The Taking of Beverly Hills

1991 "The richest city in the world. Shut down. Ripped off. Blown up."
The Taking of Beverly Hills
5.1| 1h36m| en| More Info
Released: 10 October 1991 Released
Producted By: Columbia Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A chemical spill has caused the occupants of Beverly Hills to be forcibly evacuated. A retiring football player left behind, finds that the toxic gas emulating from the spill is a bogus front for a heist set up by fired police officers out to plunder the city of all its valuables. Finding himself siding with a corrupt cop who was once apart of the plan until he discovered the city's mayor had just been blown away, by one of the chief crooks in charge. Now both on the run with no help in sight...both must do whatever they can to stop these murderous looters.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Columbia Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

jasonisageek If you love high octane B Movies, then this one's for you. It's a relentlessly paced onslaught of huge explosions and action that never let's up. It's also highly absurd and totally ridiculous, which is what makes it so great! You really have to suspend all disbelief and just check your brain at the door because common sense was not a factor when writing the scrip. It's dumb, but also so much fun. It wears it's early 90's vibe on it's sleeve (mullets!), and easily one of the most enjoyable Die Hard knockoff's out there, not to mention on a visual level, it looks fantastic. Yea it may be unintentionally hilarious because of how absurd it is, or how totally ridiculous scenario's are what drive the film forward, but again, it rules because stuff get's blown up on a minute to minute basis and it's kind of hilarious, awesome, and ridiculous all at the same time. I had such a blast with this, and I hope you will too. Just check your brain at the door. www.robotGEEKSCultCinema.blogspot.com
Anthony Bannon (bannonanthony) I gave this film a chance, and I wasn't disappointed. Some people have described Ken Wahl as wooden but here he is very good as hero Boomer. Matt Frewer, Robert Davi and Lee Ving are great in their roles too.Branscombe Richmond is also great as Benitez, a would-be intellectual bad guy who drives around in a police tank. Though to be fair, it is a bit unbelievable that the entire action of the film is meant to be taking place in just over an hour. But, that said TAKING OF BEVERLY HILLS is quite an enjoyable film. I've been interested in seeing Ken Wahl's films ever since I saw this TV movie he made in the 80s called THE GLADIATOR. I've seen a couple more of his films since seeing TOBH and the only one he really sounded a sour note in was James Glickenhaus' THE SOLDIER, although to be fair, even one good performance couldn't save that film. But TOBH is really enjoyable with plenty of action. It's a bit of a strange coincidence that Boomer happens to know how to make Molotov cocktails, as one review I read somewhere pointed out, but the character is very likable and resourceful. The final showdown between Boomer and Benitez is very well-handled and the film has a great sense of humour as well. I hope it gets released on DVD sometime. It deserves a DVD release.
act3scene1 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!
toyotaboy Ok, is this movie cheesy? well, yeah. But it's one of those films I rented when it first came out and I kind of enjoyed it (come on, the cop is the same guy who played max headroom). It has it's cheesy moments, not to mention parts that aren't believable (would the whole town really be ok with just staying up playing cards in some hotel lobby?), not to mention how they somehow had such an accurate tracking system they knew down to the penny how much loot they stole? Nothing ground breaking here, but still a good film.