Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

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.

Eric Stevenson For Sequel Month, we're unfortunately looking at what is regarded as one of the worst sequels ever made. I confess to not watching "Robocop 2", but I really have no interest in that, given how the original's a classic. The basic plot is that Robocop joins a resistance against an organization of corrupt cops trying to take over Detroit. The premise is too basic and pretty flimsy. The effects look pretty off sometimes too. It expands little on the mythos of the franchise and mostly just reprises stuff from the original.As bad as this can get, I didn't think it was terrible. It doesn't really ruin anything about the character or the setting. I didn't find the characters to be too stupid or anything. It's just nothing special at all. It didn't make me mad or make me feel insulted or anything. It's just another one of the many pointless sequels out there trying to cash in on the success of the original. **

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

brandon-tyler-328-43902 Fred Dekker brings some style back to the RoboCop franchise. Robert John Burke, Jill Hennessy and John Castle are just a few names in an impressive all-star cast. Basil Poledouris returns to score the proceedings and his music is even better than what he composed in the original. The action isn't as gory as in the original movie, but it still packs a punch. RoboCop 3 is a very diverse movie. The females are brainy, strong-willed and not afraid to get into the thick of things. The villains are also different and intriguing. As a fan of martial arts movies, I can say that I like the idea of Cyborg Ninjas hunting down RoboCop. The fight scenes are a little clunky, but at least they're not as tasteless as the battles in the vile "RoboCop 2." The Christmas setting and the people vs big corporations plot make RoboCop 3 a joy for the whole family. Teens will no doubt love the action set pieces, while kids will relate to the character of Nikko. Adults can take much enjoyment from John Castle's excellent performance as the baddie and also the satirical humor. RoboCop 3 is a 3.9 on IMDb and I think that's a damn shame. Such an innovative film doesn't deserve such hate. If any RoboCop should be bashed for its low quality, it should be "RoboCop 2." I say watch RoboCop 3 because you might be pleasantly surprised.