Why Lethal Weapon 3 was a low point for the franchise

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/lethal-weapon/244366/ranking-the-lethal-weapon-movies

The third in the franchise is the one I’ve probably watched the most, mainly due to its certification (the first to get a 15 rating in the UK, and thus, the first I was able to see at the cinema and subsequently buy on video). Perhaps familiarity has bred contempt, because it’s also my least favorite.

Poor writing is the chief complaint. Shane Black had long abandoned/been pushed out of the franchise, and his absence is painfully evident. The dialogue by new chief wordsmith the late Jeffrey Boam attempts to reproduce Black’s trademark rapid-fire banter, but speed of delivery can’t hide inanity, and the actors’ doubtless chemistry is a poor substitute for wit. Indeed, some of Riggs and Murtaugh’s exchanges border on the irritating – and that’s without Joe Pesci making his unwelcome reappearances.

Leo Getz was always meant to be an annoying ass, but in Lethal Weapon 2, he was forced upon our heroes, and we sympathized with Riggs and Murtaugh as they tried to keep this *beep* safe while resisting the urge to kill him themselves. By Lethal Weapon 3, they’ve willingly invited him into their lives, so every annoyance and irritation he causes is self-inflicted. If your feelings for a guy are such that you’d surreptitiously arrange for him to receive an unneeded rectal exam, then hey… don’t return his calls!

But of course, the reason for Leo’s continued presence isn’t due to character development or story considerations. It’s down to the writers and producers falling into a classic franchise trap: An acute case of "the gang’s all back" syndrome. (Note to franchise overlords: Repeating gags and relentlessly referencing previous films is not the same as continuity; it’s the movie equivalent of a sitcom character arriving onto the set and the audience clapping and whooping while the actor smugly stands there.)

Lethal Weapon 3 is constantly nudging you to remember characters and highlights from previous adventures when it would have been better off creating a more memorable chapter in its own right. I don’t need a character reminding me about the bomb under the toilet or the drug dealer shooting up the house or “that nail-gun incident” or Leo going on a “they *beep* you at the hospital” rant because he did a similar thing in the second one. All it succeeds in doing is calling to mind unfavourable comparisons instead of progressing the story with which we’re currently supposed to be engaged.

Ah yes, the "story". People always seem to recall that Roger was on the brink of collecting his pension in all the Lethal Weapon films – it’s become something of a cliché – but it’s actually only Lethal Weapon 3 where his retirement is anything approaching imminent, although it does form one of the film’s main plot strands. I say 'one of', as Lethal Weapon 3 has enough plot strands to weave into a plot rope – although this rope would be a terrible rope, as the constituent strands are short and weak and don’t go anywhere. We have a mangled mess of a narrative that features Roger’s countdown to retirement, armor-piercing bullets, Riggs falling for a kung fu lady cop (Rene Russo), Roger shooting the teenage friend of his son, an evil ex-cop property developer, our heroes blowing up a building and getting demoted… It’s less of a story, more of a random sequence of contrivances.

The characterization is all over the place too. In the first film, Riggs had a grief-induced death wish, which explained his erratic behaviour. Here, he’s just a bit of a reckless dick, endangering more people than he saves and all with a goofy "I’m mad, me" look of self-satisfaction on his face. His response to Roger tragically killing his son’s friend is so out of character that it’s particularly jarring: He basically ignores him for a few days to go on an adventure with (and then bedding) Russo’s Sergeant Cole. He only goes to check up on him when Roger’s daughter asks him to, and then halfway through Roger’s anguished outpouring of emotion over the shooting, he has the gall to yell at his partner that he’s being selfish for retiring. You, Martin Riggs, are an *beep*

I’ve hardly even mentioned the main bad guy yet, and that’s probably because despite having seen it a billion times I keep forgetting that Stuart Wilson is in it. He’s a great actor, and he’s got a brilliant rat-weasel laugh, but a memorable villain he is not.

Perhaps its greatest sin, however, is that Lethal Weapon 3 seems to forget that Riggs is essentially a superhero with a gun, able to dispatch henchmen with an almost Hawkeye level of accuracy. In all the other films, his marksmanship is given the chance to shine, but in this film he empties dozens and dozens of clips without seemingly hitting anything. The action set pieces in general are rather flat and uninspired – Riggs turning a leaky gas tanker into a mobile bomb being the only thing approaching "memorable".

Can I think of some nice things to say? Well it’s got Rene Russo in it, and Rene Russo automatically makes anything 14.5% better. And the villain’s second-in-command looks a lot like darts legend Martin "Wolfie'" Adams (it’s not him – I checked the cast list). But I’m reaching here.

It’s a real shame, because the notion of how a twitchy cop like Riggs would cope knowing he was about to lose the stability of a partner like Murtaugh is a great hook for a third story, and a natural progression of all that had gone before. But that potential was squandered. All we got was that one great line – “I’ve got three beautiful kids, I love ‘em, and they’re yours” – which had the misfortune to appear during Riggs’ aforementioned guilt-trip tirade.

At least this is the only Lethal Weapon film where Roger’s house isn’t seriously damaged or destroyed by bombs, fire, cars, or multiple home-invaders.

Seriously Rodge, invest in a burglar alarm.