RoboCop 2

"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

I don't know why this sequel has such a bad rep, it's certainly better than "Robocop 3" (which has its moments, but is still sub-par in many ways), or the syndicated television series. How can you go wrong with a script by Frank Miller (comic book writer/artist responsible for "The Dark Knight Returns" and many years on Marvel's "Daredevil") and the director of "The Empire Strikes Back?" In my book, "R2" picks up exactly where the original left off, with more action, better character development, and maintains the sly sense of humor of the first film. Some of the stop-motion special effects look a little aged now (at least on my VHS copy; I haven't upgraded this one to DVD yet) but if you can get past that "R2" is enjoyable for action freaks.

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.

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.

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 )