Robocop (2014)

[crows]

If these people really exist, they need to find hobbies... or jobs or something

they are mostly teenagers and weirdos. I remember there was a group of girls giving 10s to every movie Johnny Depp has done (Specially the Pirates movies)

 

[crows]

well he loved it

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Great.. that guy again.

 

[joebizz34]

well he loved it

Man is that guy annoying.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Predator1221]

I saw the new Robocop last night. Not bad at all. I really hope we get a sequel. I don't think they quite knew how to end it, but overall this movie did far more right than it did wrong.

 

[jye4ever]

Great.. that guy again.

 

[a-dev]

Total Film

With the amount of movie remakes that Hollywood greenlights nowadays, it seems even the half-decent ones are being drowned out by a never-ending torrent of misguided misfires. For every The Departed, there’s an Oldboy, a Wicker Man or a Total Recall. So it was no surprise that when a new take on RoboCop – Paul Verhoeven’s beloved 1987 sci-fi satire – was announced, fans raced onto the internet to voice their disapproval.

The griping carried on throughout the film’s delayed production. Script leaks suggested a more earnest story stuffed with socio-political allegories. Early pap shots hinted at a redesigned, unmasked robo-suit. And then there was the 12A rating which guaranteed a move away from the glorious ultra-violence of the original. All of which pointed to one thing: sacrilege!

Yep, it’s a tricky business remaking a classic. Stick too close to the source material and you render yourself redundant; veer too far away and you risk the wrath of hardcore fans. That most of the rumours are pretty much spot on means RoboCop v.2014 comes dangerously close to the latter. But while it may well irk some of the faithful, it might just win a few over, too.

Set in a not-too-distant 2028, director José Padilha’s reboot pitches a world where mega-multinational OmniCorp – fronted by ruthless CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) – has become the US military’s major contractor. Over in the Middle East, its soldier drones and heavy artillery ED-209 units are helping to ‘enforce’ the peace; back home, its advanced robotics department is helping injured soldiers to walk again. But despite their best efforts, there’s one area of business they haven’t yet cracked – securing America’s own streets.

With US citizens unwilling to accept a police force made up of faceless robots, Sellars devises an audacious solution – fuse a real cop with an artificial body. Enter Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), a principled young detective left mortally wounded after a brutal assassination attempt. He’s a prime candidate for the public to rally behind: a family man with a fierce commitment to justice.

But despite OmniCorp’s attempts to control their new ‘product’, Murphy isn’t quite ready to play the puppet – as Gary Oldman’s conflicted, Frankenstein-like creator warns: “Fear, instinct, compassion... will always interfere”.

Just like the original, the struggle between man and machine forms the backbone, though here the concept is upended. In place of Peter Weller’s detached cyborg, Kinnaman is painfully aware of what’s happened to him; in fact, it’s the dubious attempts of OmniCorp to suppress Murphy’s humanity that provides much of the story’s morally murky edge. This is also where the redesigned suit starts to make sense: Kinnaman’s frequently exposed visage requires the actor to do a lot more dramatic lifting – especially in the scenes involving Murphy’s wife (Abbie Cornish) and young son – making for a more easily relatable and sympathetic hero.

Don’t be too concerned that the titular metal man has gone all soppy on us, mind... When the visor does come down and he enters ‘Combat Mode’ (not as naff as it sounds), it’s time for business. As in Verhoeven’s film, the story really kicks into gear when Murphy ignores his programming and goes after his own killers.

And while this version does feel just a teensy bit toned down – with no melting men or machine-gun-mangled bodies in sight – Padilha at least captures the action with a frenetic, handheld ferocity reminiscent of his Elite Squad movies, as his streamlined enforcer guns his way through a series of intense set-piece shootouts.

And yet, even among all the big ideas, Padilha still finds room for a few lighter touches. not all of it works – Jay Baruchel’s smarmy marketing man grates, while some of the script’s more knowing one-liners (“if I had a pulse, it’d be racing...”) feel awkwardly out of place. More successful is Samuel L. Jackson’s network host Pat Novak – a biased supporter of mechanised crime control whose scenery-chewing, monologue-heavy propaganda interludes channel the cheeky spirit of the original.

Ultimately, Padilha’s update succeeds because it logically ports the core concept into a future that feels closer to our own. A few cutesy nods to Verhoeven’s film aside – the instantly hummable Basil Poledouris score excerpts, the thigh-ejecting gun holster – Padilha has successfully crafted a smart, thrilling sci-fi, different enough to exist on its own terms without ignoring or disrespecting its roots. Given the potential pitfalls inherent in reimagining a classic, you can’t say fairer than that.

Verdict:

Taking the original and successfully transplanting it into an ambitious new world, José Padilha’s english-language debut is an exciting, pacey and thoughtful sci-fi actioner.

I tentatively agree with this review. I say 'tentatively' because feelings can change. Magazines like Total Film also sometimes do retrospectives in later years and find themselves saying ''what were we thinking'' etc etc. You can't really know for sure at this stage. It needs time.

 

[thenammagazine]

Great.. that guy again.

 

[joebizz34]

Saw the movie. Didn't leave the theater hating it but obviously it did not evoke the same feelings I had after seeing the original. However I have to say that this one was enjoyable and I do not regret seeing it. It will make an awesome Blu-ray disc for its effects and sounds. Keaton and Oldman were great and I think as far as remakes go...they could have done worse.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[snoop101]

Man is that guy annoying.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Agreed.

_________

 

[VintijDroidGutzz]

I'll never know..

 

[Khev]

Just got back from seeing this with the wife. She actually just spent over $100 buying clothes online with Express and they gave her a $30 Valentine's Day coupon to go on a movie date. Pretty funny. So we saw it for free.

I liked it. I'm a little disappointed that there was nothing that jumped out at me as being "iconic." I was hoping that they'd provide something particularly memorable. Maybe the scene where his "parts" were removed for the first time. That was pretty cool and unsettling. Also it was a bit anticlimactic. Even RoboCop 2 delivered a ***** to the wall finale.

But otherwise there was absolutely nothing offensive about it which was nice. I *loved* his 1.0 suit. I thought it was an awesome modernization. I thought his method of tracking and locating criminals was also extremely clever and made the "one cyborg gets rid of crime" seemingly feasible.

I was hoping it would surprise me and be awesome, fearing it would suck, and it turned out to be "pretty good." The ED-209's were cool and I liked that it felt respectful of the original. It certainly didn't achieve the greatness of the original but it'll be a fun alternative to watch from time to time. I'll definitely pick up the blu-ray.

 

[Niltusk]

I am glad this seems to be a decent "re-envisioning". i don't think anyone expected this to be a trump card over the original, but it is nice to hear that it seems to have at least achieved its desired effect of re-establishing the character to modern audiences. I won't be seeing it til home release, but at least the positive reviews are giving me a reason to look forward to it, rather than just saying, "meh. whatever"

 

[jye4ever]

I am glad this seems to be a decent "re-envisioning". i don't think anyone expected this to be a trump card over the original, but it is nice to hear that it seems to have at least achieved its desired effect of re-establishing the character to modern audiences. I won't be seeing it til home release, but at least the positive reviews are giving me a reason to look forward to it, rather than just saying, "meh. whatever"

I'm using that exclusively for DOFP.

 

[Niltusk]

I'm using that exclusively for DOFP.

No, no, you should spread that around.

 

[Khev]

Wasn't this review then:

Why are The Fly (1986) and The Thing (1982) so great? They’re remakes, and we all know that remakes are crap. We roll our eyes at remakes. But two of the greatest genre films of my lifetime - two films that are actual contenders for being considered perfect - are remakes.


The answer is simple: they were directed by great filmmakers who were allowed to make the movies they wanted to make. David Cronenberg and John Carpenter took the basic building blocks of the original films - broad concepts, settings and characters - and used them to make cinema that was uniquely their own. They weren’t saddled with homages to make or famous beats to hit, and so their remakes bear a family resemblance to the originals but, in the end, stake their own tones, themes and aesthetics. There’s no point in The Thing where the titular monster briefly transforms into a James Arness-looking creature. There’s no moment in The Fly where everything stops so someone can say ‘Help meeeee!’ and wink into the camera.

There's nothing wrong with referencing dialogue from previous incarnations or repeating certain scenes. By his definition of what makes an "awesome remake" Peter Jackson's King Kong must have sucked because it ended with him swatting biplanes atop the Empire State Building and Jack Black saying "It was beauty that killed the beast."

Or T2 must have been an awful sequel because Arnold repeated his already classic "I'll be back" line.

It just comes down to cleverness and execution, whether references of prior incarnations are made or ignored. Even though Robo2014 might not have been "great" per se, it diverted from the original in a way that was its own and still recognized the audience's appreciation of repeating certain quips and sequences.

I loved that they ditched having Keaton rag on the original suit and instead had him insulting

Spoiler

Transformers fans by calling them "sad."

 

[CHUYHA85]

Just saw this on the theater, Im suprise that its a good movie, never gonna top the first and original, but like one of the freaks mentioned its a good modernization of the character, you do get the sense of knowing whats gonna happen next on some of the scenes, but overall I enjoyed a lot, looking foward for at least a couple of figures and the blu-ray

 

[batfan08]

I am glad this seems to be a decent "re-envisioning". i don't think anyone expected this to be a trump card over the original, but it is nice to hear that it seems to have at least achieved its desired effect of re-establishing the character to modern audiences. I won't be seeing it til home release, but at least the positive reviews are giving me a reason to look forward to it, rather than just saying, "meh. whatever"

I saw it tonight, and I thoroughly enjoyed the film. "Re-envisioning" is a perfect term, as there are things in here that weren't in the original that are relevant to the times, and vice versa. I do think that you hit the nail on the head, though, when you said it was re-establishing the character to modern audiences, and I think that, in some ways, that could be the claim to greatness of this whole endeavor. Robocop is a classic, and there's no changing that, but the legacy of Robocop, as a franchise; well, that's another thing entirely. This new film isn't perfect, but I think that Padilha's vision is unique enough that he could spin it in a different direction, free of jet packs and ninjandroids. End of the day: I'd say it's worthy of a sequel, and I'm curious where they can take it now that they've walked past the "hallowed ground," if you will.

 

[galmando]

I really enjoyed it. My wife asked me which I preferred, to which I told her that she already knew the answer.

But as others have said, this is a good 're-envisioning' -re-telling' etc

As for a sequel, I honestly don't know if that would work, and that's not specific to this film, I think it's a problem with Robocop in general, the character doesn't lend well to follow ups as far as I can tell

I think that's because I only see one Robocop story worthy of telling, and that's the origin. The whole man battling with machine, the greedy corporations using this tech and people to get what they want etc, after that you need a really strong, purposeful story and theme to really take the character so a meaningful next level

Am I making sense here?

 

[Invictus Sol]

Yep, that makes sense, galmando. If they can keep Murphy conflicted, without it becoming too cliched/melodramatic and at the same time, having some endgame for the character in mind (I thought the Bourne trilogy did a great job, in this respect), then maybe it could work. Problem for Murphy is there is no way to transcend the suit, so any ending for him kinda has to be semi-tragic, I think.