The Paul Verhoeven remake train stops off at its next station with this toned-down reboot of the ultra-violent 80s classic that’s as enjoyable as it is disposable.
RoboCop falls flat too often and doesn’t hold together, but it’s got enough to say and does so in an entertaining enough way to make you want to comply
After the bodge-job that was the 2012 rehash of his Arnie-tastic sci-fi actioner Total Recall, Verhoeven would have been forgiven for rolling his eyes at the thought of 1987’s RoboCop being remade for a modern-day audience.
However, it’s with a certain amount of surprise to report that not only is director José Padilha’s robo-rebirth a solid action movie, but it also sneaks in a few sociopolitical points under the radar to keep lovers of the first film satisfied.
Go Robo! Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), aka RoboCop, goes to work
Set in the ‘near future’, the original was a gleefully sadistic shoot-em-up that, like his other sci-fi classic Starship Troopers, had a biting satirical edge.
We’re more than 25 years on and the future of law enforcement proposed in Verhoeven’s original remains just that, the future, although one that doesn’t feel that far off when you consider that we now live in a world where drone warfare exists (the film is set in 2028).
OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) plots with Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) in RoboCop
Padilha evidently has plenty of respect for the source material and retains the first film’s satirical slant, while also playing around with ideas of American imperialism in its impressive pre-credits sequence.
Giant multinational corporation OmniCorp has effectively privatised American foreign policy and wants to do the same with law enforcement; but is prevented from doing so by the Dreyfus Act. The American public is skeptical about robots patrolling the streets, so OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) proposes a man be put in a machine to bring people onside.
Bill O’Reilly-esque TV host Pat Novak (Samuel L Jackson) sets the world to rights in RoboCop
That man is Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), who is critically injured by a car bomb and, with the help of conflicted OmniCorp scientist Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), is transformed into RoboCop. As the tide of public opinion turns in OmniCorp’s favour thanks to RoboCop’s by-any-means-necessary arrest policy, Alex goes after those responsible for his near-death experience, while trying to reconnect with his wife (Abbie Cornish) and son.
While broadly speaking the same movie (some of the original’s more memorable dialogue is crowbarred in – “I’d buy that for a dollar”; “dead or alive, you’re coming with me”), Padilha and screenwriter Joshua Zetumer take enough detours to make the enterprise worthwhile, most notably the relationship between Alex and Dr Norton, which runs with the Frankenstein sub-text even more than the first movie. The CG-heavy scene in which Norton reveals the extent of what’s (not) left of Alex is effectively handled by Kinnaman and the ever-reliable Oldman.
Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) realises what’s happened to him in RoboCop
Although the domestic drama between Alex and his family probably worked on paper, it isn’t sold terribly well on screen, to the extent that Cornish spends most of the film either crying or looking like she’s about to.
Likewise, the action set pieces involving RoboCop taking on swathes of robo-soldiers or human cannon fodder are too reminiscent of a computer game, right down to the digital readout on the top right of the screen that helpfully informs us how many people/machines there are left to decommission.
While Verhoeven satirised trashy American culture through TV adverts for such family fare as the board game Nuke ’em, Padilha takes aim at America’s politically biased news media, specifically Fox News. This is done through the abominable Bill O’Reilly-esque TV host Pat Novak (Samuel L Jackson, sporting one of his most memorable hairdos), whose show The Novak Element is effectively a mouthpiece for OmniCorp. Jackson, as he so often does, makes the most of a small-ish role with a gloriously over-the-top performance.
Is RoboCop circa 2014 necessary? Not really. More importantly, is it any good? It falls flat too often and doesn’t hold together, but it’s got enough to say and does so in an entertaining enough way to make you want to comply.
three rows back 
Ah so another somewhat positive review! I just might go and see it this weekend as I went to Winter’s Tale screening instead of this one. Big mistake!
Do it!
I just might this weekend 😀 I’m more of an action gal and the *romantic* offerings out there don’t interest me in the least bit [I’m looking at you Endless Love]
Ha ha, fair dues 🙂
Nice job man, been reading quite a variety of mixed reviews on this but I will still be checking this out later tonight. I look forward to it, especially some of the gruesome bits because I’ve heard it pushes the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. Begs the question of what this film would have been able to do had it turned into an R. All the same, I’m excited! 🙂
Hope you enjoy it man. It’s not got a lick on the original from a violence perspective, but I kinda enjoyed it. Looking forward to seeing how many slices it racks up.
It would have been nice to see the violence come close to the original. RoboCop using a taser is pretty laughable.
Unfortunately, in this day and age anything with a sizeable budget just isn’t going to risk a more restrictive certificate, which kinds makes the whole idea of a RoboCop remake a bit redundant doesn’t it?
Good stuff, I keeping hearing that its pretty good. Ive not seen Joel Kinnaman in anything but he sounds like hes good in this
Is seen him in the US remake of The Killing and liked him in that. He’s not the most gifted actor and I didn’t buy the emotional stuff but he gets the job done. Thanks for the feedback my friend.
Good review! You and I come away from the same movie and share a lot of the same thoughts, yet interpret the heart of the story very differently. I totally agree w/ your assessment about FOX media, etc., but I didn’t mention any of that in my review. Do you agree w/ my review or find it off-base?
No, it was a good review my friend. I think the remake had to retain the satirical edge of the original otherwise it would have simply have not been a RoboCop film.
Okay good, glad you agreed. Thanks for reading. 🙂
So not a total waste of time, then? But not really a fulfilling time either?
We’ll see if I feel the same way should I see it.
Let’s see! Look forward to seeing what grade it gets.
I just saw this as well and feel the same. Do like that it is it’s own thing, although a bit bland and sterile compared to original, but there are some interesting points raised. Wasn’t that crazy about the action either, videogame point is spot on.
Thanks man. Glad we’re on the same page.
A bit too dull for its own good, but still a little bit better than I had ever imagined a RoboCop remake as being. That said, I don’t think I’d be all that interested in seeing this story continue on. Let’s just leave it at this, and be done with it. Good review.
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that; thanks Dan.
Great review – a good summary of the film’s strengths and weaknesses!
Thanks man. I say it how I see it 🙂
Nicely done mate! I actually watched the original for the first time last night and, well, meh. I wasn’t that impressed by it to be honest. Glad this isn’t as bad as it could have been though.
I absolutely loved the original when it came out but it’s been a few years admittedly. Thanks very much Chris.
I imagine if I’d seen it when it came out I’d have loved it but I was only a year old then 🙂 I didn’t hate it, just didn’t like it as much as I thought I would.
Yeah, one year old is perhaps a little young to watch RoboCop!
Nice work!
Cheers buddy!
Good review. Sounds Medicore, don’t know if I’ll give it a try.
I’d probably wait until it’s available for rental or streaming.