Robocop production is tragically outdated

In 1987, Paul Verhoven entered into sci-fi cinema with a quite literal bang with the release of Robocop, an action story featuring a robotic police officer hunting criminals in a dystopian future society. The film was hailed as an excellent step forward in the sci-fi action genre with critics praising its witty plot, smartly written characters, over-the-top gore and thought provoking atmosphere. The film has since been remembered as one of the quintessential sci-fi films of the eighties, joining such greats as James Cameron’s Terminator, spawning multiple sequels

Of course, that was all back in 1987 when people were content with limited cgi, on-set animatronics and special effects that — these days — can be outperformed by amateur youtube videos. So, naturally, Hollywood decided to do what they always do with classic movies: release a grossly inferior remake dressed up in flashy cgi and an overly-grim atmosphere. So, they hired director Jose Padilha, a Brazilian director, in a meeting I’m sure went something like this:

“We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make the world’s best re-made film. Robocop will BE that film. Better than it was before ... Better ... Stronger ... Faster.”

So, do Padilha and his Sony Pictures employers succeed in their goal? Absolutely not.

Much like the original, the film is set in a dystopian Detroit, Mich., some years in the future. With crime rates at an all time high and a desperate need for more efficient law enforcement, an industry named Omnicorp decides to implement the “Robocop” program: they will take a critically wounded police officer and outfit him with cybernetic enhancements in order to make him stronger, more durable and more efficient.

Enter Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), an officer recently rendered comatose when by a bomb. He is robotically modified into the title Robocop, in the hopes that his blend of human adaptability and robotic efficiency will make for the most effective law enforcement device ever. From there,the plot explodes into breathtaking action, political plotting and moral quandaries, as Murphy begins becoming forcibly estranged from his family and remaining vestiges of humanity.

On paper, the plot works rather well: It stays true to its action roots while simultaneously catering to audiences who have grown accustomed to more engaging plots in their movies. However, in practice, the film fares much worse. While the original’s plot was rather light on paper, making it appear to be little more than a popcorn-action movie, where its writing succeeded magnificently was in its subtext; the plot was present but never at the forefront.

This film, on the other hand, pushes its plot with a heavy handedness akin to taking a blow to the head with a steel club. The film absolutely wants to make sure audiences grasp how deep it is. It doesn’t simply want you to question what it means to be human, it wants you to know that you have to question it.

What’s more, this film contains numerous subplots, mostly dealing with the political and social climate of the world; sadly, none of them ever really go anywhere or amount to anything memorable, leaving one to question why they were presented as so important in the first place The end result is that the film either ignores its own plot points, or dictates to the audience exactly what to think and believe in a moral analysis that is insultingly black-and-white.

Of course, calling the moral compass of this film black and white is definitely giving it too much praise — it really is mostly black. The hero and his family are portrayed as near-saints, while the world around them has few to no redeeming qualities whatsoever. This is a dark film atmospherically, choking away any joy or excitement in its bid to be edgy and deep; unfortunately, the film isn’t well suited for offering that deep story, and as a result simply ends up falling flat in its own grimness.

The acting, in contrast to the plot, is suprisingly quite good. Kinnaman plays an incredibly likable protagonist who audiences will genuinely like, even amid the mess that is the plot. He’s genuine, he’s tragic, he’s even surprisingly charismatic, especially considering he’s not meant to have emotions for a significant portion of the film.

Additionally, this film features big name, fantastic actors like Gary Oldman and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom turn in excellent performances despite having comparatively small roles. However, their presence does raise its own issues: Those two beyond a doubt steal the show, but their parts are so small that I found myself wishing that they would have more to say and do.

Of course, audiences may not necessarily be at the film for the sort of storytelling that I was looking for; its an action sci-fi film, so as long as the action is good, the film should be redeemable. Well, in this regard, the film does succeed, to an extent. Naturally, special effects are leagues beyond what they were in 1987, and the film looks very nice, accordingly. Gunfights are flashy and intense, explosions abound and the film is never at a loss for tension. Stakes are always high, and it is easy to fall into the flare and glare of the film’s very fun battles. The film does suffer from a bit of the infamous Hollywood “shaky cam,” wherein the director opts to violently shake the camera in order to make the scene look more fierce. Usually, though, it only succeeds in making it harder to see what is happening.

However, compared to other films in the genre, this problem is minimal at best, and shouldn’t significantly hinder enjoyment of these scenes.

Again, the biggest issue of the film is its overbearing tone; it simply takes itself entirely too seriously and forces a plot that feels like it is trying far too hard to be deep. Taken as an action film, this remake of Robocop could have been great. Unfortunately, it is impossible to take the film as just a good action film when the film itself so stubbornly refuses to do so.

Overall Rating: 2/5​