 |
  |
 |
 |
 |
Viewing
1-10 of 33 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
|
  |

Crimson_Kahuna
on May 31 2008, 5:37:56 PM writes:
I'M...
...okay with it as long as it's the foul mouthed, gun wielding Axel Foley we love, and not some kid friendly version. Bring back some of the old cast as well.
Hell, I'm up for Lethal Weapon 5!!! Bring back Murtau and Riggs!!!! Lord knows Mel could use some good press, and Danny could probably use the paycheck. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

anomaly7
on May 30 2008, 2:48:05 AM writes:
After seeing Indy 4 and Rambo this week, I'm wondering why studios have the need to revive series from the past 2 decades (Rocky, Die Hard, etc). While to some degree I enjoyed these long-after sequels, most of them are unnecessary and don't live up to the originals. BHC isn't nearly as good as any of these series, so count me out. Eddie Murphey should just thank his lucky stars they're planning more shrek sequals, otherwise he'd already been forgotten by the public. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

shelman2392
on May 30 2008, 1:53:33 AM writes:
NO, NO, NO, NO NO. EVEN THE FIRST DOESN'T HOLD UP WELL.
Well Ratner for one thing is very overrated for one thing & have no idea why he is so big. If you rewatch any of the BHC movies you'll see even the classic 1st one doesn't hold up too well & yes the third is a turd for sure. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|

Rounder
on May 29 2008, 11:31:20 PM writes:
HMMM
Ratner attached to God of War yesterday, now BHC 4 today? Jees, it seems this guy is attached to every movie in its early stages of development.
I'm half-convinced someone (his agent? publicist?) attachs his name to all these movies completely for publicity-sake. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

JohnConstantine
on May 29 2008, 10:16:21 PM writes:
This is kinda of sad,what is it with these crazy uncalled sequels? |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

dellamorte dellamore
on May 29 2008, 10:03:31 PM writes:
KC , considering Indy 4 didn't just jump a shark but a killer whale , i'm sure we'll get to see B4 jump a humpback whale , this is prob the worst idea in quite some time , the third one was not only horrendous , but i didn't even giggle mildly , not even once .
At least there was good reason to bring back Indy , and people were clamoring for at least one more installment , was. there some contingent of movie geek sadists that were secretly hoping for a 4th Beverly Hills Cop .
I think there was only about 10 people that wanted a 4th one , and Murphy and Ratner are included in that total .
I'll be waiting for the Trading Places part 2 ( which would mean they are back in their original places ) and Yet another 48 hours announcements .
Somehow no matter his talent level , he's just not funny anymore , annoying but not funny , but he was perfect for the 80s . |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

SkyNet
on May 29 2008, 9:28:20 PM writes:
i have wanted another Beverly Hills Cop flick for so long! And i cant wait for this to come out... as for Ratner... i got no problems with him or his directing.. i like all 3 Rush Hours for what they are.. Red Dragon was awesome... people just get off on talking shit on Directors/ Movies that make them for sheer entertainment... not everything has to be some crappy art house "FIN" movie! |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

KcMsterpce
on May 29 2008, 7:09:40 PM writes:
HOLY SHIT!!!
Well... we can see how much higher a franchise can jump over the shark. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|

ilovemovies
on May 29 2008, 6:21:49 PM writes:
As long as it's rated R and Reinhold and Ashton will both be back I'm in.
And I think Ratner is a decent choice. His Rush Hour movies are basically the same in terms of the movie's tone. Ratner will do fine. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

slickyz
on May 29 2008, 3:16:29 PM writes:
STOP WITH THE CAPS RETARD
smokey, stop with the caps, makes you look even more retarded than you probably are.
Btw, I have 0 expectations for this movie, it'll probably be bad because Ratner is aweful and Murphy has no more edge, but if they pull it off, hats off. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|


 |
Viewing 1-10 of 33 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
|
  |
|
 |
 |
  |
 |
|