Directed by:
José PadilhaCinematography:
Lula CarvalhoComposer:
Pedro BromfmanCast:
Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Abbie Cornish, Michael Keaton, Jay Baruchel, Aimee Garcia, Jennifer Ehle, Samuel L. Jackson, Jackie Earle Haley (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
In RoboCop, the year is 2028 and multinational conglomerate OmniCorp is at the center of robot technology. Overseas, their drones have been used by the military for years, but have been forbidden for law enforcement in America. Now OmniCorp wants to bring their controversial technology to the home front, and they see a golden opportunity to do it. When Alex Murphy - a loving husband, father and good cop doing his best to stem the tide of crime and corruption in Detroit - is critically injured, OmniCorp sees their chance to build a part-man, part-robot police officer. OmniCorp envisions a RoboCop in every city and even more billions for their shareholders, but they never counted on one thing: there is still a man inside the machine. (StudioCanal UK)
(more)Reviews (13)
In the first half, RoboCop observes the psychology of transforming a human into a robot and addresses the issue of ethics without lacking the proper visual effectiveness. In the second half, the film speeds up and the well-built dramaturgy falls apart (with a twist that probably not even the creators – including the screenwriter – understand, when RoboCop chooses to address his own past over dealing with the ongoing crimes) and the interesting science-fiction movie becomes a dumb action flick. It seems as if José Padilha’s film was cut and shortened by the producers to satisfy more consumerist audiences who don’t need more than said dumb action. And that’s a pity. The cynical view of US foreign policy and a few good jokes (“I’m just from marketing!”) suggest that the new RoboCop could have been a worthy remake, cleverly reflecting society in the new millennium.
()
Somewhere half-way. I don’t glorify Verhoeven’s classic, so I went into Padilha’s remake without prejudice, and yet it was unable to win me over in any significant way. As an action flick, the action scenes in Robocop aren’t exciting, and as a satire, it’s not sharp enough, even though it has some promising hints. Overall it’s unremarkably bland.
()
Values (moral, personal, familial), likable anti-American critique (toothless, inoffensive), action with only one truly distinctive scene (the warehouse), and the strangled potential of wanting to play out at least one of the themes a little stronger. Or, it’s a perfectly Hollywood fluffy nothing that is held afloat only by Kinnaman's undeniable charisma. 3 ½.
()
A lot of movies influenced me throughout my childhood and Robocop was one of those movies. Which is why I thought I won’t be too happy about another 1980s action movie remake. But then I saw some reviews claiming that this remake wasn’t bad at all, which is actually why I decided to watch it. And I must admit that it had its upsides, especially actors like Samuel L. Jackson or Gary Oldman, who did all the hard work on this movie. Joel Kinnaman wasn’t quite as good as them. But why should he since he appears as a human in the beginning only to come back as an emotionless Robocop. I was also a little shocked that this movie didn’t have a proper story. They create a robo-human who is so perfect that he has no competition. Or at least until a dozen lunatics start shooting missiles at him that could tear a giant apart.
()
This film could serve as a demonstration of how contemporary Hollywood sometimes bets on the brain drain of progressive personalities from other cinematographies and then tries to tame them in the machine. Padilha’s "action social drama" manuscript is there at the beginning, and seeing the editing and shooting from "another world" is, of course, a refreshing but sedentary rating, a bit of enigmatic magic with musical dramaturgy as a result, and the surprisingly extinct kinetics of Carvalho's camera just turn the action into padding. The creators also sometimes provocatively associate it with demanding conversations about the essence of the main character. The new RoboCop is actually a bit of a radical and staid conversational drama about a man from whom remains only a piece of his face and several organs. Most of the violence from the original moves from the streets to the body of the protagonist, who spends more than half of the film dealing with his identity, family, and getting used to the suit. Thanks to well-written dialogues and great actors, it works. Ideologically, the film evokes the irony of the original through a right-wing talk show and a parody of the marketing abuse of Murphy / RoboCop as a product for the masses. There is also a noticeable shift in the acceptance of a globalized perspective and the transformation of the corporate sphere from "sharks in suits" to a casual field of philanthropists in cool outfits. While Verhoeven once made a film that can be consumed as a perfect product of American culture and as its harsh parody, "liberal fascist" Padilha and his team are much more literal. Some people still have a problem deciphering it, but the critical storyline pointing to the mechanization of war and justice is quite understandable. Combined with thoughts about transforming man into a machine, it becomes quite a productive thing to think about. The new RoboCop will never offer the total "blood, shit and mud" pleasure of the original, which it tries not to refer to too ostentatiously (and when it does, then it does so ironically - the use of Poledouris’ motif as the signature tune of a right-wing agitation show). It looks for its own way to get to the topic. Therefore, despite the wheels falling off and the somewhat dubious gradation of the second half, it makes sense. Special thx to always fabulous Oldman, easygoing armyJobs Keaton and the very precisely vulnerable Kinnaman. I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for it, but it will probably just pass us by like (the little more problematic) Elysium. I just hope that we will see the day when the ratio of realized and unrealized ideas in the fights between producer and inventive creator goes the other way. [75%]
()
It isn’t usual for an expensive blockbuster (and especially a remake of an action movie of the eighties) to put its money on ambiguous characters, a moral dilemma about the limits of “humanness" or a criticism of America as the self-proclaimed “global policemen who should clear up their own mess at home"; all of this of course (unfortunately) toned down to large-budget proportions and diluted by the mandatory (and superfluous) SFX action ingredient, but all in all the course they chose was still entertaining, I tell you.
()
It's by no means a gem that would blow my mind, but I enjoy these movies, I love watching them and I never get tired of them. The action scenes are decent, even if there aren't many, the story is great, the dialogue is engaging, the cast is decent. Yeah this movie deserves four stars. 75%
()
The big surprise is the powerful screenplay which squeezes all it can from the topic and the story even has some overlap of relevance. It takes a slightly different route to the original RoboCop and that certainly does no harm. Routine action is a little restrained, only letting go during the final battle with the chickens. Keaton and Oldman steal the movie, dominating the screen in their scenes together. Alex Murphy has also gone through a certain change. Although Kinnaman doesn’t equal Weller’s qualities, he puts on a really good performance. The ace up the sleeve is director José Padilha who, despite an exhausting struggle with the studio, was able to push a lot of ideas into the project (the studio rejected nine out of every ten ideas) and details that push RoboCop upward. Next time, give it freer rein and it’ll be bombastic.
()
The effort for interesting psychology and the ambiguity of both the main and secondary characters is worth praise, and so, thanks God, is the absence of a dull, straightforward plot. What was popular in the 1980s would definitely not be as popular now (or only in a new guise). Surprisingly, the film fails the most in the action, which is both scarce and not great. From a 100 million action movie, I would expect a greater impact. At the same time, it is evident that they lacked skill for a grander and, above all, more detailed production, clearly visible, for example, in the similarly expensive but much better executed Minority Report.
()
Three years ago it was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, whilst this year Robocop surprises. And I'm surprised, given how much I love the original film, that my only reservations are about Alex Murphy's awkward representative. All they had to do was either find a more sympathetic person or leave most of his face hidden in the helmet for 90% of the film. Fortunately, there is a minor paradox - most of the attention is drawn to the other "supporting" characters, led by the excellent Gary Oldman, thanks to whom one doesn't really notice Kinnaman's non-acting. The dialogue scenes are on par with the action scenes, the direction of everyone is very decent, the special effects are fine, and I quite liked the music when listening to it on its own. Fortunately, the satirical undertones have not completely disappeared, thanks mainly to the character of Samuel L. Jackson and his TV show.
()
Unlike many, it would appear, it was clear to me beforehand that Hollywood would not allow Padilha to fumble through the film the way he has done with his slum opuses, so I am thrilled with the result. Especially given that he still retained his directorial handwriting and immense talent for sustaining the momentum of sequences that could easily have been built on cutting between three static shots. As a result, the average shot length is longer than most genre trailers, and the camera often dances around action sequences to keep an overview of seemingly unanchored action that is only pinned down by set pieces (a shootout in an alley, a mock battle in a factory hall, the destruction of an ED-209 in a lobby). The reshoots from the long shots, which Padilha is very fond of using to capture action, however challenging it is to seeing the protagonist's point of view, are so smooth and non-evasive that any Branagh could envy them, and I generally enjoyed the whole thing. Compared to its predecessor, it does lack the punkish revelry in the destruction of both body and property, but while it retains the obligatory quotes, it doesn't routinely copy individual elements and finds its own alternatives to them. Namely, for example, Robocop defeating the ED-209 mecha-guards, whose firepower superiority is once again countered by their lack of agility, but this time it is their sheer numbers and thus their tactical inadequacy that is used to defeat them.
()
I was apprehensive about the new Robocop, expecting yet another film in the line of "awesome" American remakes. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, apart from the basic plotline, it was a completely different film. Instead of staring daggers at the screen for two hours, I could kick back and watch the frantic action scenes and enjoy Pat Novak's show. Pat instantly became my favorite character, since everyone else kind of lacked charisma.
()
I like the first film, and I like the character so much that I was willing to believe the new version would be good. It’s not bad, but unfortunately not miraculous either. There are great characters played by excellent actors, but RoboCop is somewhat in the background, which bothers me quite a bit. Otherwise, it's reasonably action-packed, reasonably emotional, and reasonably moral. It's all quite balanced.
()
Ads