Feb 16, 2014

"RoboCop" Review

On the surface, "RoboCop" is just an exciting action/sci-fi, but it goes deeper than that. It is a dark satire about corporate manipulation.

In the future, a company called Omnicorp is trying to get legislation passed in the United States allowing robots to patrol the streets as police officers. The corporation makes its money by designing and building this new form of law enforcement that is being used in other countries.

The heads of the company realize that in order to get this legislation passed, the public needs to see they are doing something moral. Though the argument is that the country would be safer because robots do not discriminate, there is controversy over the fact that they do not have any feelings. If one of them were to kill a child, it would not feel remorse. Omnicorp wants to appease these concerns by combining man with machine. It will have all the analytic abilities and strength of a robot, but it will also have the feelings of a person.

Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is the person the company decides to create their half-human machine out of. He is a cop who went undercover to take out a criminal known as Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). When Vallon finds out Murphy was after him, he sends people to kill him. They plant an explosive in his car, and he get seriously injured.

Omnicorp's manipulative tactics are shown as they try to get permission from his wife, Clara (Abbie Cornish) to operate on him. Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman), the one who is to perform the operation on Murphy, tells Clara of all the medical complications that the explosion caused. While in a vulnerable state, Omnicorp's heads tell her they can save him, but they need her consent before it is too late. Of course, they are not really interested in helping her family. They are thinking only of themselves as they give her a sense of urgency to act.

Further corruption is shown through the news coverage. The film actually begins on a news show called "The Novak Element," a parody of "The O'Reilly Factor" that is run by Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson). Novak has the same agenda as Omnicorp: he wants legislation passed that would let robots patrol America. He uses distorted footage and information to prove his point that the country would be so much safer.

It is never explicitly stated, but my own personal theory is the reason for his view on robots is because Omnicorp is paying him off. The reason I think this is because the fact that media is run by companies that are out to make money is a topic that is under a lot of discussion. Often, what the news says is not what the public needs to hear but what the corporations want people to believe.

I saw the original film about one year ago, and it was very fun to watch. Part its charm comes from its age. There was not a lot of technology at the time to make a robot move quickly. In that movie, Murphy walks loud, slow strides in straight lines. When he needs to switch directions, he turns his head left or right -- creating a mechanical sound -- and walks that way. This lack of pace is made up by violent, brutal action scenes.

Coming into this film, I was a little skeptical. There is no way it could top the original. Where that one was slow moving, this one is quick. Where that one was R, this one is PG-13. I was pleasantly surprised. While it does not show as much bloody violence, the action it does have still maintains some of its brutality. It simply leaves more to the imagination. This one is not necessarily better than the original, but I would argue that it is not worse either.

A big difference between this and its predecessor is the nature of Murphy's consciousness. In the first one, he does not say very much. Everyone thinks he was completely taken over by a machine, but later on, it is apparent that Murphy is still there. In this one, he is cognizant of what is happening, and he is capable of communicating with everyone.

I personally like both approaches. In the first film, his lack of communication adds intrigue. He is the silent hero, and this has audience guessing whether or not he knows about his existence. In this version,   it is interesting to see how his knowledge of what is happening affects his psyche.

The action scenes are fun to watch. The one that sticks out to me involves Murphy fighting in the dark. It is something that has already been done in other films, but the way it was shot and edited is enjoyable to see.

The main problem with this movie is some of the characters are not written very well. For example, the character Rick Mattox (Jackie Earle Haley) is supposed to be a person the audience loves to hate. While the actor does a great job, the script really does not do a lot for him to be sincerely hated by anyone but Murphy. He does say some derogatory things to Murphy, but it is not enough for us to hate him. There are some moments that are supposed to be awesome because something happens to him, but they are not as powerful as they should be.


I have the same problem with Alex Murphy's wife, Clara. Abbie Cornish does a fine job with what she has, but all the script gives her is she has to always be serious. Even before Alex Murphy has his accident, she is that way. After he gets injured, she just cries in every scene. I understand that it is a traumatic time for her, but the writer and director could have figured out something different for her to do than cry.


I give this film four out of five stars. It has a great satirical element and fun action scenes. I recommend seeing it in theatres.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language throughout the movie including one F-word and a bleeped out F-word at the end (from television footage). There are a couple disturbing scenes in which the brain and lungs are shown. The film contains mild violence throughout. In the explosion scene, Murphy's burned body is seen from a distance. It is obvious he is injured very badly, but details cannot be scene. Graphic photos of what he looks like before he undergoes the operation are also seen.


For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

No comments:

Post a Comment