Robocop (Reboot)

ps3lover

Even the star of Robocop has said the PG13 rating is a big mistake.

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/joel-kinnaman-talks-robocop-reboot

pixelburp

That article suggests to me that they shot a R-rated movie, or at least Kinnaman believed they were doing so, and that the PG-13 will come from the editor's knife - doubtlessly paving the way then for the dreaded 'Unrated Cut' home release.
Edit: Wait, that article's more than a year old, a lot can happen between May '12 and now so not sure how relevant it is really...

ScumLord

pixelburp wrote: »

That article suggests to me that they shot a R-rated movie, or at least Kinnaman believed they were doing so, and that the PG-13 will come from the editor's knife - doubtlessly paving the way then for the dreaded 'Unrated Cut' home release.
Edit: Wait, that article's more than a year old, a lot can happen between May '12 and now so not sure how relevant it is really...

As far as I can tell with some movies the only difference between the PG13 rating and a 15 is how much blood they add in post. But I think if you're shooting a movie so that it could go either way it's going to fail on both counts in the end.

Bolderdash

If this isn't 18s I won't be going to see this. It's obviously muck if it isn't 18s.

ancapailldorcha

Bolderdash wrote: »

If this isn't 18s I won't be going to see this. It's obviously muck if it isn't 18s.

I think people seem to be misinterpreting the age certification as some kind of indicator of the film's quality. It doesn't need to be a gorefest to be good. What made the original so special for me were the story and the satirical elements just as much as the action. You can still have a good story but here, they seem to have dumped that for a half-arsed "Man in the Machine" meets "Iron Man" mash up. To me, age certification is the least of the film's problems.

ps3lover

One thing I think is kind of hilarious is the friends I have that don't care about the rating don't go to the cinema or buy DVDs, they illegally download everything.
They are appealing to the pirates and pissing off the people that spend money to go to the cinema.

ancapailldorcha

What pisses me off when I go to the cinema is seeing poor quality, derivative films time after time. I should probably start reading johnny_ultimate's posts to find better films. If someone wants to pirate, then that's their choice. There's always been a knock-off market, it's just become more effective over time and Hollywood has no interest in offering a better product.

NUTZZ

The new TV spots;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhaC6F_x5KE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygps5PGNakQ

FlashD

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What pisses me off when I go to the cinema is seeing poor quality, derivative films time after time.

There's been a lot of quality in the past few months, just stop going to the rubbish!

A 100million budget with crash bang wallop effects does not guarantee quality.

ancapailldorcha

FlashD wrote: »

There's been a lot of quality in the past few months, just stop going to the rubbish!

A 100million budget with crash bang wallop effects does not guarantee quality.

I never said it does. Most of the quality releases I've seen have only just been released. I went to Cineworld in Dublin as I had a day to kill in December and the most appealing thing was 47 Ronin.
I don't go to the rubbish, I just enjoy going to the cinema as a whole. A poor selection is probably going to save me money in the long run though.

BrookieD

just seen the below review - sounds a little better than i had thought. will spoiler just in case.....

I just watched this film.

Give it a chance.

I was ready to be disappointed by a shallow cash-grab, but was pleasantly surprised to find more meat and depth than I expected.

While the running time can be punitive at 2 hours and 15 minutes, Robocop hits the ground running. It retains the theme of what makes a man vs. what makes a machine, but updates it for modern geopolitics (and US policy) by raising certain topical issues: the increasing use of drones versus humans; the ethics of such a use; the surveillance state's danger of veering into totalitarianism; and the collusion of big business and government.

Acting is solid all around; even the newbie actor essaying the title role acquits himself well. I had feared he would be the hunk du jour; a good-looking but wooden and uninteresting Caucasian lead in the mold of Charlie Hunnam, robotic leading man of Pacific Rim. But Joel Kinnaman did a credible job as an idealistic cop and family man turned cyborg, who must find his path amid a web of deceit and manipulation.

Michael Keaton is in good form, as well; a strong comeback performance as the manipulative antagonist, industrialist Raymond Sellars. To his credit, Keaton doesn't play Sellars as a standard diabolical baddie. He gives the character believable nuances: the ruthless determination, the singular vision, the controlled sociopathology that underpins the successes of many captains of industry.

But it was Gary Oldman, unsurprisingly, who dominated this movie. Such is Oldman's talent that I didn't recognize him at first. But the realization slowly dawned, as gleefully as unwrapping a birthday present. His morally-ambiguous Dr. Dennett Norton was mesmerizing to watch, and Oldman's presence (like the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) elevates any movie he is in by several levels.

Robocop also gives ample nods to the original, without devolving into fanservice.

The action sequences and effects were well executed; nothing cheap or cheesy in that aspect, although there were no action set pieces that would make cinema history (like Keanu Reeves dodging bullets on the rooftop in The Matrix, Schwarzenegger's motorcycle vs. ten-wheeler chase in Terminator 2, or the more recent tanker-as-baseball bat-to-the-face-of-a-rampaging-kaiju in Pacific Rim.)

Still, these are minor quibbles, in a surprisingly adequate film.

As far as I'm concerned, Robocop 2014 is a worthy tribute to the original.

Not better.

Different.

Which is a good thing.

Because it is one thing to slavishly warm over a classic; quite another to take the essential ingredients and season the recipe for the times.

krudler

2 stars from Empire

Bacchus

krudler wrote: »

2 stars from Empire

The marketing people mustn't have done their job so. #1 rule of movie marketing. Send Empire a mug :P

transylman

So its a stinker then.

Not surprising really. The whole plot of the original was his loss and rediscovery of his humanity, all while getting revenge on those who took it from him. The remake removed this entirely, completely robbing the film of its heart and instead replacing it with 12A violence. They did the same thing with the total recall reboot. Hollywood has become really really dumb.

ScrubsfanChris

They just reviewed it on BBC Film show there, never have I seen such distain and annoyed frustration for a film on that show.

I what for a couple.more reviews obviously, but for now I'm keeping my few euro

nyarlothothep

It got a 7 rating on imdb and some of the reviews on the discussion board are positive. That said I refuse to see this as I'm sick of remakes especially in the way they're making everything conform to early 21st cultural sensibilities which are conservative and suck.

_Kaiser_

transylman wrote: »

So its a stinker then.

Not surprising really. The whole plot of the original was his loss and rediscovery of his humanity, all while getting revenge on those who took it from him. The remake removed this entirely, completely robbing the film of its heart and instead replacing it with 12A violence. They did the same thing with the total recall reboot. Hollywood has become really really dumb.

Honestly I'm not sure that's true - at the risk of going very off-topic I think the blame lies more with the audience and current culture

(Bear with me now as I'm still only half-way through my first cup of coffee here )

I think current blockbusters are so dumbed-down and frustrating because today's target audience is much the same. The current generation of 18-30 year olds grew up in a time where political correctness and touchy-feely sensitivity became the norm ultimately leading to a dumbing down of western society I think. Think about it... things that we "oldies" (rapidly pushing 40) took for granted in the 80s (such as over the top cartoon-like violence in films to keep this in some sort of context) are now seen as unacceptable and harmful (look at the stuff that comes out around games like GTA etc)

Take Facebook as another example. Grown adults spouting complete nonsense for all the world to see, or the same type using txtspk and phrases like "OMG amazeballs" etc. Or the obsession with taking "selfies" and so on - and don't get me wrong, I've worked in IT for many years now and love new tech and means of communication, but I think a harmful not-often-commented-upon side effect of all of this that a lot of people never grow up as a result.

Hence sanitised dumbed-down movies that are so frustrating to those of us who are a little older and grew up with a more practical "get on with it"/"copped on" attitude.

What a difference a decade makes eh? Anyone get what I mean, or should I just go back to bed?

krudler

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It got a 7 rating on imdb and some of the reviews on the discussion board are positive. That said I refuse to see this as I'm sick of remakes especially in the way they're making everything conform to early 21st cultural sensibilities which are conservative and suck.

I'd usually be of the "well there's still the original" mindset but fcuk this movie, until people stop paying to see inferior remakes of already good movies then it'll never stop.

Hollywood should remake BAD movies, and make them better, not remake already classic ones.

Warper

It looks awful, the 12A rating says it all really. This looks like the worst remake of a film ever made. Robocop for kiddies and a crap Robocop at that

ancapailldorcha

That positive review has me tempted to see it. I've a Cineworld Unlimited card so I won't be paying anything extra to see it.

Mr Freeze

ror_74 wrote: »

Unless its games. In which case their motor skills and ability to correlate large amounts of dissparate information makes them far from dumb. Gah.. I dont know what my point is. :pac:

I don't think its games, as the stories in some games is often way more complex than something you would find in a hollywood film (and often its exactly what you find in a hollywood film too).

I also don't think its a generation thing, fair enough, the younger generation might read book or as many books as we did. I think its more an American audience/commercial thing, more bums in seats and all that, and make it dumb fun.

I hate when people say, "Oh you have to leave your brain at the door for this one", well I didn't when I saw the first Robocop, and I was probably only 10 then. Most hollywood films now seem to the Leave the brain at the door variety, which doesn't interest me, so I rarely go to the cinema.

So I won't be seeing this, till its on Netflix or something.

ScumLord

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I think current blockbusters are so dumbed-down and frustrating because today's target audience is much the same.

The problem is the idea of target audiences and engineering the film as a product that fits into a comfortable marketing solution.

Films used to be stories, the writer constructed his plot not always as a simple form of entertainment but to convey a message that was important to them.

Modern movie scripts are constructed based on marketing surveys and internet chatter.

It's even true with the age old targeted audience of children. There's always been childrens stories but they've always been a way of passing on knowledge to children. Now that age old system has been hijacked as a way of marketing to people who don't have self control.


I don't know why the general population have bought into this systemised version of story telling, it's always going to be soleless because the main objective is profiteering not passing on knowledge.

SFX have given the film a glowing review and honestly from the various publications it seems that this is far from the disaster than many hoped it would be.

I don't see the lower ratings for film such as this as evidence of a dumbing down of society. Honestly Robocop is a great film and a real reflection of it's time but you have to move with the times and where it released today I doubt it would have the impact as it did then.


I think that far too many people associate gratuitous sex and violence with something being adult in nature. Basic Cable shows have changed how people define it and it's getting to the stage where many shows are being written off as childish simply because they're not full of sex and gore. The same thing has happened with cinema, how many people wrote off Olympus Has Fallen or the Last Stand as sanitized, bloodless action films, simply because they didn't come with a big 18 rating. Some of the most adult cinema has no sex or violence but rather deals with themes that are adult in nature. I'd much rather a 12A rated Robocop film that explored a few interesting themes than I would a brain dead 18s cert film that was full of unnecessary violence.

Just to add, I'd take SFX's review with a pinch of salt. Their reviews are about as credible as Empire

ps3lover

Didn't SFX have a big Robocop issue last month with exclusive interviews and access to visit the set? I'd take that review with a pinch of salt.

The word I keep hearing about Robocop is it's very average, nothing about it stick out, it's painfully plain, takes no chances or risks and ends up being kind of dull.

safetyboy

Good cinema fodder if you are into that claptrap. I went on my own and enjoyed it even after all my cynical cinema friends put me off it! Some classic actors playing **** roles, the same as if I was a kid again! leave you're brain at home and enjoy!

Something that always strikes me as odd is how whenever a remake or a new action film comes out we have dozens of people complaining about it and the dumbing down of cinema going audiences. They talk about how 80s action cinema was the pinnacle of the genre, yet when ever a film like Homefront comes out they're nowhere to be seen. In fact, if I recall correctly there was only a single reply to the Homefront thread, a film which is the most 80s of action films and one that didn't skimp of the red stuff either.

oxygen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That positive review has me tempted to see it. I've a Cineworld Unlimited card so I won't be paying anything extra to see it.

You could probably go to see it guilt free. I dont think a cinecard counts towards the box office.

Personally, I have no cineworld unlimited card and have no intention of adding to the box office of a 12's rated remake of an 18's B movie from my youth that absolutely rocked.

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

Something that always strikes me as odd is how whenever a remake or a new action film comes out we have dozens of people complaining about it and the dumbing down of cinema going audiences. They talk about how 80s action cinema was the pinnacle of the genre, yet when ever a film like Homefront comes out they're nowhere to be seen. In fact, if I recall correctly there was only a single reply to the Homefront thread, a film which is the most 80s of action films and one that didn't skimp of the red stuff either.

Thank you. Added to my watch list

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that far too many people associate gratuitous sex and violence with something being adult in nature.

That's true, and the movie studios probably know that too and can make 18s films with no real content to them just because they know people will have assumptions based on the rating. It works both ways.

Pre watershed stuff or anything under 18s does have restrictions though, no gore, no sex, but it can go further into sanitizing storylines that might be about violence or racism or any other topic that might upset the children or show them a side of life that goes into the topics that we want to hide from the younger generation.


I'm of the mind that the film should be made and then sent off for whatever rating it gets. Rather than building the film around it's rating. I know that isn't going to happen in the blockbuster world because they're making a product that has to make a profit. But we're going to see the quality of filmmaking suffer for it until there's some sort of cinematic movement away from it once everyone had enough of that style.


This is a cash in film, it might be a somewhat enjoyable waste of time but at the end of the day it's riding on he coat tails of a good film.

ancapailldorcha

oxygen_temp wrote: »

You could probably go to see it guilt free. I dont think a cinecard counts towards the box office.

Personally, I have no cineworld unlimited card and have no intention of adding to the box office of a 12's rated remake of an 18's B movie from my youth that absolutely rocked.

That's the plan. It was one of the reasons behind me getting the card and there's been a few quality films out recently. If I go twice a month, it pays for itself.

Rubber_Soul

Most of the negative reviews I've seen for this seem to be focusing their ire on the fact that they haven't simply updated the original. I imagine the same critics would be still be bashing the film as a pointless remake if they had actually stuck slavishly to the themes of the original and essentially remade it with shinier graphics. They should really be focusing their criticism at how overwhelmingly bland the film is.

Alfred Borden

i havent seen the original (disgrace I know) but thought initially from the start this was decent but by the end it was absolutely awful, hope this is the worst film i pay money to see this year.

ZomB13 F1Sh

As a lifelong fan of the original, I thought it was a very worthy remake the only way it could be better is with an R rating. Extremely happy with it great movie for me!

Just in from a late screening of this and really rather enjoyed it. Due to some issues the film was screened in the "luxury theatre" which is just a fancy name for a screen with decent leg room and comfortable seats. I've never seen a late screening so packed though given the size of the screen I imagine that it would look pretty empty had it been in the main screen.

The original Robocop is considered a classic for the way it managed to be a brutally violent action film that had intelligence to spare and a sense of humor. This remake has little of those ingredients intact but much like Robocop himself, it's a new film for a new generationan and for a bit of throw away Friday night fun it does an admirable job. It's never going to attain the status of Verhoeven's original but it's far from the disaster so many hoped that it would be.

José Padilha is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Robocop remake and has already delivered a striking critique of over zelous law enforcement in disadvantaged areas. Much like his work in the Elite Squad series, Padilha anchors Robocop with some of the most inventive, frenetic and realistic gun-play in quite some time. While it lacks the gratuitous violence of the original it doesn't fell like some watered down, bloodless entity, and most surprisingly there's some genuine tension created thanks to a number of inventive tricks Padilha employs so as to hide the gore. One unexpected highlight is the fact that it's one of the few action films in recent years that shows the aftermath with bodies swimming in blood. It's a small thing but key to selling the more realist approach to the action.

Less successful is the core story in which post explosion Murphy isn't the blank slate of the original. Instead, he retains all his memories and emotions and his interaction with his wife is amongst the oddest romances ever played out on screen. Abbie Cornish played the downtrodden wife and spends most of the film crying and asking where here husband is. There are some interesting themes that could be explored given the situation but the film has no interest in doing anything other than get to the next set piece. Anyways, even if it did try to say something, so little chemistry exists between Cornish and Joel Kinnaman that no one would care.

The decision to keep Murphy's marriage integral to the plot was a mistake, especially when the relationship between Murphy and Dr. Dennett Norton is far more interesting and dynamic. There's a fatherly love displayed by Oldman but that's more likely to be due to his performance than anything in the script. The biggest oversight is the manner in which Detroit is portrayed. Few cities have such a tragic past and it's almost as if all involved are unaware of it's reputation and sordid past. The original portrayed the city with a gritty realism the made it more character than back drop but here it's just feels like every generic quasi sci-fi city of the future.

Robocop feels like a missed opportunity. There's some interesting ideas and it explores a few themes but simply doesn't know what to do them. The villains here are cutouts from every evil corporation in the history of cinema and the relationship between Robo and his colleagues is glossed over and the heart of the film, the relationship between Murphy and his family feels manufactured simply to try and add some tension. While it's nowhere near as good as the original, it's still far from the dud many expected and Padilha really impresses. Robocop is perfectly acceptable fodder for a Friday night. It's a slice of throw away fun that won't linger long in the memory but while it lasts it's never boring and there's certainly a hell of a lot worse out there atm.

ancapailldorcha

I saw this last night and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.
As Darko has said, the copious levels of violence from the original are absent but it doesn’t feel dumbed down at all, at least to me it didn’t. The action sequences are quite enjoyable and definitely more “mature” if that’s the right word than the PG action seen so often in modern Hollywood SciFi.
Kinnaman is fine as Murphy, not fantastic and definitely not Peter Weller but he’s not bad. The problem is he’s competing with much more interesting characters portrayed by the likes of Oldman, Keaton and Jackson.
I’d be curious to know how much creative input Padilha had with this. The satirical elements are still present and receive something of an update in that now the issues are drones and security as opposed to corporations and consumerism.
One thing which impressed me was the scene where

the extent of Murphy’s prosthesis

is revealed. I don’t know if something like that would have been possible in the 80s but I think this is more effective than the simple removing of a helmet.
I think it’s a bit of a shame they didn’t try and make Detroit appear more menacing and run down. It simply appears as a modern American post-industrial city, hardly in need of a saviour in such a dramatic manner as Verhoeven’s Detroit in the original. Murphy’s wife gets far too much screentime and the fact that he’s

able to overcome his neurochemical restraints simply by her getting a bit teary eyed

feels a bit forced as opposed to Murphy’s more organic reclamation of his identity in the original.
As a bit of Friday night fun, it’s excellent. It’s not better than the original, just different. It doesn’t disappoint, though in fairness my expectations were very low. It

MakeEmLaugh

oxygen_temp wrote: »

I have no intention of adding to the box office of a 12's rated remake of an 18's B movie from my youth that absolutely rocked.

I hope people don't regard this as spam - as I wrote it mainly as a springboard for some discussion - but this is an article on that very issue, of toned-down remakes.
　


If you feel you may want to take a look, you can do so here...

ebbsy

I would not disagree with any of that list.

norrie rugger

that was quite good, the satire may be a bit in your face but the corporate greed is more organic. They know what they do is wrong but just don't care. I am opposite to others here in that i preferred how Murphy's humanity was suppresed.

Strangely enough kids that I saw at this got bored. This film is not as action heavy as you would imagine, dealing more with betrayal, corporate greed, satire etc than balls to the wall action.

I would have liked to see more exploration into what it is to be human, it was touched upon but maybe it was left on the cutting room floor.

ps3lover

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I hope people don't regard this as spam - as I wrote it mainly as a springboard for some discussion - but this is an article on that very issue, of toned-down remakes.
　


If you feel you may want to take a look, you can do so here...

Dear Lord, a date dragged me to that Prom Night movie.
Normally I don't like those kind of slasher movies but I couldn't see how anyone could have enjoyed that. Both my date and I left after 40 minutes of that trash.
That's the main one I bring up when people try to defend that stupid subgenre.

KTRIC

i watched it last night in the Imax, it has considerably less violence compared to the original. However I thought it was amazing, well made and a good reimagining of the Robocop story. I'm probably going to see it again next week with a friend who wants to see it.

ancapailldorcha

At the very least it's miles ahead of the sheer amount of crap derived from the 1987 original, I'm especially looking at you, Robocop 3.

norrie rugger

It's the second best Robocop film

Warper

After watching Film 24's slamming of this i went into it with a sense of dread of what i am about to see. I was pleasantly surprised, it is nowhere near as bad as i had thought. While it is nowhere near the original, it is a watchable film. The story is different as well. The characters are all one dimensional and the bad guy sucks but still this is nowhere near as bad as say Stallone's Judge Dredd. Go in not expecting much and you will come out saying its ok, which sufficed for me.

A Neurotic

I thought this was great! I think people who follow a movie's development closely are at risk of buying into hype - negative or positive - and walking into the cinema with their minds already made up.

This wasn't anything revolutionary but was very entertaining. I think if you're a fan of recent Marvel movies you'll like this.

Bacchus

Somewhat related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToaHQI9X5RI

blastman

Saw this on Friday night with some trepidation. I think most of the reviews here have summed up my feelings toward the movie. It's not as good as the original, but it's no disaster either. Entertaining enough, a director to watch and some decent performances without being amazing, although Abbie Cornish is sadly wasted.

dudara

I saw the original when I was far too young and delicate to handle it Took me quite a while to watch it later.

As for this version, I quite liked it. It's a bit bland at times, but it moved along nicely with no slow bits and I felt overall happy leaving the cinema. I liked the little nods here and there to the original.

constitutionus

just back from seeing this.

about a third of the way through it i thought it was good, by the end i thought it was great.

im as amazed as anyone else but not only is this NOT a carcrash, its got a hell of alot going for it.

keeping the family angle to me is what sets it apart from the original and stopped it just being gun porn. it just seemed to keep it more "real" or something and it kept reminding me of the ethical and moral implications of actually DOING that to someone. most flims dont dwell on how a character that goes what robo goes through would do outside the "Badass" role , so it was nice to see the blindingly obvious loss or normalacy touched upon.

oldmans fantastic in this and really helps with the heart of the film, which between him murphy and his family, this has. the bit were murphy gets the reveal of the extent of his condition really did get to me. its not grotesque ala the original execution scene of alex, but still very disturbing to see in a purely clinical sense as all your instincts go "that aint right".

the film hits themes of imperialims, the dehumanising of warfare, corporatism and medical ethics/technological progression but not in any in your face preachy way. in fact the complete slaggin off of modern media manipulation is done brilliantly here with samuel l jackson. his peice at the end refering to oldmans character had be LOL.

in fact if you just want to see a good ol fahioned sci/fi cop story this is solid enough on that ground alone. (streethawk the movie )

i guess what surprised me the most was i was actually rooting for murphy by films end. been that long where i actually did that in an actioner that i was beginning to forget what it was like

i give it a surprised 8/10.

oh and finally, it shouldve been a no brainer but for some reason i just did NOT expect them to use the original music. total nostalgia fest there.

Chris_Heilong

Saw it last night, I would definitely recommend it which is a rare thing for me to say about remakes, this is a fresh take on the story, utilising elements from the original but taking them in different directions. The only character that felt under developed for what he is meant to be was Keaton's.

IncognitoMan

Went to see this today and even after a few positive reviews I was surprised at how good it was. I like so many others didn't think it would turn out well but its definately worth a look. Dont go in expecting the 87 version and you'll enjoy it. It has me hoping this does well so there will be a sequel.

Regarding the suit

I loved when the grey one appeared again at the end and actually felt moving to the black one for this film worked for the story