Why can't all of you, or at least one or two of you give us ANY reasons why you hated it? I've read just about every negative post here (especially those who simply state "the worst remake of all time!" and no one has really given ANY reason, tangible reasons, for hating this film.
I'll Play.
I don't think this is the worst remake ever, and that's part of the problem. Rubbercop is an obnoxiously safe, greyish sort of super-mediocre. There was so much wasted potential here, and it deserved to be the best action/sci-fi flick of 2014. What was missing?. . .
I loved the originals (1 & 2, didn't care for 3). And I'm old enough to say that in reality because I actually saw them originally in the theaters during their initial runs.
I have only seen those two on the big screen at little arthouse midnight screenings. That is what's missing from Robo-2014. . . Art and soul. It is a dried up husk of committee contrived nonsense that barely melds into a cohesive story.
Though I should slow down. . .
Jose Padilha and his Brazilian team of film makers did an excellent job making the movie they were ordered to make. They are brilliant artists, and the studio really should have let them start fresh. . . they would have had something special. Darren Aronofsky would have made a great Robocop film as well, but the studio didn't want HIS loving work of art. . They wanted the frankenscript they had spent so much money and time cobbling together over the corse of six years and just as many writers. Darren walked away, as did anyone with clout before him. So the studio settled on the ever talented Padilha. . . an eager visionary with absolutely no name or sway in Hollywood. He was contractually forced to make the movie everyone else walked away from.
The Director hated the experience, and it shows through in the finished product. Especially in the rushed, underdeveloped drama. . .
But there is nothing wrong with this film.
What about the fact that it totally missed the point? In the original, Murphy died and lost everything he had ever loved. He was resurrected as a walking tank, piloted by a tortured soul.
2014's is about a jive talking detective who gets maimed in an explosion, given a prosthetic body, and still has his loved ones. It's weak. On top of that. . . New Murphy, who never died, actually declares he is going out to solve his own murder. That's bad.
In fact, because the technology has improved so much in the past 30 years this film actually makes the originals seem very dated now and a bit corny.
Looks mean so little when compared to the contents. The original proudly brandishes a corny exterior, but it's got a heart of gold polished by artists who loved what they were doing. 2014's all glitter and cgi sparkles on the outside, hiding a center of molten dog crap.
There was always a bit of satire on the first movies and this film does lack that one quality. But overall, this is a really well made film.
Yes. The scathing satire and social commentary are completely missing from this lifeless thing. Just some shoehorned baloney about drones, and the power of love subverting computer programming. I must agree however, this is a well made film. . . on a strictly technical level. Technically it is a film. There are edited scenes, most of which are nicely blocked and photographed, and connect to form a product that can be viewed. The content of those scenes is just so bland though. Comically inoffensive drivel for the whole family, delivered in a shiny feed bag. . . no thinking required.
I would like to have seen a more sinister bad guy than this one.
I would like to have seen a developed villain period. This just had some actors seemingly drawing straws part way through to see who would substitute in the absence of a "bad guy". The drug gang ran by Vallon was generic filler for the trailer, and promptly thrown out like the garbage it was. Meanwhile Sellars wasn't a Villain. . . just a bit of a liar, cheat, and an idiot. His character turn was unwarranted and wholly idiotic.
He's kind of mild and pitiful in comparison to Cain in the 2nd original.
The "bad guys" in this are mild and pitiful by Hanna Barbera standards, let alone Cain. . . or, god forbid, Clarence Boddicker. ALL DRAMA and CONFLICT in this "movie" felt forced.
But other than that this film scores well in CGI
CGI can't fix a broken story.
(the whole look of Alex without the suit conveys a real sense of loss as to how much is left of him)
Yep. . . dude got messed up. . . but where's the substance? Kinnaman's "kill me" moment was breezed over, quickly traded for whining sap. The special effects depicting Murphy's injuries were a great visual aid, but it needed a sturdy emotional foundation to elevate it above just a cool effect. Instead he goes home to a family that actually looks bored by his return. 1987 Murphy's quiet tour through his family's home in the original depicted more emotion in those few minutes than can be found in this abomination's entire runtime.
, action, acting , editing and score.
The action felt safe and lackluster, it hit these other technical benchmarks though. Like I said. . . genius Brazilian film crew is genius.
Someone complained about using a motorcycle instead of a Ford Taurus.
I completely disagree on this point. The bike addition was awesome.
The Bike was fine. . . It gave Murphy a good excuse to ride around without his poorly underdeveloped partner.
In closing, it simply isn't fair to just say you hated it or that it's the worst blah, blah blah. You gotta give real reasons and explain them.
I hope I have been a little bit of a help so far.
Just saying something doesn't make it a fact. If you doubt that, look at Trump. Everything he says is wrong but he keeps repeating it and convinces himself (and an amazing amount of other fools) that it's fact.
Or. . . like the studio saying over and over that they were remaking Robocop. They may have even thought they were. Repeat it till you believe it, right? That doesn't make it true. What they ended up with was lukewarm bargain bin filler with a fantastic name.
-chunkiefroth (story over CGI)
reply
share