The original will always rule but this wasn't a bad movie.

I agree. I don't think the Robocop remake was a terrible movie, and I think most of all it really suffered for not having an R rating. I thought there were some interesting elements, such as the actual development of the Robocop suit at OmniCorp and Gary Oldman's character was also very good. Unfortunately the gunfights had a video game feel, which is interesting from a theme frame point because Alex Murphy was being controlled by an a.i during combat and was only along for the ride. However I think things should have gotten more interesting and more brutal as the movie escalated.
Besides what was allowed under a pg-13 rating, I think the biggest drag on the movie were the villians. Antoine Vallon was about as generic a crimelord as you can get. It seemed like he walked off the set of about a hundred action movies. Michael Keaton was interesting, but an interesting and legit bad guy is something the remake lacked that the original had.

I agree; much better than the "Total Recall" remake, and it added new elements that worked, so it should win praise for that.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

This remake was horrible. The first hour of the movie was so boring I had to turn it off because it was so *beep* awful.

Yeah, I really enjoyed the remake a lot.


Kellum, is that you?

...

I liked it more than the original, they tried doing something different with the material than just copying what the original did.

The original Robocop was sort of a dark comedy and this movie was more of a watered down action movie which is what most movies are nowadays.

I believe there's a hero in all of us.

I enjoyed the remake as it told the story from a different angle without turning into a carbon copy of the 1987 original.

While I hate reboots as a rule (especially when it wasn't needed to compensate for tech changes, etc...the 1987 original absolutely works, watched it back to back with this AND DAMN IT'S NEARLY PERFECT). Nonetheless, I always try to watch a movie and judge it by its own merits. Did it entertain me, was it decently produced, acted, directed, scored? And lastly, did they make changes vs the original and were the changes needed or improvements or at least interesting.

This movie isn't bad, no. You cannot invest in the expensive and talented cast you have here and have a complete clunker. You cannot invest that amount of cash they did in sfx and have a total snore fest.

That said: they made changes I did NOT like, at all (where is my badass Ann Lewis? She's out and we get a "Honey, I'm worried about you *poutpout*" blond wife stereotype for our major, *almost* only female role with more than 1 scene in the whole damn movie). I also feel like they spent a lot of money on some expensive, talented white guys and they are going to make sure we see them ALL the time. RC 1 and 2 had a talented cast, but 1 especially didn't shove your face in it. They let the concept and the world draw you in and tell the story for you. Each actor, and there were many, had their bits to play but they didn't drag it out. I feel like they sacrificed story here to get maximum exposure of the talent and it drags. I also enjoyed a variety of tv shows (sitcoms, news, commercials) giving you glimpses into Murphy's Detroit whereas in this one, we get Jackson (arguably my favorite male actor, period) doing an infotainment show based in whoknowswhere that only talks about one thing, apparently...love him, but it lacked the variety of the first movies multimedia glimpses)

I also think the direction of the making of the Robocop, why and how it as done and the legalities, that everyone knows about it, the wife knows, etc, took all the pathos out of it. RC 1 wasn't a stupid action fantasy because you had a good guy in there, suffering, and seeing remnants of his old life and putting it together, but his rage was overridden by his sense of duty. The menace of the corporation being so manipulative and acting like Detroit was their fiefdom was chilling and too close to reality. The OCP in the reboot is Keaton pretending to be Good Guy Corp (or thinking he truly is) so the sting is removed, the threat is removed. It's just a *misguided* idea. Oh me, oh my. It's the same mistake with Spielberg's Jurassic Park. In the book, Hammond NEVER admitted his idea was wrong or dangerous, that he felt entitled to play god and was wrong to do so. He died thinking it was his right to play god. In the movie he does a nice little "OH yes, I don't approve of MY park either, tee hee". The book leaves a sense of menace of nothing learned, this will repeat, but the movie...nope, all Disney and nice.

Terrible lead, too. Guy is dry as dust, and that works in his role on House of Cards...he's playing a safe, conservative politician. Vanilla is fine. But for this? There is no subtlety, no tragedy, no anguish. He tries, but Weller is a better actor and owned that role. They needed a much better actor to convey the complexity of emotions Murphy should be going through.

So no, not terrible, but not good. Average, and that's a shame considering the money and talent involved.