1987.5.20 芝加哥太陽報
這部完全翻車了，他們不該拍續集。《比弗利山超級警探》原始劇本是為史泰龍而寫的，結果成了艾迪·墨菲主演。等它成了爆款，思路就變成了：《警探2》應該是部真正的艾迪·墨菲電影，加多笑點，縮減槍戰追逐戲。
唉，沒想到第二部比第一部更“史泰龍”，我都不确定他們到底打不打算把它拍成喜劇片了，裡面充斥着好萊塢層出不窮的俗套情節和流水線生産的暴力。但這部續集似乎不打算拍得搞笑，反而試圖把離譜犯罪劇情嚴肅化，搞得我們真的想看一樣。
還有一個大問題，艾迪·墨菲在這部片真的不讨喜，莽漢一般招搖過市，半途而廢。總之他們忘記了這部戲的初心：一個風趣的底特律街頭警察歪打正着到了比弗利山，并且縮減昂貴場景。在這部片統統不見。
墨菲對片中漫畫版場景的處理是：用刺耳憤怒的語調朝所有人吼。有一場戲他來到花花公子大廈，開始朝收據員大叫，而你隻想尴尬離場。與其說解決問題，墨菲更像是來闖禍的。
何為喜劇片？我知道這是蠻基本的問題，但《警探2》從未思考過。喜劇不該是出自某種基于人性洞察的一連串驚歎中嗎？假設在比弗利山，人人貪财戀權；再假設一個來自底特律的黑人警察降臨此地，對這些聲色犬馬和酒池肉林嗤之以鼻，刀切黃油般直擊腐敗——這才好笑。但《警探》系列嘗試兩部之後仍未能充分挖掘。相反，墨菲和他的同僚有着緻命傷——“以賤制賤”。
制片人Don Simpson和Jerrry Bruckheimer應該為劇本買單，他們本該能買部更好的。《警探2》的情節重複了所有無腦/套路/現代高科技的犯罪片。這根本稱不上是情節，隻是一連串标準事件，包括：追逐/邪惡大亨/性感美人/打手和槍戰（追逐戲要有一輛水泥卡車，并且在追逐的時候總要出故障）。
我是艾迪·墨菲的粉絲，我認為隻要時機合适，他現在完全可以勝任比大家都幽默的電影角色。我蠻喜歡他去年聖誕節上映的喜劇片《金童子》，他進入荒誕而快活的情節裡，也是個可愛角色。他在一系列異國險境中頑強抵抗。我還喜歡他在《48小時》（1982年）裡那種從容的街頭智慧。
我不喜歡的是未說明的假設，墨菲在《警探2》中的确好笑，前提是所有擋他路的人都是傻瓜。可能墨菲需要學學老套的“我愛露西”系列：露西面臨她難以解決的問題，她要在一個臭屁餐廳應付一個傲慢服務員。她該怎麼做，朝他吼嗎？不，她總能找到方法殺殺對方氣焰，比如明确自我，堅持要求自己被作為人對待。
這是《警探2》所缺少的。我們并不反對比弗利山那些混蛋們對待墨菲的方式，因為坦白講，他簡直要更混。當然，因為他是明星，情節中沒人敢對他動手動腳。讓我們設想這種可能：他演的角色不變，調轉情節，讓他當那個笑柄，這部片估計更搞笑。
Something has gone terribly wrong here. They've made the wrong sequel. The original "Beverly Hills Cop" was the screenplay written for Sylvester Stallone, but filmed with Eddie Murphy as the star. After it was such a big hit, the theory was that "Beverly Bills Cop II" would be a real Eddie Murphy movie, with more comedy and fewer guns and chases.
Alas, Part 2 seems even more like a Stallone vehicle than the first movie. I'm not even sure it's intended as a comedy. It's filled wall to wall with the kind of routine action and violence that Hollywood extrudes by the yard and shrink-wraps to order. But the sequel makes no particular effort to be funny, and actually seems to take its ridiculous crime plot seriously - as if we cared.
There's another problem, too. A big one. Eddie Murphy is not likable in this movie. He comes across as a loud, arrogant boor; a little of him goes a long way. Somehow they've lost track of their original appealing idea, which was that a smart, funny street cop from Detroit would waltz into Beverly Hills and deflate the Porsche-and-sunglasses set. Doesn't work that way this time.
Murphy's idea of a comic scene in this movie is to shout endlessly at people in a shrill, angry voice. There's a scene where he visits the Playboy Mansion and shouts at the receptionist, and you want to crawl under your seat in embarrassment. Murphy comes across as the problem rather than the solution.
What is comedy? That's a pretty basic question, I know, but "Cop II" never thought to ask it. Doesn't comedy usually center around a series of surprises based on insights into human nature? Let's assume that everyone in Beverly Hills is obsessed with money, power, possessions and social status. Let's further assume that a black cop from Detroit rides into town and doesn't give a damn for their effete values and conspicuous consumption, and cuts through the crap like a knife through butter. That would be funny. It is, however, an idea the "Beverly Hills Cop" movies have been unable to fully exploit after two tries. Instead, Murphy and his associates make the fatal error of assuming that the way you deal with jerks is to be a bigger jerk.
For what producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer probably paid for the screenplay for this movie, they should have been able to buy a new one. The plot of "Cop II" is recycled right out of every other brainless, routine, modern, high-tech crime picture. It's really not even a plot; it's a series of standard sequences, involving The Chase, The Powerful Men of Evil, The Sexy Bitch-Goddess, The Hit Men and The Shootout. (The Chase involves a cement truck, and it proves definitively that cement trucks do not work very well in chases.)
I'm an Eddie Murphy fan. I think that on a good day, he is capable of being funnier than anybody else in the movies right now. I was one of the admirers of "The Golden Child," his comedy from last Christmas, which plugged him into a cheerfully ridiculous plot, and made him a lovable character who was doggedly trying to endure a series of exotic dangers. I also like Murphy when he's street-smart and capable, as in "48 Hrs.," (1982).
What I don't like is the unstated assumption, in "Cop II," that Murphy is funny by definition, and that anybody who gets in his way is a fool. Maybe Murphy should study some of those old "I Love Lucy" episodes where Lucy gets into situations she can't handle: She's up against a snooty headwaiter in a stuck-up restaurant, let's say. What does she do? Scream at the guy? No, she always finds a way to deflate the guy simply by remaining true to her own character and insisting on being treated as a human being
That's what's missing in "Cop II." We don't object to the way the jerks in Beverly Hills want to treat Murphy, because, frankly, he's a bigger jerk. Because he's the star, of course, no one else in the plot is allowed to lay a glove on him. But here's an interesting possibility. Given the character he plays in "Cop II," the movie might have been funnier if they had reversed every situation and made him the butt of the jokes.
