Robocop (2014)

You can count me among the people that weren't looking forward to this Robocop remake. Nothing against the cast or anyone involved, but I love Robocop. Like many of you, I'm growing tired of all the remakes and reboots, and if there was any film that didn't need a remake, it was Robocop.

That's not to say a remake couldn't be good though. There have been some good ones, but there's been some really, really bad ones. Fortunately, this new Robocop falls somewhere in the middle. While it won't make anyone forget the original, it stands up as a solid, but flawed, action film. It's far from the trainwreck I feared it would be.

A word of warning, while I'll avoid spoilers as best I can, there are certain elements I'll be bringing up in comparing the two. If you haven't seen the original by now, then shame on you.

From the opening moments, this has a much different setup and tone. Outside of a few main points, there's not that many similarities to the original story. OmniCorp (OCP) has been supplying robot soldiers that are deployed overseas, and have been successful in decreasing confrontation. They want to bring this to the US, but due to something called the Dreyfuss Act, robot soldiers are outlawed. Despite their efficiency, they aren't trusted by the public to deal with the human aspects of law enforcement. The CEO of OmniCorp, Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) decides that a cyborg police officer can be sold to the American public, bridging that gap and allowing them to overcome public opinion. Candidates are selected by lead scientist Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman), and it's just a matter of waiting for someone to "volunteer".

Meanwhile, Detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) and his partner Jack Lewis (Michael K. Williams) are tracking down a local crime boss, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). After an attempt to get Vallon fails, Murphy is targeted by Vallon and severely hurt by a car bomb. His only chance for survival is the Robocop program, and his wife (Abbie Cornish) gives her consent to save him.

This was one of the aspects I was concerned about. In the original, Murphy dies and his mind is wiped. One of the main themes is Murphy remembering things about his past life, and slowing regaining some part of his identity and humanity. In this remake, Murphy remembers all details about his life. Everyone seems to be aware of the fact that he's alive, and not many are surprised to see him as a cyborg, as if it's not that big of a deal. He struggles a bit with what was done to him, but gets over it pretty quickly. I also found it odd that they mentioned a few times publicly that he had died. If you're trying to gain the public trust, do you want that face of that to be someone that's been brought back to life? Just say he was severely hurt in the line of duty and OmniCorp technology allowed him to resume his duties, only better. Otherwise people might think he's some kind of cyborg zombie.

Also, his identity can't be in doubt when he has a retractable mask that doesn't obscure his face. I thought the new mask and exposed human hand were going to bug me, but in the context of the film it works. Without it explicitly being stated, you can tell it was a conscious choice by OmniCorp to give him more of a human look to identify with the public. At times he simply looks like a guy in fancy tactical armor.

The aspect of regaining his humanity is replaced with one regarding the concept of free will, when it's revealed the Murphy's brain has been altered, so that he's not always in control of his actions, even though he thinks he is. There are also some interesting themes though regarding media and political manipulation. It's very serious, which leads to probably the biggest problem with the remake: it's too serious. When talking to a few random folks after the film, one consistent complaint was the lack of funny commercials from the original. It's missing the all the campy satire and goofy lines. While there are a few funny parts, this isn't a film I would call fun.

Another issue I had is the lack of a strong villain. The original gave us the awesome Clarence Boddicker, played perfectly by Kurtwood Smith. His performance is still quoted to this day. There's really no central villain in the current film. Antoine Vallon is totally underdeveloped and you never feel any consistent threat from him. He's practically an afterthought halfway through the film. The lack of a central villain is made worse by a very sloppy and rushed conclusion that felt like it was improvised as they went along. It's so poorly conceived that it almost ruins all the good things setup in the first half of the film. This is the weakest aspect of Joshua Zetumer's screenplay. It seems odd that they would try to reboot a franchise with someone's first screenplay. It would have been a good idea to bring in a veteran screenwriter to punch up the script and come up with a better ending.

I was happy they didn't shoehorn a bunch of references and quotes from the original. The updated, original theme song was a nice touch.

The effects are good for the most part, but there are a few times where Robocop looks a little too much like a CG creation, especially in some of the bigger action sequences. With all the black on black, you can't always make out what's going on. There were a few creative scenes though, and it always cool to see Robocop taking out bad guys. I've never seen any of director Jose Padilha's other films, but he seems to have a good handle on action.

There were a few times where I had a hard time telling if Kinnaman was in a suit or some CG/green suit creation. It's just not the same as seeing Peter Weller in a big ass robot suit, and you lose some that tangible quality. On a side note, I've always heard stories about how Peter Weller worked so hard on making his moves robotic that directors in other works had to remind him to stop walking like a robot or turning at 90 degrees.

Robocop boasts a very strong cast and is well acted across the board. As much as I like Joel Kinnaman as Holder on The Killing, I wasn't sure if he was the right choice for Robocop. He showed some surprising emotional range and he did a good job overall. It was nice to see a different side of him. Gary Oldman was his dependable self always classes any film up. Michael Keaton was a welcome sight after what seems like years and years of not seeing him in anything. Kind of an inspired casting, but he did well. I'd like to see him in more roles like this. I also thought Abbie Cornish did a good job. She's always come of as kind of flat in other roles, but I actually thought she was really showing some emotion this time.

Samuel Jackson has the most fun as Fox News type television show host. He has some of the few genuine laughs of the film. These were also some of the parts I also though were the most interesting, as his character was attempting to use his show to sway public opinion.

As it's PG-13, there's very little blood, no nudity, and very little swearing I could recall. I think it's suitable for teens though.

It doesn't have the same fun or subversive satire of the original, but the Robocop remake manages to be a solid action flick. It's well acted, has good special effects, and outside of a messy conclusion, is smarter than expected. If you can get past the aversion to remakes, and go in with an open mind, I don't think you'll be that disappointed. It's worth a matinee.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Lawless (2012) - Movie Review

I guess with the popularity of Boardwalk Empire we shouldn't be surprised if we see a trend of prohibition-era films.

This review might be a little spoilerific, so be warned.

Lawless is about the Bondurant brothers, Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest (Tom Hardy) and Jack (Shia LeBeouf), who were moonshine bootleggers during the prohibition. The story is based on the book The Wettest County in The World by one of their descendants, Matt Bondurant. I've never heard of the Bondurant Brothers, so they could have been based off the Bing Bong Brothers for all I knew.

Right away, I can tell you that this movie suffered from not deciding on what type of movie it was going to be.  It never focuses on one character or element enough, and even the tone of the movie is all over the place. Sometimes it's brutally violent, then it's funny, and at other times you aren't sure if you should be laughing.

Forrest Bane...er, um, I mean Bondurant, while being a little unclear as to whether or not he's the eldest Bondurant, is clearly the boss of them.  At first you think this is going to be a bad ass movie about him.  He's kicking ass and telling the new lawman in town (played by a 'dastardly' Guy Pearce) to piss off, but then something happens to him.  This gives Shia the Beef an opportunity to prove to his brothers he has what it takes.  Then, you might think this turns into a revenge flick, but The Beef basically makes a bunch of moonshine runs with his pal, Cricket (Dane Dehaan), laughing all the way.  He's got a little more business sense than his brother, so he's making them more money, but not as much common sense, as he's just spending money all over the place.

While Forrest recovers, both he and Jack have their own romances, but neither added anything to the central plot.  It's shame because I really like both Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, but they weren't give much to do, especially with Wasikowska, and it felt like both characters where thrown in there just to give the main characters something to do during their down time between moonshine runs.

Gary Oldman shows up for early in the film, and you get a glimpse of what appeared to be another bad ass character, but that's all you get, a glimpse.  He's gone before you even get a chance to blink.

Even though many characters are underused and underwritten, the strength of the film are the performances.  I've been critical of Shia the Beef, but I thought his performance worked very well in contrast to the tougher nature of his older brothers.  I did think it was odd that his main characteristic seemed to be that he got his ass kicked in nearly every scene though.  Tom Hardy was a badass, but for the second time this summer, he plays another character that speaks with a voice that's difficult to understand at times.  Also, it seemed they missed another opportunity with his character, as the fable of Forrest Bondurant was that he couldn't be killed, but it's treated a little more than a gag and kind of glossed over.

Guy Pearce's character, Charlie Rakes, is this silly, over-the-top villain.  It seemed like a caricature of a villian from an old cartoon.  The only thing he was missing was a twirly mustache and cigarette holder.  Pearce appeared to have a lot of fun with the character though, and I thought it was a good performance.  Pearce is one of those actors that I think can do pretty much anything, but hasn't quite gotten that one killer role that he'll always be remembered for.  I hope he gets that chance.

Directed by John Hillcoat, who's directed much darker movies like The Road and The Proposition. I hoped this was going to be similar in tone to those movies, but it simply wasn't.  I never felt any real tension or like the characters were in any real danger.  He teamed up again with writer/musician Nick Cave. The screenplay is extremely straightforward and seems like something you could have seen on TV.  Lawless doesn't take any risks or do anything you haven't already seen before.

What couldn't have been on TV though were the visuals.  There are some really bloody, violent moments and there's also lots of nudity (thank you, Jessica Chastain).  It's a well-made movie as far as how it looks.  The sets are great and the setting felt authentic, but again, there's something in the details that just felt odd to me.

Speaking of which, here's one of the attention to details the bugged me.  Early on, Jack gets worked over pretty hard by Rakes.  He punches him several times on the left side of his face pretty hard, but in the subsequent scenes, he's face is bruised on the right side.  There's also very little swelling.  It was funny to me, because while Jack was getting his ass kicked in the scene I would have bet you any amount of the money that Jack's face wasn't going to look all that that bad after the beating he just took.  When a movie blows a detail like that, it kind of takes me out of the movie.   

Lawless is still an entertaining film, but I can't help but feel a little disappointed in it.  With the cast and all the window dressing, it had the potential to be something special, but it wasn't greater than the sum of it's parts.  It's suffers too much from lack of focus and inconsistent tone that makes it hard to completely get into, and at times it wastes its extremely talented cast.  I'm right on the edge between a matinee and rental on this one.  If you're really interesting in seeing this, then I'd say to check it out on matinee, but if you're on the fence, save it for rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) - First Impressions

Hey everybody.  I just got back from seeing The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX.  I'm still recovering from surgery, so I need to lay down after the length of the film, but I thought I'd just get some initial thoughts up.  I'll get a more detailed up review once I'm feeling better.

First off, see it in IMAX if you can.  The sound was amazing!  There was a moment where an explosion went off in the background and the ground shook a bit, well, it also shook in the theater.  It made for a nice effect.  A good portion of the film was actually shot in IMAX format, so many of the best action sequences take full advantage of it.  I think I might have to enjoy this in D-BOX once I'm feeling up to it.

The performances are all great.  I was especially impressed with Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway.  For those of you worried about how Hathaway would do with Catwoman, you can stop worrying.  She's sexy as hell, but they gave her character some depth and more to do than just vamp and look hot in the catsuit.  I also really enjoyed Joseph Gordon-Levitt and liked what they did with his character.

I did think Tom Hardy was good as Bane, but you will hardly recognize him.  Even with them re-dubbing the voice from the trailer (it didn't even sound like Hardy's voice), I still thought there were a few parts of this dialog that were hard to understand.  Also, while I thought Christian Bale was good, I wish he would have toned down his Batman-voice.  You can see how he manipulates his mouth to do the voice and it's still a little off-putting.

As much as I was looking forward to Bane, I didn't think he was that memorable.  Heath Ledger's Joker is just too hard of an act to follow.  He's not one dimensional, but between not being able to see his face and the voice, it was hard to really get into his character.  Bane does have some really great moments to show you how brutal and driven he is.

It is a little long and I felt there were a few things that could have been trimmed, but the movie had a good pace to it.  When you consider the pain I'm in when sitting down, that I never felt bored or had the need to check my watch should tell you something.

There really aren't any surprises here as far as the story.  It's pretty straightforward.  However, I did feel like they skipped over things, and there were encounters that happened that were too convenient.  You might find yourself going, 'Hey, where did you come from?' or , 'How'd you get there so fast?'  Characters seem to be in multiple places at once, and I have to think this was due to poor editing.

Hans Zimmer's score felt a little repetitive and like it was beating you over the head a bit.  I didn't hate the score, but it was a little much at times.  Sometimes you don't have to have music punctuating every single scene.

Overall, I still thought The Dark Knight Rises is a very good and entertaining movie.  It's not perfect, but it's a fitting conclusion to the Nolan trilogy and did good job of tying the previous two movies together.  I watched both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight again leading up to this, so they were fresh in my mind and I think it helped with keeping everything straight when watching TDKR.  I would say The Dark Knight is a better movie, but could anything really live up to the expectations set by that?

4 (out of 5) Death Stars for now...