RoboCop 2 (1990) User Reviews

Still Quite Good

[Goldman_67754 · 7/10 · 7 May 2023]

Following the original Robocop movie, which is deservedly a classic, is a hard act to follow but I thought this film made a pretty good effort to do so.

The plot here is a bit more loosely defined - it mixes between a drug epidemic of "nuke", and also OCP's attempts to build a successor to Robocop. All of the same components are here but everything is a bit simpler, if anything. Robocop spent a good deal of the first movie grappling with his humanity, whereas other than a quick diversion at the start, this doesn't feature quite so much here. It's more of a straightforward fight with OCP's attempts to mess him up. The police are still straightforwardly the good guys here, the one exception is flagged up so heavily that it's impossible to miss. The memorable villain here is Cain, the dealer of the drug gangs distributing nuke, and I have to say I think his performance is massively underrated. His delusions of grandeur, weird philosophical statements and calm creepiness are really well done. His gang are straightforwardly loathsome, and you never feel much but contempt for Angie and Hob. OCP are more straightforwardly the villains here, and the Old Man (plus new character Dr Faxx) has moved much more towards being a straightforward supervillain. Johnson is perhaps the exception. He has become more Smithers-like, but as with the first film, he seems to be the one force for good in this film even if his motives are not pure, much like Bob Morton in the first film. The mayor of Detroit is an interesting nuanced character; he's a bit more like the OCP executives of the original as he considers ways to get the city out of the hole it's in.

The humour is still there, but it's much more in-your-face now. It is still genuinely funny, for instance when Robocop is reprogrammed by OCP, or OCP's early attempts at Robocop 2 (or the one-liners: "This could look bad for OCP Johnson!"), but there's not much subtlety there anymore. Neither is there with some aspects of the plot, and this is where it can sometimes start to feel a little too comic-book. Robocop's directives need resetting? No worries, he sorts that, somehow avoids damaging himself in the process and then functions as a policeman despite having no directives at all. Police in a long bitter strike? No worries, a quick talk from Robocop is enough to sort that out. Also, by this point, there is quite a lot of people standing in the open endlessly firing machineguns at quite obviously bulletproof entities, yet somehow not bothering to seek cover when they are fired back at. This is much the same as the original, but by now it's starting to get a bit old.

The violence this time somehow manages to not quite be so shocking. There is one sudden rather nasty scene somewhere in the middle, but otherwise, imagine most gunfights in movies you've seen of a police vs machines variety, and you'll get the idea. The plot does take a sudden and rather interesting twist about halfway through as OCP develop Robocop 2, and its own unpredictable behaviour is quite an interesting watch too, taking over as the ED209 equivalent from the original. The special effects still hold up pretty well. Overall, I think there is a bit to criticise about it, and it's not as good as the original, but this is still a pretty good sequel and worthy of the name Robocop. Recommended as a solid sequel.

RoboCop-out.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 13 December 2010]

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.

Solid sci-fi action with a downbeat tone

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 2 November 2016]

Despite having a bad reputation, ROBOCOP 2 turns out to be above average. A flawed gem, perhaps, as one rather large problem with this film is the lack of fresh ideas which made the original film so entertaining. Indeed, many of the action sequences are simply repeated from the first film, and changed slightly so we hopefully don't spot the similarity. For instance: Robocop smashes a man's head repeatedly into an arcade machine (in the original, he smashed Kurtwood Smith's head through numerous windows); Robocop cleverly kills a man holding a baby in front of him (in the original, he shot a man holding a woman hostage in the groin).

The acting is worse than in the original. To be fair, special effects have always overwhelmed the actors in this particular film series, but it's difficult to take many of the supporting cast seriously as they look as if they're about to burst into laughter at any minute. Peter Weller is as good as ever, although he doesn't undergo as much anguish or torment as he did in the first film. Nancy Allen is used sparingly, indeed she hardly makes an impression and was obviously tiring of the series by now. Tom Noonan makes an effective psychotic, although he's difficult to take seriously too. I could have done without the scene of the dying boy; we're supposed to feel sorry for him after he's mutilated Robo and tried to garrote Allen? I think not.

A lot of people dislike this film because of the excessive violence and downbeat nature, but for me, it's the main saving grace. It's true, a lot of people die needlessly, gunned down in cold blood. Robocop is even tortured and has his limbs cut off in a disused warehouse, although this isn't as powerful as his original death in the first film. The gore is plentiful, although not as varied as in the first film: it mostly consists of people being shot, their chests exploding in red bursts. These depressing moments are countered by some interesting ideas; namely, the sub-plot involving Robocop being reprogrammed by his makers which induces some laughter; and the whole idea of the 'nuke' drug. I'm glad that the fake news bulletins stayed in too, as these were highlights of the first film and they're just as funny here.

A big plus in the film's favour is the quality of the special effects work involved. In particular, the stop motion animation is wonderful, and used a lot in the film's finale where Robocop battles Robocop 2 in a fight to the death. The standard of the animation is particularly good, even beating ED-209 in the original, in fact. Watch out for a spooky bit where a malfunctioning cyborg rips its helmet off to reveal a screaming skull underneath - disturbing or what? The film is also worth sitting through for the twenty minute finale, a huge battle sequence in which hundreds of people are shot, loads of cars explode and the two cyborgs rip each other apart. It's certainly showstopping, but bittersweet too for fans of the series; this was where the quality ended.

Terrible reputation for a great film

[LSBeams · 18 July 1999]

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 )

Robocop 2 is magnificent!

[supersixsevenmd · 7/10 · 21 February 2011]

The problem with "Robocop 2" is that it doesn't adhere to the rigid, unwavering demands of the average movie critic who seems to expect the same things from every movie -- character development, following through with themes and ideas, each scene being directly relevant to the story, relationships, and so on. Thus, it's easy to see why virtually no movie critic out there liked this film. When measuring its quality by a set of criteria intended for films like "When Harry Met Sally" or "The Godfather", it's no surprise that "Robocop 2" would receive mostly lousy reviews. The reality, though, is that "Robocop 2" is a spectacular film. Here's why:

First and foremost, the plot is magnificent! (SPOILERS HERE).

Most of the police are on strike and the Detroit is in chaos. Crime runs rampant. The CEO of OCP wants to privatize Detroit and has swindled the mayor in order to make this possible. Meanwhile, a new designed drug called Nuke is being used throughout Detroit, and Robocop seeks to eradicate it. In the process, he nearly kills Caine, the drug-lord responsible for the Nuke epidemic. Concurrently, an ambitious researcher at OCP (Dr. Faxx, who is sleeping with the CEO for professional gain) is looking to design a second Robocop, and determines that the best way to do so is to use the brain of a drug-addict despite her colleagues' protests. When the opportunity presents itself, she reprograms Robocop to be utterly lame, and she murders Caine in his hospital bed and turns him into Robocop 2. The mayor, in order to prevent Detroit from being taken over by OCP, plans to strike a deal with Caine's second-in-command, a twelve year-old criminal named Hobb, who promises to pay all of Detroits debts to OCP in return for allowing Nuke to be manufactured unmolested by the Detroit police. OCP executives get wind of this plan, and together with Dr. Faxx, decide to utilize Robocop 2 to kill the mayor while he meets with Hobb. Many are killed, as you can imagine, including Hobb, but the mayor escapes.

Shifting gears, the CEO holds a press conference (which the mayor attends) to introduce to the public a model of the new and privatized Detroit as well as Robocop 2, the new version with the firepower to keep the public safe. Robocop enters the hall, Robocop 2 goes berserk, fighting ensues, many bystanders are killed, and ultimately Robocop kills Robocop 2. The CEO, of course, escapes and a plan is quickly formed to blame the entire catastrophe on Dr. Faxx in order to allow him to go Scot-free.

It's worth mentioning here that the description above is a simplified account of the story, and that the plot is indeed intricate, coherent, and downright interesting.

Moreover, you have to remember that there are movies with vastly more simplistic plots than this that have been awarded Oscars for best picture and/or best original screenplay in the past: "Gladiator" comes to mind, as does "Titanic", "No Country for Old Men", "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King", and many others. All of these films, while excelling in other areas, had almost childishly-simple story lines.

The problem with "Robocop 2" is that it's much more eccentric and satirical than its predecessor, "Robocop". Put differently: unlike its predecessor, it's a film that was meant entirely not to be taken seriously -- a task that movie critics simply cannot perform. Since "Robocop 2" is neither a serious drama nor a comedy, it is to most critics two hours of pure satire, and it was reviewed accordingly. Read any review of the film and you'll see that most of them consist of little more than harsh criticism of the film's eccentricities and satire.

The reality is that when you view this film with an open mind and without any expectations, you will find it to be odd, even corny at times, and incredibly entertaining! A great plot, interesting (albeit static) characters, decent special-effects, a little bit of comedy, and plenty of action to go around can all be found. "Robocop 2" has everything you'd expect from a good movie.

Better than its reputation

[sampath · 6/10 · 24 October 2000]

Making a sequel to Paul Verhoeven's exceptional Robocop was always going to be a losing game. But director Irvin Kershner's effort is not all bad, although its reputation suggests otherwise.

While it's not significantly more gory than the original, Robocop 2 turns out to be more cold-blooded and manipulative in its depiction of violence: simply put, Kershner fails to inject the comic edge to such scenes, which Verhoeven seems to manage quite regularly. On the plus side, however, there are some good action sequences & nice effects courtesy of Phil Tippet; and the scene where a dismembered Robocop is suspended in the lab, eyes twitching wildly, almost matches any scene in the first film in terms of poignant intensity.

Almost.

6/10

Oh dear

[pstevensondyolfknip · 4/10 · 27 September 2007]

I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.

But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.

The problems are many.

Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.

Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.

Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.

What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.

Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.

The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.

And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.

The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.

The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.

But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.

Entertaining, decent sequel

[CrazyArty · 7/10 · 16 August 2021]

Enjoyable action film about the cyborg half human robot cop dealing with criminals in the future streets of Detroit.

Detroit is flooded with a new drug, Nuke, the police force are on strike, and the OCP Corporation continue their revolutionary robotics developments.

The special effects are looking a bit dated now with stop motion animation heavily used, but a decent plot and overall an entertaining movie, particularly for the time.

I think this deserves a higher rating on IMDB, reviewers just need to sit back, turn your brain to low and enjoy.

Insulting, hateful, tasteless, gratuitously violent mess!

[the_mysteriousx · 1/10 · 19 August 2004]

The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).

Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the humor of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!

The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year-old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.

Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.

And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.

No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he lay dying, "It still sucks".

Entertaining but...

[Thanos_Alfie · 6/10 · 8 December 2021]

"RoboCop 2" is an Action - Sci-Fi movie and the sequel of "RoboCop", in which we watch Robocop returning to protect the citizens from an evil version of Robocop. He has to stop it as soon as possible because it's very dangerous and ruthless.

I have to admit that after watching the first "Robocop" movie I had high expectations from its sequel. Unfortunately, I believe that the sequel did not reach its potential but it was entertaining and of course watchable. The direction which was made by Irvin Kershner was good but not as good as Paul Verhoeven's in the first movie. He used very wisely some information from the first movie in order to connect them but he did not succeed on maintaining the interest of the audience after the first hour. The interpretations of both Peter Weller's who played as Robocop and Nancy Allen's who played as Anne Lewis were very good and for one more time their combination worked very well as in the first movie. Lastly, I have to say that "RoboCop 2" is an entertaining movie and I recommend you to watch it but I advise you to lower your standards before watching it if you have already watched the first movie of "Robocop".

"Oh my, this isn't very nice"

[revival05 · 3/10 · 1 August 2008]

For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.

Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.

Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called "nuke" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city – politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.

Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of "Hub", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the "story". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.

But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are "it sucks", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.

This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making.

Underrated sci-fi action flick - Defending an Underrated Sequel

[ivo-cobra8 · 8/10 · 12 April 2017]

Why does this film get's so much hate? Why do I keep hearing that Robocop 3 is better than this, that Robocop (2014) remake is better than this. I don't understand that and I never will. I mean is this good as the first film? no of course not, is it worthy sequel? yes it is! This is an entertaining action film yes. It R rated blast it is yes. I do wish that this movie would come out over the summer I do really miss this kind of action films. Robocop 3 and Robocop remake are not and will never be better than this sequel. I grew up watching this movie it defines my childhood. This was really my first film of the trilogy before I even watched the original. I was entertained in here we have RoboCop VS RoboCain monstrous robot who is addicted to drugs, has mass a machine guns annihilation people blowing up cop cars, killing cops, van's, ambulances. Killing news people, this big battle between Robocop and RoboCain fantastic.

RoboCop 2 (1990) is rated R! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR not PG-13 It Is violent, action gore adrenaline sci-fi flick not for kids. I am defending my favorite sequel that has Peter Weller and Nancy Allen in it! I don't wan't to see Robert John Burke or even Joel Kinnaman who suck dicks in the whole movies! I love this movie to death the end is the best at all. In this movie RoboCop jumps on a back of a monsters addicted robot, rips his brain out, smashes in to the ground to the pulp.

Plot: RoboCop 2 is the 1990 sequel to RoboCop. Peter Weller returns as the cybernetic law enforcement officer, who now battles an even more sadistic gang led by a deranged killer known as Cain (Tom Noonan), while mega-corporation Omni Consumer Products prepares to take private ownership of Detroit and unveil a new, more powerful law enforcement unit.

This is a prototypical "good" action movie -- intense, perfectly executed, original action, shown to the tune of a forgettable and occasionally insulting story.

I am giving an 8/10 -- an outstanding score. And the gunplay is delivered in perfect Miller style (as opposed to the slo-mo John Woo-style) -- you'll see lots of heavy automatic and explosive weapons, and you'll see them used well. The film is bloody you can see how the gang cut's Robocop to pieces and it is bloody. There was a kid Hob in the film and no he wasn't annoying, he did a good job playing the bad guy. Not annoying kid and I think he did a good job. Robocop shot a guy in the eye.

Nancy Allen as Lewis has much to do like she drives an armored SWAT van the one they used in Die Hard and smashes in to RoboCain, she shots three bad guys, she kicks ass. RoboCop saves a baby.

I don't mind the music score everyone complains about Leonard Rosenman and his music score. I know they should use Basil Poledouris music score but they used different music score and I never mind it, I thought it was an okay song.

The film was directed by Irvin Kershner (The Empire Strikes Back and Never Say Never Again) from a story written by noted graphic novelist Frank Miller. Irvin Kershner did an excellent job directing this sequel I know that Paul Verhoeven suppose to direct this movie but he never direct sequels before and he wasn't sure if he should do it, Hollywood needed a sequel so Irvin Kershner went to directing it. This is his last movie and it is really a shame he is no longer with us anymore R.I.P. Irvin Kershner.

They don't make movies like this one today! I wish I would had sci-fi action movies like are this one today!! I really wish! This is a solid damn sequel that has an action scenes while RoboCock (2014) has no action scenes they can't effort it, it is a PG-13 rated family film. I have this movie on Blu-ray screw Robocop 3 and the remake I will watch this movie. I love action movies this is an action movie that's how they do it right! Is Tom Noonan better bad guy than Kurtwood Smith no. But he does an excellent job as the evil bad guy and he is a cult leader.

I know Peter Weller and Nancy Allen were disappointed with how the movie come out and they don't care for this movie. But honestly it was a pretty damn good entertainment, I wasn't bored with it. I would be proud on this movie.

Rambo III (1988), Missing in Action (1984), Cobra (1986), Predator 2 (1990), Blade: Trinity (2004), The Matrix Revolutions (2003) are so fun underrated action films that are getting so much hate and bashed this days for it, that is horrible. I still love them all.

RoboCop 2 is a 1990 American cyberpunk action film directed by Irvin Kershner. Set in the near future in a dystopian metropolitan Detroit, Michigan, it is the sequel to the 1987 film, RoboCop.

It's a good continuation of RoboCop story. There is nothing new here , but it's well executed. In the end it's one of those rare satisfying sequels. They do there own stuff they don't copy the original film just like Predator 2 they do their own stuff and i love that. Sue me I love RoboCop 2! I give it 8/10 it doesn't deserve the hate!

Vicious black comedy-action story

[BadWebDiver · 7/10 · 25 August 2002]

This is a dark comic story that follows up the original sci-fi satire movie.

Spoiler warning

There is slightly less blood-letting in this one that the earlier film, though it still contains some very graphic scenes - including a live mutilation and a kid getting killed.

I preferred the satirical humor of this movie to the earlier one, especially the news pieces and the dig at bland beurocratic "political correctness". I noticed a slight parallel in the story to Dicken's "Oliver Twist" with Tom Noonan's character as a futuristic Fagan, and Gabe Damon as an Artful Dodger type. I enjoyed the way one of the lead robots of the story is given some personality, twitching its grabbers in anticipation of a treat.

My personal favorite scene is a news report on the meltdown of a nuclear power plant in the Amazonian rainforest. The newsreader announces that "Greenpeace is complaining that this is one of the worst natural disasters of our time". Then Leeza Gibbons responds: "Yeah, but don't they always".

Obviously not for all tastes, but this is rather witty.

i thought it could have been so much better

[disdressed12 · 4/10 · 23 July 2007]

man this movie has it all,and i don't mane that In good way.i didn't think the acting was very good in this one.i also thought a lot of the humour in it was mean spirited.and don't get me started on the story.i just found it beyond the bounds of reality even for this type of movie.maybe this movie is supposed to be absurd.if so,it succeeded.the thing about the original is it had some heart and soul to it.i didn't see any of that in this one.Peter Weller and Nancy Allen are back for this one,and they try hard,i think,but they don't have too much to work with.on paper,this movie may have looked like it would work,but i think it lost something in the translation.where the first one managed to look like it had a budget of some sort,this one,looks low budget,and not in a good way.i'm sure it's hard to tell,when you're making a movie if it will work or not so i'll give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt.by that,i mean they probably thought they were making a good movie.some people might like it,but i just found it tedious.having said that,this movie is nowhere near the worst movie i have ever seen.it could have been so much better true,but it could have been worse.so,i'll give "RoboCop 2" 4/10

Not as terrible as some make out, but still a disappointment.

[mentalcritic · 27 February 2001]

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.

Doesn't Measure Up.

[refinedsugar · 6/10 · 14 March 2001]

Okay now we're just being fed formula and who could blame them after the critical and financial business the original Robocop did. This sequel (beyond letting us know the people behind these movies are obviously trying to make a working franchise) tells us how hard it is to duplicate success on those rare instances where a science fiction movie breaks the mold and follow it up with something just as good or better. It's a weird trait that many sequels to successful movies succumb to. Then again when the original does so many things right - some level of disappointment or failings seem almost guaranteed. Dreary atmosphere. A workable story. Sprinkles of dark humor, satisfying action pieces and some real emotion. The original had it all. It'd be a fantasy to think we were going to get this and more in a sequel.

We don't.

This outing finds less of the dark humor and Murphy's humanity as he's tasked with going up against a new underground drug taking over New Detroit. Of course, things will come to a violent head and once again it will be Robocop's prime directive to make things right. Tom Noonan who stars as the main villain perhaps sums up the best and the worse going on here. A good actor can take an underwritten part farther than it was supposed to go, but only so far. Hence a key problem. Like most drug barons in movie land - the one he plays is paranoid and prone to violence. Which means the pursuit of cliché set pieces and scenarios like an obvious showdown between him and Robocop before the end (in some form). What maybe you don't expect is half-way through the main villain becomes a 14 year old boy.

The premise is simple enough. Robocop battles the war on drugs. Meanwhile OCP continues to act like the horrible corporation it is. A faceless mega conglomerate built on greed. Peter Weller reprises as Robocop. Nancy Allen is again along for the ride as his partner. Those things haven't changed.

Robocop 2 ends up not being a horrible outing. It is still entertaining and in due part to memories established by the original, but give me back more of the dark tone. Give me less throwaway action scenes, 14-year old boy villains and mediocre stop motion effects.

Sequel, upgrade and rival!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 29 August 2018]

"Robocop 2" belongs in the same list as "Psycho II", "Hellbound: Hellraiser II", "Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou", "Exorcist II: The Heretic", "The Howling II" and perhaps a handful of other titles that I'm momentarily forgetting. What defines this list, apart from the obvious fact they are all sequels? They are all criminally underrated and underestimated sequels that at least tried something different rather than simply cashing in further on the known and proven-to-be-successful formulas of the original. Films like these generally receive low ratings and negative reviews, not necessarily because they are inferior, but mainly because the people weren't expecting innovative plot aspects or sudden changes in tone or atmosphere. "Robocop 2" was written by none other than Frank Miller, the genius behind "Sin City", so you know that the comic book style violence and twisted humor will be even more extreme than in the original (and Verhoeven's original already was extremely violent and quite twisted)! Add to this the sublime skills of the director who made what is, to date, still the darkest and greatest episode of the "Star Wars" franchise, and you've got yourself a derailed and uncompromising popcorn action-flick! Miller's script doesn't avoid any taboos, and includes megalomaniac villains, the glorification of drug abuse, large-scaled corruption and underaged criminal offenders. Detroit looks like an even bigger asphalt wasteland than before and the privatizing of the police by OCP (Omni Consumer Products) continues to lead to strikes and anarchy. Officer Alex Murphy, aka Robocop, is the last reliable law enforcer, but his inventors at OCP have different plans. The title of the film doesn't only refer to the fact it's a sequel, "Robocop 2" is also supposed to be an upgraded version of the first half man/half machine policeman that was "Robocop". However, the crazy lady at OCP decided to use the brain and spinal course of psychopathic drug-lord and killer Cain for her test model, so he quickly turns out to be a more destructive killing machine than all the criminal organizations in Detroit combined. There are a whole lot of things in "Robocop 2" that don't make the slightest bit of sense, but at least it's insanely entertaining and fast-paced. Tom Noonan's performance as Cain is fabulously over-the-top, and his gang contains the meanest and most badass 14-year-old of the 80s/90s era. The shootouts are nasty and explicit, and a few scenes that come to mind are definitely not suitable for people with a faint stomach.

Terrible

[LuboLarsson · 3/10 · 29 May 2007]

I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It sucks"

A very good action comedy

[karamolegos_george · 7/10 · 14 October 2021]

Seriously i don't know if it's intended but it's actually kinda funny.

Goody ads,a 12old master criminal and in general many funny bits.

Nothing like the epic first part though.

Still gory and bloody.

Shows promise early on and it is occasionally entertaining & amusing, but it lacks the heart of the original and is also much more stupid

[jimbo-53-186511 · 4/10 · 26 June 2015]

*********************SPOILERS THROUGHOUT**************************

I've always been a fan of the original Robocop film and have seen it several times. To me it's a film that is a nice blend of social commentary, satire, intelligence, action, entertainment & heart. I hadn't seen the sequel for some time and after watching it this evening I can only say that it was partly successful...

Robocop 2 starts out in a similar vein to the first film with police officers on strike. As a result of the police being on strike, Detroit City has made a descent into lawlessness; at the start it shows individuals pillaging from each other and looting shops and convenience stores. I also liked the fact that at the start we see Robocop trying to make a connection to his past life... this for me was a big strength in the first film and is a very emotive part of the story. Sadly it isn't given much focus here which is a shame as it is a strong and interesting aspect of the Robocop story.

What really lets this film down is the story and the simple truth of the matter is that it just isn't as strong as the story in the first film; everyone is addicted to drugs? Is that all we get here? It's perhaps not necessarily the concept that's bad, but the way it's executed here with the writers not really offering much commentary on the subject. I would have forgiven this aspect of the plot more if it had been remotely interesting, but I just found it really hard to get involved with this story.

There also seemed to be pointless deviations such as Robocop's glitch where OCP 're-programme' him. I'll admit that this aspect of the story was quite amusing and entertaining, but it was rather pointless and went nowhere. If the point was to show OCP as being incompetent or misguided then this was unnecessary as this was already ascertained in the first film. I just didn't see the point.

There is also a scene later in the film where Robocop discovers the kid who was one of Cain's gang dying in the back of a van; he then gives some heart felt speech and asks Robocop not to leave him.... give me a break. Were we supposed to feel sorry for the kid? Was that supposed to be a tender moment? He was almost as bad as Cain himself and was deserved of no sympathy whatsoever.

I also loved the fact that OCP intended to send Robocop 2 out to clean the streets of Nuke even though he is addicted to Nuke himself; isn't that a bit like asking a prolific drug dealer to go out and clean the streets of drugs himself?

I think one of the worst aspects of this film was the decision to turn Cain into OCP's Robocop 2; if I'm being cynical I just saw that as a plot device to set up the inevitable showdown between Robocop 2 and Robocop.

To me this film is sloppy, but it's sloppy in too many areas to make it forgivable. It does provide entertainment value and is quite amusing and I still love Robocop's 'Thank you for not smoking' line. However, it's far too stupid to be really classed as a good film or even to be considered a worthy sequel.

Robocop 2

[WeAreLive · 7/10 · 5 August 2022]

RoboCop returns to protect the citizens of old Detroit but faces a deadly challenge when a rogue OCP member secretly creates a new, evil RoboCop 2.

While film was kind of an unnecessary sequel since the first film didn't set anything up.

However, the film does have a few good moments here and there. On top of that it's not the worst out there.

It doesn't get much worse than this. . .

[Alan One · 1/10 · 3 December 1999]

Robocop 2 sure looks good on paper: Irvin Kershner directing, whose Empire Strikes Back gets as many votes as the others for best in the Star Wars series, and Frank Miller writing, the comic book writer/artist whose Batman revisions sparked a renaissance in the genre in the late 1980s. Additionally, both are working from the surprisingly entertaining premise of the original Robocop, in which a deceased cop is resurrected as a law-and-order killing machine with identity problems.

The sequel is all but unrecognizable, with hardly two enjoyable minutes to be found in the entirity of this gritty, spiteful film. The plot is something about drugs, pre-pubescent crime lords, and a brain transplant into a giant killer robot, but none of it is very memorable. The original was full of hammy acting and over-the-top action, but dipped into realism (the threatened police strike, Robocop's ghostly memories of his former life) enough to keep it grounded. The striking police officers in the sequel are little more than cardboard cut-outs, and a scene were Robo confronts his "wife" is executed so lamely as to be downright insulting.

Things look up when PR-minded execs decide to reprogram Robo with more PC directives and he winds up taking potshots at smokers. It's a nice 30 seconds, but the resolution (Robo sticks a high-voltage cable down his chassis) is so simple-minded that he might as well have erased our memory along with his. Movies like this give sequels a bad name.

And now...a word on nutrition

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 10/10 · 10 February 1999]

RoboCop 2 is probably the most under-rated and most harshly criticized sequel in history (tying with Predator 2, which came out the same year). Because of a few missing elements from the first and a slightly more cartoonish approach to the violence, the critics and public alike were not pleased and opinions and feelings toward the franchise nosedived with the just plain awful RoboCop 3.

Don't con yourself out of a good movie though. RoboCop 2 still has the same savage sense of humor, cynical social commentary and character pathos of the first film. It's a hyper-realistic vision of an America populated by gun-loving psychos, a democracy owned by big business and the poverty-stricken addicted to drugs dealt to them by peddlers believing themselves to be the second coming of Christ.

Far-fetched could be the typical way of describing it. Completely-over-the-top would be more appropriate. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner chucks in as much sadistic violence, deafening gunfire, endless destruction and loss of human life that the film just begs you not to take it so seriously.

Some of the blame was placed on writer Frank Miller for the film being more cartoonish than the original. I don't think this is very fair. I read Miller's original script when I was in high school and it is rather different and, dare I say, unfilmable. RoboCop 2 himself was not Nuke Lord Caine, the psychotic hippie with delusions of Godhood. He was called Kong, a psychotic cop who pretty much killed everybody he came across. Sgt. Reed and the Old Man died too, and there wasn't much humor. Screenwriter Walon Green was hired to doctor the script and much of what appears on screen is actually his work. Frank Miller's original ideas are pretty much just left as the framework for the whole movie and some of his story was recycled into RoboCop 3 (don't blame him for that one either). Miller was obviously upset with this but was still a good enough sport to appear in the film (keep a lookout for him playing Doctor Frank), though he vowed not to work in Hollywood again for fear of being taken advantage of. Until Robert Rodriguez promised to make good on his Sin City graphic novels.

Verhoven may be gone but Irvin Kershner tries hard to deliver the same mix of mirth and magic and actually does get it right. Basil Poledouris' brooding score is also gone (it returns in RoboCop 3) but new composer Leonard Rosenman creates a wonderfully heroic and upbeat theme that suits the film more than Poledouris' moody, tormented score to the first.

There have also been many complaints that the humanity of RoboCop and his relationship with Lewis was neutered along with too many other ideas fighting for screen time. I get why most would be annoyed by this but you have to remember that films need to be economic when it comes to length. If every single idea was fully explored and fleshed-out RoboCop 2 would have been 4 hours long. In my opinion each thread has just enough for keen viewers and fans to appreciate. Lazy viewers only see what they want to see and I feel that this has led to many of the negative reviews the film has been met with (which usually comment on how "offensive" the character of Hob is-sheesh, gimme a break). And don't give me that the "humanity" of the first film is gone. Murphy has not resigned to being a machine. He lies to pacify OCP. Pay attention to the very last line of dialogue in the film if you want proof.

Filmed once again in Texas, Houston this time, you really have to feel for Peter Weller walking around in that Robosuit. It must have weighed a ton and he'd be sweating bucketloads inside. There is a particular scene in the film where Murphy is tortured into near-death/destruction that is very hard to watch. But it does lead to him getting a brand-new makeover and those crazy new directives put into his head. The bit where he lectures the Little League kids and scolds the youngsters playing by the leaky fire hydrant (after quoting some very suspicious philosophy) is hilarious.

RoboCop 2 is a great movie. Despite harsh critisisms of the script and story and some slightly dated stop-motion effects it's a brilliant sequel that lives up to expectations. Do listen to the nay-sayers. I don't know what kind of film they were expecting.

And thank you for not smoking!

Brainless sequel but it revels in it's own silliness and is almost as enjoyable as it's predecessor

[Coffee_in_the_Clink · 6/10 · 27 January 2020]

Three years after Paul Verhoeven's "Robocop" exploded on to the scene, it's inevitable sequel followed, to be directed by none other than the man who directed "The Empire Strikes Back" and written by Batman comic book legend Frank Miller. With a pairing like that you would expect greatness; but what you get is B-grade carnage and a plot line that is so thin that it is forced to jack up the dark humor and gore elements in an attempt to emulate it's predecessor. Terrible, really, but it is very enjoyable and not at all as bad as it's reputation suggests.

Detroit City is in turmoil. OCP are working hard to build their megacity at the expense of the people of Detroit. The police are on strike and a new lethal narcotic called Nuke has hit the streets. Robocop has his work cut out for him, as he must battle the drug gang led by the Charlie Manson-esque Cain and navigate the politics of the precinct, all while OCP consider him a threat and look to reprogramme him.

The most memorable thing about this outing for me will be the dark humor that is as strong here as in the first film. The satirical TV adverts are brilliant and there's some brilliant on-liners. I didn't think it was as violent or gruesome as the first film. Overall, it is enjoyable for what it is, but considering the talent that was behind it I can't help but wonder at the potential it had and how it should have been as good, if not better, than it's brilliant predecessor.

"RoboCop"-out...

[Mister-6 · 1/10 · 6 February 2000]

It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it.

But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.

The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.

Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.

In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.

And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.

Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?

Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.