RoboCop 3 (1993)

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

Because I know everybody cares so much about my totally great opinions, here are my thoughts on the remake from another forum I post on. I'm putting this here because, if you are aching for some robots-shooting-bad-guys-action enough to be tempted to watch Robocop 3, I think you should go see the remake instead...

 

"Fuck all y'all naysayers, this is just a kick ass action movie. Sure, it is a vastly different beast than the original, but in that film, the titular Robocop (and the outlandish violence) was a vehicle for Verhoeven's satire. Alex Murphy wasn't really a character, but a focal point for the events and other characters to act around. In this version, Murphy is clearly the focus of the plot and the commentary stems from him rather than around him.

 

The subjects of media hype, security versus freedom, and the use of automated drones have made Robocop, in my opinion, ripe for remaking or rebooting for several years now. Yes, the original is still outstanding and is not surpassed by the remake, but that does not mean this movie sucks. It's an action film that manages to have something to say while being, above all else, a shitload of fun. The cast is splendid, the effects are good, and the violence is well-choreographed. I guess you can complain that the frequent use of non-lethal bullets and exploding drones in lieu of bullet-ridden gangsters was an unnecessary acquiescence to get a PG-13... but I kinda feel that, if somebody really did build a policing robot, it probably would have a shitload of non-lethal weaponry at its disposal. It would be bad publicity for a robodrone to be piling up corpses of Occupy Wall Street hippies or something if it didn't have to.

 

Speaking of bad publicity, the amount of crap this movie has gone through to get made (difficulty casting, studio interference, script revisions, etc.) makes how good this actually is kind of remarkable. So kudos for that. I also appreciate how a scumbag media entity is named "Novak." Nice touch.

 

Joel Kinnaman is great as Robocop and as Murphy, but having Michael K. Williams in this makes me want to have HIM star in his own bad ass motherf*cker action role. I'm not saying make him Robocop, but something. It's fucking Omar, yo. Give him some guns and some bad guys to kill! "

I enjoyed the remake quite a bit as well, but did it seem to you at all like there were 5-10 minutes missing towards the end somewhere, like where someone might have learned something or there was some sort of revelation or whatever? It seems like it leaps ahead a little bit, because it goes right from a scene where Murphy's wife is talking to Michael Keaton, she goes away, and then a couple minutes later, she's like "I need to talk to (whatever Keaton's character's name is)" like she wasn't just there two minutes ago. I'm trying to remember what was going on at that point in the story, but I forget...

[Blast Hardcheese 636]

Because I know everybody cares so much about my totally great opinions, here are my thoughts on the remake from another forum I post on. I'm putting this here because, if you are aching for some robots-shooting-bad-guys-action enough to be tempted to watch Robocop 3, I think you should go see the remake instead...

 

"Fuck all y'all naysayers, this is just a kick ass action movie. Sure, it is a vastly different beast than the original, but in that film, the titular Robocop (and the outlandish violence) was a vehicle for Verhoeven's satire. Alex Murphy wasn't really a character, but a focal point for the events and other characters to act around. In this version, Murphy is clearly the focus of the plot and the commentary stems from him rather than around him.

 

The subjects of media hype, security versus freedom, and the use of automated drones have made Robocop, in my opinion, ripe for remaking or rebooting for several years now. Yes, the original is still outstanding and is not surpassed by the remake, but that does not mean this movie sucks. It's an action film that manages to have something to say while being, above all else, a shitload of fun. The cast is splendid, the effects are good, and the violence is well-choreographed. I guess you can complain that the frequent use of non-lethal bullets and exploding drones in lieu of bullet-ridden gangsters was an unnecessary acquiescence to get a PG-13... but I kinda feel that, if somebody really did build a policing robot, it probably would have a shitload of non-lethal weaponry at its disposal. It would be bad publicity for a robodrone to be piling up corpses of Occupy Wall Street hippies or something if it didn't have to.

 

Speaking of bad publicity, the amount of crap this movie has gone through to get made (difficulty casting, studio interference, script revisions, etc.) makes how good this actually is kind of remarkable. So kudos for that. I also appreciate how a scumbag media entity is named "Novak." Nice touch.

 

Joel Kinnaman is great as Robocop and as Murphy, but having Michael K. Williams in this makes me want to have HIM star in his own bad ass motherf*cker action role. I'm not saying make him Robocop, but something. It's fucking Omar, yo. Give him some guns and some bad guys to kill! "

 

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree with you more about the RoboCop remake. Being a fan of the original movie, I honestly tried to give this Robo-"reboot" a fair shake. But, frankly, I found this film to be tedious, generic and bland. It's not a bad film, per se. It's simply didn't hold my interest. I was actually quite bored by it.

 

The film does raise the "security versus freedom" angle in the opening act, but quickly drops this thread in order leapfrog on to video game POV action scenes, not-so-clever meta humor regarding marketing, and bland, forgettable characters I couldn't care less about. The lack of compelling and engaging foils for our hero in this film was staggering.

 

I also disagree with you on the point you make that the original film's protagonist wasn't the film's focal point, but rather a cypher for the other characters to act and react around. The movie is, at it's core, about a man robbed of his humanity and regaining his sense of self in the end. RoboCop/Murphy is most definitely the film's central character. In a movie rife with satire and action, the pathos given to RoboCop/Murphy is, I dare say, masterfully executed. We feel for this guy when his memories come flooding back, root for him when avenging himself on his rivals, and cheer for him when he asserts himself by his human name in the end.

 

I could go on to list the many, many, MANY ways in which Verhoeven's 1987 film is vastly superior to and far more exciting than the 2014 version, but I'll spare you. I applaud the director and screenwriter of this reboot for trying to take this familiar story in new direction and make something at once different and their own. But with it's PG-13 rating, this film feels as if it were designed by a committee to appeal to key demographics. It's as if OCP itself made this movie.

 

A half-an-hour after watching this film, I couldn't recall a particular scene or moment from it that was in any way particularly memorable or noteworthy. While the 1987 film was action-packed, subversive and full of great movie moments ("I'll buy that for a dollar!", the toxic waste-soaked guy, ED 209 stymied by a set of stairs, etc.), nothing in this reboot stood out or commanded my attention.

 

I do remember watching it with my head crooked to the side, cheek resting the palm of my hand, thinking that both Samuel L. Jackson and a surprisingly under-utilized Michael K. Williams were woefully miscast. Kinnaman's Swedish Vanilla Ice-inflected American accent just made me think that his character from The Killing simply got transferred to a Detroit police department. Oh, and that for a the most crime-ridden and violent city in America, Detroit in the future looks way more clean, sterile and sedate than the actual Detroit of now in fact does. Also that Robocop suit looked oddly flat-chested.

 

Agree to disagree.

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

Oh, I definitely agree that the original outdoes the remake both in its reach and what it accomplishes, and I also agree that the RoboCop/Murphy journey is, as you say, "masterfully executed" in Verhoeven's film. I just think this is done through the other characters because RoboCop is always responding to inputs from the outside. I mean, even in his creation, his first images are of those scientists dressing him up at a party or Miguel Ferrer/Bob Morton ordering Murphy's last vestiges of physical humanity to be done away with. "Lose the arm." Oy, what a great character, delivery, and overall performance that was. Even RoboCop's dedication to his primary directives drives his behavior to a great extent (including the "hidden" directive implanted by his creators). But I think this is why we cheer for Murphy at the end; that he managed to excise the influences of outside actors and become his own character.

 

Anyway, right now I'm arguing that the original is great, which is pretty much a given already... so I guess thanks Internet? I just had a ton of fun with the remake, found myself engaged with the action, and didn't find anyone particularly miscast. However, your criticisms are well-taken. The movie could have been more violent and not PG-13, and I think if a more dilapidated Detroit mirrored the destruction of the Middle East seen in the opening sequence, it would have been a more effective film, both in setting and social commentary. In the original, it was clear why an argument for a RoboCop was a valid one because even the Detroit precinct was a shithole. In the remake, it's so clean it looks like there's still a budget for maid service.

[RyanSz 3140]

Yeah I really didn't see a reason in the remake for why they would need Robocop in the remake outside of saving police lives. I mean hell, Detroit in the remake looks better than the Detroit of today, which actually sorta resembles the Detroit in the original film. I thought it was a fine movie, better than other remakes that have been made recently, though that isn't saying much. My problem was that I had the original stuck in my mind and that caused me to more see the differences and issues that I had with the remake.

 

I felt like the Robocop of the original really portrayed the battle between the identity of a cop who has been put into a machine for a corporation. The remake Robo felt like a guy wearing a giant prosthetic, where he just had to come to grips with that and not really battle his programming as much. I really dislike the need to sensitize former hard R movies for a PG-13 rating, when it really doesn't work to bring in more customers. Even though both Robocop and Total Recall, two of the biggest examples of this, made just under 200 million, they were no where near breaking even despite their rating. I almost feel doing that alienates fans of the originals who were on the fence about seeing the movies, but upon realizing that studious are pulling back on the content, just decide to not even try with the movie.

[Blast Hardcheese 636]

Oh, I definitely agree that the original outdoes the remake both in its reach and what it accomplishes, and I also agree that the RoboCop/Murphy journey is, as you say, "masterfully executed" in Verhoeven's film. I just think this is done through the other characters because RoboCop is always responding to inputs from the outside. I mean, even in his creation, his first images are of those scientists dressing him up at a party or Miguel Ferrer/Bob Morton ordering Murphy's last vestiges of physical humanity to be done away with. "Lose the arm." Oy, what a great character, delivery, and overall performance that was. Even RoboCop's dedication to his primary directives drives his behavior to a great extent (including the "hidden" directive implanted by his creators). But I think this is why we cheer for Murphy at the end; that he managed to excise the influences of outside actors and become his own character.

 

Anyway, right now I'm arguing that the original is great, which is pretty much a given already... so I guess thanks Internet? I just had a ton of fun with the remake, found myself engaged with the action, and didn't find anyone particularly miscast. However, your criticisms are well-taken. The movie could have been more violent and not PG-13, and I think if a more dilapidated Detroit mirrored the destruction of the Middle East seen in the opening sequence, it would have been a more effective film, both in setting and social commentary. In the original, it was clear why an argument for a RoboCop was a valid one because even the Detroit precinct was a shithole. In the remake, it's so clean it looks like there's still a budget for maid service.

 

Elitist Prick, though I disagree with you about the RoboCop remake, you make several valid, well thought-out points. Good on ya. You've made a friend today.

 

See? The Internet isn't all bad.

[Smigg 1488]

I enjoyed the remake quite a bit as well, but did it seem to you at all like there were 5-10 minutes missing towards the end somewhere, like where someone might have learned something or there was some sort of revelation or whatever? It seems like it leaps ahead a little bit, because it goes right from a scene where Murphy's wife is talking to Michael Keaton, she goes away, and then a couple minutes later, she's like "I need to talk to (whatever Keaton's character's name is)" like she wasn't just there two minutes ago. I'm trying to remember what was going on at that point in the story, but I forget...

 

I think the real ending was where the part on the rooftop, and then they just tacked on the bit on the end because they didn't want to end it like that.

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

Yay for film discussion making Internet friends!

[RyanSz 3140]

Yay for film discussion making Internet friends!

True dat. I've really grown to love this forum as it is nowhere near as volatile or movie hipster filled as the imdb forums (if you don't believe me go there and look at the forums of any movie you love or a recent award winner). For the most part this forum stays civil, outside of the annual summer "nominate each week's new release" from a first time poster, which is very much a rarity online these days.

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

True dat. I've really grown to love this forum as it is nowhere near as volatile or movie hipster filled as the imdb forums (if you don't believe me go there and look at the forums of any movie you love or a recent award winner). For the most part this forum stays civil, outside of the annual summer "nominate each week's new release" from a first time poster, which is very much a rarity online these days.

The IMDB boards are a fucking wasteland of people that don't know what they're talking about, and it's so, so frustrating, and I try so, so hard to stay away, but I keep going back. Not that we're necessarily the authority on anything over here, but we know that no amount of online petitioning is going to get a sequel to "Vampire Academy" made when it was seen by approximately 9 people, and they're all there on that page. "But there are X more books! They HAVE to get made!". It's fucking "Vampire Academy" people, not "Nundercover", alright? I'm sure if we went over and started talking about THAT (Liam Neeson stars in America's #1 movie...) non-stop, people would be all "That's not even a real thing!" and "That's just that fake thing from that podcast!" and "Wait, is that a penis as your profile picture?". Fuckin' nerds...

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

I abandoned the IMDB boards when I encountered a thread concerning 'Live Free or Die Hard' in which an argument ensued as to Maggie Q's racial purity (i.e. is she a "real" Asian?). No thank you forever.

[RyanSz 3140]

Yeah if you ever want to see a larger group of racist, hispter, art student cynics that use text speak like your average valley girl, you don't have to look any further than those boards.

[Rattrap007 52]

Yeah if you ever want to see a larger group of racist, hispter, art student cynics that use text speak like your average valley girl, you don't have to look any further than those boards.

Fark.com is bad too...

[dlo burns 129]

Fark.com is bad too...

It's not news...

[HotSaucerman 2051]

I abandoned the IMDB boards when I encountered a thread concerning 'Live Free or Die Hard' in which an argument ensued as to Maggie Q's racial purity (i.e. is she a "real" Asian?). No thank you forever.

I still end up on the IMDb boards because I use IMDb frequently to look up stuff about movies and such. But lately, half the posts I make on the message boards are HDTGM references.

[Chris Piers 3]

This was made during a period where lots of R-rated movies were popular with kids and they tried to cater to that audience, in the process ruining what made it cool. See also: the Rambo cartoon.

[RachelWilliams 7]

Bitches leave is still one of my favorite quotes, because Kurtwood Smith did such an excellent job as the villain.

 

Kurtwood Smith has done a most splendid interview for 'Random Roles' at the AV Club. Wonderful actor and he comes across as an extremely delightful gentleman.

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/kurtwood-smith-talks-robocop-and-nude-scenes-then--201908

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

Now THIS deserves a feature-length adaptation...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afr0xwde0Aw

[RyanSz 3140]

Coming this summer, Robo and the Stinger!

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

Now THIS deserves a feature-length adaptation...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afr0xwde0Aw

Passed over for the Hall of Fame AGAIN. More like RoboCockBlocked, am I right?

[RyanSz 3140]

There's a porno that needs to be made.

[syonin 0]

This feels like a real winner for HDTGM.

 

All the best 'character' actors, but couldn't convince Peter Weller to return as Robocop and the female lead is Dr. Lazarus. Subtlety is out the window here.

 

Rip Torn

 

Stephen Root

 

CCH Pounder

 

Stanley Anderson

(Looking like he should be playing Steve Bannon in a bio-pic.)

 

Mako

(Connan the Destroyer's wizard buddy.)

 

Daniel von Bargen

 

Jeff Garlin

 

Shane Black

 

Bradley Whitford

[CoboRop 0]

I was sitting around one day and suddenly remembered something that couldn't possibly be right. 

I had to ask myself: "Does RoboCop fly in RoboCop 3?"  

I hadn't seen it since it came out when I was a kid.  Then I started to wonder, was this movie as good as I remember? 

The answer to both questions is yes.

The trailer should be enough to convince you:

 

Even the trailer is amazing.  RoboCop decides to drive off the roof of a building to save himself 60 seconds of driving.  So he's down on the street, what now?  He's trapped inside his car!  WRONG: This asshole shoots out the roof and pops up like a cyborg gopher.  Doors?  FUCK DOORS.  What's next?  Dudes are LOITERING.  Not on RoboCop's watch ...

Please review this film.  Please.

[RyanSz 3140]

Well in a bit of good news, Peter Weller has returned to the role of Robocop, as a DLC character in Mortal Kombat 11. Easily the best character addition alongside Keith David's version of Spawn, and a shit ton better than whatever hobo they picked to do a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonation for The Terminator.

[Blast Hardcheese 636]

I only watched RoboCop 3 once, but I seem remember, at the beginning of the film, he attaches a Super Soaker to his arm and shoots his way out of his patrol car's roof in order to come to the rescue of his fellow police officers. Of course, he could have easily shaved a couple of seconds off that time by simply opening the car's door and stepping out.

[RyanSz 3140]

12 hours ago, Blast Hardcheese said:

I only watched RoboCop 3 once, but I seem remember, at the beginning of the film, he attaches a Super Soaker to his arm and shoots his way out of his patrol car's roof in order to come to the rescue of his fellow police officers. Of course, he could have easily shaved a couple of seconds off that time by simply opening the car's door and stepping out.

Yeah 3 was the one really trying to sell action figures with all the various Robo-Attachments he had during that movie.