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

I do get why Robocop 3 sucks an @$$#0!€ clean but I still like this film mainly because of its cyberpunk elements and action. But what makes this third installment the runt of the litter is, as everyone has pointed out, a PG-13 film and it is gay. I hate it when some retards decide to take a beloved R-rated character and turns him into a floater. I hate people.

This lame sequel to the brilliant original masterpiece is yet another example of the law of diminishing returns. Also, unbelievably, it's aimed at CHLDREN, astonishing when you consider the level of mindless violence which filled the first two films. There's not a lot of originality this time around, and film is mainly a rehash of the first, with a plot about punk gangs and soldiers and rebels thrown in.Nancy Allen dies in the first half hour, probably because she didn't want to appear in this garbage. In the first film, when someone died, it meant something. Now we just don't care anymore. To add insult to injury, the lead actor has been changed, as Peter Weller was wise to decline his invitation to return. Robert Burke simply doesn't have the power of Weller, a much under-rated actor in my opinion. Burke's as wooden as a plank. The rest of the cast simply go through their clichéd, uninspired motions.The main disappoint for me was the lack of violence in this film. Let's face it, it was the violence that made the first film what it was. Now, a few people get shot and that's about it. Instead, there are lots of 'comic' scenes which fall flat and show that the material was wearing thin. Robocop was never designed to be a protector of children or a kindly saviour. He was a mean, vengeful cyborg cop who shot the baddies repeatedly and threw people through glass windows and stuff. To see him flying around in the sky in a jet pack is just a travesty, it really is. Degrading stuff.The special effects aren't that bad, apart from the aforementioned hugely unrealistic jet pack scenes, but there's nothing remarkable on offer here, little stop motion animation. The only good thing the film has to offer in the way of effects are the cyborg samurai, Japanese guys who are robots underneath. When their faces smash and stuff it's pretty interesting. Otherwise, it's time for this Robo-outing to visit the scrap heap. Or the realms of television, which is where in fact he went after this abomination.

major spoilers. Its a good movie, you picky bastards. I watched all the movies in one day. Oooh, it is not an adult movie anymore with so much violence. Yes there was more violence in the first Robocop and it was more fun. However, if that movie had so much violence it does not mean that the next should have the same amount or more violence.OMG he is flying, how could they. I do not see what is wrong with Robocop having a jetpack, i thought it was pretty awesome. Also he has gotten another upgrade. Instead of only that gun he now has watched Scarface and said hello to the little friend. So to compensate for the lack of violence he uses this weapon. Also, there were ninjas. RoboCop vs Ninjas. Yes they could have been better and have more equipment. However I do not agree with people who say the first ninja was overpowered and RoboCop should have no trouble with him. RoboCop is slow and the ninja is fast and can cut through steel. Also Robocop just met him and did not know him and his moves. And yes the ninja is also a robot. What I really liked is what there was less of. Prime directive 4 is gone. You know, that thing that kept him from arresting that Dick in the first movie. Now I am not saying it is the best movie, but it is not that bad. I actually really liked it, except when officer Lewis died because she was stupid enough not to wear her armor. The rebels were protecting their home, and I would do that too. So I like that. So, it is clear I like the movie much more than a lot of people.