Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

kurolikesgames RoboCop was a great movie. After earning critical success amongst both critics and casual moviegoers and earning a profit of around forty million dollars, it only made sense for Orion Pictures to follow up with a sequel. Does RoboCop 2 hold a candle to the original? In a way, yes.RoboCop 2 takes place about one year after the events of the original film. The RoboCop project was a success, and OmniCorp, the creators of the project, begin research and development for a successor. Meanwhile, Alexander J. Murphy, also known as RoboCop, continues his duties as a Detroit police officer. However, a new addictive substance sweeps the city. Nuke. Created by Cain, a fanatical cult leader hopelessly addicted to his own drug.The plot is interesting, but it's not perfect. A lot of plot points introduced near the beginning are all but abandoned. RoboCop's relationship with his wife and and the doubt of his own humanity are threads that would have held weight and kept the plot interesting. However, they are dropped rather quickly, instead focusing on OmniCorp's attempted purchase of Detroit. The movie still contains most of the comedy that made the original funny, but quite a few are rehashed from the original.This film was made on a budget of thirty-five million dollars, a rather large upgrade from the original's, and it shows. Animations that seemed charmingly clunky in the original are smooth and get the job done. The use of CGI is done sparingly and doesn't feel awkward or out-of-place, and the practical effects, such as RoboCop's suit, continue to hold up today. However, that doesn't mean that it's flawless. The CGI used on RoboCop 2's digital "face" consists of low-quality, flatshaded polygons that look downright terrifying at points, and it doesn't even look remotely like the person it is trying to portray. It could have been much more appealing if they simply filmed actor Tom Noonan and superimposed his face onto the cyborg's facial screen. This film is still gory, but not to the extent of the original. They were holding back, with no real reason too. Once again, the acting is great. Peter Weller slides back into his character like a knife into butter. The moments he expressed pain were especially impressive. Nancy Allen also provided a good performance as Officer Anne Lewis. Noonan was decent as Cain, but was a little too "hammy" at times.Overall, RoboCop 2 is a good film, and a worthy, albeit flawed, successor to the original. It may be more difficult for people unfamiliar with the series to enjoy, but fans will have fun. It's above-average and better than a few of it's competitors. If you're a fan of the original, give it a try.

view_and_review Robocop 2 was one of those rare sequels in which it was better than the first. Much like Godfather they should've stopped at two.In this installment Detroit is bankrupt and in debt to OCP (Omni Consumer Products). OCP plans to foreclose all of the city of Detroit's holdings and effectively take over the city. All the while there is a Nuke outbreak. Nuke is a dangerous drug that has much of the city strung out. Though the police are on strike, Robocop continues to fight crime.I think the story was good and it all set up for a super bout at the end. ED 209 from the first Robocop was a toy compared to the newest death machine Robocop has to battle. In 1990 this movie was visually stunning to me. Today it doesn't hold the same lore but it's still good.

tdrish Robocop (1987) was excellent. Plenty of action, great story, and violent as hell. In Robocop 2, we learn early on that this sequel just did not need to be made. Not only does it steer way of course of what made Robocop whole, this movie just goes all over the place. Detroit has fallen to disaster, cops are on strike, and a new drug called "nuke" has hit the streets. As if that's not enough, violence has erupted out of control, corruption is in full blast at OCP, and a female doctor is trying to create a version of Robocop that makes Robocop look like a Disney character. Robocop 2 seems to outdo its predecesser, however, it's at Robocops expense. For example, Robocop finds himself haven to be reprogrammed after being taken apart, and meanwhile, he still holds on to a life that is no longer his ( he is still haunted by memoirs of his old family.) He is also in the heart of decay, and finds himself going head to head against his arch enemy, Robocop 2. Cain is the villain, played by the very talented Tom Noonan ( he plays a very bad guy, but you'll love the performance.) And if you thought Robocop was violent, hold on to your helmet, because this movie shocks me that it did not get the NC17 rating. Some things that I liked and disliked about Robocop 2, and we'll get the likes out of the way first: I liked that Peter Weller and Nancy Allen got to reprise their roles, they did a great job and worked very well in the original Robocop together. I liked the way Robocop 2's style was created. ( Example: Robocop (1987) had an identifiable 80's feel to it all, while Robocop 2 strategically had a 90's feel to it, despite these films only being three years apart. That's incredible!) More then anything, I liked that both films were NOT boring. I guarantee you did not feel the time go by once watching the original Robocop, and you won't feel the time go by watching this movie, either. Now, for the bad side! Here's what I disliked: I did not like that Paul Verhoeven did not return to direct. Ivan did an stellar job directing Robocop 2, and perhaps he may have even been a better director then Paul, however, there's just little things I noticed that I thought could have been done better ( and with Robocop fresh in Pauls mind, there's no doubt he could have added some better touches to it). I disliked the way Robocop had a bluish tint to his armor, while as in the original Robocop, it looked more like steel. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be! And I cannot stress this enough, I did not like the way Robocop 2 was unnecessarily violent. There's a graphic scene, for example, where the camera pans in on the inside of a mans skull cover after it has been removed, now there was no reason to have that. No reason at all! It appears that Robocop 2 deliberately tries to helm a much more violent film then it's predecesser, rather then concentrate on being a great movie, which drags the rating down. Unnecessary twists and turns drag the rating down a little further, scoring Robocop 2 a 5 out of possible 10 stars. Great work, boys and girls. I just felt it could have been a little better.

adonis98-743-186503 Cyborg law enforcer RoboCop protects the citizens of Detroit by taking on a powerful drug syndicate, while a renegade OCP executive tries to create a new, superior RoboCop using a crime lord as its subject. I know a lot of people that like Robocop 2 and i'm OK with that it's your opinion that's good but i have seen videos of people saying that Robocop II is better than the remake but they have also rated it higher than movies such as BVS, Terminator 3 and Terminator Genisys. Let me start with the good things the cast is great you have Peter Weller back as Murphy and Nancy Allen as Lewis the Old man also returns and turns out to be the villain, the suit of Robocop is blue instead of grey which is fine and the soundtrack is different which is pretty fine too the movie came out on 1990 and it was directed by Irvin Kershner who directed Empire Strikes Back the best Star Wars movie and Never Say Never Again starring Sean Connery as James Bond and that is what makes me wonder why this film is in the same league as Batman Forever and Iron Man 2 movies that they were alright but overall disappointing. RoboCop 2 has one of the worst humor i have ever found in a movie he basically turns all sunshine and rainbows and he says stupid lines as "Good Morning" and he shoots a guy because he was smoking without killing him of course then every child in this film is either mean or a gangster which brings me to the worst part of the film which is the child that is annoying and when it dies we need to feel bad about it, Hob and Angie are probably the 2 most annoying characters from the film besides the dumb humor and the over the top action like Murphy riding a motorcycle or even the crazy amount of stop motion that makes the film look even worse. The acting isn't that bad or even the direction is just that the film tries to be more funny and satirical than the Original and it fails in every sense of the way cause the first movie was directed by Paul Verhoven which also directed Total Recall that same year and it was way better than this film. Robocop 2 is not as bad as some people make it out to be it's just that it feels so long and has so many plot devices in it that it feels like you're watching 2 movies at 1 and it's boring especially when it tries to mix the humor and the action but it's not a bad movie it's not a great one either but it's a watchable disappointing sequel and i feel that if you cut the moments with the TV ads and the humor and make it a little bit like let's say Batman Returns it would be amazing. Plus James Cameron directed Terminator 2 one year after this film also featuring a little punk kid and wasn't as violent as this kid was in Robocop 2 sure he was annoying but at least you could feel something about John instead of Hob i'm going to give RoboCop 2 a 7.5 out of 10 and a B-