MovieChat Forums > RoboCop (1987) Discussion > Much less 'crappy' than I thought!

Much less 'crappy' than I thought!

posted 8 years ago by udippel
4 replies | jump to latest

Usually I don't watch this genre, violence, seldom SciFi.

It just so happened to be on TV and I just so happen to see it from the start. It is much different from what I thought, it has hilarious to funny scenes, and most of all, at least to me, it is almost a 'film noir' on the future of mankind. Except, that in 1987 hopes were much higher; while actually in 2016 we are getting closer to a state of affairs as shown in this movie. Marketing all over, capitalism at a new climax (if one may say so), cronyism anything but on the way out, greed all over the place, and maybe even understaffed enforcement. Like in the beginning: Support will be available in a quarter of an hour, and when shooting starts: Support will be available not earlier than over 20 minutes.

Just across the border of the USA, Mexico, sees much more blood, and death, for drugs than we can see in this movie. We experience terrorism, that is beyond the worst expectations in 1987. Only, it is real.

I stand correct w.r.t. my refusal to watch this film since 1987. Though I still feel that less blood could have been shown, it is a recommendable movie showing us to where we currently move mankind. Maybe not too long into the future, the police force will actually be privatised. Who knows? Or become just private, like medical assistance. As long as you're not half dead, before treatment you have to put Dollars or a credit card on the table.

Though I better stop here with the sinister thoughts of mine, have just watched this remarkable movie!

[–] Kojiro_Vance 8 years ago



Most scifi movies are silly and stupid. But there are a lot of exceptions.

On the surface, Robocop can look like a stupid action movie about a police robot. Can't get more silly than that, right? Making a movie about a robot police officer, lol.

A lot of American directors wouldn't do it. They thought it was schlock. And then came Paul Verhoeven, a guy who had never ever done a big movie. In Holland, he was known as a director who made small, personal movies.

And he made a masterpiece.

Scifi is a weird genre. Take Star Wars of instance. A silly movie about a space religion and a farm boy. Return of the Jedi: Bears defeat an Empire. The Prequels: unfinished CGI movies.

But then there is The Empire Strikes Back. One of the best movies ever made.

I'm just on my way up to Clavius.

[–] jl-riley 8 years ago

This film has a great cast and one of the best movie villains to grace the screens but I don't think Robo would be Robo as we know him without Peter Weller, he made that character believable with a soul. His facial features and overall physique was perfect for the role. Michael Ironside or Arnie would not have got into the character the way Weller did. I heard Weller even requested the crew awknowledge him as Robo while on set and he would respond and move as though he was Robocop, even when he wasn't in the costume.

I don't think Arnie or Ironside would've put up a fuss the way Weller did about needing more time to practice in the suit because it arrived late when they were ready to start filming. This was probably the best decision he made after all that robotic mime work he practiced with Moni Yakim would have gone out the window. With the bulky suit and no time to practice we might have had a generic Robocop moving like the T-800. Everything about this movie just fit perfectly from the cast, the setting and the era it was made in.

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

[–] NinjaFOXForce 8 years ago

This film was something to experience. At the time of its release I did not believe there was anything 'crappy' about it. This was something the public never witnessed...it had the same hype factor as Predator (1987). If you watched this on the big screen as I did back on its opening weekend, the film played like a BOOM! The tone of this film sunk in my body due to it 80s vibe. As funny as this sounds, I remember seeing multiple ads for this film while watching episodes of Miami Vice during its prime-time/syndicated season for prime-time night viewing.

My point is if you walked into this film with an open mind back in 1987 the summer it premiered, it was unlike anything we've (the public) ever witnessed. The experience of watching this along with its Dolby sound in the movie theater made this a product of its time so enjoyable. It was out of this world.

To the OP, I think the cinematography and editing along with the locations and set-design gave the film a technical look in the future (of Old Detroit) which helped sold off its future setting. Dated now but I can still see the style the director was going for.

Glad to see you got a chance to finally see the film OP.

The War has only begun, will you defend your destiny?

[–] krycek19 8 years ago

If you're thinking less blood, you're missing the point. Especially when it comes to Murphys death. And since you saw it on tv it was probably the theatrical cut. The directors cut is even more violent, especially Murphys death which is probably a minute longer with more gore.

The whole point of Murphys brutal death and him coming back as Robocop, is according to Verhoeven himself, that Murphy is like Jesus on the cross, resurrected. Only he's an avenging Jesus with a machinegun. Verhoeven explained this in an interview once.

And less blood really? Don't tell me you didn't enjoy it every time a badguy, especially a member of Boddickers gang was killed. Don't tell me you didn't enjoy it when Robocop throws Boddicker through windows like a ragdoll. And when he finally kills Boddicker at the end of the movie. If anything I don't think Boddickers death was graphic enough and he died way too quickly. I really wanted him to suffer.

Every death of every villain had to be violent, because it was payback time.

If you cant stand blood, then watch the awful remake. It's PG13 and has zero blood in it. So that is probably more your thing.