ROBOCOP remake finds its director and star

[Ethros]

^ Everything is about characters for me, and I'd agree that apart from Alex Murphy and maybe the Gary Oldman doctor, I couldn't have cared less about any one else in the movie.
The "villain" (not Keaton, the actual villain) was such a non-existent character, the "token-black-friend" etc

 

[Samurai8472]

The original movie had you rooting for Murphy all the way, and really wanting you to see him get revenge and kick some ass as Robocop. But this one never comes close to making you feel that. garage. In fact looking back on it, I can't think of even one truly exciting or memorable action sequence in this movie involving the character at all.

I agree. The jump in the air moment for me is when Murphy says "I'm not arresting you anymore" to Clarence. Combine that with the amazing theme in the background and you have a classic

The problem people are having a REALLY hard time with is separating the old movie and new movie. They can't see pass the nostalgia glasses.

They have to see the new movie as its own thing.

 

[theenglish]

The original movie had you rooting for Murphy all the way, and really wanting you to see him get revenge and kick some ass as Robocop. But this one never comes close to making you feel that. garage. In fact looking back on it, I can't think of even one truly exciting or memorable action sequence in this movie involving the character at all.

I agree. The jump in the air moment for me is when Murphy says "I'm not arresting you anymore" to Clarence. Combine that with the amazing theme in the background and you have a classic

The problem people are having a REALLY hard time with is separating the old movie and new movie. They can't see pass the nostalgia glasses.

They have to see the new movie as its own thing.

Then there never should have been a remake. Somebody should have created an entirely different movie. Robocop, the original, was not just an action movie. It was a social commentary and a satire. It had genuinely funny moments amidst the violence and was as much a parody of action movies as it was a part of the genre.

I am not criticizing the new movie as I have yet to see it, but in general I am wary of all remakes that ask to be judged as separate entities.

 

[Timby]

The original movie had you rooting for Murphy all the way, and really wanting you to see him get revenge and kick some ass as Robocop. But this one never comes close to making you feel that. garage. In fact looking back on it, I can't think of even one truly exciting or memorable action sequence in this movie involving the character at all.

I agree. The jump in the air moment for me is when Murphy says "I'm not arresting you anymore" to Clarence. Combine that with the amazing theme in the background and you have a classic

The problem people are having a REALLY hard time with is separating the old movie and new movie. They can't see pass the nostalgia glasses.

They have to see the new movie as its own thing.

Then there never should have been a remake. Somebody should have created an entirely different movie. Robocop, the original, was not just an action movie. It was a social commentary and a satire. It had genuinely funny moments amidst the violence and was as much a parody of action movies as it was a part of the genre.

I am not criticizing the new movie as I have yet to see it, but in general I am wary of all remakes that ask to be judged as separate entities.

Every film, television show or any work of art should be judged on its own merits. It's pointless to criticize a film, for example, for being something it isn't. Criticize it for what it is.

 

[davejames]

Oh please. We're not in art history class here or anything. We're talking about a remake of freakin Robocop. It would be impossible for anyone to watch this movie and NOT be reminded at every step of the original, or find themselves mentally comparing it with the original (especially when every change the movie makes is about a thousand times less powerful and effective than what was done before).

Frankly if it wasn't for the warm memories it stirred up while I was watching it, I probably would have found this remake even MORE forgettable. It's just as generic as can be, and has no real personality of it's own.

 

[Samurai8472]

Oh please. We're not in art history class here or anything. We're talking about a remake of freakin Robocop.

In the most simplistic terms, different interpretations of something make us who we are.

If everything was the same we'd have no uniqueness.

Imagine if Robocop 2014 was a shot by shot/line by line carbon copy. Where's the creativity?

Food
Art
Movies

Everyone has a different way of doing things. Just look at "Batman" and "James Bond" for example.

 

[Marc]

Oh please. We're not in art history class here or anything. We're talking about a remake of freakin Robocop.

In the most simplistic terms, different interpretations of something make us who we are.

If everything was the same we'd have no uniqueness.

Imagine if Robocop 2014 was a shot by shot/line by line carbon copy. Where's the creativity?

We'd have the diasterous remake of Psycho

Food
Art
Movies

Everyone has a different way of doing things. Just look at "Batman" and "James Bond" for example.

True but there are still fundamentals of both franchises that you don't change.

In the case of the original Robocop at least the one of those elements was the satire and political commentary (which if not carried into the two sequels lived on in Robocop the Series)

From my reading of reviews it seems this element has been overlooked big time and it's being missed. It's like Bond without the booze, sex and violence or Batman without the cape and cowl.

 

[Harvey]

RoboCop 2 didn't drop the satire completely. The news broadcasts, as I recall, were still an important element of the movie.

 

[Trekker4747]

If anything Robocop 2 cranked up the satire.

 

[Pondwater]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I loved the original but I really enjoyed watching this one yesterday. What I liked about it was that it kept his family in, instead of them disappearing and moving away. They gave him a motorcycle instead of a Ford Tempo/Taurus and Samuel L. Jackson.

 

[Aldo]

I saw this today and I've been trying to articulate my thoughts about it, but it' shard, because quite frankly, this movie is a mess. I went in wanting to enjoy this, because I think Joel Kinnaman is a great actor and deserves to break into movies. I also tried very hard not to compare this movie to the original, because it deserves to be critiqued on it's own merits.

For the most part I found the movie to be dull. Endless scenes of executives talking, and endless scenes of scientists working on Murphy. Every once and a while the movie would pick up and I finally start it was going to kick into high gear...but then we're treated to more scenes of people talking. I'm not saying that people talking can't be done interestingly, but (to me) nothing of interest was being said, I was waiting for that moment where Murphy would rip loose and go chasing after the people responsible for his death (well in this movie it's only attempted murder), that moment comes, but it's never as heart poundingly awesome as it should be.

Someone above pointed this out too; there's a sequence in the film where the Scientists make it so Murphy is not in control of himself when engaged in combat, he is made to believe he still has control though (this is necessary to take out the human element of fear or hesitation). A lot could be done with this idea, like what happens when Murphy finds out he's no longer in control? How do you deal with that? Nope. Nothing is done with it, it's dropped almost as quickly as it's presented.

Shame, really. I think there was a lot of potential in this, but it all falls flat. Worse of all is Sam Jackson's character, he doesn't add anything to the film and actually slows down the pacing even more.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I loved the original but I really enjoyed watching this one yesterday. What I liked about it was that it kept his family in, instead of them disappearing and moving away. They gave him a motorcycle instead of a Ford Tempo/Taurus and Samuel L. Jackson.

It was a 1988 Ford Taurus a design so radical at time it could pass for a car of a future some 50 years away. Yeah, not so much now.

 

[Aldo]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I loved the original but I really enjoyed watching this one yesterday. What I liked about it was that it kept his family in, instead of them disappearing and moving away. They gave him a motorcycle instead of a Ford Tempo/Taurus and Samuel L. Jackson.

It was a1998 Ford Taurus a design so radical at time it could pass for a car of a future some 50 years away. Yeah, not so much now.

Just like how a Delorean looked like a futuristic car back in 1985.

 

[DWF]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I loved the original but I really enjoyed watching this one yesterday. What I liked about it was that it kept his family in, instead of them disappearing and moving away. They gave him a motorcycle instead of a Ford Tempo/Taurus and Samuel L. Jackson.

It was a1998 Ford Taurus a design so radical at time it could pass for a car of a future some 50 years away. Yeah, not so much now.

A 1998 Ford Taurus in a 1987 movie?

 

[theenglish]

Oh please. We're not in art history class here or anything. We're talking about a remake of freakin Robocop.

In the most simplistic terms, different interpretations of something make us who we are.

If everything was the same we'd have no uniqueness.

Imagine if Robocop 2014 was a shot by shot/line by line carbon copy. Where's the creativity?

Food
Art
Movies

Everyone has a different way of doing things. Just look at "Batman" and "James Bond" for example.

Robocop never should have had sequels to begin with, but that is a different thread. James Bond and Batman are both movies that began as different source material, and the source material was an ongoing story or series. It makes a lot of sense to return to these types of franchises in movies because you can always reinterpret the original material.

Robocop is different; it was a one off movie that spun off into mediocre sequels.

If a movie is going to reinterpret a previous movie that itself was not based on something else then it needs to acknowledge the original (either stylistically or thematically), and simultaneously reinterpret it in some new and interesting way. Otherwise, why do a remake? Why not just make a wholly original movie? A cyborg cop was not an idea originated by Robocop.

 

[Ethros]

The new movie is more of a cash in on the success ofthe Iron Man movies than the original Robocop really

 

[Trekker4747]

Just like how a Delorean looked like a futuristic car back in 1985.

Well, considering the DeLorean was not meant to be a futuristic car and was already a few years old when the movie came out....

A 1998 Ford Taurus in a 1987 movie?

Car model years usually come out the year before, but looking into it, the year was a 1986 Taurus. Either way, it was a First Generation Taurus.

Anyway, my review:

Robocop

My Grade: B-

---------------------------------

A review I saw said this movie was "perfectly okay."

I think I agree with that.

Let's clear the air first and get this out of the way:

Of course the original was better. It's far superior in almost every way if you allow for the time period it was made in and the budget it had to run with. The original movie knew what it wanted to be and it did a damn good job of doing it. It also did a far superior job in showing the "darkness" of what happened to Murphy, what he was going through and what he now is.

Now that brings us to this:

Robocop takes place sometime in the not-too-distant future in Detroit, Michigan. Overseas America's occupation of hostile areas of the world is overseen by robots. ED-209 units walk the streets like tanks and bipedal android drones patrol the streets scanning citizens and trying to keep the population safe. Even if it's under complete occupational rule.

Back in America a national law forbids the use of robots as part of a police force, the idea being a human mind behind the trigger is safer than a robotic mind. The heads of Omni Consumer Products aren't happy with this law as not being able to make their drones and law-enforcement droids in the US is limiting their market. The head of OCP decides to circumvent the law by mating a man into a machine.

Alex Murphy is a Detroit police officer who gains the attention of the wrong people whom he's been investigating and is critically injured by a car bomb. The head of the droid program talks with his surviving wife and convinces her to let him put Alex into the machine, it being his only chance to live something close to a "normal" life. (Otherwise if he recovers he'll be blind, deaf, and a triple amputee.) She agrees and Murphy is placed into a mechanized suit, only his head, lungs and a hand (?!) being left of him. As tests progress more and more of Murphy's humanity is drained out to make him more efficient.

The movie spends a lot of time building up Robocop almost to superhero movie origin-story levels. Not much time is spent on what the main plot and really "crime" is. Even when we get there it's not entirely clear beyond OCP just wanting to sell its products in the US.

The movie is entertaining, pretty good action scenes though I did have a problem with one scene that takes place almost entirely int he dark aside from some flashes of light, to the shooter's night-vision glasses and to Robocop's HUD.

All and all a "good" movie, I guess. But I suppose not worth going to the theaters to see. I suspect the movie wants to set-up a franchise as, again, this feels very much like an "origin story" and less like a movie that wants to stand on its own and be a self-contained story.

There's some nice nods to the original and even some things translated over ("Directive 4" , for example.) but there's just parts that, well, made me wish I was watching a direct "remake" of the original with just better effects or something. As some of the story changes made are just odd or drags the pace down.

 

[Guy Gardener]

C+.

Meh.

 

[Trekker4747]

C+.

Meh.

I grade on a very goofy curve, that removed that's probably where I'd finally land. I "liked" it but the movie has flaws. Again, it felt more like an origin movie for a franchise, it's just somehow not a very engaging or interesting origin story. I guess the best analogue I can find is "Iron Man" which spends a good bulk of the movie with Tony becoming the titular superhero and, really, the main villain and his goals are pretty tame and not really a major part of the story.

Difference is watching Tony build and become Iron Man is engaging and fun.

 

[Aldo]

Just like how a Delorean looked like a futuristic car back in 1985.

Well, considering the DeLorean was not meant to be a futuristic car and was already a few years old when the movie came out....

Way to completely miss the point of my post

One of the reasons the Delorean was picked for the movie was because of how futuristic it looked around '85 and how it would contrast with the quaint 1950s setting.

And you still didn't notice that you cited 1998 as the year the car that the 6000 SUX was based on. That's what DWF was pointing out in your post. Sure it was a typo, I know you meant '89, and I'm sure he did too.