Robocop 2 (1990)

Reviews are for Robocop 2

Just wanted to say all the reviews below refer to Robocop 2. Not this chapter in the mini-series. July 8, 2008

Not all sequels are THAT bad people........

Okay, okay, we get it! This isn't the first film. It's not ever going to be the first film, nore can it ever match up to the first Robocop. All of you hardcore "elite" fans need to get a life. Robocop 2 is a good sequel that follows the original the best it can. What people don't seem to understand about some sequels is all the trouble they can go through during production. Robocop 2 does have it's flaws here and there but no more than any other movie sequel. For the most part, it follows up from the original better than expected. You just have to put aside your expectations and just watch the movie for what it is.

Plot wise, things haven't changed much from the events that happend in the first movie. The police have gone on strike and crime seems to have taken over the entire city. The evil business OCP has their fingers in alot of trouble here. Not only do they own the police force (and the cause of their strike) but they also seem to be the reason a new and more powerful drug called "Nuke" has hit the streets. The drug lord "Cain" is behind Nuke's creation and seems to think the people actually want the drug, calling it "paradise." OCP's attention seems to be more focused on making a new version of Robocop rather than putting an end to the police strike and shutting down Cain for good.

This all makes for a nice set up for the Robocop sequel. What makes the movie work best in my opinion is that the director seems to have captured the same evil, dark and brooding emotions of the original movie. I think it would even be safe to say that Robocop 2 actually has a more violent and disturbing tone than the first movie. This time around, the movie almost has a Horror movie feel to it. One example of what I'm talking about is a nasty little scene where Cain tortures an ex-cop who sold him out to the police. Cain has some underground "doctor" guy strap the cop down to a table and cut open his chest with a knife, while making a little kid watch the entire time. (The kid turns out to belong to Cain but is never truely stated if he was related to him in the movie. Obviously the sicko that Cain is, he wants to brainwash this little kid into being the next big crime lord if anything should happen to him in the future. Once again these are details that are truely never stated in the actual movie. Small problems if you ask me.)

Eventually the story takes a turn where Cain actually becomes the new "Robocop" creation from OCP. In my opinion, "Robo Cain" is one of the best movie villain's to ever grace the big screen! He just has to be seen to believe!

Over all, Robocop 2 is a good sequel that works pretty well if you watch it back to back with the original. It's not better than the original film but honestly, who expects sequels to actually top the first!?! Here's my main point people, not to mention a good example. FRIDAY THE 13th fans don't watch the original over and over again! They like Jason Voorhees the most, dispite the fact that he doesn't come into play until the sequel of FRIDAY THE 13th. Sometimes sequels give you a little something better than the original, dispite the obvious flaws it might have. Fans of the original now have something to follow up their enjoyment of the first Robocop. Is it better than the original? Nope! Does it really matter? Nope! Remember people, movies are ment to be fun! Kick back, relax and let the blood fly! October 18, 2007

"Patience, Lewis. We're only human."

Though Paul Verhoeven's original "Robocop" didn't beg for a sequel, or even ask for one, as a very successful science fiction film made in the 1980s it comes as no surprise that one (and later two) eventually popped up. Seeing as Verhoeven wasn't attached, it also comes as no surprise that "Robocop 2" is not the masterpiece that its predecessor was. "Robocop 2" has its strengths, in fact a good deal of them, but its flaws prove stronger.

At the helm is Irvin Kershner, unquestionably a seasoned director, who most famously directed the second "Star Wars" film (widely regarded as the best), "The Empire Strikes Back." The fact that "Robocop 2" was his last film doesn't bode well. But the thing is, Kershner does a fine job. He has a one-hundred-percent-sturdy style which holds up from start to finish, and thankfully he takes the material seriously rather than turning it into another cartoonish sci-fi film, which any other director could easily have done. However, he's lacking the crucial element, the approach through which Verhoeven made "Robocop" a masterpiece: vision. Kershner directs, and he directs well, but he doesn't see. He follows the script, and that is all, and unfortunately, that's just not enough.

But is the script worth being followed? It has certainly earned "urban legend" status. That's because it was written by Frank Miller, the man behind the brilliant "Sin City" comics as well as "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns," frequently hailed as the best comic ever written. Unfortunately, those damned producers deemed Miller's script unfilmable and, without his involvement, re-wrote much of it, resulting in a very different film. Regardless, Miller was so fascinated by the filmmaking process that he has an amusing cameo as a meek chemist. (Miller's script was recently adapted to the comic book medium as "Frank Miller's Robocop.")

The final script is jagged and more than a little messy. By far the most upsetting mistake is the writers' blatant disregard for the ending of the first movie. At "Robocop"'s end, Robocop had re-discovered his humanity, and his partner was in need of some major medical attention. Here, Robocop is still the lumbering cyborg he was through the majority of the first movie, though admittedly he's become a little more good-natured, and his partner is in top shape. These are the things which viewers will be thinking of all through the film, although they may stop when Robocop is dismembered in a pale imitation of a similar scene from the first film.

The one aspect of the movie which doesn't call for protest is the cast, which under Kershner's direction deliver straight-faced, strong performances. Three performances in particular stick out. Nancy Allen as Robocop's partner is inexplicably charismatic and deserving of more attention than the film allows her. Dan O'Herlihy as the head of evil organization OCP is a blast. Most excellent is Peter Weller, who is even more likable than he was before; it's this humanistic likability that renders his performance so powerful and his character so important to the audience. On a side-note, Belinda Bauer plays the part of the ambitious and insidious scientist well, while Tom Noonan's villain is completely flat.

You can add Basil Poledouris' perfectly bombastic, marching, and soaring score to the missing list. His theme doesn't even crop up once in the entire picture. Fortunately, the new composer, Leonard Rosenman, rises to the occasion and composes a score similar enough to sooth the agitated fan, but fresh enough to add something to the film. His theme, which includes a female chorus giving campy shouts of "Robocop!," is terrific.

After all the crucial elements that didn't make the transition from "Robocop" to "Robocop 2," what did? For one thing, the bizarre blend of no-holds-barred violence and laugh-out-loud satire, though here the satire is more silly, and without Verhoeven, the action is less grotesque. Nevertheless, there's still plenty of gritty action and dark humor which prevent the film from staleness. The most amusing of the film's humorous moments is a commercial which features the esteemed John Glover as a salesman advertising "Magnavox," a tool which, we are shown through a graphic demonstration, fries any car thief. And "it doesn't even drain my battery!"

"Robocop 2" isn't a complete failure, nor is it a bad movie. It's almost a good movie, but it lacks that one most important of ingredients: vision. With a more inventive script and a talented director not afraid to take some risks, "Robocop 2" would have been a far better movie, but it's a decent successor to Verhoeven's brilliant original. And that at least is enough to save it from the scrapheap. August 19, 2007

Buy another Verhoeven film instead.

My advice to anyone who, having seen Robocop, is looking for a decent follow-up - look for something else by Verhoeven. Total Recall, perhaps, which stars the bloke who played Dick Jones in a similar role and is similarly interesting, OTT and makes you think. Why shouldn't you bother with R2? Well, let's see...

On paper there should be no reason to slate this film. Decent director? Check. Commentary on society? Check. Continuation of the themes from the first movie, same kinda tone? Check. It was based on a Frank Miller screenplay, for heaven's sake, and most of the cast from original returned. Should've been enough to liberate R2 from bad-sequel-syndrome...

The first act of the film sounds promising. Murphy/Robocop's confusion over his humanity and his place with his family (established at the end of R1) is continued, and in an emotionally effective way. Detroit has sunk into drug addiction, the police force is on strike due to poor treatment at the hands of OCP (both hinted at in the first film); the theme of societal collapse and corporate responsibility are effectively played out. Representative scenes include the brutal mugging of an addict in the first few second of the movie, a drug-peddling 12-year old and his spaced-out drug-lord boss. Who, it quickly turns out, is far more sadistic than Boddicker and co from R1; Cain, R2's villain, and Hobb, his young apprentice, represent the film's narrative progression and social commentary better than anything. The first film had a bunch of gun-toting criminals who camped out in a derelict steel mill; these guys have their own drug lab, they've got cops on the take, and (concluding act 1) they get to Murphy in an almost terminal way.

Sounds pretty promising, right? Well, it's not. The problem with the first act is the way it's presented. Everyone comments on how violent this film is; it's violent, yeah, but then so are Commando and Friday 13th. So are Saw and Hostel. The difference is that director Kershner seems to take a perverse and sadistic pleasure in the suffering of the characters - it's not enough, for example, that Robocop gets graphically cut to pieces by industrial tools; we then have to endure several close-ups and drawn-out scenes of his dismembered torso stammering and shaking like it's undergoing a seizure.

The sadism culminates in an all-too-long scene where the drug lord and his gang strap a cop to a medical table, verbally scare him for a few minutes then watch while he's cut open with a scalpel. Kershner, however, doesn't stop there. We get an overhead view of the operating table! We get to hear the guy screaming in agony! For a long time! Wow! Unbelievably, this scene as it appears on DVD, is actually the toned down version; there's an extended version with more screaming and more sadism. I defy anyone who isn't some form of pituary retard to watch this scene and not feel at least mildly disgusted.

Urotsukidoji (a Jap anime) had a scene that was so dodgy the British censors trimmed it with the words "If this had been live action, we would've handed the footage to the police." Similarly, I cannot believe no-one's questioned Kershner's mental state after R2.

OK, so today something like Hostel can get released and a dozen single guys will watch it in their psychosis-breeding bedrooms and worship it. The same guys are probably reading this now and getting unnaturally excited about R2 (if they haven't already gone to check out Urotsukidoji - "Why would we if it's cut?!") Hostel, however, is packaged as the kind of exploitive snuff trash that it is, and only someone's who's insanely bored would watch it. R2 is a continuation of a decent film; it has plots, characters and themes to deal with and it doesn't. The first film worked because the violence was (a) necessary to the plot, and (b) either self-consciously OTT or making a point. R2 is just sadistically violent. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see why anyone would like watching this stuff.

After this, the film degenerates into fantasy. There's some clap-trap involving a bigger robot. There's a big "exciting" chase scene which features Robo riding a Harley (derelict, dystopian Detroit...a Harley...sure...) in a game of chicken. Chicken?! But wait, it gets worse...there's Robocop's reprogramming - a pathetic and misguided attempt at comedy that's totally out of place. The ending is atrociously bad and all the themes set up in first act are completely abandoned.

You could just about make the case that, in it's (albeit twisted) presentation of extreme urban and moral decay, Robocop 2 is a good commentary on our times; there are certainly plenty of equally sadistic crimes that're becoming more commonplace nowadays.
But there're other films with similar commentaries that are at least compelling, convincing and don't collapse into absurdity after 45 minutes. And why would you want to watch a load of graphic torture, violent 12 yr olds and muggings anyway? Watch the news instead.

So overall I'd give this film 1 star for almost developing the first film, and for not being Robocop 3. Please, spare your wallet and your good memories of the first film, and avoid. Unless, of course, you're a buck-toothed moron who's bored of Hostel, wants something worse, and thinks Urotsukidoji sounds too tame. August 8, 2007

Robocop fan

Not usual to see a sequel live up to the first but this one does the trick. May 14, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...