Beverly Hills Cop.

Review #1474: Beverly Hills Cop.

Cast:
Eddie Murphy (Axel Foley), Judge Reinhold (Detective Billy Rosewood), John Ashton (Sergeant John Taggart), Lisa Eilbacher (Jenny Summers), Ronny Cox (Lieutenant Andrew Bogomil), Steven Berkoff (Victor Maitland), James Russo (Mikey Tandino), Stephen Elliott (Chief Hubbard), Paul Reiser (Jeffrey), Jonathan Banks (Zack), Gil Hill (Inspector Douglas Todd), and Bronson Pinchot (Serge) Directed by Martin Brest.

Review: 

"In reality, all men are sculptors, constantly chipping away the unwanted parts of their lives, trying to create their idea of their masterpiece."

In the 1980s, Eddie Murphy was a comedy star like no other. Inspired by comedians such as Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, and Peter Sellers, Murphy started a career in comedy at the age of 15, going from talent shows to Saturday Night Live in a period of four years, with his four year run on the show being a tremendous success that soon led to film opportunities, with 48 Hrs (1982) and Trading Places (1983) proving successful for Murphy. This was his fourth film (the cash grab appearance in Best Defense was his other film of his in 1984) and first film with just him as the primary star. Strangely enough, this was actually not intended as a star vehicle for him at first - it was actually intended to star Sylvester Stallone. In fact, some of the revisions that he had tried to make to the screenplay would actually be used in Cobra (1986), since he did not feel right for comedy. Even having a star in place didn't keep everything in place, since there was plenty of improvisation done throughout filming (the screenplay was credited to Daniel Petrie Jr, who also co-wrote the story with Danilo Bach). The film was a blessing to its director as well. Martin Brest (who had debuted with Going in Style five years prior) had been fired from WarGames the previous year and rejected doing the film on numerous occasions before an ultimate decision on the basis of a coin flip. Two sequels were made after the film's release (both with Murphy, Reinhold, and Hill), but neither reached the heights of the original.

What can one say about a buddy cop classic other then the fact that it makes for a pretty good time? Murphy seems completely at ease here, one suited to generating charm and laughter through a frenzy of one-liners and impersonations with a quickdraw focus. He is a show of force that works handily whenever paired with someone on screen (whether for interaction or some sort of bright gag). The others aren't easy to be overshadowed, however. Reinhold and Ashton prove to be an amusing team together, filled with a few snipes that make for riveting chemistry at times. Eilbacher proves adequate, while actor/musician Cox proves a breakthrough in stern enjoyability (the same also can be applied to actual Detroit cop-turned-actor Hill in the first few minutes). Berkoff proves a capable adversary to sneer with, and others make their impressions in small doses like Russo and Pinchot. There is a fair balance of comedy and action within 105 minutes that succeeds more so in the former category than the latter (the gunfights prove okay at best), with Murphy and company driving things around making amusement out of its fish-out-of-water story that makes for a worthwhile time, with the music being bright and catchy (Harold Faltermeyer's "Axel F" was a theme I listened to quite a bit before I even watched the film). It is a good comedy for those who prefer to see Murphy in action with zip and charm to spare.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

Review #538: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla Bach), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Kathy Bates (Mrs. Canby), Paul Benedict (Fairchild), Stephen Elliott (Bert Johnson), Cynthia Sikes (Susan Johnson), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Bud Yorkin.

Review
I have reviewed this particular character before, with the remake (#203) which while I may have given a bit too much credit, wasn't awful. I then reviewed the original Arthur (#206), and...yeah, I have a confession to make. After watching the original Arthur once more just recently before doing the sequel, I realized that the first one is actually better then what I first thought. Moore does a very entertaining performance. He of course can be hilarious to himself and others, but the scenes he shares with Gielgud are brilliant and showcases Moore at his best. And Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do) is a really good song, especially for a film like that. Steve Gordon did such a good job in sadly the only film he directed. So yeah, I will change my ranking for Arthur, all because of my regret.  And then there's this sequel. Make no mistake, I won't ever revoke my thoughts on a film like Arthur 2: On the Rocks. A seven year wait, and all you get...is a lemon of a sequel. Does it have its moments? Sure, even really awful movies have their brief moments (Except for of course, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which has no merit because that would require me to let out my repressed memories of that film), and the beginning of this film at least tries to make an effort. Then...Arthur goes broke.

After that, the movie segues into even more mediocre quality, until of course it reaches the last possible trick it has, John Gielgud...who appears an hour into the movie (as a drunken hallucination, mind you), and leaves after eight or so minutes. Is he funny? Sort of, but by then, the movie has sunk to a depressive quality that makes you wonder why was this even made. And yes of course Arthur gets his money back, if he didn't, the movie would end with him (and the audience to a lesser extent) doomed. Arthur doomed because the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be an oncoming train, and the audience, who just realized their time was just wasted. It's all too predictable, half the time you're just waiting for him to get his money back because seeing him try to make the best of his...drunken state, while a novel attempt at trying to twist things up, is not very entertaining. Minnelli is okay, I suppose. At least Stephen Elliott (who is okay, delusional, but okay) returns, though his daughter played by Jill Eikenberry in the original didn't. Sikes is okay, though she can't save the movie. Moore seems more aged, seemingly tired of this role, he even disowned the film after it was released. The movie seems to have a few subplots: An adoption subplot, Bach's attempts to get his money subplot, and Bach's alcoholism struggle, none of the subplots are great, the movie tries so hard, and yet it falls so flat. This is a sad movie when it all comes down to it, it's not awful, it's just a disappointment. If you want to see more of Arthur, I'd recommend it. If you want to see more sequels to movies that were probably forgotten after they were watched, I'd suggest Staying Alive, Grease 2, or Airplane II: The Sequel.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Arthur (1981)

Review #206: Arthur.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Jill Eikenberry (Susan Johnson), Stephen Elliott (Burt Johnson), Thomas Barbour (Stanford Bach), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Steve Gordon.

Review
This review has been revised since the original review, citing my newfound appreciation for it. It figures, I mention any kind of movies in reviews of other movies, and somehow it comes back to be reviewed (Heh, what's next, Batman and Robin?). Anyway, the cast is excellent, I find that Moore does well (Given he has to play a drunken millionaire). You might wonder which Arthur is better portrayed, Brand or Moore. Personally, Moore is better. I feel that he is simply more fun to watch and more...lovable then Brand. It's fun to watch and has a good theme to go with it (Best That You Can Do is the title, and it actually got an Oscar for Best Original Song). The film is more balanced that gives you a good laugh or two. It's been 10 years since Moore's death, an there are people out there that still miss him. A good film, better then the 2011 version.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.