Skip to main content

Sir, I've never met anyone who wanted to be a robot.

Robocop 2
(1990)

(SPOILERS) The potential for a decent movie is lurking somewhere within Robocop 2’s torrid metallic shell. Cast aside the tone deaf visuals, the horrendous score from Leonard Rosenman (quite possibly the worst such to afflict a major motion picture outside of, well the ‘80s; and at least they aren’t accompanied by the unheavenly choral charge of “Robocop!”) and the unerring facility for unpleasantness, and there’s something in there, deep underneath.


Unfortunately, though, I suspect it was a doomed enterprise from the off. It falls apart through lacking the fundamental ingredients that make Robocop an abiding classic; an unwavering vision of what the picture is about. That sureness came through in the sharp satire of Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier’s screenplay, and was cemented by Paul Verhoeven’s pitch black sense of humour and muscular iconography. More fundamentally still, the first film, for all its broad strokes, prescribed a potent emotional through-line for its man-machine moral musings such that, once Murphy has decided who he is, the character has nowhere left to go.


The end of the original may be a little pat in that regard, but that’s essentially because it’s pushing its broad brush but finely honed comic book stylings as far as they can go, short of flipping into a heavyweight meditation on the self and its relationship to the material, and so irreparably throwing off the deceptively effortless balance. Verhoeven and his writers knew precisely how to get their points across through symbolism and allusion rather than hammering it out didactically. To their credit, Frank Miller and Walon Green (the latter rewrote Miller’s screenplay) attempt to evoke this aspect during the first half of Robocop 2, and several strong scenes result, but there’s a reluctance or inability to follow-through.


Holzgang: Are you human?
Murphy: No. I am a machine.

Murphy as stalker is quite a strong turn, and it leads to the well-observed exchange – as good as any in the first, aside from Jeff McCarthy’s OCP guy being a bit too uniformly oily – where Robocop is asked what he thinks he could offer his wife (a man without a body, without manhood), and nudged with the cruelty of making her suffer again (“She’s just started to accept the loss”), he must resign himself to forsaking that memory of another life. This leads to a potent scene where he chooses to be cruel to be kind (“They made this to honour him. Your husband is dead. I don’t know you”).


As it turns out, this is as engaged as the picture gets in exploring its hero (even if it is essentially a betrayal of where Murphy was left in the original), as it immediately falls back on a rehearsal of the torture of Murphy in the first. In and of itself this is another reasonably effective scene, as Robocop is dismembered, lubricant fluid squirted in his face as he screams in anguish, but by drawing such a parallel line to its predecessor, Kershner and co only mark out how deficient the villains are and diluted the concept has become.


Tom Noonan was phenomenal in Michael Mann’s Manhunter a few years earlier, but evil drug lord Cain is as uninspited and one-note as his generic bad guy in Last Action Hero. So much so that, when he becomes Robocop 2 (one wonders if they thought of the title twist before they thought of the plot; appearances suggest so), you scarcely notice his absence (all you do notice, more of which shortly, is that Robocop is up against a stop motion maquette for the big finale, no matter how proficiently individual moments of altercation are in terms of artistry). Cain is serviced with maybe one good line in the entire film (“Jesus had days like this”) and even that has the whiff of being sourced elsewhere.


The gang of Nuke-retailers are unpleasant without being memorable, which goes for much of what they get up to. One has the look of an Elvis impersonator, another is a generic girlfriend type (Galyn Görg), more than partial to Nuke, who has to play up the most clichéd addict behavior (just how Nuke is so great and what its effects are isn't very clear; all we’re told is that it's bad, and observe its appealingly tidy delivery system, injected into the neck. She is nevertheless granted one noteworthy scene, as she attempts to smooth the rage of the metallic monster her monstrous boyfriend has become, caressing its huge pincers before being crushed like a grapefruit.


The most remembered villain, though, is devil child Hob (Gabriel Damon), a choice that seems to be more about pushing taste boundaries than saying anything smart about the corruption of innocence. Damon’s performance is reasonable, but he’s forced into awkwardly constructed scenario of unconvincing tough kid scenes; this might work in a gritty, realist take, but not with the starchy, surface gloss on supply.


There’s the occasional glimmer of purpose amid the grimness, as Hob is forced to watch when rotten cop Duffy (Stephen Lee) is split open with a surgeon’s scalpel (a scene even more gratuitous in the original cut, unsurprisingly), but since this is the baseline in the picture’s non-existent struggle with taste, it’s really rather by-the-by (we, the audience are repulsed, so no wonder the demon spawn is too). It’s also a bit rich that Hob is allowed to revert to a little boy lost for his death scene, after a movie’s worth of thorough malevolence, since he as far from earned our sympathies. If it’s misjudged, like so much here, Weller plays Murphy the compassionate hero with subtlety (“Lie still”).


Murphy: Bad language makes for bad feelings.

But by that point we’ve been all over Detroit trying to find a fit for the post-acceptance-of-his-lot Murphy. First he has reverted from the final shot of the original, unable to adjust, and he’s pursuing his wife. Then he gets torn apart, and reprogrammed, in what amounts to a slapstick episode that has its sort-of appeal, but is another leering shift in tone; Murphy ministrating to a corpse, lecturing a wayward scout troop and, in a moment made for the trailer (and which was also used as a general ad on the subject in cinemas) thanking a citizen for not smoking after putting bullet holes in the wall surrounding him.


In some respects, this is pure filler material, a tactic to delay the main event, but it’s much more interesting than that main event, even if it’s completely undisciplined in approach. The content varies from the gleefully absurd, throwing open suggestions for his modification to focus groups (“If he just talked things out with people, instead of firing that big gun of his”), to Weller’s staccato of delivery eccentric dialogue, recalling great practitioners like Shatner and McGoohan (“I’m touched”), at least when it doesn’t tip into the outright daft (“It’s the thought that counts” he affirms, after waxing lyrical about the lovely moon during daylight).


The humour is much, much cruder than in the first film, bordering on ineptly-judged parody, and this can be seen in news summaries, the adverts, and the performances. It’s nice to have John Glover show up in the ad for Magnavolt (the lethal auto theft deterrent), but Sun Block 5000 (“Caution: Frequent Use Will Cause Skin Cancer”) is evidence of a screenplay aiming squarely for crude gags rather than with any intent on satire.


Likewise, Cain’s desire to make a success of Nuke (“Made in America. We’re going to make that mean something again”) has a kind of warped resonance, coming as the picture does in the wake of Michael Moore’s dissection of the disintegration of Flint, Michigan’s manufacturing base in Roger and Me. And the depiction of the unstoppable corporation, never short of a scapegoat to ensure it survives any setbacks and lives to fight another day (“Sir, whether it exists or not, I know I can find it”, advises Johnson of finding evidence on Dr Faxx). 


Balance that against the toe-curling, goofball portrayal of the mayor by Willard E Pugh, as if he’s just been fired from I’m Gonna Git You Sucka for being too unsubtle (but even this caricature masks a decent idea, a mayor overseeing a bankrupt Detroit, that actually happened 23 years later).


Old Man: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, Robocop 2.

It’s no different with the new Robocop. The programme is backed up by a sound central premise, that it is Murphy’s code, his sense of duty, that enabled him to survive the loss of the physical, stripped of body, which has led other offices to go mad or become suicidal. But the execution is strictly slapstick, with silly designs and deaths of prototypes played strictly for laughs.


It’s a deranged and drastic leap too, that OCP would go straight to the criminal fraternity for new test subjects. Indeed, the whole Cain-as-Robocop 2 is an ungainly mess, lurching from B-movie brains in tanks (with eyeballs) to his instantaneous (not just gradual) unmanageability; it speaks to the undifferentiated construction of the picture as a whole. Where the original had a finesse borne of its director’s wit and verve, this is crass, clumsy.


Such is the design of Robocop 2. Robocop had a highly memorable supporting bot, superbly visualised (ED209). This construction is entirely indistinct, presumably based on what would work best work for the purposes of rigorous stop motion. And the virtual Cain face that pops up on a monitor screen only serves to underline a junk idea, fashioned as junk spectacle.


The finale, because it’s so identifiably based around model work, fails to have much impact; you’re always aware the characters aren’t in the same frame as Robocop 2, or that it’s a model Murphy “interacting”. Added to which, there are no human stakes because the action has been reduced to a sub-Harryhausen fracas. We’ve already had signs of Murphy being equated with the superhero/comic book character he riffs on, but not in a good way; he gets to ride a robo-bike (he’s like Batman!), and next time it will be a jetpack. And, with a passion for deserted industrial sites that became a cliché in the space since the first film, it’s no wonder the writers introduced a Robocop stealth mode for the remake, since Murphy isn’t creeping up on anyone in that suit.


Kershner also fails to shoot that suit from the best angles, often unable to emphasise the character’s dynamism and rather emphasising how much of the first movie’s cool iconography was illusory (in particular, the penchant for having Robocop shoot in the opposite direction to the one he’s looking becomes annoying, not a signal of his skilz). 


Not helping matters is flat, bland cinematography, overlit like a ‘90s John Carpenter picture (aside from some early David Cronenbergs, Mark Irwin’s CV is less than impressive, increasingly tending to the comedy and TV movie arena), and this Detroit is a city only ever populated by a dozen or so extras. Lacking the grainy, gritty milieu of the original, Robocop 2 feels fabricated.


There are positives here, naturally. Belinda Bauer, despite lacking an even remotely convincing character (in terms of plausible scientific motivation, rather than her desire to get ahead), lends Dr Faxx an implacably self-assured quality. Felton Perry takes advantage of the absence of Miguel Ferrer, as Johnson moves more into the spotlight; his character is perhaps the most consistently written, both in his desire to climb the corporate ladder, and as a vague point of audience identification, purely by virtue of everyone else being even more ruthless, amoral, sociopathic.


Dan O’Herlihy continues to be reliable as the Old Man, and is rightly repositioned as calculating and ruthless (lest anyone thought the contemptible posturing of Ronny Cox’s Dick Jones in the original took the edge off him). The "Behave yourselves!" admonishment makes everyone look very silly, though. Nancy Allen, aside from getting an inappropriate hairdo ("Your hair looks lovely that way"), berating kids who have beaten up a shopkeeper as if they are simply naughty young scamps, and nearly being garrotted by the demon imp, is forgettable, so it’s no wonder she didn’t last long in the second sequel (she also asserted that Kershner took out all the intelligence and humour from the film, and hated working with him).


Robocop 2 went through a number of iterations before reaching the screen. Original writers Neumeier and Miner were first up, but their concept was unused (that of pushing Murphy 25 years into the future –  a little worrying, a bit too Highlander II – and was later used for the pilot of the Robocop TV series). Tim Hunter quit as director over Orion’s interference. Nils Gaup was also offered the gig, while Alan Moore turned down the chance to write. Frank Miller’s original screenplay eventually became a less than adulated comic book (Alex Cox was asked to direct this version, but didn’t like the politics; as he put it, “Unlike the original Robocop, which trod a path between right wing politics and left wing irony, Miller’s script was reactionary and obvious, pitting its robot police hero against homeless people. No wonder he is so popular with the Hollywood one percenters”).


But I doubt this particular franchise had anywhere left to go beyond the original, at least without a hand at the tiller every bit as clear of purpose as Verhoeven (that’s partly why the remake floundered). It’s in the DNA of the thing that it has to examine the man in the machine, so pared down, more generic, Dirty Harry, or TV cop show approaches don’t work (Weller, who is never less than commanding, knew this, saying the picture’s finale needed a moral angle, so it’s no wonder he opted out of 3). And neither does lip service to the satire. The movie didn’t perform especially well at the box office (in a crowded sequel summer), and Robocop 3 was mired in the demise of Orion. Alas, in terms of Kershner’s dalliances with sequels, Robocop 2 is more Never Say Never Again than The Empire Strikes Back.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.