Robocop

Geek vs. Critic

Before I get started I must take a moment to say something. I try very hard to go into every movie waiting to either be pleasantly surprised, or thoroughly disappointed. I (like everyone else) have predispositions when I see previews for a movie. Like with "Captain America: Winter Soldier" I am expecting to be blown away with the captivating story line and effects that Marvel has supplied the audience with since the first "Iron Man." With "Expendables 3" I expect the same old drawn out "old men are still kick ass" arc, with explosions/violence to replace actual story telling. So, when I saw the preview for "Robocop" I had my reservations. Not because I think you can't make a good reboot these days, (hell, look at "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" that was amazing) I know you can make a good reboot out of anything, it is just that "Robocop" is a hard sell. In my humble opinion "Robocop" was one of the best (if not THE best) Sci-Fi/Action movies to come from the eighties. It was intelligent without being pretentious, there was a good amount of gore, and the story line has yet to be topped or duplicated by any of the following series or movies. So realize, that I have a hard time being completely neutral on this, I learned to be neutral with comic book movies not following the actual comic books, allowing myself to base its credit on the quality of the movie alone. This is different though. In the sense that without the original movie or comic book this reboot would never have been so hyped up, and it would never have seen the light of day. So with that in mind I will be separating this review into two parts. One as a vengeful geek personally insulted by the presence of this piece of garbage, the other as the non-biased critic. Judge on whether to put money and time into this movie on whichever you feel more appeals to you.

The geek is given a crippling blow to his intelligence

So I guess you realized already that (as a fan of the original film) I absolutely hate that this movie decided to appeal to the other part of the audience that never saw the original, while giving the fans insulting throwback phrases. The first thing I find insulting about this movie was the fact that while the original movie gained an R rating, because of the massive amounts of violence (and tits, almost got an X rating before the editing), the reboot is now a PG-13. This wouldn't bother me so much (its not like I am some sort of gore junkie) if there way of keeping it a PG-13 wasn't giving "Robocop" a friggin' stun gun. That's right ladies and gentleman, Robocop the bad ass that takes no one's non-sense and shoots without hesitation now has a phaser set to sun for the greater part of the film. I have a better idea for these guys if they want to make it more appealing to the family, why don't you just put this robot in a lazer tag arena? Not Paintball... that might actually make the rating go up to a PG.

Another big problem I had with this was that they seemed to miss the point of the ED 209 from the original. The ED 209 from the original was a hastily put together (so hastily put together it was beaten by a flight of stairs) machine that was very tough (unless trying to navigate stairs), but could not discern the difference between a threat or non-threat. The ED 209 in this was an automatic tank, and it even had a cute little brother in the shape of a human called the ED 208. See the difference here? The ED 209 just seems to be put in here because it is a "Robocop" movie, and they had to. The whole reason the Robocop initiative got put in place in the original was that the ED 209 was a faulty piece of machinery, the whole reason the Robocop initiative was put in place here? American fear of robots. I don't know what America they are looking at, or if the future somehow went through a Skynet like apocalypse that the movie forgot to mention, but America in this time is not "robo-phobic." Look at all the machines we have, and see if you can find someone without a cell phone these days, then argue with that. If the movie was to say that America is robophobic because people were afraid of losing their jobs (like the original did somewhat) that I could understand. The Americans of the future seem to be robophobic for the sake of having something to hate.

The final thing I am going to talk about (so it doesn't appear that I am rambling) is the moral of the story. The moral of the original was smart. The moral of the original was that even if Robocop beat all of the badguys and put an end to all of their plans, Detroit would still be the same tomorrow. It also had the hidden message of how dependent our society was (and still is) on television and stupid commercial gimmicks. The moral of this one...the human soul conquers all.

.

.

.

Need I really say more on that.

I could go into how they replaced one of the strongest female characters to come out of the eighties, with some replaceable/cliche guy. How Detroit didn't really seem as crime infested as it should have, or that the evil corporation didn't seem to have the same moral ambiguity as the original (the guys in the original at least had a semblance of a conscience, and the way they substituted for that in the reboot was giving the doctor that made Robocop a conscience); but I need to give my other half time to speak.

Geek Final Verdict: Don't do it! If you want to give money to a "Robocop" movie, buy the original on Bluray or DVD. If you want an excuse to yell at a screen go see this.

Critic has to sit through another action movie that brings nothing new to the table

This movie takes place in the future (2028) where robots have taken the place of soldiers. The corporation responsible for making these robots is trying to get it so the American people will let them use their product on American soil. The company realizes they will not be able to get around a certain bill passed by congress (preventing them from putting robots on American soil) unless they put a man inside a machine. Enter Detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), a cop under the jurisdiction of Detroit's finest that has a problem playing by the rules. After a botched mission to take down a major crime lord, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). Murphy finds himself in critical condition with only way to survive. He must become Robocop.

The story line was garbage, in so many words. The whole premise of America being robophobic was never expounded upon, we never found out exactly why America was so robophobic. Sure, there were certain points where they would say "it is because the robots can't feel anything," but I did not buy that for a second. Sure you would have a couple of thousand people afraid that Skynet would go live, or that the machines would stop being able to tell the difference between enemies, but I don't believe that America would let that stop them from progressing if it meant fewer lives lost (this isn't the damn 1600's). What I really wanted to see (and what would have made for a more compelling story line) is the people the robots are replacing having an issue. Sure it isn't necessarily a new idea, but it is at least a more believable one. The rest of the story line was just as ridiculous. Why was the family so immediately accepting of their husband/father as a machine? Why did I not see some fear in the eyes of the people staring at a robot that could break their bones instead of the man that they loved? Sure their was some emotional fall out, but that was from them seeing Murphy in the accident, not seeing him as a cyborg.The only part of the story that seemed to hold any real interest was the "emotions messing up the robotic system", but the timing for that was off. It would have held more weight as mystery, not a plot driving device. This story line just seems to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator of viewers. Say something about a "soul," fill it with action, try to come off as having more of a message about American society, then make money. It is very formulaic and insulting.

The cinematography seemed to try and make up for the lack of emotion on all of the actor's faces (don't worry I'll get to the acting next), but fell very short. In an age where I can see a movie like "Skyfall" that has amazing cinematography as well as fast paced action, why am I watching a movie that seems to be crewed by people that can't find out how to use the zoom button on a camera? Rather why am I looking at a movie that doesn't seem to have a silber camera crew, and it is not a POV movie? The shots were all over the place. They had their stoic scenes (where the crew seemed to have gotten some coffee), but aside from that I felt like I was watching a two year old play with a camera for the first time.

They at least had some big name actors in it...is something I would say if all of the actors in it didn't seem so extremely bored with what they were doing. Seriously, take a hard look at Samuel L Jackson, Gary Oldman, or Michael Keaton when they are on camera. None of their hearts are in their performances. I was looking forward to seeing the Samuel L. Jackson that can have fun with a role, like in "The Spitit." I was looking forward to some tear jerking moments from Oldman, like I had in "The Dark Knight" series. I was at least looking forward to Keaton salvaging whatever this was by putting forth a funny persona, like in "The Other Guys." The real travesty here was Jackie Earle Haley and Jay Baruchel. I never thought I would see a moment where these two just did not try in a role. It was kind of like watching a movie where the actors were all on strike, and the actors that were still working were under payed. The rest of the cast didn't do much to save the performances, and that does go double for our leading man Joel Kinnaman.

My final point may seem to have something to do with my more geeky side. but I assure that this is the critic talking. There were two lines of note that tried to appeal to the fan base of the original. "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar," and "dead or alive, you are coming with me." When they were used in this version, they did not fit the scenes. The scene where Rick Mattox says "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" is when he is referring to the skills of Robocop in comparison to the ED 208. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him to say that here, when there are so many other things that he could have said that probably would have driven his point home a little more. He even has a noticeably different inflection in his voice when he says it. Like his voice is trying to break the fourth wall (look at the camera) because he cannot. When Robocop says "dead or alive, you are coming with me" it makes a little more sense, being as how he is trying to over-wright his programming to shoot a person he isn't supposed to. It would have made a whole lot more sense if he cared about actually saving the man he was saying it to.

Critic Final Verdict: Pirate it this is another one of those brainless action movies. If you need something to kill 110 minutes without getting to emotionally invested, go right ahead. Just don't spend any money on it. Even if I never saw the original I would still be confused as to why people thought this was a good movie.