I Saw A Film Today… Robocop

I’m not opposed to remakes. Done properly, they can be impressive. I’ve said it before, and I’m positive I’ll have to reference it again in the future, but Dredd is a perfect example of this. The ’95 version was both a critical and commercial failure. But following a truer version of the 2000 A.D. character and lo and behold, a brilliant film is born. Why a sequel isn’t being produced yet is a mystery. But back to the present, with each remake I’m always apprehensive as well, as time and time again Hollywood studios have shown they are willing to milk a franchise dry if there might be some profit made.

Set in a fictitious future world, where instead of crime depleting [as stats are showing now in the actual present (early plot hole)], the conglomerate OmniCorp and it’s CEO Raymond Sellers (Michael Keaton) has cornered the market in mass producing drones and man-less droids to police the world over.

Except in the good ole U.S. of A. A pasty-faced frump Senator Dreyfus (Zach Grenier) has blocked such types of totalitarian policing stateside. But not one to take no for an answer, Sellers instead offers not a machine but, a man in a machine, Or vice versa, as a way to show robots can police.

Insert Detroit detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), who recently was burned over 80% of his body after his car exploded. After his wife is badgered into signing him into the Robocop experiment, in no time at all Alex is off and fighting crime in the streets of Detroit. Well, I mean if you consider spending half the film not doing much of anything a “no time” time frame.

I don’t plan to harp on the differences of this film compared to that of the 1987 Paul Verhoeven classic. I believe every film should be judged by its own merits, but it is important to recognize the source material. What makes the ’87 film so brilliant was it’s brilliant social satire of the American 80’s , as well as being a well crafted violent science fiction work. Some social themes, such as corruption, gentrification, and over-saturation of media still resonate today, and for all time I imagine sadly.

When it comes to this remake, you get a soggy and dull version of those ideas. You briefly get a glimmer of hope of a social commentary at the onset of the movie, much like the original. It starts off in a US-oppressed Tehran, Iran that looks like the wet dreams of Tea Baggers and Republicans alike. Robots are shown doing “random” stop-and-frisks of citizens on the street. And this is what is best for the future of America, according to a Fox News-esque rouser voiced by non-other than Mr. Sam Jackson. Somewhat effective use of satire. But after this scene, any type of modern social relevance is only a limp crutch to keep the film on its unbalanced feet.

But the biggest crutch of Robocop is the fact that it is really dull and lumbering. I’m not really a big fan of mindless non-stop action usually, mainly because they are rarely done well. But when you sell a film as a mindless non-stop caliber action movie, its kind of called for to have both mindless action and for it to be non-stop. Instead, you get uninspired moments of bland violence and gunfights in between scenes of uninspired dialogue you can find nearly anywhere on a DVD shelf with a PG-13 label.

Okay, I lied. I’m going to take a moment here to harp on differences between the original and this. Because it is within the nearly two hours of mindless scenes that you have time to think on the pitfalls and plot holes of this rehash. Such as, why make this film PG-13? The original was strengthened by bloody gore. It illustrated the bleakness of the satirical. Plus, most of the crowd coming to see this want to see crimson explosions bursting from human bodies. Here, it holds back the full potential of that with safe cutaways. Another aspect is the remake tries to focus more on the family. Which you would think would make this more interesting, but it puts a damp towel on the entire story. Now I understand why Verhoevan left most of that out in the original.

Maybe this would have been better as well if it didn’t feel like everyone involved phoned in performances. Except for Gary Oldman and Samuel L. Jackson, who always brings an inspired performance. Well, maybe Jackson is just really good at yelling stuff. But the rest of the cast really has no excuse for their blandness. Which is sad, especially for greats like the above mentioned and the subtles greats like Michael K. Williams and Jackie Earle Haley. Maybe it was a form of typecasting. Maybe they just saw this as a nice payday. Whatever the case, they contributed very little.

I hoped that this film could at least be an entertaining blockbuster. I didn’t really expect more from it. But in the end, where was the entertainment?

Verdict: Skip it!

*Rated PG-13/UK: 12A for intense sequences of action including frenetic gun violence throughout, brief strong language, sensuality, and some drug material. 117 minutes. Directed by José Padilha (Bus 174, The Elite Squad).

** Thanks to Cody for seeing this with me.

I Saw A Film Today…The Other Guys

I already regret saying this (because of the numerous comments and e-mails I will receive from adults my age defending him) but I never have liked Will Farrell. Except for Anchorman, Stranger Than Fiction, and his underappreciated roles in Semi-Pro and Land of the Lost, his career has been lackluster for me at best. And after seeing the trailer for The Other Guys, I was pretty sure that it was not going to make it to the short list of his films I enjoyed. But in need of a night out at the cinema I decided to see this “comedy”.

*************************

Danson (Dwayne Johnson) and Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) are two detectives for the New York Police Department, which is a surprising statement. With their reckless ways of solving crimes, I’m surprised that these two still have a job, much less that they are considered  heroes at their department. But the main focus of this film is not on these guys, but on the “Other Guys”. First there is Allen (Will Farrell), a forensic accountant who is a clueless goofy-ball (SHOCKER! This sure is new territory for Farrell). His partner is Terry (Marky Mark Wahlberg), who has been stuck with Allen because he accidentally shot Derek Jeter at the 2003 World Series.

After Danson and Highsmith die in a stupid way, Terry and Allen begin investigating a millionaire businessman named David Ershon (Steve Coogan). This lead to the two detectives uncovering illegal activity in Ershon’s business and naturally leads to many gunfights and car chases.

The first forty minutes of this film are bearable and even has a couple of funny moments. But whatever hold this film had on bringing itself around to a good film is lost after the hour mark. Many gags are unnecessary, too long, and in the end not even funny. A good example of this is a scene where Ershon offers the guys tickets to a Knick’s game. Halfway through the game they realize that the tickets are bribes and confront Ershon about this. Naturally, he offers them tickets to see Jersey Boys and the guys accept them, only realizing halfway through the show that this also is a bribe. All I really wanted to do in the last half hour of this movie was leave (which some people did).

And the performances do not bring much to the table either. Farrell’s familiar role as a loveable simpleton falls flat and he is unbelievable as a former pimp-turned-cop. Eva Mendes’s performance is as mediocre as ever but it is ok…she so gorgeous that it doesn’t even matter. Surprisingly, Wahlberg bring the best performance in this movie as the hot-headed but funny detective. Another performance worth mentioning is Michael Keaton.

Weak plot. Weak comedy. Weak performances. Other than the two above mentioned performances, there really is not much good you can salvage from this film. Instead of seeing The Other Guys, I suggest you go see another movie.

Verdict: SKIP IT!

So what is your opinion of The Other Guys? Was I too harsh on this “comedy”? Leave your comments and opinions below.