It's actually not hard to find nice things to say about Robocop 3. There're about fifteen nice seconds of Phil Tippett stop-motion, Dekker's got a neat way of shooting cars to give a sense of realism (his cinematographer, Gary B. Kibbe, did a lot of Carpenter's films)... umm... wait, I'm sure I can find a third. It was cool seeing Jeff Garlin in a movie? Does that one count?
Robocop 3 is an unmitigated disaster, made on the cheap--made a few years later, if Orion Pictures had maintained solvency, it would have just been a direct-to-video entry--the only amusing way to pass a viewing experience is to rate the actors' sense of embarrassment. Worst has to be Nancy Allen, who had so much vested interest in the sequel's artistic import, she demanded to be killed off. There are a few "reasons" Peter Weller didn't return--the costume, filming conflicts--but maybe he just read the script. As a PG-13 movie, Robocop 3 is silly. It turns RoboCop into a Saturday morning cartoon superhero, complete with bad one-liners.
What's peculiar about the film is the cast. It's a veritable who's who of television personalities--famous ones. There's Stephen Root from "NewsRadio," he's really bad. CCH Pounder, I'll use "ER" as an example to keep up the strange NBC connection, is also bad. She's usually quite good, so I suppose by not being more visibly embarrassed while delivering her lines--well, there's a compliment somewhere in there. Jill Hennessy from "Law & Order." She's absolutely atrocious. Robocop 3 was delayed a couple years while Orion worked its way out of bankruptcy and I wonder if, had it come out as scheduled, she'd ever have gotten another role again.
But my favorite has to be Bradley Whitford, if only because he's actually all right in Robocop 3. His character's a generic corporate slime, but Whitford's got a couple good deliveries. It doesn't make the movie any better, but they're funny deliveries. I wonder if he kept the glasses he got to wear in the movie.
I haven't seen Robocop 3 in ten years and it appears to have corked rather significantly. I haven't even gotten to some of the worst performances, which is mind-boggling since I have mentioned Hennessy already. I'm just worried I'll forget the stunt performers, who jump long before they have any reason to, creating an almost surreal effect. But I don't think Dekker was trying to bring Fellini to Robocop.
There's an annoying little kid in this one--Remy Ryan Hernandez--she's real bad. She's got a great scene where--after doing calculus at a Doogie Howser age--doesn't seem to understand her parents have been bussed away (the script's got some real logic problems). Every scene with Hernandez is painful. It's like the filmmakers were trying to appeal to a Disney girl audience or something.
Rip Torn is also terrible here, mugging for the camera (I'd believe it if they told him he was just doing a voice for a cartoon, which might explain his exaggerated expressions and so on). John Castle, terrible. Mako, terrible. Daniel von Bargen, okay.
As the new RoboCop, Robert John Burke is the pits. Why they didn't just leave the helmet on all the time and hire Peter Weller to dub in the lines....
Well, that suggestion makes sense and nothing in Robocop 3 makes any sense.
CREDITS
Directed by Fred Dekker; screenplay by Dekker and Frank Miller, based on a story by Miller and characters created by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner; director of photography, Gary B. Kibbe; edited by Bert Lovitt; music by Basil Poledouris; production designer, Hilda Stark; produced by Patrick Crowley; released by Orion Pictures.
Starring Robert John Burke (RoboCop), Nancy Allen (Officer Anne Lewis), Rip Torn (The CEO), John Castle (Paul McDaggett), Jill Hennessy (Dr. Marie Lazarus), CCH Pounder (Bertha), Remy Ryan Hernandez (Nikko), Bruce Locke (Otomo), Stanley Anderson (Zack), Stephen Root (Coontz), Daniel von Bargen (Moreno), Robert DoQui (Sergeant Warren Reed), Felton Perry (Johnson), Bradley Whitford (Fleck) and Mako (Kanemitsu).
Related posts:
Fred Dekker // Dec 3, 2008 at 2:57 am
Reading this review, the expression “kicking a dog when it’s down” leaps to mind.
Except this particular dog went down FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Isn’t there a statute of limitations on kicking dead dogs? I mean, at what point does it go beyond cruelty and become… what comes after cruelty? Murder? Necrophilia?
Hey, genius — NOBODY liked this movie. So who are you trying to impress by kicking its corpse? And WHY NOW?
In point of fact, Nancy Allen had no “vested interest in the sequel’s artistic import” (whatever that means), nor did she “demand to be killed off”. Frank Miller and I killed her off. In service of our own “artistic import,” truth be told. And Nancy was not crazy about this idea, but to her credit, soldiered forward — and killed her career along with her character.
So give her a break.
As for the reasons Peter Weller didn’t return – “the costume, filming conflicts–(or) maybe he just read the script.” It was, in fact, filming conflicts. “Naked Lunch”. The script wasn’t finished when we met, so he couldn’t have hated it even if he wanted to. He was, and is, a gentlemen and a wonderful actor.
Your “review” also cleverly points out that the film “turns RoboCop into a Saturday morning cartoon superhero,” irrespective of the fact that the character had already been made as toys, and comic books, and — yes — a Saturday morning cartoon! (BATMAN was also a Saturday morning cartoon superhero. Does he suck, too?)
Your review then states that “What’s peculiar about the film is the cast” and goes on to list the wonderful actors in it, Jeff Garlin, Stephen Root, CCH Pounder, Jill Hennessy, Brad Whitford, Daniel Von Bargen, Rip Torn, Mako, John Castle. A great cast.
Boy! That IS “peculiar,” isn’t it?
God forbid you give anybody credit for putting these people together because, well, obviously they were bad and the movie sucked. Right?
Lastly, let me address your addle-pated observation that you “don’t think Dekker was trying to bring Fellini to Robocop”. Fellini was a wonderful auteur whose films evoked magical realism and circus motifs, as well as heartbreaking philsophical examinations of Italian culture and life. What the living fuck this has to do with RoboCop eludes me… and anyone else with a scintilla of brain matter. Did you mean I INTENDED to make a bad movie?? No. I didn’t.
But thanks, anyway, for trying to steer me straight.
Fred Dekker
Co-Writer/Director — RoboCop 3
Andrew Wickliffe // Dec 4, 2008 at 2:58 am
@Fred Dekker — A couple things–first, I can’t approve the comment. Not because you ridicule me–hey, it’s fair (and I put up the Dark Knight ones); it’s the f-bomb. Once or twice a year, kids who are reading Speak in school flock to the site for the review of the adaptation and I try to think of them in terms of language.
Second, once again (you sent me an email following my Monster Squad post), I’m an admirer (hard to find it in the Robocop 3 response I suppose, but it’s there in the first paragraph) and I’d love to interview you.
Fred Dekker // Dec 4, 2008 at 2:59 am
@Andrew Wickliffe — Since I generally don’t respond to reviews of my films, there must be some peculiar alchemy in your writing that somehow pushes my emotional buttons and keeps me coming back for more.
I have no investment in having the comment posted, I just needed to vent. I apologize for the tone. At the same time, I find it hilariously hypocritical that I’m blamed for “kid-izing” the RoboFranchise, but you won’t post my rebuttal… BECAUSE KIDS MIGHT READ IT!!
As for an interview, I’d be delighted but the wonton factual errors, nasty tone, and general intellectual paucity of your writing suggest it would probably be a losing proposition for me. One crucifixion on your site is enough for me.
Andrew Wickliffe // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:00 am
@Fred Dekker — I just want to point out all the factual errors are from both IMDb and wikipedia, and they take down any disputed information (if you request it).