RoboCop 2

Whoever thought that Irvin Kershner (nice bloke/mediocre director) would be the right person to take over the reins of the Robocop franchise from Paul Verhoeven (enfant terrible/movie maverick) should be made to explain themselves to a malfunctioning ED-209 ("You have 20 seconds to justify your decision... 15 seconds... 10 seconds.... BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!"): although Kershner proved himself capable of putting together a slick, family-friendly sci-fi sequel with The Empire Strikes Back, he's clearly way out of his depth when dealing with the kind of gritty, über-violent, and wickedly satirical content that is second nature for Hollywood bad-boy Verhoeven.

As one might expect, there are lots of explosions, gunfire, bloody bullet hits, and special effects on show, but Kirshner plays it all way too safe, displaying none of the excess or imagination that made the first film such an incredible experience. When you factor in a surprisingly poor script from comic geek favourite Frank Miller, an uninspired performance from star Peter Weller that feels more like contractual obligation rather than a genuine yearning to reprise the role, a forgettable main bad guy in the form of Tom Noonan (with a bloody kid as his sidekick!), and some weak attempts at mimicking the original's wry humour, what you have is a sequel that just about satisfies on the most basic of levels (it's got guns and robots and Nancy Allen), but can only be seen as a disappointment when compared to its predecessor.

5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

"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

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'.

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.

I kid you not. If you want a hearty laugh, stick around as the end credits roll and listen to the full Robocop themesong which has about 2.5 minutes of people singing ROBO-COPPPPP!!! Fine, you say, maybe this is a tongue-in-cheek satire like the 60s Batman tv show? Not quite. This flick takes itself pretty seriously, which is where it fails.

Aside from some awesome campy tv news and commercial cutaways, exactly as in the original, this installment of Robocop lacks the cheeky wit and dark humor of its predecessor. Also gone are the characteristic, personable (lovable?) villains and the deep sociopolitical skewering that made the first Robo a timeless classic. Instead here we get a straightforward plot based bang-em-up showcase which can be entertaining in its own right, but it's not a true Robocop experience. The most noticeable failure is that the bad guys are entirely cardboard: a mysterious but never fleshed out messiah character, a little kid who is wonderfully cold-hearted at first but his character turns sappy, and a ditzy tagalong who is a groan worthy stereotype of the 80s token female sidekick, right down to the hysterical crying (yes I'm describing one of the villains).

Peter Weller does a great job within his limitations, but here the script really kneecapped him. It gave Weller a few promising themes of emotional conflict but barely a taste before moving on, never a good central theme for Weller and the audience to grasp. A dozen appetizers but no main course. Similarly, the story itself is a pastiche of episodic subplots which introduce themselves and are quickly resolved before moving on to the next. For example, the intriguing subplot of Robo stalking his widow is introduced at the outset but hastily resolved and never revisited. 5 minutes, move on. The excellent subplot of Robo being reprogrammed--literally his personality changed--by the corporate suits is really powerful but also hastily resolved and never touched again. 5 minutes, move on. The result is a sort of Readers Digest version of a complete film, with good bits to whet our appetite but without giving us a full course. Watch it if you just want to see a vanilla 80s action flick, but that's all it really offers.

In closing... *sings* ROBO--COPPP!! ROBOOOO--COPPPP!!!! ROOOOBOOOO--aw stuff a sock innit already.