Visit our social channels!
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
February 13, 2014
Review: RoboCop

MV5BMjAyOTUzMTcxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjkyOTc1MDE@._V1_SX640_SY720_There are of course exceptions to every rule, but remakes of great movies tend to fail because they can't hope to measure up with what came before. So on paper, "RoboCop", the 1987 sci-fi action flick starring Peter Weller, probably seemed like perfect material for a new edition. The original film has earned a fond place in many people's memories, and rightly so. But while it's good fun, it would be hard to argue that it's an objectively "great" film. So why not take another crack at it?

You have to give credit where credit is due. The makers of this "RoboCop" could have merely filmed a scene-for-scene recreation, but they didn't. They crafted a plot and cast of characters that, while remaining true to the essence of the first film, are different enough to make this version more of a re-imagining than a remake. If only they'd done a better job with their imagining...

Part of the reason the original "RoboCop" has remained such a classic (apart from its kick-ass action) is its subversive social satire. Hidden beneath the steel, bullets, and blood are themes concerning the media, the decay of America, and the meaning of humanity, as well as some overt Christian symbolism. "RoboCop" 2.0 attempts to update the film's themes to our modern times, providing shallow commentary on contemporary subjects like drone usage in an attempt to seem timely, and instead coming off as pandering. And that's not the only aspect in which this version suffers in comparison to its predecessor. The 1987 film was unapologetically violent, nearly garnering an X rating. This "RoboCop" is the epitome of PG-13, with not one drop of blood in sight and not one single moment of memorable brutality. Now, I'm certainly not advocating an increase in cinema violence, but why remake one of the bloodiest 80's action films if you're not willing to go there? Not only is the action bloodless, it's also disappointingly sparse. In the two-hour running time, there are perhaps three large action sequences, and -- viewed mainly through RoboCop's computerized visor -- they all feel like watching someone else play a video game.

Star Joel Kinnaman is serviceable as the new Alex Murphy, although his performance never comes close to matching Weller's. It's a shame he doesn't get to utilize any of the self-deprecating sarcasm here that made him such a captivating actor to watch on AMC's "The Killing". The supporting cast is filled with strong actors given nothing to do: Gary Oldman plays it disappointingly straight as Doctor Norton; Samuel L. Jackson is wasted as a talk show host; and Abbie Cornish exists purely to weep stoically. The most interesting acting is done by Michael Keaton as the egomaniacal president of Omnicorp in a performance that straddles a precarious line between menace and camp.

With very little action, no real grit, and absolutely no humor, the new "RoboCop" is a self-serious and shockingly boring letdown. Unlike its protagonist, there's no beating heart inside this plodding cinematic robot; it's all machine, no soul.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmtQXUXez8[/youtube]

Share this post to Social Media
Written by: Jefferson Grubbs
More articles by this author:

Other Interesting Posts

LEAVE A COMMENT!

Or instantly Log In with Facebook