RoboCop 3

1993

Action / Crime / Drama / Sci-Fi / Thriller

109
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 3%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 14%
IMDb Rating 4.1 10 44570

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
September 30, 2011 at 01:01 AM

Director

Cast

Jill Hennessy as Dr. Marie Lazarus
Stephen Root as Coontz
Rip Torn as The CEO
720p.BLU
601.03 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
1 hr 44 min
P/S 3 / 37

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Robert_duder 6 / 10

A TV Movie quality follow up that borders on ridiculous...just didn't go right

Now I won't say that Robocop 3 is the mega disaster that a lot of reviewers call it. I mean Robocop 3 lost the benefit of being an eighties action film so granted the violence and foul language would be toned down because suddenly the political correctness of the 90's was in full swing. So that meant making Robocop more family friendly. They also lost Peter Weller from the lead which I didn't realize how great he was as Robocop until he wasn't him anymore. I have to wonder if screenplay writer Frank Miller was angry at the creators of Robocop so he spun this tale as a cruel prank because Miller is no slouch at writing, he is a legendary comic writer (300, Sin City, X-Men, etc.) and the story for Robocop 3 borders on ridiculous. All of the dark gritty atmosphere is pretty much gone from the original film, the tongue in cheek political humor is gone as well despite some off attempts to do exactly that. And it is true what reviewers have said that Robocop has suddenly become a complete weakling. He spends so much of the film repeatedly falling on his robo butt and trying to get back up. He's lost all of his cool factor, all of his heavy hitting super hero instincts.

Robert John Burke takes over the robo suit as Robocop and Alex Murphy. He just doesn't seem to have a handle on the character and doesn't give as much effort as Peter Weller did. Maybe it's because the first two films were so much better but Burke just isn't cut out for Robocop and spends most of his time trying to get back up on his feet. Rip Torn takes the helm away from "The Old Man" as head of OCP. Torn is a decent actor but he doesn't seem to have near the screen presence that Dan O'Herlihy had in the original films. They do mention The Old Man several times so to close his portion of the story. John Castle is one of the villains in the story as McDaggett, yet another corrupt OCP Officer working to rid the city of Robocop. He's okay, a little strung out and insane but decent enough. He doesn't hold a candle to previous villains in the series. Nancy Allen returns thankfully as Robocop's partner Lewis and the film does give her character something of closure so I give them kudos for that. Robert DoQui also returns for his third go around as Sergeant Reed and for the first time in the three films he really gets into the action which is terrific. Jill Hennessy joins the cast as Dr. Marie Lazarus who personally takes care of Robocop. Her performance is a little bland as she often is in her roles. It's a big cast with some decently memorable faces but I can't cover them all here.

So here is why Robocop 3 is NOT the disastrously horrendous film that some make it out to be. First of all it ends the trilogy with a final big battle between OCP and the Detroit Police Department which essentially brings OCP down. It also brings back some of the familiar faces from the series and gives closure to the story on Lewis although her and Burke just don't have the chemistry that her and Weller had as partners. The story is decent enough and simple enough to follow but it just doesn't hold up to the previous two films. The entire aspect of Robocop flying is so ridiculous and they surely had to know that it was ridiculous. If it ain't broke don't fix it and they do fix the unbroken recipe which essentially ruins the series. It is true that Robocop 3 was a fall from grace and this film felt like the quality of a TV Movie which is maybe why all future Robocop installments hit Television. A rather bland disappointment. 6/10

Reviewed by marieltrokan 10 / 10

Perfection is when equality is real, but no life force needs a style

Perfection being to connect without style is imperfection being to disconnect with no style

Disconnection is betrayal

With no style is style

Imperfection is betrayal style

Weakness is betrayal style

Perfection is non-betrayal style

Non-betrayal is non-conflict

Perfection is non-conflict style

Non-conflict style is conflict non-style

Conflict non-style is non-style conflict

Non-style conflict is non-edited conflict

Non-edit is original

Perfection is original conflict

Original conflict is unoriginal peace

Unoriginal peace is copied peace

Copied peace is peaceful copy

Peaceful copy is peaceful cheat

Peaceful cheat is peaceful violation

Violation is outrage

Peaceful outrage is outrage of peace

Outrage of peace is brilliance of danger

Brilliance of danger is danger of brilliance

Danger of brilliance is danger of inspiration

Danger of inspiration is danger of being afterward

Perfection is to prevent reality from becoming a sequence

Perfection is when reality has no contrast

Perfection is when image has no contrast

Perfection is when contrast has no image

Perfection is when equality is real but no life force needs an image

Reviewed by marieltrokan 10 / 10

To prevent violence from being logical, all tolerant and accepting behaviour has to be exposed as tyrannical and demonic

The starting premise, of Fred Dekker's RoboCop 3, is when a loyalty leads to its own reaction - when loyalty is a critique of loyalty.

A creator has to the origin of reality. Logic dictates this necessity. However, it's in the particular world of RoboCop 3 that the origin of reality finds itself in the very odd state of being critical. Criticism creates criticism. Any criticism isn't origin, by default, yet in RoboCop 3 something which isn't origin has been created by something which isn't origin.

An effect has been created, but, the effect in question has been created by no cause: the lack of reason has adopted the ability to be important. The important rejects the unimportant - the effect rejects the lack of reason - whilst the unimportant needs the important. Whereas the important is the balance of being attributed negativity, it's the unimportant that's been attributed positivity. The important is necessary and correct hate. The unimportant is pointless and incorrect peace.

The peace that's pointless has created the hate that's necessary. The point of balance has come under threat by necessity. However, since balance is connected to no violence, balance has to imitate necessity in order to help necessity imitate balance. Balance isn't necessity, which means that pointlessness has to imitate necessity.

Ridiculousness has to copy necessity. Insanity can't be copied though, and therefore necessity has to be inspired by the inability to copy - the basic inability to exist has to be the means to help necessity bring about its own balance.

Necessity survives by not being the inability to survive; however, the necessity of survival isn't either survival or necessity. Survival and necessity operate outside of the necessity to survive.

The necessity of survival is a synonym for pointlessness and for no survival. Pointlessness and death are the actual things that reality is trying to bring about. Importance and life were trying to help death and ridiculousness.

Death is meant to be something that's worked against, not helped. Death is a literal void of interaction: reality is trying to help the absurdity of no interaction and it's trying to help the non- interaction of absurdity, in effect meaning that reality is the interaction of absurdity and that it's the absurdity of interaction.

Reality is absurdity that interacts, and it's interaction that's wrong - incorrect communication and incorrect communication that communicates.

Reality's goal, is to help the communication of the correct communication: in actuality then, the communication of the correct communication that's self-reliant is dependent on the communication of the incorrect communication.

To help the correct communication exist without any prospect of self-destruction, the existence of the incorrect communication needs to prove that it's unable to exist without self-destruction.

The correct communication is neither correct or existence: the objective is incorrect absence, which needs to be helped by the correct absence of inevitable self-destruction. Inevitable self- destruction needs to bring about self-destruction that's chosen.

Self-destruction is neither destruction or the self. It is collective peace. Collective peace isn't enough, what's required is collective peace that's chosen: the goal of collective peace that's chosen needs to be brought about by collective peace that's forced.

Goal is wrong, which is why the collective peace that's chosen is a deception that the force of collective peace plays on itself. The oppression of self-destruction is the actual objective.

The oppression of self-destruction is neither oppressive or self- destructive. Instead, it is a freedom to destroy outside of the self. The self has every right to destroy whatever it wants to destroy, and will deceive itself into thinking that that sort of behaviour is wrong in order to carry out that sort of behaviour.

The self destroys outside of the self - which is correct - and to help itself, the self will pretend that destruction is bad.

Destruction is good. And the self is right to pretend that destruction is bad.

The self is the living. The destroyed is the non-living. Self- deception isn't possible, therefore self-deception can only apply to the non-living. The non-living can't behave. The inability to behave needs to adopt the behaviour of self-deception - self-deception has to become the inability to behave.

The self is the ability to behave; the ability to behave has to protect itself by the ill-intent of destruction being connected to the inability to behave. When destruction is designed by malice, the consequence is that the ability to behave is rendered defunct. The ability to behave is only possible when destruction is designed by good intent.

If the intent is good, then destruction will never obstruct the ability to behave.

To defeat the problem of violence being righteous, reality has to accept that the ability to accept anything on welcome terms is the same as violence itself; the very behaviour of being tolerant, and better yet the very behaviour of being tolerant without any limitation is identical to abuse and invasion

Read more IMDb reviews

1 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment