Nesbit

Looks good. Missing the laugh.

DJariya

For a teaser it looks fun.

I guess all parties are happy. Paramount made the movie, got paid and Netflix is adding a potential summer blockbuster action comedy to their lineup.

Shannon Nutt

Doesn't look horrible, but I'm still worried it might be bad. Nice to see John Ashton back - hope that's more than just a cameo.

jpcamb

I have to admit that put a smile on my face, and hearing what sounded like a new version of the music did not hurt.

Troy Stiffler

Looks good. I liked Coming to America 2 also.

I'm also baffled by the title. Maybe it'll be covered somewhere in the plot?

Also, Eddie Murphy's looks have aged like 2 years since the mid 90's.

jjcool

Hasn't the theme song always been called "Axel F"? Maybe that's got something to do with the title of the new film?

MLBFan24

***resisting urge to watch trailer***

I have a "no trailer viewing" personal policy

DJariya

It’s not a trailer. Just a teaser with a few scenes with music. There’s nothing even remotely spoiler like in them. It’s not going to ruin anything.

Coral

Yeah, it's not very realistic that 40 years later they're still working and not retired... especially Taggart who was retired in BHC3 (and also cuz John Ashton's 75).

AaronHernandez

Murphy himself is younger then his charecter,,as he was 23 when they filmed the first BHC and realistically that would be at most the age of a rookie or 2nd year cop.

Josh-da-man

Yeah, BHC is really timeless. Just watched it about a year ago and, damn, it really holds up. It's an underappreciated classic. It just fires on all cylinders from the first frame to the last. It knows what it's supposed to be, it's funny when it's appropriate, and it's an action movie when it needs to be.

Another thing about BHC2, I think, is that BHC captured the early 1980s zeitgeist (and it could almost be a late 1970s movie), and BHC2 was very much a mid-80s movie. They both really capture their times.

And BHC3 is a disastrous third entry in a franchise in the tradition of Poltergeist 3 and Robocop 3.

GoldenJCJ

It’s possible that Taggart (and maybe Rosewood) ARE retired in this and Axel brings them out of retirement to help with a case.

Coral

It's not really the age of Foley (even if he's playing 5 years older than the actor) - it's just that he's been a cop/detective for at least 40 years... probably closer to 45. Could've retired with a full pension a while ago, but maybe they'll explain it in the movie.

That's definitely possible. Taggart looks like he's just wearing casual clothes. Rosewood looks like he's still working based on his suit and tie.

Nesbit

Maybe he’s deep, deep, deep into law enforcement.

d2cheer

Same here!!

dex14

BEVERLY HILLS COP: AXEL F premieres July 3.

Shannon Nutt

Netflix is leaving money on the table not releasing this theatrically. Of course, they're not the only streamer doing this with movies.

dex14

They don't care about leaving money on the table when it comes to theatrical. They'd rather see theatres lose money.

Paramount didn't see any value in putting money into this for a theatrical release or even putting it on their own streaming service. They saw more money in licensing it.

Dr. DVD

The original BHC is the best without a doubt. But I also enjoy BHC2 as well. While the first was a comedy with some action , the second was definitely an action movie first and foremost leaving a lot of the the comedy almost exclusively to Murphy. Stylistically it is completely different and very much a Tony Scott film. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the second movie's script was an action movie that got repurposed into a BHC sequel, as the Axel character seems incidental to everything.

BHC3 is best left forgotten. Hopefully having Bruckheimer back as a producer will help this one .

Nesbit

Love the soundtracks to the first two. Have them both and listen regularly.

Dr. DVD

Same. I found them both on vinyl.

orangerunner

It's interesting to see the whole industry move to streaming where there's really no clear-cut definition of a hit film. With theatrical movies, success was measured by box office money, not numbers of tickets sold. Traditional network television success was dictated by the Nielson ratings system which recorded the number of households tuning-in which equated to more viewers equalling more money from advertisers.

With streaming, anyone watching has already paid their monthly subscription. Subscription growth is the only way to measure success in which, when there's 500 programs to choose from, individual program success is rather ambiguous when it comes to narrowing-down what is driving the growth. Maybe this is by design? With less tangible financial data to work with there's less royalties to pay-out, financial flops are more easily covered-up all of which helps that ever-important stock market evaluation for the studios.