GamerTab That was an excellent one.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

phanthinga Robocop is an absolute classic of a movie and Robocop 2 not as good as the first one but still very worthy as a sequel so in 1993 the series finally come to an end with Robocop 3 rated PG-13 and people seem to really dislike the movie for whatever reason I can't understand to the point that today it only got 4.0 on Imdb and earn the title:"The one that destroy the franchise" when I as a fan of Robocop watch the trilogy gain in 2018 find Robocop 3 is the perfect ending to the crime fighting saga of our beloved cyborg.It the only one when i actually tear up when hearing the conversation with Nikko about how her family is with her forever and when Robocop flying through the town with jetpack on his back gave me goosebumps all over my body.

marieltrokan 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

Uriah43 Having allowed greed to get the better part of them over a long period of time, the corporation known as OCP now faces bankruptcy and this greatly complicates their pet project aimed at renovating the entire city of Detroit--for a huge profit. So to help them with their diabolical scheme they merge with a Japanese corporation who shares their desire to build a new city named Delta City over the ruins of Detroit. Needless to say, to do that they have to remove the residents currently residing there. With that in mind they hire a firm known as the Urban Rehabilitators led by a ruthless man named "Paul McDaggett" (John Castle) who then issues instructions to physically evict all residents within the proposed Delta City radius. However, their heavy-handed methods soon draws concern from "Robocop" (in this film played by Robert Berke) who joins the rebel faction fighting for their rights. Angered by this the Japanese corporation sends a robotic ninja named "Otomo" (Bruce Locke) to handle the problem. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film lacked the depth of both of its predecessors and seemed both contrived and artificial as well. That said, while I don't consider it to be a terrible movie by any means, it wasn't exactly that good either and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

theshadowsega I love Robocop 1 as it's my favorite Sci Fi movie with an R rating because Peter Weller is best Robocop. Robocop 2 was good not as great as the first one where Robocop acted stupid but at least he kicked Cain's ass. Robocop 3 is awful. The villains were stupid and lame one of them wears a muscle vest,McDagget look like an evil twin of Steve Martin,Coonz is a dweeb,Robocop is is an idiot who gets his butt kicked by robot ninjas as OCP is brought by a Japanese multinational corporation known as Kanemitsu. The only good thing was killing off Officer Anne Lewis as Nancy Allen apparently agree to it if they wanted to write her character off as she hated the script. This movie not only destroyed Orion Pictures until MGM revived it in 2013 but it destroyed Fred Dekker's career. It should have stayed on the shelf or never been green lit at all.