stormhawk2018
You know how the first two RoboCop films were ultra-violent affairs of varying quality? They both had funny moments, and they both had blood and bullets flying everywhere? Say goodbye to those with RoboCop 3, a film that went for a PG-13 rating. The filmmakers removed any sort of comedy -- whether that was done to keep it family friendly or not is up for debate -- and all of the action has been significantly toned down. So, yes, the kids can see this, but anyone who saw the first film, and the second one, too, I suppose, will want to give it a miss.Detroit is still a war zone, although the drug from the second film is not to blame. OCP, the evil corporation from both earlier films, is driving people from their homes with their "Rehabilitators" (people who force people into quarantine zones) so that the company can flatten houses and build apartment buildings. It's cleaning up the city in its own way, although it seems immoral to anyone who is actually watching it.RoboCop (now played by Robert John Burke instead of Peter Weller, not that it matters considering you rarely get to see his whole face), is also cleaning up the streets in the way that cops normally try to. His partner, Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen reprises her role, for a brief time), is also there, although they're more sympathetic to the rebel forces that are forming. Eventually, and soon enough into the film for it not to be a major spoiler, Anne is killed and RoboCop joins the "good" guys in order to take down the corporation that has caused everyone just so much grief.From here, you can pretty much see where the film is going to go. The only new element is that OCP has been taken over by a Japanese company, so the villain that will actually challenge RoboCop -- considering bullets and ordinary weapons are grossly inefficient in dealing with him -- is a ninja played by Bruce Locke. Yes, we're at the point in the series when we're having the barely mobile robot getting involved in hand-to-hand combat scenes with a ninja. What is this, the Power Rangers?How did nobody not think that this would be a bad idea? The first two films had guns, guns and more guns because they at least understood that the hero couldn't participate well in close combat situations. He can't even run; how is he supposed to have a fist fight? You've got to give the film credit for at least trying something different -- and it was no doubt done in an attempt to remove some of the bloody violence to acquire that PG-13 -- but this was simply the wrong way to go about it.It didn't have to be this way, either. RoboCop actually gets a couple of upgrades this time around -- which I won't spoil -- and it would have been easy to make up a way to make him more mobile. This would have allowed for him to at least hold his own the fight scenes. Instead, we just watch the ninja run around, occasionally hit, do a flip every now and then, while RoboCop does nothing back. It's a stupid, stupid decision to have this as the final major action scene in the movie, and it makes the one from last film look genius in comparison.The first movies had a sense of humor. While the first was far more enjoyable, the second almost matched it in terms of being funny. I can't remember one scene or line from RoboCop 3. The only somewhat dark moment came when a businessman, while talking to his wife, decides to jump out of a building, killing himself. The first or second film might have played it for a laugh; this one does it for shock -- except it's not shocking and it's quickly forgotten by everyone.I'd like to find a positive in the movie but I just can't. Perhaps saying that Robert Burke reminded me a lot of Peter Weller is a positive? Can we use that? Once the mask is on, it doesn't matter who is behind it. In fact, I'm almost surprised they took it off at all, as it wouldn't have been hard to leave it on for the entirety of the movie. If anything, Peter Weller was smart for not deciding to return for this installment, and I have to wonder if he tried to get his co-stars out as well. Most of them return, so if you like series continuity, at least there's that!RoboCop continues to be a boring character, although at least we go back to how he ended the first film and have him at least able to emote a little bit. He's decidedly more human than robot in this film, which at least makes him a little likable. But he's wooden, has difficulty being harmed -- although he does get hurt by this one in a way that didn't hurt him in a previous installment, which was weird -- and is just a less mobile, less powerful version of, say, Superman.All of the freshness that was in the series is gone by this point. RoboCop 3, like a lot of third installments, is the worst in the bunch, and has very few, if any redeeming features. It made me hate the lead character more than I thought I could, even though it returned him to the way he ended the first film. The action and humor have both been toned down, removing exactly what made the first film -- and to a lesser extent, the second, too -- special. Don't give this movie even a second of consideration; it's an all-around dud.That there are people who say that RoboCop 3 is almost as good as the first one is to HALLUCINATE and lets see the film knowledge that these people have. And that there are people who already say that it is better than the first ones, it is simply to give them a medal of ignorance.P.S.: Answering to a reviewer who posted these two last messages that this sequel is a equal to their predecessors, yeah sure, is a equal for you because you like the robot ninjas...if you are a girl and like ninjas, go watch a Japanese TV show named "Ninja Sentai Kakuranger" (a.k.a. Mighty Morphin Alien Rangers) and be like Ninja White (a.k.a White Alien Ranger).
matthewostrovski
In comparison to the Terminator in the story line plot / price / quality / fight with criminals / surgical operations of course the film series Robocop beats the headline series Terminator that does not bring anything meaningful to the bionics. The story about how easily the line of duty can become a cripple and how become the modern equivalent of bionics guardian of the law, taking revenge on the criminals. Impressive action, dramatic scenes, best ending, reflection in the real world, beautiful Detroit sceneries in the future. 11/10.
Maziun
"Robocop" is a classic science fiction movie that didn't had too much luck with the sequels. "Robocop 2" was a flawed , but decent sequel that was almost universally hated by the audiences and the critics. Too bad , because it stayed true to the original. It didn't had the freshness , depth or heart of the first one , yet the violent action and dark satire was still there. The franchise still had potential and I believe that with some effort there was still a chance for interesting next installments. Unfortunately the Orion studio had financial problems . They decided to make "Robocop 3" as a family friendly action movie rated PG-13 in desperate attempt to gain as wide audience as it is possible. "Robocop 3" was filmed in 1991, but was not released until end of 1993 due to production company Orion going bankrupt. The result ? A movie that is one of the worst movies EVER and a final nail to the franchise coffin.Making a "Robocop 3" movie with PG-13 rating makes just as much sense as making a porn movie with no sex at all ( maybe with some brief nudity here and there). IT"S TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT of the original movie ! It has no heart, no brains, sly social commentary and no hard violence. "Robocop 3" became the very thing that first two movies were often laughing at – a politically correct hero in a gutless , soulless and brainless Hollywood movie.To be honest a PG-13 "Robocop 3" movie COULD work. The story has some potential and you can make a exciting and deep PG-13 action movie ("The Dark knight"). Unfortunately the whole movie seems to be aimed at kids and has a cartoon approach to it that just doesn't works. I'm amazed that this even is rated PG-13 , not PG.Peter Weller made a wise decision not returning to the role of Robo and choosing "Naked lunch" to do instead. I recommend to watch that movie instead of "Robocop 3" . It may not be for everyone , but at least it's entertaining. Orion tried to hire Michael Dudikoff ("American ninja") , but ended with Robert Burke . I can't say anything else about him except that he was in this movie. And that for some reason the studio modified his voice so it sounds annoying. Dan O'Herlihy, the old man from the first two films, does not appear in this film. The rest of the regular cast is back , unfortunately they don't have too much to do.Robocop here is basically a zombie with no personality. He also disappears for a large part of the movie. The regular cast has very little screen time and awful dialogue to work with. The new characters are annoying , especially Nico – kid genius hacker. The main villain is not one bit interesting or menacing. The acting here is awful with people either underplaying or overplaying their parts.The story here takes some elements from what comic book writer Frank Miller prepared for "Robocop 2" . Mind that both "Robocop 2" and "Robocop 3" were heavily rewritten and have only few elements from Miller's original script. The story here could work. Unfortunately the screenplay is filled with cheap humor , predictability and stupidity. I found a site on internet which points out that "Robocop 3" has faults in every scene ! The direction by Fred Dekker is apathetic. The pacing is lackluster. The action scenes are pathetic. The special effects are embarrassing , especially when you consider that "Jurassic Park" was in theaters that same year.This movie deserves every bad comment it gets. There are no redeeming qualities to this junk. After this movie there were two lame TV shows and cartoon. The franchise was slaughtered. I give it 1/10.
