I'll leave mine in a spoiler tag but if you've read anything on the film or any reviews it shouldn't spoil anything...too much
My quick review: Like the original, with no humour, violence or awesome - it is pretty and sounds nice enough though, like that girl or boy you fancy that's just, deep down, not that interesting...
Spoiler:
I love Robocop. I remember winning a card cut-out from the original release by drawing my own name out of a hat when I was about 8, can't recall if I saw the film before then or not, but I knew it was an awesome thing to win...
...so I just got back from the cinema and thought the movie was a solid m'eh, I wasn't expecting awesomeness but I also didn't read any reviews and only saw the trailer once, so I went in as objectively as possible and I've never really felt so underwhelmed by a film before. It was just ok with no real outstanding moments (other than what's left of Alex) and the rest of the audience felt still to me, no one moved at all, or laughed (until a little at the end and I lol'd at the fat guy a bit - no one's perfect), or cried, or gasped, or anything, they were just watching as impassively as I was.
It felt like the movie should be great, it looked it and the sound design was spot-on (apart from some guns), but it's just too serious for it's own good IMHO. It didn't help that I had no affinity for Murphy, I don't know what it was, he wasn't a rookie and started out being serious, but no one (except the tearful wife) seemed that bothered by his 'death'.
They tried a few shoe-horned nods to the original but overall I felt the film dragged itself a bit, without any depth, tension or character required to justify it. It's like the film was too afraid to commit to anything, be it humour or politics. Hell at least the third film had some traces of humour with a couple of corporate suicides after OCP went broke and a weird lol moment when the robot-samurai re-arranges his face, this one had nothing like that...no personal menace at all and no real characters, just sketches of people...the PR guy, the military guy, the CEO guy, the humane-science guy etc...
Aside from this there are a few, some picky, facts/points:
Does he kill everyone or incapacitate them? I had no idea half the time and it made it seem like it was okay to kill everyone, as if he turned into Dredd. Since when does attempted murder hold the death penalty? It was as if he had little to no protocols about the Law itself?
It may please some of you to hear that in the near future there will be .50 cal assault rifles a-plenty with little to no recoil, or noise, or aesthetic threat of any kind
Corrupt cops leave their fething finger prints on weapon's they somehow steal from a police evidence room - genius What's worse is that this fact is made pointless by CCTV footage.
The use of Drones didn't seem to bother anyone at all, other than in a few placards, a pie chart and a mostly harmless Senator - where's the President or other media in this 'debate'? It feels like it should be a central issue, but isn't.
Iran again? Real politics or Hollywood propoganda, you decide
You can will Dopamine into your brain by thinking how your son and wife are sad panda's...scratch that - by getting angry enough that you ignore them and avenge your own 'murder' instead, it's all about you...
Detroit didn't look, or feel, like Robocop Detroit, or even real-world Detroit - the crime is pushed into the background with no anarchic feeling to it at all, as if all is peachy in detroit apart from several hundred outstanding arrests
Overall I think the 12A rating hurt the film as it couldn't explore anything deep enough and also meant there was little anarchy, as if crime wasn't that much of a problem that required the solution the whole drone 'debate' was about.
I'd say it's worth the money if you have, like I did, a morbid curiosity, as it's not aweful, but beyond that I'd stay clear and save your money, I don't know buy or make a really nice burger or something instead, it'll be far more satisfying. If you somehow haven't seen the original, watch that instead.
I might go to see it as the gf is a big fan of the original and wants to see if they made a mess of it. The posters don't enthuse me. Robocop looks like a robot ninja which I don't like at all.
That costume looks designed to look 'kewl' in a crouching position which he'll be in quite often after leaping out of burning buildings or flying trucks. The rest of the time he'll be bouncing off the walls Matrix style. Am I close?
I've read the same thing in reviews.. basically the original but with no sense of humour or satire. Will probably go and see it, but have low expectations in the same way that I did when going to see the Total Recall remake (which might actually help!)
Yeah it's worth seeing if you're that curious to see what they've done to it but it's just me'h. The suit looks a little better than in the trailers though and sounds just right (like its got real weight to it) and also fits with the Drone design a bit (which it would).
The action isn't OTT a la Matrix, but it isn't great as it's not allowed to dwell on anything. He rides his bike and gets shot up badly, which is welcome, but the gun's make no sense - other than ED 209's, which have 0 character about them, like all the other characters (except maybe Sammy L - which isn't allowed to be crazy enough either). There's just no soul to it, no dynamic between him and his partner, no wacky villains, not even anything that amount's to any one-liner's other than those re-hashed from the original. The ending also felt forced.
It's hard to talk about really as with great/fun films you have stuff to talk about and with really bad/silly films you have lots to talk about - but an average film with little to no redeeming features? I'd say it's worth watching once, maybe rent, but it certainly has no longevity to it. I felt numb walking out of the cinema, whereas if I've seen a good or evocative film I usually think of the film or think 'what if I could do that/had that/was that?' but with this - nothing. In fact it made me want to watch the original again, which is perhaps the best legacy it could have on a generation that hasn't seen it.
LOL at that remake - will watch now
The film's main problem is that it is serious, but not serious enough or brave enough to go for satire or strong political commentary - it's strictly middle-of-the-road bland suit conservative guy.
If it was set in an anarchic America, where the government is on the edge to total collapse and where a group like OCP was calling the shots, it would be a lot better - it would maybe warrant the use of Drones over humans for its own internal security, that would be something, as it is the Detroit in this film doesn't feel like it needs a solution like Robocop. Sadly Hollywood didn't feel the same
Breotan wrote: I was pleasantly surprise by the Total Recall remake so I'll check this out with an open mind. Still, having him keep the arm does seem really silly.
You're kidding right? The total recall remake was total ass. The only thing it had going for it was it was really pretty to look at.
warspawned wrote: I'll leave mine in a spoiler tag but if you've read anything on the film or any reviews it shouldn't spoil anything...too much
My quick review: Like the original, with no humour, violence or awesome - it is pretty and sounds nice enough though, like that girl or boy you fancy that's just, deep down, not that interesting...
Spoiler:
I love Robocop. I remember winning a card cut-out from the original release by drawing my own name out of a hat when I was about 8, can't recall if I saw the film before then or not, but I knew it was an awesome thing to win...
...so I just got back from the cinema and thought the movie was a solid m'eh, I wasn't expecting awesomeness but I also didn't read any reviews and only saw the trailer once, so I went in as objectively as possible and I've never really felt so underwhelmed by a film before. It was just ok with no real outstanding moments (other than what's left of Alex) and the rest of the audience felt still to me, no one moved at all, or laughed (until a little at the end and I lol'd at the fat guy a bit - no one's perfect), or cried, or gasped, or anything, they were just watching as impassively as I was.
It felt like the movie should be great, it looked it and the sound design was spot-on (apart from some guns), but it's just too serious for it's own good IMHO. It didn't help that I had no affinity for Murphy, I don't know what it was, he wasn't a rookie and started out being serious, but no one (except the tearful wife) seemed that bothered by his 'death'.
They tried a few shoe-horned nods to the original but overall I felt the film dragged itself a bit, without any depth, tension or character required to justify it. It's like the film was too afraid to commit to anything, be it humour or politics. Hell at least the third film had some traces of humour with a couple of corporate suicides after OCP went broke and a weird lol moment when the robot-samurai re-arranges his face, this one had nothing like that...no personal menace at all and no real characters, just sketches of people...the PR guy, the military guy, the CEO guy, the humane-science guy etc...
Aside from this there are a few, some picky, facts/points:
Does he kill everyone or incapacitate them? I had no idea half the time and it made it seem like it was okay to kill everyone, as if he turned into Dredd. Since when does attempted murder hold the death penalty? It was as if he had little to no protocols about the Law itself?
It may please some of you to hear that in the near future there will be .50 cal assault rifles a-plenty with little to no recoil, or noise, or aesthetic threat of any kind
Corrupt cops leave their fething finger prints on weapon's they somehow steal from a police evidence room - genius What's worse is that this fact is made pointless by CCTV footage.
The use of Drones didn't seem to bother anyone at all, other than in a few placards, a pie chart and a mostly harmless Senator - where's the President or other media in this 'debate'? It feels like it should be a central issue, but isn't.
Iran again? Real politics or Hollywood propoganda, you decide
You can will Dopamine into your brain by thinking how your son and wife are sad panda's...scratch that - by getting angry enough that you ignore them and avenge your own 'murder' instead, it's all about you...
Detroit didn't look, or feel, like Robocop Detroit, or even real-world Detroit - the crime is pushed into the background with no anarchic feeling to it at all, as if all is peachy in detroit apart from several hundred outstanding arrests
Overall I think the 12A rating hurt the film as it couldn't explore anything deep enough and also meant there was little anarchy, as if crime wasn't that much of a problem that required the solution the whole drone 'debate' was about.
I'd say it's worth the money if you have, like I did, a morbid curiosity, as it's not aweful, but beyond that I'd stay clear and save your money, I don't know buy or make a really nice burger or something instead, it'll be far more satisfying. If you somehow haven't seen the original, watch that instead.
Its a classic that didnt need a remake atleast not the shoddy cgi pg friendly garbage that the remake is...
The over-riding impression I'm getting from this film is that it completely lacks balls, and was probably murdered by committee at the inception stage.
I had little hope for this to be any good, and this was based on the fact that it was quite incredible that the original Robocop was a good movie. I mean, 'society has gone to hell so here's an ultra-violent solution' was been a film industry standard for decades, and while a few of those films were fun, Robocop is basically the good one, and it's good because it finds the perfect balance between satirising the concept and embracing it.
Then I saw the latest trailer with the images of ED-209s and human sized robots patrolling the streets and I realised there's actually a lot of scope for a modernised Robocop movie. You don't even need societal decay, just the drive to more modern policing solutions and tight budgets can justify putting drones in the skies and robot police on the ground and start asking some interesting questions. Unfortunately, it sounds like the Robocop movie we got is not that movie.
Monster Rain wrote: Well yeah, with all the drones flying about it's really not all that far fetched a concept.
Yeah, that's the (admittedly very late) realisation that shifted me from the 'Robocop remake is pointless' camp to the 'well actually given the way the world has changed since the first film there is actually some interesting things for a new Robocop to comment on' camp.
But from what I can tell that potential is basically squandered.
If you want a hard R movie look for the recent red band trailer for Sabotage starring a whole slew of people, with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead. I'd post it here, but it is incredibly NSFW.
You can make a good throw back to the 80's action films without sacrificing, Rambo for instance. It amped the blood and gore to insane levels. Only 3 people die in First Blood, In Rambo the count is around 180 most of which is very graphic.
The difference is that with Rambo they weren't willing to pull any punches and didn't try and aim for a younger audience for the toy buy ins. Kinda sad to see Robocop get dulled down, even by todays standards it was edgy and violent as hell, that's what made it so great. Softening it to a PG-13 even with the more lax modern ratings standards means it's going to be so much weaker compared to the original.
I just pray they don't ever decide to remake the Terminator as kid friendly, because if they do I'll be stabbing somebody.
Monster Rain wrote: Well yeah, with all the drones flying about it's really not all that far fetched a concept.
Yeah, that's the (admittedly very late) realisation that shifted me from the 'Robocop remake is pointless' camp to the 'well actually given the way the world has changed since the first film there is actually some interesting things for a new Robocop to comment on' camp.
But from what I can tell that potential is basically squandered.
They could also have used the premise as a way to tell a story about people like Tammy Duckworth - something less "Corporations are evil" and more "This is what some veterans of Iraq and Afganistan are going through."
One thing I noticed in the trailer is that his right hand is intact but the left appears to be cyborg. His right hand was the first to go in the original, so maybe it's an intentional thought?
paulson games wrote: You can make a good throw back to the 80's action films without sacrificing, Rambo for instance. It amped the blood and gore to insane levels. Only 3 people die in First Blood, In Rambo the count is around 180 most of which is very graphic.
The difference is that with Rambo they weren't willing to pull any punches and didn't try and aim for a younger audience for the toy buy ins. Kinda sad to see Robocop get dulled down, even by todays standards it was edgy and violent as hell, that's what made it so great. Softening it to a PG-13 even with the more lax modern ratings standards means it's going to be so much weaker compared to the original.
I just pray they don't ever decide to remake the Terminator as kid friendly, because if they do I'll be stabbing somebody.
Very true. I, for one am tired of seeing all of these kiddy friendly remakes. just because little Timmy wants to watch it, dosnt mean he can.
Breotan wrote: I was pleasantly surprise by the Total Recall remake so I'll check this out with an open mind. Still, having him keep the arm does seem really silly.
You're kidding right? The total recall remake was total ass. The only thing it had going for it was it was really pretty to look at.
A lot of people don't like it, but I did. Listening to people talk about it, it seems that most of the hatred comes from people who really liked the first one and couldn't let go of it. Sort of like the way there are some people who really hate the remake of Galactica.
Or it could be because the new movie really isn't that good (which has little to do with how much enjoyment you can take from it). And the remake of Galactica was bad. Started out strong, but turned the gak fast (difference here is that the first Galactica wasn't that great to begin with).
Ahtman wrote: If you want a hard R movie look for the recent red band trailer for Sabotage starring a whole slew of people, with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead. I'd post it here, but it is incredibly NSFW.
I thought about spoilering it, but even then i still think that might be a bit much for Dakka OT.
Not that it's particularly much worse than anything I've ever seen, just maybe not Dakka friendly.
It looks like a watchable film, not loving the look though seems very made for TV/Cheap.
AlexHolker wrote: They could also have used the premise as a way to tell a story about people like Tammy Duckworth - something less "Corporations are evil" and more "This is what some veterans of Iraq and Afganistan are going through."
That's maybe a step too far from the original premise, I think? Robocop without the dystopia is the Six Million Dollar Man. I could see a remake of the Six Million Dollar Man being used to explore the challenges of wounded vets. As long as it also contained lots of scenes of jumping really high and landing on cars driven by international jewel thieves.
AlexHolker wrote: They could also have used the premise as a way to tell a story about people like Tammy Duckworth - something less "Corporations are evil" and more "This is what some veterans of Iraq and Afganistan are going through."
That's maybe a step too far from the original premise, I think?
Maybe, but being too close was doomed to failure. If the reboot wasn't going to be better than the original, it could at least be different to the original, instead of being a poor imitation.
AlexHolker wrote: Maybe, but being too close was doomed to failure. If the reboot wasn't going to be better than the original, it could at least be different to the original, instead of being a poor imitation.
I don't think the problem with the remake is that it's too close to the original, not by a long shot. And if something had to be changed, I really don't think removing the dystopia is what needs to go.
Breotan wrote: I was pleasantly surprise by the Total Recall remake so I'll check this out with an open mind. Still, having him keep the arm does seem really silly.
You're kidding right? The total recall remake was total ass. The only thing it had going for it was it was really pretty to look at.
A lot of people don't like it, but I did. Listening to people talk about it, it seems that most of the hatred comes from people who really liked the first one and couldn't let go of it. Sort of like the way there are some people who really hate the remake of Galactica.
Galactica started out strong but sadly splintered and fell apart at the end... wasent supposed to be so punny later seasons
AlexHolker wrote: Maybe, but being too close was doomed to failure. If the reboot wasn't going to be better than the original, it could at least be different to the original, instead of being a poor imitation.
I don't think the problem with the remake is that it's too close to the original, not by a long shot.
Not taken in isolation, no. But given the lack of will to do a straight reboot done right, they could have made a different movie where that lack of will wasn't such a crippling weakness.
Robocop was the first ever ’18 certificate’ (the British equivalent to an R rating) film I ever saw. That’s a rite of passage for any young lad and as a result Robocop has always had a special place in my heart.
I knew the remake would suck, especially after that god awful Total Recall debacle. Remakes should always be approached with caution unless they are being done for the right reasons. The days of truly interesting remakes that updated older tales for newer times such as The Fly, The Thing or Invasion of the Body Snatchers are long gone. Can anyone remember the last remake that didn’t suck?
I won't bother. I'm honestly so tired of all the remakes. Every movie that comes out anymore is just a remake of another remake. I've lost track on how many batmans or spidermans were on. Give me something new.
Ahtman wrote: If you want a hard R movie look for the recent red band trailer for Sabotage starring a whole slew of people, with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead. I'd post it here, but it is incredibly NSFW.
Wow that looks kind of incredible.
Going back to the topic: Robocop has a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes. That sounds kind of promising, actually, in my opinion. I thought it would be aggressively terrible, not merely bad.
Saw it yesterday, without any expectations whatsoever.
That kind of made it worse because it starts out really well. It was actually clever and thoughtful for the first hour or so, but it was like Man of Steel. Halfway through, the producers ring the fight bell and all the slow and subtle build up goes out the window to make way for the action, which is okay in some places but falls into the same trap with most other modern action films; all style, no substance. The plot's a bit all over the place too.
At least Samuel L. Jackson is having fun as the Bill O'Reilly of the future.
I went to see this yesterday and was pleasantly surprised. It was a perfectly passable action flick and despite the moans over the lack of satire compared to the original there is allot of political stuff in there. The whole plot revolves around the ethic of drone warfare debate.
Also I’m surprised this is a 12A, there may well be little blood but there is still plenty of violence and there is a bit when we get to see what remains of Murphy and it’s certainly not for the queasy. 20 years ago this would probably have received an 18 certificate or at the very least a 15.
Went and saw it knowing it would be no where near as good. Mainly as it was billed sutible for 12 year olds not 18, like the original. The finger print thing was a, realy!!!, type of moment, but on the whole I think they pulled of a good shootem up film. This was proably down to key actors, cast in it but hey, I enjoyed it.
paulson games wrote: You can make a good throw back to the 80's action films without sacrificing, Rambo for instance. It amped the blood and gore to insane levels. Only 3 people die in First Blood, In Rambo the count is around 180 most of which is very graphic.
The difference is that with Rambo they weren't willing to pull any punches and didn't try and aim for a younger audience for the toy buy ins. Kinda sad to see Robocop get dulled down, even by todays standards it was edgy and violent as hell, that's what made it so great. Softening it to a PG-13 even with the more lax modern ratings standards means it's going to be so much weaker compared to the original.
I just pray they don't ever decide to remake the Terminator as kid friendly, because if they do I'll be stabbing somebody.
Uhmmmmmmmmm what? You realize that every terminator movie since T2 has had a toy line yes?
paulson games wrote: You can make a good throw back to the 80's action films without sacrificing, Rambo for instance. It amped the blood and gore to insane levels. Only 3 people die in First Blood, In Rambo the count is around 180 most of which is very graphic.
The difference is that with Rambo they weren't willing to pull any punches and didn't try and aim for a younger audience for the toy buy ins. Kinda sad to see Robocop get dulled down, even by todays standards it was edgy and violent as hell, that's what made it so great. Softening it to a PG-13 even with the more lax modern ratings standards means it's going to be so much weaker compared to the original.
I just pray they don't ever decide to remake the Terminator as kid friendly, because if they do I'll be stabbing somebody.
Uhmmmmmmmmm what? You realize that every terminator movie since T2 has had a toy line yes?
This. The original Robocop had toys associated with it too.
That's what made the 80's so cool - movies were filmed for adults but then marketed to children.
It had absolutely NONE of the mindfethery that PKD was famous for - and as bad as the Verhoeven version was, it at least paid some attention to that.
They dumped the entire MARS plot. Kinda important to the original story.
I'm not sure Mars really matters, to be honest. It's a key setting detail, but in terms of plot or concept you can really replace Mars with any other faraway setting. And honestly, the idea of Earth being just England and the Colony was silly enough to be a fun set up.
It's also not really one of the better Phillip K Dick stories, so I don't know if there's much value in putting that story on a pedastal.
What the original film did, though, was satirise the crazy action films that we were otherwise accepting uncritically. Is all the ridiculous violence and mayhem we're seeing the dream of a man entering psychosis, or is it 'really' happening, just like we're asked to believe in any other action movie of the period that we sit through? Which says a lot about the insane action movies we love so much.
The new film failed, I think, because outside of the 'is it a dream thing' it was basically just a fairly boring action movie. It asks the same question, but lacking the visceral violence of the original movie, the answer is 'who cares?'
About the only thing it had going for it were some nice fx shots and Kate B kicking arse.
I would say not so much as Beckinsale kicking ass, but just her ass in general. Through each of those incredibly long chase scenes, pretty much the only thing that kept me watching was that they kept showing her running about in tight pants. Other than that the film was terrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: This. The original Robocop had toys associated with it too.
That's what made the 80's so cool - movies were filmed for adults but then marketed to children.
Yep. Absolutely juvenile and adults only at the same time
sebster wrote: What the original film did, though, was satirise the crazy action films that we were otherwise accepting uncritically. Is all the ridiculous violence and mayhem we're seeing the dream of a man entering psychosis, or is it 'really' happening, just like we're asked to believe in any other action movie of the period that we sit through? Which says a lot about the insane action movies we love so much.
There was an interesting post I read over on TV Tropes that said the same thing about Predator, and it makes sense. When you look at it Predator is an action hero in that movie. A one man/alien army with a personal arsenal of weapons that he uses to take out mooks with little to no effort, the mooks in this case being the more typical American macho action heros of films like Rambo and Commando who are sudden leveled down to typical goons in their own film as Predator starts picking them off.
Personally, I never liked Total Recall much. I found the film kind of boring. Some stuff happens, then some more stuff, then he's on Mars. It felt very like going through the motions, but maybe that's the point?
LordofHats wrote: There was an interesting post I read over on TV Tropes that said the same thing about Predator, and it makes sense. When you look at it Predator is an action hero in that movie. A one man/alien army with a personal arsenal of weapons that he uses to take out mooks with little to no effort, the mooks in this case being the more typical American macho action heros of films like Rambo and Commando who are sudden leveled down to typical goons in their own film as Predator starts picking them off.
Yeah, I really like how the film starts as a typical action romp, with a mission in the jungle and CIA sub-plot and all that, and then just switches and the heroes who'd slaughtered all those mooks suddenly were mooks.
Personally, I never liked Total Recall much. I found the film kind of boring. Some stuff happens, then some more stuff, then he's on Mars. It felt very like going through the motions, but maybe that's the point?
As long as you love the original Robocop, all is forgiven.
Anyhow, I think maybe it makes a difference when you see it for the first time as a kid. First time I saw Total Recall I loved all the brutality, just as I loved it in all those movies, and I thought the idea that it might be a dream was a proper puzzle we were supposed to figure out. Then years later when I was watching it again and I realised what the film was actually doing, well the point was made stronger because of my mindset when I was kid watching these films for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think you guys spend to much time analyzing these movies.
What should we be spending out time thinking about?
There is one thing that does stick my my craw a little after watching the new Robocop.
Spoiler:
He has 2 sidearms - one of them is a small submachinegun, and the other is a long pistol that acts as a combi-weapon; in that it fires either bullets or taser projectiles. The taser projectiles do not have wires to carry current, they are self-contained. He blasts someone with one of those, they go down bzzzting. That's fine and OK with me.
The problem is... why doesn't he just shoot the taser bullets all the time?
They establish early in the movie that he can't be hurt by anything under 50 caliber. At one point they are spraying him with 47 caliber ammo which damages him but can't kill him. OK, if you know anything about guns that's a little stupid in that the penetration would be more important than the caliber, but, whatever, know your audience and dial it down a little. My point here is to establish that he is, for all intents and purposes, immune to most small arms fire. so why use deadly force at all? I mean I can see a bad guy has a hostage a gunpoint, you don't want to risk a spasm shot from a taser round, but in almost every combat he is in he is just mowing down bad guys who generally speaking present no actual meaningful threat to him and there are no bystanders present.
There is no real justification for lethal force in almost any of the gunfights you see him get into.
Additionally, and this is a little bit of a minor squibble, at one point he breaks a guys hand and then stomps it to get information out of him. I mean, that strikes me as some pretty admissible police brutality, since every second of his interaction is recorded.
I do love the original Robocop. Rewatched it recently. When you're a kid it's all about the action. When you're an adult its all about the campy satire XD. I hadn't seen the film in so long I forgot.
Barbarians. The original Total Recall had a young Sharon Stone and Michael Ironside at his some of his meanest. That along made the movie worthy of epic 80s greatness.
It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
Who is Robocop's main antagonist in this film? Do they hint at replacing him with newer models like ED-209?
Medium of Death wrote: It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
No, it wouldn't. Being crap on purpose is still being crap.
Medium of Death wrote: It would have been amazing if it was more of a modern satire and true remake. I can just imagine the over use of the inception noise, lense flairs and dubstep wherever possible.
Good satire has to love what is being satirised, the film has to work as a genre piece as well as make fun of the genre. No-one loves lens flairs and that stuff.
I have to say it was interesting in Predator to see all of Arnolds compatriots become the same as all those other central-americans that Arnold slaughters in his other movies..........
It's essentially having a movie about a guy at the end of Commando going "Holy Crap, this guy is killing all of us!".
I didn't hate it, and generally enjoyed myself. It seemed like there were some interesting ideas but they were afraid of really tackling them at full steam like Verhoeven; if they had put more effort into exploring the ethics of drones and or the ethics of transhumanism it might have been more worthy. I liked that they focused more on the familial aftermath instead of sweeping them away with little concern to that aspect of becoming a modern Frankenstein Monster. I can see why they didn't try to get an R just to get one, as this isn't as focused on the violence as part of the commentary as the original did. Even so, I would agree trying to fit it into a PG-13 probably held it back a bit, though. This world wasn't nearly as dystopian as the original, and seemed more concerned with a world on the edge of becoming the world from the original. They told a similar story but with a different focus, which is what a good retelling should do I suppose, but they didn't go far enough to make it a classic.
I would give it a 7/10. Well executed and entertaining but lacking the full conviction to go all the way. Not necessarily worth a theater run, but certainly a fun movie to catch at home on blu-ray or streaming.
I did like the part where the marketing guy was showing different looks for it and people's reactions. The original Robocop was the Combat model and "scared the crap out of convicts" according to focus group testing.
Caught it earlier today. it's okay. Don't feel like my money was wasted. I think the thing I disliked most was how preachy the film felt at times. Namely the Novak Element parts. This movie lacked the fun and wit of the first robocop.
I loved the Novak parts, because while at the same time he was being preachy and pro-'Murican, it was a parody because he was so absolutely full of crap. that was one of the parts that felt like the original Robocop to me.
I think the movie was good enough, because without having the original to compare it to, it still would have been enjoyable. Frankly the parts showing Murphy with what organics he has left were equally awesome and completely eerie. It really drove home how insane it would be to be in that position right then.
AegisGrimm wrote: I loved the Novak parts, because while at the same time he was being preachy and pro-'Murican, it was a parody because he was so absolutely full of crap.
For me it felt like a parody that took itself so seriously it ceased to be parody. Like it hammered it home too hard and I just felt like it was screaming "look how ridiculous this is" past the point where I could derive any enjoyment from it. The first Robocop had that sweet spot, where it took itself just seriously enough that you could laugh at things that shouldn't be funny.
LordofHats wrote: There was an interesting post I read over on TV Tropes that said the same thing about Predator, and it makes sense. When you look at it Predator is an action hero in that movie. A one man/alien army with a personal arsenal of weapons that he uses to take out mooks with little to no effort, the mooks in this case being the more typical American macho action heros of films like Rambo and Commando who are sudden leveled down to typical goons in their own film as Predator starts picking them off.
Yeah, I really like how the film starts as a typical action romp, with a mission in the jungle and CIA sub-plot and all that, and then just switches and the heroes who'd slaughtered all those mooks suddenly were mooks.
Personally, I never liked Total Recall much. I found the film kind of boring. Some stuff happens, then some more stuff, then he's on Mars. It felt very like going through the motions, but maybe that's the point?
As long as you love the original Robocop, all is forgiven.
Anyhow, I think maybe it makes a difference when you see it for the first time as a kid. First time I saw Total Recall I loved all the brutality, just as I loved it in all those movies, and I thought the idea that it might be a dream was a proper puzzle we were supposed to figure out. Then years later when I was watching it again and I realised what the film was actually doing, well the point was made stronger because of my mindset when I was kid watching these films for the first time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think you guys spend to much time analyzing these movies.
What should we be spending out time thinking about?
I remember when Total Recall first came out, Syskel and Ebert reviewed it and described it as a great movie with "fun" violence. They ended by giving it, as I recall, 2 thumbs up.
In contrast, a review from another critic at the time of release:
Ahtman wrote: The original Robocop was the Combat model and "scared the crap out of convicts" according to focus group testing.
Now I feel like I'm missing some reference other than what was directly said?
It isn't some esoteric reference. The marketing guy was talking about different suits and the 'combat model' was the original look from the 1987 Robocop.
The remake itself enacts the themes of the original movie: They took a franchise torn to pieces by horrible sequels, license mining, and flat-out neglect and they gave it an ultra slick, strictly-by-the-numbers reboot. But is there anything human left?
Manchu wrote: But noticeably not the script, acting, cinematography, special effects, or score.
There is a human element, but I don't think they did as much as they could. The effects actually are fairly well done, and the acting is occasionally decent as well. The script is a bit to processed for mass consumption to allow for greatness, but it is workmanlike in getting the job done. The cinematography was uninspired and just did what was needed but not much else. I wish they wouldn't have used the old score as much as they did and created an altogether new score for the film. If they wanted to use the older motif to effect they should have been more sparing with it, such as having it come up as he is heading into battle with the ED-209's.
"Weird Al Yankovic happy to be invited' While its no surprise that a couple of decades later almost all those celebrities are either forgotten or hanging on by making fun of themselves, who would have thought it'd be Weird Al who's got more respect for his career than ever before?
And yeah, loads of critics completely missed the point of that movie. But then, loads of critics missed the point about Robocop as well, although disturbingly they liked it anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The remake itself enacts the themes of the original movie: They took a franchise torn to pieces by horrible sequels, license mining, and flat-out neglect and they gave it an ultra slick, strictly-by-the-numbers reboot. But is there anything human left?
That reminds me of the remake of Bewitched, which told the story of remaking a soul-less, pointless remake of Bewitched that absolutely no-one involved wanted to do for any reason other than the money... and that is exactly what we were actually watching. As a piece of meta-commentary it was genius (if accidental). Of course, as a movie, it's probably the worst thing I've ever seen.
So problem one for me was that there was no dystopia at all, nothing about ocp buying detroit. That was a pretty big part of the original.
The casting was really good but a lot of the awesome actors got like no screen time. I love michael k williams but he goes to waste, he gets like 1 good line and I'm not even sure why his character is in the movie to begin with. Gary oldman was decent but his character's actions made no sense. Nothing wrong with the acting but the whole concept of his character's actions/motivations were pretty dumb.
Jackie earle haley was enjoyable but his character towards the end wasn't given much time and it was hard to understand why he was such a company man. You hear mention of him being in certain counties during what I assume would be some kind of armed conflict with cool ocp robots but that doesn't tell you much. It's also left super vague as to why ocp was in iran, were they there by request of the iranians or was it to infer that they keep the piece in the wake of a us invasion/occupation.
Keaton was good but his last minute super villain horsegak seemed out of place. The tone of the movie is part of the problem, I feel keaton did his best.
The main problem that bothered me was the whole "americans are conflicted about drones" but apparently were fine allowing orwellian cctv everywhere. A technology that was apparently entirely unused by law enforcement until robocop arrived... that made no fething sense. The most egregious thing of all was bleeping samual l jackson saying melon-fether, that's an insult that is unforgiveable.I underestand that given the context it would one would assume be bleeped but the angle wasn't really the broadxast but in the studio so it just seemed like a cheap trick to try and make you forget you're watching a pg movie. (pg13 in the states)
The two dimensional crime boss villain with a private army felt rushed as hell. The fact that his wife waited weeks before going to the media didn't make a lick of fething sense.
The tragedy is that the director could have probably pulled off a pretty awesome R rated version if it was allowed by the studio to be not justs ultra violent but a little more polemic/edgy. I would take either really, I don't need every action/psifi movie to be smart but you can do a lot with an R rating, dredd was fantastic and it proved that pretty well.
So problem one for me was that there was no dystopia at all, nothing about ocp buying detroit. That was a pretty big part of the original.
The main problem that bothered me was the whole "americans are conflicted about drones" but apparently were fine allowing orwellian cctv everywhere. A technology that was apparently entirely unused by law enforcement until robocop arrived... that made no fething sense at all. The most egregious thing of all was bleeping samual l jackson saying melon-fether, that's an insult that is unforgiveable.
I noticed 1 as well. They established fast in the first movie that Detroit was practically a War Zone, but Detroit in the new movie seemed like, normal Detroit (I also felt like some of the cops, not Robocop oddly, came from the Uncanny Valley).
So problem one for me was that there was no dystopia at all, nothing about ocp buying detroit. That was a pretty big part of the original.
The main problem that bothered me was the whole "americans are conflicted about drones" but apparently were fine allowing orwellian cctv everywhere. A technology that was apparently entirely unused by law enforcement until robocop arrived... that made no fething sense at all. The most egregious thing of all was bleeping samual l jackson saying melon-fether, that's an insult that is unforgiveable.
I noticed 1 as well. They established fast in the first movie that Detroit was practically a War Zone, but Detroit in the new movie seemed like, normal Detroit (I also felt like some of the cops, not Robocop oddly, came from the Uncanny Valley).
The whole thing just kinda felt rushed. There was just too much and the time wasn't divided well.
Spoiler:
The whole family side felt tacked on, much like the police side. The corporate/robo stuff was ok but it obviously received more screen time.
Another thing that was completely stupid was the whole uploading to robocop's brain right before an incredibly crucial press event (essentially the culmination of ocp's plan) I didn't believe that for a second. Then to make matters worse a wanted fugitive in a future world full of cctv cameras decides to go to a media event unveiling a futuristic cyborg police officer surrounded by dozens of other police officers... what the actual feth?
I am okay with Detroit being portrayed realistically for a change. Promoting the tired-out image of Detroit as post-WWII East Germany is insulting, deceitful, and harmful. Plus, this is actually something the new movie gets right.
The consumerist threat to human dignity is not a heavy industry apocalypse. This OCP is more like evil Apple, complete with evil Steve Jobs, than evil '80s GM with its pack-of-weasels executive board. Evil is slick, well-off, invisible.
And I get the impression the whole USA has already sold out long ago, except on the issue of being policed by robot armies. As Crablezwroth points out, there's already an extensive CCTV system in place (even hanging off people's homes), which police seemingly ignore. When he arrives on the scene, RoboCop already fits seamlessly.
