300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

It was seven years ago that Zack Snyder brought us the movie 300, his second directorial effort. Based on Frank Miller's comic book of the same name, the movie was a big fat hit and has been hailed by some as being one of the best "guy flicks" of the new millennium. And now, seven years later, someone thought it was time to follow up on 300's success with a sequel. I don't know why it took the better part of a decade to get around to it, but then I don't work in Hollywood, so what do I know? Regardless, 300: Rise of an Empire is a shameless cash-in that is several years too late, and it's an amazingly bad movie to boot. If you were thinking of seeing it, be warned: it's a waste of time, of effort, and of your money.

With King Leonidas leading his three hundred Spartan warriors into battle at Thermopylae, the Athenian general Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) leads his navy in fighting the Persians at sea. And much like Leonidas, Themistocles is up against what seems like insurmountable odds. The Persian navy not only outnumbers them, but is led by the vicious Artemisia (Eva Green), who assisted Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) in his rise to the Persian throne after Themistocles killed his father at the Battle of Marathon. Finding he and his navy in an unenviable situation where brute force is out of the question and victory itself may not be an option, Themistocles tries his valiantly to form a strategy that could have an ending in his favor.

I entered 300: Rise of an Empire not expecting much. At best, I was simply hoping for a fun, inoffensive way to kill two hours on a Saturday afternoon. But I was astounded by just how lousy the movie is. It feels like it should have gone direct-to-DVD or premiered on cable instead of getting a theatrical release. The movie is substandard on practically every level, with so few positive elements that one couldn't be blamed for missing them altogether. And honestly, I can say the same thing about this whole movie. If you choose not to see it, you won't miss anything, and you'll be better off for it.

The movie was directed by Noam Murro, a filmmaker whom I've never heard of previously. And honestly, I'm unimpressed. It feels like Murro's efforts were just a dull copy of what Zack Snyder did with the original 300. His attempts at replicating Snyder's style are inadequate at best, lacking the ultra-macho, testosterone-fueled machismo of the first movie. And the action sequences, which you'd think would be the movie's biggest selling point other than it being a 300 sequel, are all lackluster, uninspired, and mostly kinda boring. There's no life, no spark to be found. I honestly just wanted the movie to hurry up and be done.

I was also disappointed in places with the 3D effects. There are some moments where it looks really cool and adds some serious pop, but it often feels unnecessary. A lot of the time, the action is moving so quickly that the 3D doesn't add anything to the movie. One gets the feeling that, like a lot of movies, the 3D was added only to jack up the ticket price at the box office and make the movie a few extra dollars.

And then there's the script, credited to Snyder and Kurt Johnstad, is pretty lame too. It's based on Frank Miller's graphic novel Xerxes, itself an unpublished follow-up to his 300 comic, and if this movie is any indication, there might be a reason Xerxes hasn't been published yet. The dialogue is banal and corny as hell, the characters are clichéd, and the plot feels like a cut-and-paste of the first movie, only set at sea. Could this have honestly been the best Snyder and Johnstad have done? Because if it is, then all I can do is throw my hands up and wonder aloud why they even bothered at all.

Even the cast is a mixed bag. The majority of the movie's actors are forgettable, and even lead actor Sullivan Stapleton is about as dull as you can get. Stapleton doesn't have anything even resembling Gerard Butler's charisma or passion, making one long for King Leonidas instead of Themistocles. It's not all bad, though, with Lena Headey once again providing a fine performance as Sparta's Queen Gorgo despite being sadly underutilized. The real highlight of the cast, though, is Eva Green, who is fantastic as she plays Artemisia as a cold, heartless, bloodthirsty bitch. Much like Butler was the highlight of the first 300, Green makes Rise of an Empire worth seeing for her crazed, anger-filled performance.

But not even Green could save this movie. It's inconsistent, often boring, badly written, and is honestly just a poor movie all around. I meant it earlier when I said that 300: Rise of an Empire was a needless sequel that only seems to have been made to cash in on the original's success. But I still have no idea why they couldn't have come up with something better in the intervening seven years. I mean, it couldn't have been that hard... could it?

Final Rating: *½

300 (2007)

Ask a million diehard comic book fans about their opinion of Frank Miller, and you'll probably get a million different answers. But there's one thing about him that I'm sure most people can agree on: whether it's good or bad, Miller's work is most certainly a stylish, gritty type of thing.

Miller's work has brought the comic industry a lot of both good and bad comics, but he definitely has his own unique method of approaching material. It can be seen in his Sin City books (as well as its cinematic adaptation) and his work on Daredevil and Batman, and was put to use when Miller entered Hollywood to direct The Spirit. It even goes beyond Miller's superhero and noir stories, as evidenced by 300.

Published by Dark Horse Comics in 1998, the five-issue miniseries written and illustrated by Miller presented us a fictional retelling of the events leading up to the Battle of Thermopylae. And although it drew some criticisms for various reasons, 300 still sold tremendously well and won three Eisner Awards.

It proved popular enough that Warner Bros. Pictures eventually picked up the film rights and released a cinematic adaptation of 300 in 2007. With Zack Snyder — fresh off making his directorial debut with his remake of George Romero's classic Dawn of the Dead — helming the project, 300 was an enormous financial success despite professional critics being divided in regards to it. And as much as I enjoy comic book movies, I can't believe I've actually gone seven years without ever having seen 300. So with the sequel on its way, I might as well go ahead and check it out, right?

The movie takes us to the year 480 BC and the Greek city-state of Sparta, a kingdom of fierce, proud warriors. As part of the continuing conflicts between Persia and Greece, a Persian messenger arrives at Sparta's gates requesting they submit and give their obedience to Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), the god-king of Persia. Sparta's King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) not only refuses, but is so offended that he dropkicks the messenger and his entire entourage into a pit to hammer his response home.

Although they know Xerxes will surely retaliate, the upcoming religious festival of Carnea prevents the Spartan council from approving Leonidas's plan to lead their full military into battle. Despite this, Leonidas still assembles a band of three hundred soldiers, deeming them his personal bodyguards to get around the council's regulations. His plan is to force the Persians through the narrow coastal passage of Thermopylae, where Leonidas and his tiny group of warriors fully intend to stand tall in the face of an overwhelming opposition.

This wasn't the first time the Battle of Thermopylae had been depicted in film, the tale having previously been told via the 1962 epic The 300 Spartans. It was that movie that inspired Frank Miller to write the 300 comic book in the first place. And with 300, the story is taken deeply into the realm of historical fantasy. It's a testosterone-fueled, over-the-top action flick that, like most of the movies from its director, favors style over substance. And oh my, what style it is.

Though only his second movie, 300 is very much a Zack Snyder movie. Much of the style he's become known for is on display here, with the slow motion and stylized violence that have become Snyder's hallmarks put to good use here. And with 300, he seems to have drawn a little inspiration from what Robert Rodriguez did with Sin City two years prior. Both movies are based on Frank Miller's comic books, both are over-stylized efforts with unique visuals, and chroma-keyed effects, and a faithful approach to the source material.

And while 300 movies slowly at times, it always feels like it's building towards something. And that something is the movie's fight sequences. Snyder directs these moments wonderfully, each of them having a ferocity and excitement that makes the slower moments worth sitting through. The battles are the movie's highlights, the biggest reasons to see 300, more so than the "this is Sparta!" line that was an Internet meme back in 2007 because they're honestly the best parts of the movie.

And while I've never actually had the opportunity to read Miller's book, so I can't actually compare the script to the story he wrote, the writers do a decent enough job. There's truthfully not much of a story, just setups for each battle, but writers Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, and Michael B. Gordon do craft a tale that make the Spartans a team of warriors to be respected. The one serious drawback to it is the dialogue, which comes off as kinda hokey at times. But since much of it is befitting of 300's comic origins, it's forgivable.

But last but certainly not least is the cast, all of whom are actually really good. Rodrigo Santoro casts an intimidating presence as Xerxes despite not needing to do a whole lot, while Dominic West doesn't have many scenes, but he's very good in them. His character is a two-faced sleazebag that spends the whole movie undermining Leonidas's campaign, a role that West plays perfectly.

Lena Headey, meanwhile, plays Queen Gorgo splendidly. She plays the Spartan queen as something of a mirror image of Gerard Butler's Leonidas, giving Gorgo with a nobility that has a nobility that has a warrior's spirit beneath it. But 300 belongs to Gerard Butler, who grabs the movie and runs with it. Butler has appeared in over a dozen movies since 300, but he's never matched what he does here. His brings a fire and bravery to Leonidas, a passionate, larger than life performance that is honestly just as much a highlight as the battle sequences.

300 is not a great movie, nor is it even the best one of Zack Snyder's résumé. But it's certainly a fun movie. It's one of those movies that are exactly what you need if you want a movie that'll give you a shot of adrenaline. The movie is one of the manliest flicks I've ever seen, probably the closest Hollywood's gotten to replicating the awe and spectacle of Conan the Barbarian in the new millennium (and that's counting Marcus Nispel's Conan movie in 2011). Did I think 300 was all that I'd heard it was cracked up to be? No. But I did enjoy it, and sometimes, isn't that really all that matters?

Final Rating: ***

The Lego Movie (2014)

I can't say I'm surprised that Hollywood would turn toys like G.I. Joe and the Transformers into movies. With their built-in popularity and unique characters, it makes sense. But I am surprised, however, that they would use other toys from beyond the realm of action figures for movie ideas. We've had movies based on board games in the form of Clue and Battleship, direct-to-video cartoons based on Barbie dolls, and now we have a movie based on Lego bricks. A Lego theme park and dozens of Lego video games I can apparently handle, but I honestly still can't wrap my head around the fact that someone actually made a theatrically-released movie about the popular little building blocks. But The Lego Movie is very real, and was actually a big fat hit both financially and critically upon its release early last month. So being the curious moviegoer that I am, I had to check it out.

Welcome to the city of Bricksburg, where ordinary construction worker Emmet Brickowski (Chris Pratt) is beginning to realize just how lonely his life is despite being constantly bombarded with propaganda telling him that everything is awesome. His world is quickly shaken up when he encounters a woman sneaking around his construction site late one night. As he follows this mysterious lady, Emmet falls into a hole and emerges with an equally mysterious Lego brick stuck to his back. The woman, calling herself "Wyldstyle" (Elizabeth Banks), reveals that this brick is a mythical artifact known as the Piece of Resistance and realizes that Emmet is "The Special," a hero mentioned in a prophecy told to her by the blind wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman).

The prophecy states that The Special will be the one to use the Piece of Resistance to defeat the tyrannical Lord Business (Will Ferrell). But as his nearly absolute lack of imagination makes itself known, it quickly becomes evident that Emmet isn't very special at all. So until he can realize his true potential, Emmet is taken across various Lego playsets by Wyldstyle, Vitruvius, and the "Master Builders" ― among them an over-excited '80s-era astronaut named Benny (Charlie Day), a unicorn/feline hybrid called Uni-Kitty (Alison Brie), and Wyldstyle's boyfriend Batman (Will Arnett) ― as they try to avoid being caught by the evil Bad Cop (Liam Neeson) and falling into Lord Business's clutches.

The concept of using Lego bricks as the basis for animation is nothing new. People have been making homemade short films with the versatile toys for decades, while Lego themselves have licensed their name to different direct-to-video cartons over the last few years. But The Lego Movie is the first to get the huge Hollywood blockbuster treatment, and it's something totally worth seeing. The Lego Movie is the total package, a wonderful combination of gorgeous animation, entertaining voice acting, and a fun, heartwarming story that gels together to make a truly great movie.

But the movie was in good hands from the start, thanks to the writer/director duo Phil Lord and Chris Miller. No strangers to animation, having worked on the short-lived MTV cartoon Clone High and, more recently, the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs movies, Lord and Miller have crafted something that can entertain both kids and adults. As far as their direction goes, they do a fantastic job. The movie might be CG-animated, but Lord and Miller make sure it still appears as if it were assembled by hand with Lego bricks. The animation even has a certain clunky feeling to it that makes it feel all the more authentic. It's a real visual treat, full of great sight gags and little things just beneath its surface for diligent viewers to find.

Even the movie's great, immersive 3D enhance the experience, pulling the audience into the world Lord and Miller invite us into. I'm sure The Lego Movie works just as well in standard 2D, but seeing it in 3D makes for a more engaging experience. It works in the movie's favor, that's certainly for sure.

But while the animation is great, the movie was propelled even higher by Lord and Miller's fantastic screenplay. They seemingly take a cue from Wreck-It Ralph by bringing us the moral that anyone can be a hero, anyone can be special. It gets especially schmaltzy towards the end, but the story is consistently amusing and heartwarming. But more importantly, it never stops being funny. Like the sight gags, the jokes come fast and furious, coming at such a high rate of speed that the misses are quickly redeemed by another joke. There's enough going on here that the movie has something for everybody, something to make everyone laugh.

And I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the great group of voice actors assembled to lend their talents to the movie. Everyone is on their A-game, but there are some I just have to highlight. Charlie Day plays his "1980-something space guy" character with an abundance of hilarious energy, while Liam Neeson is particularly funny in a dual role as the grizzled, perpetually angry Bad Cop and his cheery alternate personality, "Good Cop." The biggest highlight is Will Arnett as Batman. The movie's version of Batman is what would happen if Christian Bale's version of the character were a cocky, condescending prick, and Arnett plays it with glee, right down to mimicking the guttural growl Bale used when playing the character. I've seen some reviews that have called Batman one of the best parts of The Lego Movie, and between Arnett's voice work and how Lord and Miller have written him, it's hard to disagree with them.

One could view The Lego Movie as being as much an advertisement for Lego bricks as The Wizard was for Nintendo games in 1989, but the big difference is that The Lego Movie is actually really good. The movie is a big "up yours" to the Transformers and G.I. Joe movies, proving that movies based on toys can be entertaining without having to sacrifice emotion or characters. We might only be a couple of months deep into 2014, but this is definitely one of the best movies of this short year thus far. So if you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and do so. The Lego Movie's theme song says "everything is awesome," and when it comes to this movie, that's most certainly true.

Final Rating: ****

RoboCop (2014)

Too many mediocre remakes have come and gone, their disappointing results not just being a big letdown, but in some instances making me resent the original movie. This always makes me when I approach a remake, especially when its source material is a movie I hold dear.

Such was the case with the new version of RoboCop, which I'd been dreading since it was first announced in 2005. The remake languished in developmental hell for years due to a combination of creative differences and MGM's financial difficulties, at one point even having (and losing) a commitment from Darren Aronofsky to direct. But after finally getting their ducks in a row, the remake of RoboCop was released last week, and I just had to see it. And while it doesn't come anywhere close to matching the original, the 2014 version isn't that bad either.

By the year 2028, the United States military will be policing war zones with mechanical soldiers manufactured by the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp. These drones have been nothing but successful, but OmniCorp finds itself legally prohibited from putting them to use in America. Seeing that potential revenue stream going right out the window, OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) tasks his marketing team with devising something America could get behind. To accomplish this, they enlist Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), a scientist renowned for his work with crafting robotic artificial limbs for amputees, to assist in grafting cybernetic enhancements onto disabled and handicapped soldiers and police offers to create a hybrid of man and machine. All they need is the right test subject.

One soon presents himself in the form of Detroit police officer Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman). Murphy and his partner Jack Lewis (Michael K. Williams) have spent months undercover trying to get to the bottom of an illegal gunrunning operation operated by notorious crime boss Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow), but a tip-off from some dirty cops on Vallon's payroll cause Murphy and Lewis's bust to turn sour. Lewis ends up in the hospital after a shootout, while Murphy is critically injured by a car bomb. With the consent of his wife Clara (Abby Cornish), a crippled Murphy is enrolled in OmniCorp's new program in a last-ditch effort to save his life.

He awakens months later, the few undamaged parts of his body having been implanted into a robotic body. Murphy is initially horrified and rejects this new body, preferring to die rather than live as a cyborg, but eventually grows to accept it if it means he can see his family again. He's put through what he believes is a rigorous training regimen to get used to his new body, but unbeknownst to him, Dr. Norton has been forced by his superiors to program Murphy's brain into behaving like a typical OmniCorp military droid during combat situations while still giving him the perception of free will.

Upon his return to Detroit, Murphy is uploaded with the entire police database and linked into every surveillance camera in the city. The influx of new information overwhelms him, with the security camera footage of his own attempted murder in particular affecting so badly that he has a seizure. The only way Dr. Norton is able to circumvent this is to completely suppress all of Murphy's emotions despite it overstepping his own ethical boundaries. He's soon introduced to the public and without emotions slowing down his reaction time, Murphy ― nicknamed "RoboCop" by the media ― is able to become a one-man police department and causes a significant drop in Detroit's crime rate.

But despite OmniCorp's best efforts to keep them separated, Clara's attempts to see her husband trigger his emotions to override his programming. Murphy starts investigating the attack that nearly killed him, and as he pursues Vallon's gang, he also draws the ire of Sellars and OmniCorp, who begin to view Murphy's growing unpredictability as a potential public relations disaster.

I was admittedly very nervous when I entered the theater to see this movie. While I wasn't opposed to the idea of Hollywood remaking RoboCop and giving the franchise a clean slate after two lousy sequels and twenty years of dormancy, the fact that a classic movie that I've held dear since adolescence was being redone made me apprehensive. Would it do the original justice? Would it stay true to what made people love RoboCop to begin with? Would it at least be a good movie? The truth is that while the new version of RoboCop isn't particularly great, it's certainly a watchable effort that, at its very least is still a lot better than either of the sequels.

Taking the reins is José Padilha, making his first American film after previously finding success in his native Brazil with his acclaimed crime drama Elite Squad. Having never seen Elite Squad (nor having even heard of it until RoboCop came out), I didn't really know what kind of expectations to have in regards to his style of filmmaking. But judging by RoboCop alone, I'd call Padilha a solid director. The movie never grows dull, with Padilha doing something to keep we the audience invested at all times. The action scenes are exciting and well done for the most part, even if the heavy use of CGI is a little distracting at times, and Padilha never loses focus on the story he wants to tell.

The only problem I had is that the movie was rated PG-13, and thus doesn't have quite the same impact as it could have had otherwise. Part of what made the 1987 movie so great is the combination of excessive violence and sardonic humor that Paul Verhoeven brought to it. While some of Verhoeven's sensibilities remain (I'll get to that later), the movie feels like it's had some "oomph" removed in order to allow teenagers into the theaters. It's not as bad as RoboCop 3, which was completely dumbed down across the board, but I feel like the movie could have pushed its boundaries a bit more. The movie comes close to replicating the horror behind Alex Murphy's initial transformation into RoboCop, replacing with the sheer brutality of Murphy's murder at the hand of Clarence Boddicker in the original movie with a discomforting sequence where we're shown just what's left of Murphy when the RoboCop armor is removed. I thought this scene was one of the most effective moments of the entire movie, a fantastic addition to the core concept of pitting Murphy's humanity against the machinery he's been thrust into.

I was also intrigued by what writer Joshua Zetumer chose to approach the material. I noted in my review of the original RoboCop that I would have enjoyed spending more time getting to know Alex Murphy before his transformation into RoboCop, going deeper into how this transition had an effect on his humanity and vice versa. Zetumer actually uses this as the basis for his story, so the movie never really feels like it's retreading or copying the original, but taking the concept and going his own way. It allows we the audience to really connect with Murphy before the tragedy that changes him, to know just what becoming RoboCop is taking away from him. While the movie does lack some of the acerbic spark found in Verhoeven's original, Zetumer's script does make up for it by giving the movie a little more heart.

And while Zetumer doesn't approach the franchise's satirical element the same way Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner did in 1987, he still has his own unique spin on the idea. Rather than go after Reaganomics and '80s-era big business, Zetumer instead aims for a number of targets. There's references to America's current military policies, particularly its usage of drowns in overseas battlefields, and a subtle jab at companies ruining perfectly good products thanks to an over-reliance on focus groups. His biggest target, though, is right-wing politics, going after them replacing the original's recurring "Media Break" segments with Pat Novak, a political pundit in the vein of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Much like these pundits, the Novak character is condescending, rude, frequently interrupts and shoos away anyone who disagrees with his particular agendas or has an opposing viewpoint on anything. He's much more of a prick than the "Media Break" anchors, and far more interesting and entertaining to watch. And I'll admit that the satirical elements aren't always as biting as they could have been, Zetumer still does a decent enough job handling it.

The acting, however, is inconsistent. Sometimes it's really good, sometimes it isn't. Among the good is Gary Oldman, who plays his character with the perfect amount of pathos. Dr. Norton's internal conflict pitting his moral convictions against his loyalty to his employers is made believable by Oldman's performance, once again proving that Oldman can always be counted on to be awesome no matter how bad or good the movie is.

To tell you the truth, that can be said for much of the cast. Samuel L. Jackson is a lot of fun as the aforementioned pundit Pat Novak, who brings a holier-than-thou smugness to the role. I also really enjoyed Jackie Earle Haley, who plays the coordinator of OmniCorp's military drones and RoboCop's "trainer." Haley is great even in terrible movies, and though his character isn't much, he still manages to make a strong contribution.

Not all of the acting is great, though. For all the praise I gave the script, Zetumer didn't give us any worthwhile villains. Clarence Boddicker and Dick Jones were fantastic, charismatic bad guys, but this remake doesn't even come close. Vallon is such a non-factor and has such little screen time that he's barely worth mentioning at all, while Michael Keaton is done no favors either. I like Keaton a lot and often enjoy his work, but he doesn't really feel like the right actor for the part. He puts forth his best effort, I'll give him that, but the mediocre material holds him back.

But then there's Joel Kinnaman as our titular cyborg hero. He's given a bit more to do than the actors who've played RoboCop in the past, and has the benefit of what appears to be a more comfortable, less restrictive costume than the ones his predecessors wore. He also doesn't make the same kind of impression that Peter Weller or even Robert John Burke did with the role. Kinnaman is stiff for a lot of the movie, only really shining in a few moments. He finally loosens up and starts to really own the character during its second half. But there's an inconsistency there that doesn't help him. Kinnaman doesn't quite knock it out of the park like I'd hoped he would, instead taking some swings that never really find their mark.

That can actually sum up this whole movie. It gets awfully close to greatness, but a few things keep it from getting there. I saw a review that compared the remake of RoboCop to the Total Recall remake. Both are do-overs of classic Paul Verhoeven sci-fi/action movies, and while both remakes have their own redeeming qualities, they're ultimately inferior new takes on old gems. To its credit, though, I fully expected to hate this new RoboCop, but was pleasantly surprised to find that it was still a solid effort despite its flaws. And that's alright by me.

Final Rating: ***

RoboCop 3 (1993)

There exists a phenomenon called "sequelitis," a condition that's plagued many long-running media franchises over the years. Franchises stricken with sequelitis often find the quality of each installment drops as it goes along. It can be due to one of a dozen reasons, from casting issues to a lack of creativity to excessive studio interference. Quite a few franchises have been plagued by sequelitis, but I can't think of many that have suffered quite as badly as the RoboCop saga. Paul Verhoeven's original movie from 1987 is a bona fide classic entry into both the sci-fi and action genres, a benchmark of awesome '80s cinema. But as time passed, it became apparent that Verhoeven had managed to catch lightning in a bottle with that first movie. Attempts to duplicate its success have never really been successful, but the one follow-up that gets the most flak is RoboCop 3. And honestly, it's for good reason. Gone was much of what made Verhoeven's original so great, replaced with a PG-13 mess made for teen audiences but accepted by none. Do you want to know why the RoboCop character all but vanished between 1993 and the recent remake? RoboCop 3 is why.

As the film begins, we learn that while OCP's stock has fallen so far into the toilet that a controlling stake of the company has been sold to the Japanese zaibatsu Kanemitsu Corporation. Their idea for "Delta City" still lives, however, and to accomplish this, OCP has created an armed paramilitary force they call the Urban Rehabilitators. While OCP-created propaganda promotes the "Rehabs," as they're called, as an extension of the Detroit Police Department created to help combat the ever-worsening amount of violent crime that plagues the city, their primary function is to forcibly evict people in the ghetto from their homes by any means necessary in order to make way for Delta City's construction.

But there exists an underground rebellion against OCP and the Rehabs, an ersatz militia opposing the violent relocation efforts. RoboCop (Robert John Burke) and Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen) find themselves attempting to protect civilians caught in the crossfire of a shootout between the Rehabs and the anti-OCP resistance, but Lewis is fatally shot in cold blood by Rehab commander Paul McDaggett (John Castle). His programming rendering him unable to retaliate against OCP employees, a heavily damaged RoboCop is forced to retreat, only managing to actually escape when he's rescued by members of the militia. But RoboCop's programming also drives him to protect the innocent first and foremost, and he quickly joins the resistance fighters in their fight against the Rehabs and OCP.

While it had its strengths, few as they may have been, RoboCop 2 was a disappointment largely because it felt like an inferior copy of the first movie that simply couldn't escape its progenitor's shadow. RoboCop 3, on the other hand, is a disappointment because it's simply a bad movie all the way around. Everything about it will have unsuspecting viewers rolling their eyes at just how goofy everything is. Everything that made the first movie a classic is gone. Hell, even the stuff that made the second movie even remotely watchable is gone too. All we're left with is just a watered-down action movie that is more goofy than fun.

RoboCop 3 was the third (and thus far, final) movie directed by Fred Dekker, who had previously helmed the horror-comedies The Monster Squad and Night of the Creeps during the '80s. But while those two movies have deservedly built reputations as cult classics over the years, this one has similarly built its own reputation as being so bad that it practically killed Dekker's career. His first two movies were creative and unique, but none of what made them special is to be found here. RoboCop 3 looks and feels like a typical, dime-a-dozen PG-13 action movie from the first half of the '90s. It's like watching Double Dragon all over again, only with RoboCop instead of karate. It's a weak mess that is often more dull than exciting, more disappointing than entertaining.

But I could have at least gotten over that had the movie at least boasted a solid script. But nope, we don't even get that. Much like RoboCop 2 the script was originally written by Frank Miller, but was drastically rewritten before production began. The final product, credited to Miller and Dekker, is an absolute mess. For starters, the original's social commentary is turned into a "rich vs. poor" class warfare angle that has all the subtlety of a flashing neon sign. There's no subtext here; everything is laid out on the table for all to see. It's just so weak that it really makes me bother why anybody bothered at all.

And because the movie had to be tone down to get a PG-13, the humor isn't quite as witty or outrageously over the top. It's all dumb gags and watered-down flotsam meant to keep teenagers out of their parents' hair for 105 minutes. The whole thing comes off like they wanted to make it kid-friendly because they knew they had an audience younger than an R-rating would allow. But doing that robs the franchise of everything that made it cool to begin with. I mean, did we need the precocious kid? Was this Dekker's way of making up for the vile and repellent kid from RoboCop 2? And giving Robocop a jetpack and interchangeable attachments for his arm? Why not make it more obvious you're trying to sell toys, guys?

The cast, meanwhile, is hit or miss. Among the misses is John Castle, who plays his role like he was a cut-rate Malcolm McDowell. Much like the movie itself, Castle's character is the weakest villain in the trilogy, and Castle just seems kinda there. I also wasn't too fond of Remy Ryan, who plays a little girl who's adopted by the anti-OCP militia after her parents are killed during the Rehabs' initial relocation effort. Ryan isn't really bad, but the character is so poor that it hinders her performance.

But there is some good among the cast, though. I liked CCH Pounder as the militia's leader and Rip Torn as OCP's new chairman, while Bruce Locke was really cool in his role. Locke plays an android ninja sent by the Kanemitsu Corporation to assist the Rehabs in eliminating RoboCop, and he uses the opportunity to give off a serious "samurai Terminator" vibe. The whole idea's kinda goofy, but Locke pulls it off well.

And last but not least is Robert John Burke, who replaces Peter Weller in the title role. Burke's no Peter Weller, but he still does a fine job regardless. He brings a warmth and humanity that balances RoboCop's robotic side, letting him actually be Murphy for a change. Burke is good in the role, and while Weller will forever be the man behind the character in the eyes of many, myself included, Burke's contributions are worth noting.

When it comes to so-called "franchise killers," RoboCop 3 is particularly bad. The series had already been on a slippery slope after the train wreck that was the second movie, but this one sealed the deal. It completely jettisoned everything that made the original movie great and dumbs it down in an effort to make a few more dollars. RoboCop 3 is one of those sequels that makes you resent the original for having spawned it. And say what you will about the RoboCop remake, but at least it's better than this.

Final Rating: *½