MovieChat Forums > RoboCop 2 (1990) Discussion > Both 1 & 2 were violent, so why is this ...

Both 1 & 2 were violent, so why is this one so much more repellent?


I don't know, what is it? Is it the lingering and gratuitous sadism towards so many characters, including some innocent bystanders? Is it the suggestion that the general public (including children) are as cruel and violent as the criminals? Something about this movie is repellent and unsavory. The first film was razor sharp and satiric, while this one just seemed angry and bitter, going out of its way to make the audience feel dirty and complicit somehow. Maybe it's Verhoeven leftist political beliefs, putting the blame squarely on the capitalism-run-amuck OCP. The film at the end us oddly uplifting. This one just seemed angry at the world with no ultimate message other than humanity sucks.

reply

It is all the reasons you mentioned: angry and bitter movie.

Also, worth noting Verhoeven didn't have much to do with this one.

reply

Like you said, Robocop 1 had the genius of Paul Verhoeven. If you've seen his early Dutch movies, he makes really stylish and fun films that can be incredibly cold and mean spirited at the same time. It's a weird mix that makes his films such a blast to watch.

Robocop 2 plays like some movie head said "the first movie was bloody and violent and mean and cold, just stick all that in there but make it even more mean and bloody" without knowing that all that bad stuff was juxtaposed with Verhoeven's fun ott style of filmmaking. The execution of Duffy is disgusting, it's even worse in the workprint.

Ultimately what dooms Robocop 2 is it feels cheap compared to the original. It went for the comic book angle and it didn't work. The music score was too repetitive. One good thing to come from Robocop 2 was that the end battle between Robo and Cain was a clear influence on Iron Man's finale, which is a fantastic action scene.

reply