RoboCop (1987).  Director: Paul Verhoeven.  Starring: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Ronny Cox, Miguel Ferrer.

Back in the "good old days", way before the internet informed us about everything coming our way (including detailed plot spoilers, surprise cameos, and who argued with whom on the set on a particular day), moviegoers relied on television (Entertainment Tonight, for me at least), the newspaper, magazines, and the cinema itself in the form of movie previews and posters to figure out what movies would soon show up.

I still recall going to the theatre sometime in 1986 or '87, going to see some long forgotten film, and being stunned to find in the theatre's lobby, beside the exit door, a full sized cardboard cutout of a man in a bizarre, almost cheesy metal suit holding a big handgun and looking directly at us.  Below, written in a very flashy metallic font was the legend: “Robocop”.

Upon seeing it, I was howling with laughter.

How stupid did that look?

A robot cop.  RoboCop.  Come on.  How could a film that cheesy looking possibly be any good?

I received the answer some time later, while watching Siskel and Ebert.  They were, if memory serves, both quite taken by the film, noting that while it was extremely violent, it was also very humorous and extremely clever.  They, along with many other critics, heartily recommend it.

Even more intriguingly, I believe Roger Ebert noted (again, if my memory is right and I’m not confusing more than one episode of the show) that the version of the film they originally screened was even more violent than the one being released to the theatres.  I suspect it was this very episode of Siskel and Ebert that started of my curiosity regarding alternate versions of films.

Regardless, based on their positive words and those of most other critics (with the exception of my local paper's movie critic, who gave the film the dreaded "no stars"), I decided to give RoboCop a try.  Like Siskel and Ebert, I left the theatre very entertained.  The film was just what all the critics said it was: Violent as hell but also darkly humorous when it wasn’t seriously silly.  It was also, surprisingly, a genuine superhero film, although some of the superhero clichés were subverted and twisted.  For example, at the end of the film, when someone asks RoboCop who he is, he says he's "Murphy", affirming his humanity in a sequence that any other movie would have had the character proudly state "I'm RoboCop".

The big question, the one that at that time had no answer, was what was missing from the theatrical version?  How much more violent was the version Siskel and Ebert originally saw compared to the one currently in theatres?

When Criterion released a special edition of RoboCop on laserdisc and it was purported to be the “uncut” version of the film, I jumped at purchasing it.  What I found, however, proved mildly disappointing.

Sure, the movie was indeed more violent, but the cuts scenes amounted to only a few seconds, certainly far less than a minute of total time.  Murphy’s death is a little more bloody (he gets a particularly gruesome head shot).  The unfortunate member of the board who is tasked to try out the ED-209 gets blasted some more…after he’s already dead.  There's also a great deal of blood splattering RoboCop when he stabs a baddy in the throat.  That's pretty much it.

Murphy’s death early on in the film, director Paul Verhoeven states in the movie's bonuses, was extremely violent because we had little time to get to know Murphy as a person and, therefore, by killing him in such a very violent fashion by such brutal, creepy thugs, we are instantly forced to feel sympathy for him.  Verhoeven was right.  Murphy's death most certainly played on my sympathies, but the few extra shots don't necessarily increase these feelings.

The death of the member of the board, on the other hand, was a case where the ultra violence did add something to the scene.  For in the uncut version of this scene, the fearsome robot not only is too stupid to realize the board member has dropped the gun as asked, but is also too stupid to realize that it has already killed the "threat" and continues to fire at the lifeless body.

By trimming the continued shooting, the scene, as Ebert described it, is no longer humorous and in the theatrical version plays out as horrifying.  He felt there was an irony in the MPAA's asking to trim a scene that was humorous and make it more brutal!

Myself?  I didn’t see it that way.  Then again, my first exposure to that sequence was the "grim" theatrical cut.  When I finally saw the uncut version, it didn’t play out as humorous, dark or otherwise.

Bottom line: The theatrical cut versus the uncut version consists of only a few seconds of added violence/gore.  Either version of the film is worth catching but just be aware that the “uncut” version isn’t all that significantly different from the theatrical.

The DVD release features a couple of other cut scenes and the extended variety how sprinkled throughout the film.  This is worth a look, but, again, the gem is the movie itself.

Do yourself a favor and avoid the sequels.