise a smile, but he – and we – is bereft.  


Landis says he saw the chance to comment on Disney and violence. I can see the Disney bit with the tired and tiresome Uncle Dave (Alan Young), who owns Wonder World, but whatever commentary he thinks he’s making falls flat (unless it’s something as dementedly exaggerated as Disneyworld being a haven for murder, counterfeiting rings and all-round corruption… ) And where the violence bit comes in… I’m mystified. Although, you do notice the typical Landis splatter. Like the swearing, it stands out because the presiding vibe is of a limp kid’s Saturday afternoon matinee. The dance number during the chop shop opening informs you his bearings are massively off; it may work in The Blues Brothers, but it’s too random and undisciplined to be endearing here.


I liked seeing a couple of The Banana Splits, but even the inevitable director cameos lacked fizz (George Lucas and a best-not-try-cameoing-again Joe, Dante being the most memorable). Landis readily admits the script wasn’t great but thought that, with Murphy on board, they could make something solid out of it; then he found Murphy wasn’t interested in being Eddie any more. Maybe the director’s interest subconsciously ebbed away as a result. He needed more of the actually funny stuff, like DeWald sitting a cohort of underprivileged kids at his gala table to show what a nice guy he is. But it needed that kind of funny stuff times 100.


Beverly Hills Cop III is probably the worst movie of both Landis and Murphy’s careers (I’m hesitant to say for definite; there’s Norbit, Best Defense and Blues Brothers 2000 to consider). It’s no surprise that possibilities for IV have been knocking around for years with few overly interested in biting. The Disneyfication of Eddie seemed to have fully put paid to any chance of the Axel spirit being revived. But then, in Tower Heist, he was actually R-rated funny again. Brett Ratner is a horrible choice for most movies, but he might have been a good fit for the announced fourth installment, to be shepherded once again by Bruckheimer. It looked the movie was permanently off when the TV pilot happened this year, with Murphy cameoing and Brandon T Jackson as Axel’s son. CBS passed on it, and then it looked like it might be shopped elsewhere. Jackson thought it was nixed as a series because it was too edgy. Whatever the reason, something about it must have caught Paramount’s attention as they announced the big screen fourth was back on after all. I’d like to see it happen, despite my reservations about how Murphy would tackle the role. If nothing else, he gave the right reasons in 2006 when he said another was needed because, after III, he “didn’t want to leave the series like that”.

*

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …