User:Darkwarriorblake/RoboCop
RoboCop opened to generally positive reviews.[1][2] Audience polls by CinemaScore reported that moviegoers gave the film an average grade of "A–" on a scale of F to A+.[3]
Comparisons were made between the film from Frankenstein (1931), Superman (1978), Repo Man (1984), The Terminator (1984), Aliens (1986), and the television series Miami Vice.[4][5][6] The New York Times's, Janet Maslin and The Philadelphia Inquirer's Carrie Ricket said RoboCop created a distinct futuristic vision of Detroit as Blade Runner had for Los Angeles.[4][7] Alongside Time Out's review, Roger Ebert, Desson Thomson, the Chicago Reader's Pat Graham, the Los Angeles Times's Michael Wilmington, and Maslin struggled to identify the film's genre, writing that it combined social satire and philosophy with elements of action, science fiction, thrillers, Westerns, slapstick comedy, romance, snuff films, superhero comics, and camp, without being derivative.[8][9][7][5][10]
David Sterritt of The Christian Science Monitor, Rita Kempley, of The Washington Post, and Wilmington found Verhoeven's direction to be smart and darkly comic, offering sharp social satire, with Kempley offering that in other hands it could have been just a simple action film.[11][6][12] In contrast, Dave Kehr of the Chicago Tribune and Graham believed the film was over-directed with Verhoeven's European filmmaking style lacking rhythm, tension, or momentum. Graham wrote that Verhoeven's typical adeptness at portraying the "sleazily psychological" through physicality failed to properly utilize RoboCop's "Aryan blandness."[10][13] Weller's performance was praised by Kempley and Ebert for his ability to elicit sympathy and convey chivalry and vulnerability while mostly concealed inside a bulky costume. Kempley concluded he offered a certain beauty and grace that added a mythic quality, making his murder even more horrible.[6][8] Conversely, Graham said that Weller "hardly registered" behind the mask[10] Variety's review highlighted Nancy Allen for providing the only human warmth in the film, and Kurtwood Smith as a well-cast "sicko sadist".[14]
Many reviewers discussed the film's violent content.[a] Ebert and Wilmington found the violence to be so excessive that it became deliberately comical, with Ebert writing that ED-209 killing an executive subverted audience expectations of a seemingly serious science-fiction film, making them uncertain what type of film they are watching. Wilmington believed the violent scenes succeeded at creating experiences of sadism and poignancy simultaneously.[8][12] Other reviewers were more critical, including Kehr and Walter Goodman who believed the satire and critiques of corporate corruption were excuses to indulge in violent visuals.[13][15] Graham found the violence had a "brooding agonized quality... as if Verhoeven were both appalled and fascinated" by it, and Sterritt said critical praise for the "nasty" film demonstrated a preference for "style over substance".[10][11]
Kehr and Kempley said the satire of corporations and presentation of corporate executives and street-level criminals as interchangeable was the film's most successful effort, depicting unchecked greed and callous disregard alongside witty criticisms of subjects including game shows and military culture.[13][6] Wilmington, Thomson, and Ricket appreciated the film's adaptation of a classic narrative about a tragic hero seeking revenge and redemption, with Wilmington writing that the typical cliché revenge story is transformed by making the protagonist a machine that keeps succumbing to humanity, emotion, and idealism. He and Ricket considered RoboCop's victory to be satisfying because it offered a fable about a decent hero fighting back against corruption, villains, and the theft of his humanity, with morality and technology on his side.[12][5][4] Kempley agreed that the film's "heart" is the story of Murphy regaining his humanity, saying "with all our flesh-and-blood heroes failing us—from brokers to ballplayers—we need a man of mettle, a real straight shooter who doesn't fool around with Phi Beta Kappas and never puts anything up his nose. What this world needs is 'RoboCop'."[6]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
IndieWireCastwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
LATimesVerhnMakesGoodwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
CinemaScorewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
PhillyInquirReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
WaPoReviewDessonwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
WaPoReviewKempleywas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
NYTimesSleeperwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
RogerEbertReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
TimeOutReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
ChicagoReaderReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
CSMReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
LATimesWilmingtonReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
ChicagoTribuneKehrwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
VarietyReviewwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
NYTimesGoodmanwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).