I attended a matinee showing of the new RoboCop movie yesterday afternoon. There's been a lot of speculation surrounding the newest edition to the franchise. Many die hard fans are questioning why the classic movie needed a reboot. Why is the new RoboCop black, instead of the classic grey of the original? Many superficial queries like this, most of which are unfounded and based on theory and not on actual experience from watching the motion picture itself. I read several reviews made by private citizens on the website where I got my show times from, many of which contained the information that they had not yet seen the movie. I question the validity of such remarks and inquire how it is that people believe they can make an educated review on a motion picture that (at the time) had not yet been released? Furthermore, I wonder how anyone would derive any value from these reviews based on speculation, rather than based on witnessing the film first hand?
Admittedly, I was one of these people when I first learned that RoboCop was getting a reboot. I would hardly call the original film a "classic". It was a decent sci-fi adventure when it was originally produced, more than twenty-five years ago, but I would hardly consider it classic. However, as with all popular films, a reboot or retelling, is almost inevitable, these days. Past films like True Grit, Planet of the Apes and most recently, Batman and Total Recall have all been reintroduced into the culture as retelling's of the originals. Even George Lucas did this a few years ago with his Star Wars franchise, only instead of redoing the movies in their entirety, he instead opted to add stupid shit to them, thus making a mockery of his name and forever placing a blemish on the true sci-fi masterpieces.
As for this newest version of RoboCop, for those attending the movie believing it to be a remake of the original, are going to be disappointed greatly. Even the way that Detective Alex Murphy loses his life is completely different from the original, and there's a great reason for this change, which I will share in a moment. However, if you go into the theater with a sound (and open) mind, you will come away from the movie quite pleased. For RoboCop, 2014, is NOT a remake, but a reinterpretation of the original story line.
As for this newest version of RoboCop, for those attending the movie believing it to be a remake of the original, are going to be disappointed greatly. Even the way that Detective Alex Murphy loses his life is completely different from the original, and there's a great reason for this change, which I will share in a moment. However, if you go into the theater with a sound (and open) mind, you will come away from the movie quite pleased. For RoboCop, 2014, is NOT a remake, but a reinterpretation of the original story line.
The gist of it is the same, in that Detective Murphy is killed and is reanimated as the robotic crime fighter, known unconventionally as RoboCop, but beyond that, I like the changes that the film makers brought to life. They've presented the RoboCop from a much more human point of view, even throwing a question out to the audience of whether or not it is right to fool with Mother Nature in reanimating that which, beyond all accounts, should be dead?
The story told in the film was pretty cut and dry, except for the finale, which confused me some. They elude to some kind of secret, but fail to elaborate, so the conclusion seems almost fabricated and thrown together as a last resort. Like the director, Jose Padilha, figured that as long as the sequences were tied together with some extraordinary special effects, that audiences will be fooled into loving the film.
This is not the case. Up to now, it seems like I'm singing the movie's praises, but in the end I have to admit that it's not a fantastic movie. I do love the changes to the RoboCop itself. It's a better actor (Joel Kinnaman) portraying the RoboCop. It's more believable that the RoboCop would speed all around Detroit on a motorcycle than squeezing his robotic fat-ass into a cramped Ford Taurus (est. RoboCop, 1987). Alex Murphy, after his metamorphosis, is more human that machine.
The only fail the movie has for me is the overall story line. It's a bit weak and shallow, not to mention confusing and contrived. Based on my FOUR STAR RATING SYSTEM, I give RoboCop (2014) THREE STARS.
As for why the origin of Detective Alex Murphy's death was changed so drastically, I theorize that it's based on the rating of the film. The original RoboCop possessed an R-rating. The film showcased female nudity, strong language and grotesque and violent images, which included Murphy having his hand blown off by a shotgun and one of the villains (literally) melting from overexposure to nuclear waste. The newest rendition possesses only a PG-rating. There's no nudity. No strong language and impressive but not over-the-top violence. This allows children to attend then run out afterwards to pick up the new RoboCop action figures. Film making, after all, is more about business and the almighty dollar, than it is about entertainment.
As for why the origin of Detective Alex Murphy's death was changed so drastically, I theorize that it's based on the rating of the film. The original RoboCop possessed an R-rating. The film showcased female nudity, strong language and grotesque and violent images, which included Murphy having his hand blown off by a shotgun and one of the villains (literally) melting from overexposure to nuclear waste. The newest rendition possesses only a PG-rating. There's no nudity. No strong language and impressive but not over-the-top violence. This allows children to attend then run out afterwards to pick up the new RoboCop action figures. Film making, after all, is more about business and the almighty dollar, than it is about entertainment.
