RoboCop
2014
D: Jose Padilha
**********
Pros: Good pacing, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, A few
good ideas, Some decent visuals
Con: Disappointing action, Broken Aesop, World-building
It would go
without to saying that remaking a beloved classic is a risky proposition, but
I’ve got to start typing this review somehow.
RoboCop (1987) is a camp
sci-fi classic which holds a place in my heart.
Its memorable characters, well-balanced satire and campy ultraviolence make
it a truly memorable film. The remake
seems to take the safe route by making it an earnest mainstream movie (PG-13). Either the filmmakers didn’t get the
original, or they might have been trying to avoid the remake’s risk of falling
short in a direct comparison with it.
Personally, I think the truly respectable thing to do (besides not
making it) would be to attempt to make it a satire and take advantage of the
extra 28 years of material. Then again,
this may be a good thing since, as I’ve observed before, satire is generally
not Hollywood’s strong suit. When I saw RoboCop ‘14, I thought it was pretty
good at first, but some thought and a conversation with friends made me see
some flaws.
The movie
begins with pundit Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) ranting about how Omnicorp’s
robotic drones are not allowed to patrol US soil even though they are
peacekeeping in other parts of the world.
He then shows footage of ED-209’s patrolling the streets of Tehran with
some other killbots. Suddenly, a group
of suicide bombers decide to blow up a few of them to make a point. They make it clear that these protesters want
to make sure they do not harm any civilians (they’re unusually considerate
suicide bombers), and as we all know blowing stuff up in crowded city streets
is a great way to minimalize collateral damage.
In the ensuing panic, the ED-209’s perform well until the young son of
one of the bombers rushes out and threatens one them with a kitchen knife and
is shot down. This is probably supposed
to be the equivalent of Kinney’s death at the hands of a malfunctioning 209.
Unable to
convince Congress to legalize drones in America, Omnicorp CEO Raymond Sellars
(Michael Keaton) devises a way to circumvent the law with a cyborg. When Detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is
seriously injured by a car bomb, he gets his opportunity. Murphy got into this predicament by doing
undercover stings with his partner Jack Lewis (Michael K. Williams) in order to
take down crime lord Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). Vallon conspires with some corrupt cops to
assassinate Murphy. These stings could
have been mentioned efficiently in a line of dialogue, but instead the movie
resorts to a needlessly time-consuming flashback that doesn’t do much useful except
pad out Lewis’ underwhelming involvement in the movie.
The head
scientist leading the RoboCop program, Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), is
introduced while providing therapy to a guitarist with cybernetic hands (Raffi Altounian). This scene establishes that emotion negatively impacts the physical dexterity of cybernetics. I'm glad this never comes up later in the movie because it has nothing to do with our protagonist's situation. Norton a typical
peaceful-scientist-reluctantly-working-on-a-weapons-project stock character,
but his conflict makes him one of the most interesting people in the movie. When Murphy awakens for the first time as
RoboCop, he has his memories and personality intact, a noticeable difference from
the original. He comments on how he can
still feel his body, which is explained as phantom limb (which is usually supposed to be painful). When he asks to see what’s
left of his body, Norton has his robotic limbs and chassis removed to reveal
that there is nothing left but his head, lungs, heart and (for some reason) one
hand. While the scene is technically not
violent, it’s actually pretty graphic and stomach turning. Kinnaman’s acting is hard for me to judge
here because his character does not have the luxury of any kind of body
language.
RoboCop’s
training under the tutelage of Omnicorp weapons expert Rick Maddox (Jackie Earl
Haley) involves simulations and competitions with ED-208 drones. When he is trounced by the drones, Omnicorp
devises a disturbing idea: modify him so that in Combat Mode the AI takes over
his decision-making while tricking his brain into thinking it’s in control. Throughout the training, Maddox mocks RoboCop
mercilessly for being a cyborg. At first
RoboCop responds by likably shaking his hand and smiling, but at the end of his
first successful test he gleefully zaps Maddox with a taser (which you could die from) when he is not in
Combat Mode. So much for turning the
other cheek. The original RoboCop may
have been cold and brutal, but he was never petty. Throughout his training he gets occasional
contact with his wife (Abbie Cornish) and son (John Paul Rutton). Their arc is essential to the plot but not
all that interesting. His wife’s
involvement is mostly just sobbing, not that I can blame her.
When he’s
finally done with his training, an absurd scene happens. He’s about to get exposed to the public in a
press conference, and they upload the entirety of Detroit’s crime records into
his brain. Why they are doing this two
minutes before his rollout is anyone’s guess.
Instead of simply giving him useful information like photos and rap
sheets, they also show him potentially traumatizing footage of violent crimes. Worse still, they even upload footage of his own near death. This predictably causes a panic attack. Norton responds by ordering his dopamine
levels dropped down to practically nothing, because apparently there’s no happy
medium between “panic attack” and “cold and unfeeling.” The result is that he frightens his family
and apprehends a wanted criminal who happened to show up at his rollout. The arrest was a result of efficient data
scanning combined with crime records, not having a bulletproof cyborg. Why don’t they just equip police cameras with
this technology and have normal cops do the job? Also, catching criminals is one thing,
gathering evidence needed to convict them is another. This is why RoboCop works better as a satire.
RoboCop now acts
more like the original RoboCop until he reexamines his own attempted
murder. After recognizing that his son
had watched it from his bedroom and was traumatized (as we can tell from the
child’s utterly blank expression), he
regains his emotions, overcomes his programming and hunts down those
responsible. Nothing gets you back in
touch with your humanity quite like revenge.
After he tracks down and unceremoniously kills Vallon and his gang, he
exposes the corrupt policemen who conspired with him. Mattox shuts him down remotely, and Sellars
uses the police corruption scandal to convice Congress to legalize
incorruptible drones. I don’t know how
this would make a difference since it’s not like people are not already
familiar with police corruption, and putting drones on the street would prevent
the higher-ups from being corrupt.
Anyway, the bill passes, allowing Omnicorp to unleash a bunch of robots
that they had sitting around just in case public opinion did a 180 like it just
did. You know, because corporations love
gambling with their money like that.
Omnicorp
intends to kill RoboCop and make him a martyr, claiming that he had a psychotic
breakdown (like that will make people less fearful of drones), but Norton
rebels, reactivates RoboCop and disables his remote control. Sellars responds by taking the Murphy family
hostage. RoboCop fights his way through
multiple ED-209’s and Mattox to get to Sellars.
He has trouble saving his family from Sellars because the latter is
wearing a special bracelet that prevents all Omnicorp drones from firing upon
its wearer. This is the equivalent of
the original’s Directive 4 programming.
However, unlike the original, in which the solution is clever and
consistent with the movie’s rule, the remake’s RoboCop simply wills himself
into shooting Sellars anyway. The day is
saved, the bill is vetoed by the president and RoboCop is put back on the
police force wearing a comfortingly familiar silver suit. It’s exposited that Omnicorp’s holdings are
getting taken over by its parent company OCP (a nod to the original). Why is the parent company Omnicorp called
Omni Consumer Products? That doesn’t
make sense. And why didn’t they just call
the company OCP anyway?
RoboCop ends
up being a passably enjoyable film. It’s
well-paced and the characters are decent enough to make the movie
watchable. Murphy/RoboCop himself is a
generally likable family man (taser incident notwithstanding), albeit his
character arc isn’t as compelling as it is in the original. The remake does have some good ideas with his
character, though. It’s good that the
movie takes a different direction by having him retain his free will. Yet in some ways he’s more controlled by
Omnicorp. He can be shut down by remote
and is dependent on a dialysis machine to survive, whereas the original is more
self-sufficient. Lewis is a big
disappointment. As a fan of The Wire, I was excited to see Michael
K. Williams in the role. While Anne
Lewis (Nancy Allen) was a strong character who had an important role in the
movie and a well-developed partnership with RoboCop, Jack Lewis seems to show
up only occasionally as an afterthought.
In an eerie similarity with another Paul Verhoeven remake, a charismatic
actor from a critically acclaimed cable series was cast in an important role
only to be given barely any screentime at all.
Gary Oldman’s Norton is compelling and well-developed because of how
conflicted he is, but he loses some points with the dopamine scene. Murphy’s family is credible but bland.
Antoine Vallon is bland, and he’s really more
of a plot point than a character.
Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith) of the original was a truly
charismatic memorable villain. He had no
fear of the cops and slaughtered them with sadism and impunity, making him a
dreaded presence. He personally tortured
and murdered Murphy in a cringe-inducing manner. When Vallon ordered the hit, he seemed
reluctant and almost had to be talked into it.
Though this cautiousness makes sense, it doesn’t make for a very strong
villain. In fact, Mattox seems to be the
true equivalent to Clarence in the new movie, but he’s a pretty poor substitute
as he’s not much more than a petty douchebag.
Most of the charisma goes to Raymond Sellars. Michael Keaton does a very good job
portraying an eccentric and corrupt CEO.
He’s one of the few elements that the remake genuinely improves upon. Overall, the movie makes decent use of a good
cast, but it lacks many things that made the original a classic.
One problem
with the movie is with design and world-building. The original did a great job establishing
atmosphere with its dour, flat gray depiction of a run-down Detroit contrasting
with artificially optimistic in-universe commercials. The remake seems to be uniformly bright and
shiny in its visual style. It looks like
every other movie today. You don’t get the
feeling that Detroit is in decay from this movie. Considering that the city has been in a state
of atrophy for years, and large parts of it look haunted, all they had to do
was film more scenes in some of these areas.
They didn’t even need to resort to the R-rated bloodletting of the
original. It would be a good source of
satire if the movie went in that direction, too. It would be funny to see ED-209’s patrolling
vacant slums as an attention-starved public project. They could have also been made to look cute,
so as to make people less frightened of them in universe. Makes sense, and would be funny. See how I said how a satire would be a better
route.
 |
| Like this, except even cuter. |
Other design
elements bugged me as well. At first,
RoboCop’s suit looked fine, like a more streamlined version of the
original. It was quickly replaced with a
“tactical” black suit that looked like a guy in a plastic suit rather than a
robotic body. The movie even seems aware
of how bad it looks since the in-universe justification is a brilliantly
frustrating corporate line by Sellars: “People don’t know what they like until
you show it to them.” At least it’s
good commentary. I was also disappointed
to see that the RoboCop didn’t drive a Taurus.
The Ford Taurus police cars in the original are a source of ironic
amusement in the movie’s fanbase, and the new Tauruses, which actually are imposing
and viable police cars, would be a good choice for a serious remake of RoboCop.
I was excited to see them in this movie, but I could barely catch
glimpses of them in the background.
Instead, our hero rides a generic motorcycle. What part of "RoboCop drives a Taurus" did they not understand?
A common complaint about the remake is the
lack of R-Rated violence. It’s true that
the original’s bloody action scenes were highly effective, being shocking and
campy when the needed to be. The remake’s
action is generic shakycam. I was having
high hopes about the Robo’s fight with multiple ED-209’s near the end, but
aside from some cool laser effects, it was disappointing. The battle with Vallon & Co. takes place
in total darkness, and instead of having a consistent theme, it constantly
switches from RoboCop’s night vision to the criminals’ night vision with a less
effective version of Equilibrium’s
muzzle flash fight thrown in. The only
time the shakycam cinematography is used effectively in battle is during the
Tehran scene, where it’s successfully used to invoke discomfort when the robots
patrol the streets. When kitchen knife
boy gets shot, the cinematography cuts effectively in a way that’s visceral yet
tasteful. Ultimately, however, the
remake’s action is as forgettable as the original’s is unforgettable.
The Novak Element is a mixed bag. It’s a painfully obvious jab at The O’Reilly Factor, and I question the
logic of making fun of someone by casting Samuel L. Jackson to play him. It has its moments. A hilarious (and true) bit of satire occurs
when Novak has two opposing guests on the show and suddenly cuts off the feed of
a guest who disagrees with him before he has a chance to answer a
question. The Novak Element also boasts
some of the more interesting visual effects in the movie. Still, it has a more humorous tone that
clashes with the rest of the film. The
lazy attempts at satire in the newsfeeds certainly do not help. Some supposed poetic justice about Mexico’s
fighting against illegal American immigrants (yeah, they’d have every right
to), and a classic example of individual hubris masquerading as a critique of
human hubris in which Aliens contact us but think we’re too stupid to associate
with (says more about the aliens than us).
RoboCop also fails at conveying its central
message, which is clear: drones are bad.
While the movie does call America out for its reluctance in domestically
applying drone activities it has no qualms about doing overseas, it generally
doesn’t do a good job conveying its message.
Instead of making legitimate criticisms of America’s use of drones, it
focuses on a rather less compelling argument. A
senator (Zach Grenier) asks Sellars if a drone would “feel bad” if it
accidentally killed a child, and Sellars sheepishly admits it wouldn’t. The real question should be, “Is it more likely to kill a child?” The answer seems to be “no,” since the robots
are consistently shown to be reliable when it comes to holding fire on unarmed
targets. The only time it shoots a non-threat
is that kid with a kitchen knife, and even that was mistake of the programmers,
not the machine. The movie even clearly
displays a robot handling a hostage situation better than a human. The logic seems to be “Dead Kid + Traumatized
Cop > Dead Kid.” I will say that
feelings are arguably important in the matter.
An enforcement robot may not any more evil than the government that
employs it, but it doesn’t have the capacity to be less evil; it just follows
its orders. That might encourage
brutality and oppression since no one making the decisions has to get xir hands
dirty and there’s no chance of the drones’ growing a conscience. Though dictatorships have gotten along just
fine with human enforcers, that’s still a consideration. The movie does not mention this.
RoboCop is watchable and not at all as
bad as the truly disastrious Total Recall
(2012), but it’s no classic. It has some
good ideas here and there, but it simply isn’t daring. I might have preferred Darren Aronofsky’s proposed version, as that does seem interesting. This movie, however, doesn’t have edge or
visuals to justify going to the theater to see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment