1/10
good for only cable
16 March 2003
there's not much more to say about this movie that hasn't been said by the other reviewers. I will however add some ideas. This movie came out in the early post-Die Hard era, and it is basically the same formula, but different scene, society, and stars. But that last word is the problem. In every action movie I've seen, they've had at least an identifiable star: Bruce Willis of course, Arnie, Sly, etc etc; it seems an action film can only work if the movie has a big star we can identify with.

Here is the spectacular failure of the Taking of Beverley Hills. Who is Ken Wahl? Sorry I have no idea who he is, and it is because of this that I believe the movie falls down -- at least in a repeat viewing a decade after the movie was made. The character Wahl plays -- Boomer -- is a cocky, superstar quarter-back; a millionaire and a babe magnet. This is what we are supposed to believe. But we can't, and why not? Because we the audience realise that Ken Wahl is a no-name, and his strutting around like God's gift is more unrealistic than the rest of the film -- and yes I'm including that bizarre masterplan of taking control of the city. In short you need a HUGE star to play a guy with a massive ego, like Boomer. Wahl can't do it, and the fact that he is a no-name today, makes the whole thing very comical. It was like they got some guy that lives down the street from me, groomed his eyelashes and his hair, put him in front of a camera and told him to act really suave. Doesn't work!

Perhaps we can forgive the producers of the movie for the Ken Wahl mistake. They thought that this movie would launch him into eternal super-stardom......... actually that idea is funnier than the movie itself. hehe!
6 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed