RoboCop Reboot - Part 6

Rate the Movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Introduce Dick Jones as the new heavy with a Clarence Boddicker character that's eventually transformed into a new bot ala Robocop 2.

Its a good way to kind of mesh certain aspects of the established canon in this new reboot.

With the very disappointing box office numbers, it doesn't look like a sequel will be happening...
 
Which is sad.

There's some serious potential in a sequel.
 
I loved the humanity that actors like Oldman and Cornish brings to their roles, and ultimately the film itself.
 
I really enjoyed this. 8/10 for me (which is higher than most superhero films in my book).

Some scenes fall a little flat and aren't quite executed to their full potential, but I think the core story is just so fascinating and executed relatively well, and I was engaged throughout.

It was dramatically effective, yet also cheesy and like a B-movie at times, in a good way of course. (though not always. The subpar green-screen effects in the office scenes are definitely a drawback).

I actually think I like the overall tone more than the original (I'm not personally a fan of the violence of the original. The TV satire wasn't as enjoyable/relevant in the original as well; in my opinion of course)
 
Last edited:
Robocop (2014)
Rotten Tomatoes: 50%
Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics: 56%
IMDB: 6.7/10
Director: Jose Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Abbie Cornish, Jackie Earle Haley, Michael Williams, Jennifer Ehle, Jay Baruchel, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Samuel L. Jackson
My rating: 7/10, but you should definitely see it.

Robocop is the remake of an 1980s action movie I have not seen, is created by a director I have not previously heard of and has a main lead that I am unfamiliar with. I therefore went into this movie without specified expectations, and I have walked out with mixed feelings. There's a lot to like about this movie, and I do like it but at least right now I don't love it. I almost feel bad saying anything bad about it, as there is clearly a lot of love and care and thought that went into the construction and design of this film, some pieces are really quite good, but for whatever reason the whole isn't resonating well. It may be due to the style and tone being inconsistent, but I'm not sure.

The plot: Robocop is the story of a cop (Alex Murphy) who undergoes a horrendous accident, and is then given mechanical parts to replace the majority of his body as well as some neural adjustments. He rejoins the police force as a symbol of technology at work, but he has to deal with the fact that the people benefiting from his success have nefarious intentions. I'll start with some good things to say about the movie:
  • I liked the humour, it added to the movie and made it more fun, but it did so in a manner which is natural, it didn't take over from the whole or distract from the plot. The jokes were rare, targeted, and good, which is how I like them, particularly in a movie that deals with a relatively serious subject manner. As an example, the CEO of Omnicorp is at one stage discussing with his employees how Robocop should look. A proposal is made to have Robocop transform, because "kids like it", and the CEO played by Michael Keaton points out it looks ridiculous. This is a pop culture reference making fun of the Transformers movies.
  • I liked Samuel L. Jackson's role. I suspect you'll find in other reviews that people are complaining that he was unsubtle in the movie, but anybody who says that is demonstrating their ignorance. He is exactly as subtle as he is supposed to be (until the end) because his role is that of a representation of media shlock jocks like Bill O'Reilley, Lou Dobbs, Katie Couric, etc who are not subtle at all. Therefore, Jackson cannot be subtle in his role. I thought they did a good job of extrapolating what Sean Hannity or his successor might look like in 10 years, with more visual effects in the studio.
  • Robocop's wife in the movie, or rather the wife of Alex Murphy, is played by Abbie Cornish. And wow ... what a babe.
  • Gary Oldman's role, as the chief scientist in this movie. In this case Robocop runs a clinic with respect to other Hollywood movies. We're not told that the technology to make Robocop emerges from a weekend of brilliance. No, what we're shown is that there was already a lot of the technology in place prior to the events, that implementing all of it onto a single individual took a lot of, and that there were a lot of errors along the way, that not everything went right the first time.
  • The transformation into Robocop was handled pretty well I think. I felt horrified and disgusted when Alex Murphy was turned into Robocop. This is a necessary part of the narrative and could have easily come off as camp in the hands of other creative teams, they did their job here however, the sensation at seeing Robocop at first is one of disgust, but also philosophical introspection.
  • The dialogue was excellent. Everybody spoke naturally, there weren't unnatural big words in the wrong places.
  • Detroit looks like Detroit. There are a lot of African American characters, and they show us little things like the Detroit Red Wings and the Detroit skyline to let us know it's Detroit. The movie also shows us China, Iran, and Washington and thus feels global.

Given these strengths, I think I should love the movie, but I don't. I'm not sure why. I discuss some cons I identified though I'm not sure that they're the actual problems.
  • A political allegory which is set up clunkily in the first half of the movie is not followed-through in the second half of the movie. The movie starts off with a scene in Iran where drones have "liberated" Tehran, and is discussing efforts to bring drones to America which are blocked by congress. However, it's kind of clunky, I'm not buying that there would ever be zero security drones in the USA, but ok let's assume it. All of this simply disappears in the second half of the movie. Robocop becomes a hero and then they lift the ban on drones.... yeah .... but then what was the point of going all the way to Tehran in the opening scenes? I don't know. Oblivion did a much better job of tackling drone warfare. There are also some human issues brought up in the first third of the movie about the promise and potential of mechanical implants, which they don't really follow through on.
  • The action scenes are "meh", I enjoyed the racing on the motorcycle but I didn't buy the shooting matches much. I wonder if they were supposed to be an homage to 1980s action movies. They might have benefited from a better score.
  • A second issue is that the world is very small in some places, specifically Omnicorp. There seems to be only 4 or 5 human beings with actual lines working at Omnicorp. They don't even show background extras at the board meetings, it's the same few people over and over, and it makes the company feel inauthentic. Jackie Earle Haley's role was one of those few people at Omnicorp, and I think he absolutely sucked as a character.
  • Finally, the climax resolution is as unconvincing as it is in most Hollywood blockbusters. Robocop resolves the situation by drawing on more strength / more willpower. That's some weak writing, though a kid sitting behind me shouted "YES !!!" when it happened. There's not a lot of cleverness to it at all in my opinion. I think this movie would be a lot better if it had not ended with Robocop rebelling against Omnicorp, but instead left some narrative tension unresolved at the end. Just have Robocop close in on Antoine Vallon and achieve a modicum of consciousness at the end. I think that's enough story for one movie. They've resolved a bit too much in this movie, I don't buy it, the last 10 minute action sequence kind of came out of nowhere.

*****************

However, the most important thing about this movie, is that it made me think. As I was watching it, and seeing Robocop get a mechanical body with other characters simply getting mechanical parts, it occurred to me: human biology as we know it is doomed. It may come in 50 years or in 500 years, but eventually we're all going to have mechanical and electrical implants all over, even in our brains. Once that's available ... it will take over. There will likely be brief resistance from people wanting to stay natural, but it won't last. And for this philosophical spark, if nothing else, I say ... go see the movie.
 
Introduce Dick Jones as the new heavy with a Clarence Boddicker character that's eventually transformed into a new bot ala Robocop 2.

Its a good way to kind of mesh certain aspects of the established canon in this new reboot.

Yea I think there's amazing potential for a sequel. Sadly doesn't look like we will get one based on the box office. Hopefully word of mouth helps a little bit, but with the rottentomatoes rating where it's at I don't think people will look further than that.

I REALLY hope this does super well on DVD/blu ray, I can't WAIT to have this flick at home. The handheld camera work is much easier on the eyes and stomach on a Television lol. Hopefully they have some cool packaging to go along with it, and maybe some exclusives, I'd buy two copies.
 
robocop_promotionalstills1_1020.jpg


It's impressive that the tone of this scene actually works. I was expecting the wife to recoil in horror when she saw Robocop, and that is not what happened.
 
With regards to reboots, I've seen;
Karate Kid
Total Recall
Fright Night
Nightmare on Elm Street

And I think Robocop is the best reboot I've seen.

I don't count superhero movies because the very nature of comics dictates the characters are constantly rebooted. So that counts out BB, ASM, X:FC

I also don't count prequels like, The Thing (2012)
 
It baffles me as to why Sony decided to push Robocop back nearly a week instead of releasing it on February 7th like they originally intended to do. Nothing big was coming out on the 7th and Sony knew everybody was going to be flocking to the theaters to see romantic comedies and dramas for Valentines Day weekend.

Sony's The Monuments Men was moved to that date plus The Lego Movie was huge. Their second weekend targets an older audience going out for Valentine's Day. Then Sony has About Last Night for a younger audience.

However, The Wolfman was able to make $30 million opening Feb.12,
Daredevil had an opening weekend of $40 million, Jumper had $27 million, A Good Day To Die Hard with $24 million and they all opened on Valentine's Day.

There is the weather factor in parts of the country dealing with snow but clearly audiences weren't thrilled with the marketing.
 
Throughout the movie I went from thinking, this is "actually pretty good", to "this is actually pretty terrible" to "wait, no, it's good again."
Not a perfect movie, but overall, I liked it. Originally, I was no impressed with Kinnaman, but once he wakes up a cyborg, I was won over.
Most bad reviews seem too bash this movie based on the differences from the original one ("A car bomb?", "he's too human!" etc) but I thought this was a fresh, original take on the story, which further explored the idea of Robocop in ways the old films never did. This films stands next to the old ones, not trying to fix what ain't broke, but more adding a parallel sequel of sorts.
Side note- LOVED the redone theme song. Disappointed that it didn't replay during some badass climax.
 
So bummed at the numbers. Opening a week after what could be the most well-reviewed family movie all year, opening the day of a snow storm, then having its first weekend be on Valentine's day against 2 date-type movies. On top of being the most hated on reboot from day one and overly harsh reviews making for a terrible RT score that don't even remotely reflect the consensus reaction of hardcore fans on this form. Oh well maybe a reboot in 5-10 years. Hope it does well on Bluray/DVD.
 
So BeastWithin,

Are you actually expecting another reboot in 5-10 years? Seriously, within a 50 year span, a new Robocop reboot per decade, as far as the eye can see? Is this how bad things are in Hollywood? It's almost like a defeatist attitude!
 
I kept thinking that 3D would've looked pretty sweet on some scenes like the sam Jackson ones.
I remember hearing that Aronofsky didn't direct because he refused to shoot in 3d- weird now that they seem to have passed on him for no reason.
 
It looks like its going to be a flop. So much for a sequel. :(
 
The good news is that MGM might rethink their plans for their other remakes from this point on. (I'm looking at you, Escape from New York) Their Carrie remake didn't do well either.
 
I would understand people comparing this to the original film...if the original film was all that there ever was.

But that's what I'm saying and what I was getting at before.

It's dumb to compare it to just that one movie when the truth is there's an entire franchise you're ignoring in between them.

People are calling blasphemy for them milking the "Robocop" name when...umm hello...the name has been milked repeatedly already on multiple occasions.

You're accusing Jose Padilha and company of doing something that Frank Miller, Irvin Kershner, Fred Dekker and tons of others had already done before. Why? Why is this movie such a problem for people when three films, a TV show, two cartoons, comics and all this other material exists?

That's what I was getting at before. Again, if John Carpenter's "Halloween" was the ONLY "Halloween" movie in existence and people complained about Rob Zombie touching it? Okay, I can see that. But it's NOT the only "Halloween" movie. There were others.

"Halloween" isn't some untouchable holy grail. That grail was touched seven more times (one without Myers) before. But oh no, Rob Zombie's touching it an eighth time and how dare he!

I mean c'mon...

We don't live in a world where Robocop was only made through the brilliance of Paul Verhoeven and Michael Myers was only realized through the minds of John Carpenter and Debra Hill.

We DO, for better or worse, live in a world where both of these properties have been put through the ringer time and time again with everything from Android Ninjas and Jet Packs and William "Pudface" Morgan ("Robocop") to Thorn and a Hermit with a parrot and Busta Rhymes ("Halloween").

And I'm sorry, but it's irresponsible NOT to keep that in mind when approaching these new interpretations and imaginings.

Does 2014 "Robocop" live up to THIS example of the original film? Well no...but I'm not stupid. I didn't expect it to because I know neither did "RoboCop 2" or "RoboCop 3" or so on.

But does it surpass those sequels and the TV show and all that?

Well that's up for the individual to determine. Personally I'd put it right on par with "RoboCop 2" or maybe slightly above it. And that's saying something considering the rest of it like "Alpha Commando" and "Prime Directives"...the fact that something bearing the "RoboCop" title finally came along that, for me and me alone, at least gets close in a way other attempts didn't.
 
Last edited:
I would understand people comparing this to the original film...if the original film was all that there ever was.

But that's what I'm saying and what I was getting at before.

It's dumb to compare it to just that one movie when the truth is there's an entire franchise you're ignoring in between them.

People are calling blasphemy for them milking the "Robocop" name when...umm hello...the name has been milked repeatedly already on multiple occasions.

You're accusing Jose Padilha and company of doing something that Frank Miller, Irvin Kershner, Fred Dekker and tons of others had already done before. Why? Why is this movie such a problem for people when three films, a TV show, two cartoons, comics and all this other material exists?

That's what I was getting at before. Again, if John Carpenter's "Halloween" was the ONLY "Halloween" movie in existence and people complained about Rob Zombie touching it? Okay, I can see that. But it's NOT the only "Halloween" movie. There were others.

"Halloween" isn't some untouchable holy grail. That grail was touched seven more times (one without Myers) before. But oh no, Rob Zombie's touching it an eighth time and how dare he!

I mean c'mon...

We don't live in a world where Robocop was only made through the brilliance of Paul Verhoeven and Michael Myers was only realized through the minds of John Carpenter and Debra Hill.

We DO, for better or worse, live in a world where both of these properties have been put through the ringer time and time again with everything from Android Ninjas and Jet Packs and William "Pudface" Morgan ("Robocop") to Thorn and a Hermit with a parrot and Busta Rhymes ("Halloween").

And I'm sorry, but it's irresponsible NOT to keep that in mind when approaching these new interpretations and imaginings.

Does 2014 "Robocop" live up to THIS example of the original film? Well no...but I'm not stupid. I didn't expect it to because I know neither did "RoboCop 2" or "RoboCop 3" or so on.

But does it surpass those sequels and the TV show and all that?

Well that's up for the individual to determine. Personally I'd put it right on par with "RoboCop 2" or maybe slightly above it. And that's saying something considering the rest of it like "Alpha Commando" and "Prime Directives"...the fact that something bearing the "RoboCop" title finally came along that, for me and me alone, at least gets close in a way other attempts didn't.
Amen.
 
I am so disappointed with how poorly this is doing at the box office.
 
Variety's report from yesterday (taking into account Thursday/Friday numbers) projects high teens. So if it breaks $20 mil that'll be unexpected
$20m for the 4 day weekend should happen, even with the poor numbers.
 
Which is sad.

There's some serious potential in a sequel.

Lots of potential. But maybe studios will start to get the message that they have to put it all on the line in their first movie and not hope for the sequel to be the "real deal"
 
Lots of potential. But maybe studios will start to get the message that they have to put it all on the line in their first movie and not hope for the sequel to be the "real deal"
That is a common problem. Either they use everything interesting in the first film, and the sequel becomes a bit of a cash-in (Into Darkness). Or they first film is made withe the anticipation of actually trying to do something interesting later.

By the way I really like Into Darkness, but on repeat viewings it doesn't really hold up.
 
It's the "tentpole" mentality. Going into a remake/reboot franchise with the predetermined outlook that it will lead to sequels, merchandise and lots of tie-ins. That stuff needs to be earned. It's like they're setting themselves up for failure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,374
Messages
22,093,813
Members
45,888
Latest member
amyfan32
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"