RoboCop 2

If you believe the video game that was made out of RoboCop, it was set in the same year that RoboCop 2 was released. RoboCop is simply one of the best films ever made, and it brought me much relief from a very sorrowful childhood. Which brings me to the point I am trying to make here: anything was going to be something of a letdown. Another rebuke I would like to make of other critics of this film lies with their complaint that the movie was too mean-spirited and had too much violence. Let me quote Paul Verhoeven's commentary about the original: "the whole style of the movie is 'too much'".

The real failing of this sequel lies in the story, which is full of threads that are either resolved badly (the attempt to reprogram RoboCop with new directives) or not resolved at all (RoboCop's memories of his wife). Considering that not a single second in the original was wasted when it came to drawing the viewer into the hero's mind or building some emotional connection, the lack of sympathy one feels with even Lewis or the Sergeant is worrying. Then there's the villian. A film with a superhero, like Robocop or the Bond series, is only as effective as its main villian. Cain is not an effective villian, and gets very little development in the bargain, the exact opposite of the situation with Clarence Boddicker in the original.

The mock commercials are something of a hit and miss affair. The OCP Communications commercial was hilarious, but the Sunblock 5000 commercial was just plain tasteless. The use of children in RoboCop 2 also counts against it. There were no children in the original, reflecting the fact that the film just wasn't made with children in mind. The use of children in RoboCop 2 smacks of a cheap attempt to appeal to the children who are allowed by their parents or whomever to see the film. It doesn't work because the writers are trying to transplant adult dialogue into a child's mouth. Similarly, the attempt to transplant the manner in which the Christian Coalition think children talk into Robocop fails.

All in all, RoboCop 2 is a passable sequel, but it pales in comparison to the harsh perfection that is the original. Give it a chance because it does have some entertainment value.

There was no way this was ever going to be as good as Robocop but they could have done so much better. What's really missing is Basil Poledouris' wonderful fanfare theme tune. In its place we are giving some appalling brass'n'percussion with a chorus singing a ridiculous 'Robocop' theme on top. It's amazing how much music can change a film, and really, a decent score would have improved the film immensely.

Also, Rob Bottin's ultra-violent effects were sadly missed. The film is full of violence but it's mainly of the long-range bullets-hit-bad-guys type: the only thing close to the original's over-the-top nature was the brain removal and the stomach-slicing.

Phil Tippett is on hand, luckily, to deliver some entertaining stop-motion action scenes which really liven up the final scenes of carnage.

Sadly, the bad guys never come across as meanly as Clarence Boddicker did in the first, OCP seem unnecessarily annoying and the little kid is just annoying. It's not a TERRIBLE film but we really could have expected more from the man who brought us 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

"RoboCop 2" , the sequel to 1987's ultra-violent "RoboCop", is not quite up to par with its predecessor. The film still manages to entertain on a large level. I know that a lot of people do not like this movie, but I personally think it is still pretty good. I'm not writing a review of this movie, I am just expressing my thoughts on it.

First off, this movie is a lot more violent than the first "RoboCop". You get scenes of bloody shootings, grisly scenes of torture, and a surgery which I'd rather let you see for yourself than describe here. Paul Verhoeven does not return to shock his audience with graphic violence and ultra dark humor, which has since become trademark in his films. The director this time is Irvin Kershner, who made "The Empire Strikes Back" nearly ten years before this movie. Kershner seems to focus a lot more on action, rather than story.

Second, the movie's villain, Cain (Tom Noonan), to me is a direct opposite of Clarence Boddicker (the villain from the first film who was played by Kurtwood Smith). Cain enjoys giving people pleasure (through his highly addictive designer drug called Nuke) while Boddicker was a sadist who took pleasure in the death and suffering of others. (Though after Cain's "transformation", none of this really matters).

Lastly, this movie does not exploit children. The kid in this movie, Hob (played by Garbriel Damon) is Cain's twelve year-old side kick. He is a violent, foul-mouthed little child who runs errands for Cain. The writers for this movie did this intentionally, to show that crime holds no age barrier. Regardless of age, crime is crime.

Like I said, "RoboCop 2" is not trying to be better than its predecessor, it's just trying to be something different.

8/10

The original ROBOCOP was one of the rare science fiction movies from the 1980s that didn't suck. After the enormous success of the original ROBOCOP in 1987, there was no doubt that eventually a sequel would be made so three years after the release of the original ROBOCOP, there was ROBOCOP 2. The most common rule with movies is that sequels are terrible and while that is normally always true, that isn't the case with ROBOCOP 2. ROBOCOP 2 is almost as good as the original. It is just as violent and just as entertaining. However, director Irvin Kershner, while a great director, is no Paul Verhoeven. That's not to say that the directing in ROBOCOP 2 isn't good, it's just not as stylish and cool as Verhoeven's directing.

One of the best aspects of ROBOCOP 2 is that screenwriters Frank Miller and Walon Green were able to think of an original story instead of just using the same story line as the original film. A lot of the dialogue is kind of stupid, but no one sees action pictures like this for the dialogue.

Though ROBOCOP 2 is not a bad sequel, the same can't be said for the second sequel, ROBOCOP 3.

I'm amazed at how bad this movie has gotten trashed over the years. The sequel to one of the best sci-fi movies ever, it was killed by critics and fans alike. I just don't understand why though.

In many ways Robocop 2 is better than its predecessor. For instance, the many subplots. We have the subplot involving Robocop getting put back together, the subplot of Robocop 2 itself, the subplot of whether or not Robocop is human or machine, the subplot of nuke/Cain and his thugs, and the subplot of overall power and corruption.

The mix of dark satire and graphic violence are once again showcased in Robocop 2 and in grander fashion. We get lots of jokes and lots of gore, mixed together flawlessly. All the performances are good. Peter Weller once again does a great job as Murphy, and Tom Noonan makes his Cain character a three-dimensional psychopath.

The score is much different from the score of the original. Instead of the dramatic/sad theme from Robocop, we get a much more heroic/dynamic theme from Robocop 2, and it works quite well with the movie.

Another thing I have got to comment on is the usage of stop motion. Once Cain is transformed into the monstrous Robocop 2 ( the title character ), we get an explosion of stop motion special effects that look fantastic! Stop motion doesn't get any better than this.

All in all, this is one of the best sequels of all time, but got a bad reputation because it was 'too violent'. Don't listen to some of the naysayers. Robocop 2 is a masterfully done film from the director of Empire Strikes Back and shouldn't be missed by any sci-fi buff out there. Check it out now on Widescreen for the DVD.

4 stars out of 4 ( reviewed by Scott Beams )