The original “RoboCop” came out back in 1987, about nine years before the current incoming Emory freshmen were born. I’m not sure if the makers of the 2014 “reboot” were even aware of that original movie, because this film is, at best, a bastardization of the original film – nothing more than a generic sci-fi shoot-’em-up, minus the memorable scenes, about which the writers appeared to be completely clueless.
That last comment might be a little harsh. But it seems wrong that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner, the co-writers of the original film’s screenplay, are each receiving a writing credit for this version. It feels like the only real congruency between the two films is the title itself.
For those who never saw the original Paul Verhoeven (“Starship Troopers”) version of “RoboCop,” let me tell you: it was surprisingly smart and well-made. Even though the basic plot could be summed up in the title (there’s a robot, and he’s also a cop), it was full of satire. It made fun of corporate greed through the lens of a dystopian society, and used ultraviolence to drive home the relentlessness of the greed. And it was done very well. This new version lacks all of that.
While it would be easy to spend the entire review saying why this film doesn’t compare to the original, it’s much more than nostalgia that makes the new “RoboCop” frustrating to watch. This includes taking the best non-robotic character from the original trilogy, Officer Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen, “Carrie”), who spends all three movies kicking major amounts of butt, and taking away everything enjoyable about her performance. Anne Lewis apparently underwent a sex change and is now Jack Lewis, played by Michael Williams (“The Wire”). It’s always a pleasure to see Omar Little on screen, but it’s not the same.
This reboot is Brazilian director José Padilha’s (“Elite Squad”) first English-language feature film, and it’s not a stellar start.
The dialogue is dull and repetitive, and when one character seems to be repeating the same line several times throughout the film it certainly takes away from the already-limited amount of enjoyment in this picture.
It’s a shame, because the movie isn’t populated by a group of terrible actors. Samuel L. Jackson (“Shaft”), Michael Keaton (“Batman”) and Gary Oldman (“The Fifth Element”) aren’t terrible, but their characters are flat. And that ends up being a major problem when the characters are forced to confront the true villains of the movie – you don’t care, because the motivation isn’t there.
Even Joel Kinnaman’s (“Easy Money”) portrayal of Officer Alex Murphy (the titular “RoboCop”) falls flat.
In the original movie, RoboCop is essentially a reincarnation of Murphy, and he’s haunted by memories from Murphy’s past. He spends the majority of the movie trying to regain his memories and corresponding humanity, but there’s none of that in this – no real internal struggle.
He goes through none of the same pain (like losing his family), and without that battle, it’s hard to feel sorry for an indestructible machine, programmed to kill if necessary.
In the end, this 21st-century adaptation ends up being nothing more than a bad combination of generic PG-13 action movies that just so happens to share the same title as a great old movie.
It’s a shame because with the current world landscape of drone spy-planes flying around the world, it would have been nice to see a film that works as commentary on the good and bad parts of modern technology.
No such luck here. It’s not worth whatever ticket prices are now to see such a bland and pointless movie. Not even for the special effects.
– By Matthew Asher
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Completely agree with you! thank you for this review