MovieChat Forums > RoboCop (2014) Discussion > I have a question for those who didn't l...

I have a question for those who didn't like or hated this movie...


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 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.

But there is nothing wrong with this film. 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. 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.

I would like to have seen a more sinister bad guy than this one. He's kind of mild and pitiful in comparison to Cain in the 2nd original. But other than that this film scores well in CGI (the whole look of Alex without the suit conveys a real sense of loss as to how much is left of him), action, acting , editing and score. Someone complained about using a motorcycle instead of a Ford Taurus. I completely disagree on this point. The bike addition was awesome.

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.

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.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

reply

Why can't all of you, or at least one or two of you give us ANY reasons why you hated it?
TBH, why would you bother to care why someone disliked this or any other movie? We all should be entitled to our own opinion without having to explain our decision. No matter their response, they won't change your opinion, right? Just as much as you can't persuade them to like this movie. But if you really want to know, just read this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234721/board/nest/252139916

I seen the original in the theater in 1987. It was great for the time. Still enjoyable to watch every now and then, too. However, after repeat viewings, it's kind of lame, especially those pseudo commercials (which Verhoven repeats similarly in Starship Troopers) and the news casters (Leeza Gibbons, lol). However, Weller was pretty awesome as Robo. Can't tell you the name of the new guy without peeking at the main page, but he did a good job, too. He brought more humanity to the character (which is all part of the transhuman agenda that is happening).

IMHO, this remake is far superior than the original, and won't feel as dated after 10 years like the original. The CGI wasn't the greatest, but it was far more believable that the stop motion of the original. I also really liked that they kept his family as part of the story. This remake had a decent blend of drama, humor, and action, whereas the original's humor was over the top. I guess people like sh!t like that; I don't. But like I said, the original was great when I first seen it, but hell, I was only 17.

5.6 seconds behind scenario failure. Wouldn't buy that for a dollar.

That line alone is better than all the wouldn't buy that for a dollar lines in the original, lol. Sure, it's said out of left field, but in the original, that sh!t was annoying. It wasn't funny.

Edit -

I'm watching this as I type, and Sam Jackson just came on. Um... his character is F'n annoying. It's like they added him later for some reason. I may have to detract the "far superior" comment above. Sam Jackson in this movie is about as annoying as the pseudo commercials in the original.
_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

reply

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

I don't hate or even dislike it...but everything it did well, the original did better.

In fact, the most striking thing the original does better is give us a whole set of memorable villains. Every one of Clarence Bodiker's main henchmen stands out in some way, so when Murphy picks them off one by one, we're rooting for their demise. In the 2014 film, the gang leader and his henchmen are hugely underdeveloped.

It's a credit to 80s screenwriting and editing that Robo87 gives us so many more great characters in less running time than the 2014 remake.

The Job Interview Poem https://youtu.be/MtkmC4kCSTs

reply

I completely agree with you on this aspect. The villain was almost non-existant. I think the reason for this was the filmakers were trying to lay more of the evil on the police (the wonderful Marianne Jean-Baptist, who was recently exceptional in a similar role on "Blindspot") and on the weapon company CEO, aptly played by Michael Keaton.

But you have to add points for the character development like Gary Oldman's "moraly" torn scientist.

One of the other weaker aspects to this was the lack of a caring partner as was in the first.

But these are simply the different styles of the directors. I hate comparing these 2. The technology is so different that you really need to look at them more like 2 stand alone movies.

"He's not Judge Judy and executioner!"

reply

But these are simply the different styles of the directors.


Not really. It's more of a matter of cleaver writing with something to say vs. tripe vomited out of a committee's butt-mouth.

I hate comparing these 2.


As do I. To dwell on the topic makes one long for suicide.

The technology is so different that you really need to look at them more like 2 stand alone movies.


I don't think it's the technology that separates them. It's the new ones lack of tone or anything memorable that sets it apart.

reply

I didn't like it because it's not very good. The characters are all two dimensional and most of them are superfluous. The battle against the ED-209s was corny and felt like an over-the-top action sequence just for the sake of t. Further, the movie seemed to have no actual point. The original was a satire about corporations taking over and had a story about a corporate creation regaining his soul and opposing his corporate masters. This one didn't really have that due to the way the story was structured.

reply

Without typing too much, Rubbercop was just a very underwhelming remake of the original Robocop movie that tried to do everything but in a PG-rating and even dared to include the one dollar joke. Regrettably they failed to make that actually funny.

I'm glad that Rubbercop never got a sequel because it was an insult to the original Robocop movie.

P.S. It made no sense for Murphy to have his face in perfect shape when the car explosion was literally right in front of him.

reply

the remake was boring and rated pg-13.

The tone of the movie was too serious and not funny. The remake was not entertaining.

reply

How about this, we love the original & hate watching it again with hyped up special effects & a dumbed down plot line.

The first, like most of his films, had a pretty strong anti-privatization & anti-fascist message behind its satire.

This took everything remotely deep & insightful about the real Robocop & turned it into a simple special effects banaza catered to ONLY the mouth breathers among us.

"Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop."

reply

If you have to ask you deserve no answer.

reply