RoboCop (2014) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
650 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
What movie did those guys watch?
v-bach-of9 February 2014
I really don't understand all the hate this movie gets. Yeah, I get it, it's a reboot of a perfectly good 80s movie that nobody really wanted, but it's a really good one! I expected a mindless Micheal Bayian action movie and what I got was a really smart, interesting and entertaining look at trans-humanism, the freedom of choice, politics and recklessness in corporate leaders.

This movie really dives into the question of how a person could live his day to day live with almost all of his body amputated and stuck inside of a machine. So when people complain about the uncomfortable scenes between Murphy and his wife, I can only imagine they mean what happened after his transformation, and that felt exactly the way it was supposed to!

So yes, the original is way more graphic and still holds up to this day as a gruesome action flick, but this one is smart and interesting and really is a good movie in it's own right.

And by no means is it as bad as people say it is!
727 out of 1,026 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't compare with the original.
Martin Graupner14 February 2014
I love Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop from 1987 (which remains iconic) and I usually don't like reboots. But watching the new one I never got rid of the feeling, that the remake is worth it. It is a whole new interpretation, that sets the focus on the topics of our time: robots, drones, the human aspect behind the technology, media critics, war propaganda. I felt, the movie has a mission to enlighten people and I liked that. It became even more obvious how much the RoboCop story exists within the topos of Frankenstein which is the story about the human devilment and the lack of respect of life. That's why Padilha gives Murphy more of a face, a life and feelings.

Beside that the pictures, the sound, the music is pretty contemporary. You probably have to make some compromises today to get the millions to get the flick done. It won't become iconic, but it's the right time for the right message in the right movie.
399 out of 597 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Typical of modern Hollywood.
The-Seeker8 February 2014
**SPOILERS** I'll start this review by making it clear that the original Robocop is my personal favourite movie and has been since I first saw it 25 years ago. Having felt much trepidation about the direction the remake was going in (PG-13 rating in particular) I went in with fairly low expectations but still something of an open mind as I really wanted this reboot to faithfully kick-start a new, successful Robocop franchise.

I was pleasantly surprised by the first hour of the film and how Murphy's quite horrifying physical transformation was depicted (there wasn't much left of him) and the emotional impact upon him. I particularly liked the first few scenes of him coming to grips with his new form and his little meltdown in the Chinese factory in which he was built. Unfortunately the film starts to take a significant nose dive at the point of Robocop's big public unveiling. A stupidly convenient plot device whereby the entire Detroit PD database including 17 years worth of the city's CCTV is uploaded to Murphy merely minutes before he's about to make his big appearance. This causes Robocop to overload requiring a change to Murphy be necessitated resulting in him then becoming more robotic and ultimately making an arrest for murder upon his big unveiling. This was a clumsily handled plot device done for the advancement of the plot but defied logic. Why give him a massive upload at such a crucial time? Others have pointed to a lack of a true antagonist and this is very true. Main criminal Antoine Vallon is utterly woeful compared to Kurtwood Smith's vile Clarence Boddiker and even Micheal Keaton can't hold a candle to Ronny Cox's performance in the original. There is also little chemistry between Alex and Clara Murphy both before and after his transformation.

The film is best when it isn't trying to ape and nod towards the original. The use of Basil Poledouris' majestic music in Pedro Bromfman's new score is particularly jarring and poorly orchestrated. When I watched Man of Steel at about the 50 minute mark I realised I hadn't heard John Williams classic Superman theme but also realised that this was a new take on the Superman mythos that didn't need to borrow from it's predecessors. Shame this film didn't follow suit.

The effects are generally good but alas the Robocop/ED-209 battle is just a typical modern day CGI fest and has none of the weight of the same scene from the original.

The film's biggest issue is undoubtedly caused by the constrictions of the PG-13 rating. Hearing arch criminals talk without any swearing pulls me out if the film and destroys any sense of realism. In one scene as Murphy approaches a drug factory to make a bust images of the classic drug factory shoutout of the original came to mind. Alas this version turns out to be a total anti-climax almost totally devoid of the carnage so required from such a scene. This follows on to Robocop taking down Vallon in a night vision shootout where men are shot but no blood, death or injury are shown in even any mildly satisfying manner. This shows clearly that gritty subject matter is not befitting of a teenage rating and similar target audience. Would something like The Wire work if it was aimed at a teenage audience? No.

There aren't any particular standout performances other than Gary Oldman who almost always delivers no matter the role or movie. Kinnaman is somewhat wooden in places but gives a decent enough performance even though at times he looks uncomfortable with the role. One aspect of the film that did nothing for me was Samuel L Jackson's character who opens and closes the film and offers his very one sided views throughout. If this is their replacement of the satire of the original they can keep it. It's ham fisted and provides little more than uninteresting commentary on the power of the media and plot exposition. It tells us nothing interesting that we don't already know and Jackson does his shouty thing to excess, especially at the cringe-worthy end.

I wholly embrace the need to make this reboot from a fresh angle to that of Verhoven's original but Sony MGM have played it way too safe with something that would clearly play better if it were aimed at an adult audience. I genuinely believe that an R rated movie, devoid of such tight restrictions would have been a far more satisfying experience. The original Robocop franchise died when they aimed at a younger demographic. Hollywood greed I fear has caused a repeat of this mistake. It's not a bad film per se, it's just painfully average and therefore unable to get out from the vast shadow of its forebear and like the Total Recall remake, it tries too hard too often to remind you of the original whilst offering nothing new to compete with it. I doubt there's even a harder cut tucked away for home release and even if there was there are plot issues that damage the film as much as the tame approach. Other gripes include a lack of clarity as to Omnicorp's role (if any) in Murphy being blown up, and plot threads not being followed through to any satisfying conclusion such as Murphy's relationship with his family. The best bits revolve around Murphy's initial awakening as a cyborg which are very well done indeed.

Alas there's not really that much else that's in any way as memorable as the 1987 classic it's based on. As an example of how modern Hollywood has become all about excessive studio control above creativity and maximising ticket sales at the expense of a film's overall artistic quality then this film succeeds. In all other aspects it's a bit of a wasted opportunity really.
323 out of 514 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very decent movie
yuta_rule4 February 2014
By 7, it really means a 7.5/10. Not sure what's with the negative reviews, but I enjoyed the movie very much. It's well-executed and the direction was clear and crisp. There's no distinct feel-good actions scenes because the pacing is kept constant throughout and I don't see why there's an issue with the pacing being that way. It's hardly flat, it's just a very honest, straight- flushed story-telling, and it fits the themes that are underscored by the movie. Alex Murphy is a reluctant hero and he's ultimately a father and a husband whose personal agenda serves as his existential core. I like how these themes are teased out and zoomed in upon throughout the movie. Also, there are some absolutely delicious production details and CGIs that are just absolutely feasts to the eye. Not to mention the superb cast and the wonderful performances. I think this is a honest and loyal reboot that will appeal to fans of Robocop who fell in love with the story precisely for the moralistic themes it explores.
261 out of 445 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Intellectual, emotion-packed, spectacularly acted Sci Fi is sabotaged by Fanboys
solypsis13 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Full disclosure: the original Robocop is among my top 5 favorite films of all time, and I've easily watched it over 200 times. With that being said, I still looked forward to this re-interpretation due to my love of the character (whose legacy had already been profoundly tarnished by the redundant first sequel and catastrophically misguided second sequel) and my admiration of director Jose Padilha's "Elite Squad" films (as well as his documentaries). Suffice to say, I came into the theater with a bias toward wanting the film to succeed.

I'm willing to acknowledge that it may be for this reason that I found this film to be a resounding (if slightly flawed) success. Conversely, it is my belief that a large contingent of overzealous "fans" were hellbent on seeing this film fail, therefore had pre-determined that the movie was trash. How could it possibly withstand several years of unwavering hatred during its production and be given a fair shot? Judging by the middling 6.7 IMDb rating and the 50% Rotten Tomatoes score, many people loathed the film just as much as they'd hoped they would.

This viewer simply cannot accept that Robocop 2014 is anywhere near as bad as people are rating it. For starters, the film has been bashed mercilessly for idiotically trivial elements such as "His hand is human!", "His suit is black!", or worst of all, "I refuse to support a PG-13 version of Robocop". It is my firm belief that all of these criticisms are merely the ravings of closed-minded fanboys who are (bizarrely) searching for the next movie to "ruin their childhood". It's a phenomenon that is baffling and absurd.

Anyway, I rated the film 10/10 on IMDb because I wanted the score to weigh heavier in the positive direction. Truth be told, I think the film is a solid 8 and may even grow to become a 9 over time. Of course it's not as good as Verhoeven's classic, and obviously it's much different in tone. For that I am grateful -- part 2 tried so desperately to ape the original that it felt like a rather soulless carbon copy (albeit a copy salvaged somewhat by spectacular stop-motion effects and a great villain in Tom Noonan's "Cain"). I didn't want another movie trying to mimic the satire of the original, nor did I feel that anyone could ever one-up the hyper-violence of the 1987 version, so why try?

There are those that argue that this film should have simply been called something else other than Robocop if it wanted to be so different, and I get that...except the bottom line is few studios will ever greenlight a $120 million dollar film without some kind of name recognition. It's a sad truth. But in utilizing the Robocop brand name, Padilha was given the funding to acquire a brilliant cast and design cutting edge digital effects. In my opinion, a little brand recognition is a fair trade off if it helps the film achieve the look and feel of a high-end sci-fi blockbuster.

Anyway, I've already babbled several paragraphs longer than I'd intended. The bottom line is you should abandon your preconceptions and watch the movie for what it is: a genuinely smart, heartfelt and wonderfully acted sci-fi featuring characters we know and love. What's so awful about that?
167 out of 283 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the metaphysical paradox of the reviewer...
A_Different_Drummer4 October 2015
Is the reviewer writing the review the IMDb member is reading -- or is the member reading the review he was looking for, regardless of the text actually used? I ask because clearly that sort of thinking, that sort of dialog, was near and dear to the writer of this oddball film, yet, paradoxically, it is this very strangeness that gives the film historical worth, and the chance (however slim) that it may be remembered fondly by viewers of the the far future.

We will skip the metaphysical question as to why a remake was done of a perfectly serviceable and timeless classic? What the original may have have lacked in CGI, it made up for in heart, and in its almost unique satirical POV on modern corporation communications (which led to a series spin off on Canadian TV, BTW) But Hollywood likes reimagining stuff. Even Vincent Price as THE FLY was reborn as the forever self-aware Jeff Goldbloom, and we sense this was what was intended here too.

Reviewers notes: 1. Strange casting. A-List supporting cast (including the under-used Jackie Earle Haley) yet the lead himself seems uncomfortable in the role.

2. The references to Wizard of Oz are doubly ironic since the movie itself suffers as much of an identity crisis as the main character. Since this is clearly no longer an action film with embedded satire (the "origins" go for a full hour!) then what is it? Sci-fi? Horror? Fantasy? The viewer is left to decide.

Bottom line: not entertainment as we know it. More of a film school essay topic, along the lines of what was intended ... and why was this greenlighted?
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rich Coggs7 February 2014
Okay, so very few people were confident about this remake. The original has such a huge fan base that a reboot seems like blasphemy to most.

So how does this hold up? Well, it looks like butter, it at times tastes like butter, but brother, it ain't butter. Believe it.

The film lacks something and I think I know what it is; there is no real villain. Instead of building up a super-villain for Murphy to fight to the death with, it toys with different characters as his foe, never really committing to one or the other. Kurtwood Smith is an evil son of a gun in the original because he shoots Murphy to pieces. Its up close and personal. In this, well, the guy that car bombs (lame) our robotic cop gets about 2 minutes of screen time with very little back story. Frankly, you just don't care.

The plot seems more concerned about Murphy trying to cope with becoming an amputee and him and his family learning to accept his new circumstances, which frankly, when you see what he looks like without the armour, is just disturbing. Instead of being an awesome action flick, you just feel bad for the guy. The reality of the situation is just too harsh in its portrayal and you end up thinking maybe he would be better off dead.

Do you want to pay good money to question your ideological values towards quality of life or do you want to see robocop go toe to toe with a man who shot him to s***? I know what I'd buy for a dollar.

Also, on a side note: Samuel L. Jackson needs to stop being in films. While his appearance at first is welcome, by the end it feels very cheap and unnatural. The anti-American war effort message starts to get a little forced down your throat and before you start screaming that I'm a flag loving American, I'm a Brit, and even I felt the satire was a bit in your face.

The film shouldn't upset people too badly, it could honestly be much worse and it does have some passable moments with a couple of good nods to the original. Just don't get your hopes too high.
380 out of 668 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A decent and satisfying remake
YJLcool30 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The new RoboCop is a surprisingly good and entertaining sci-fi action thriller that appeals to the human heart by conveying emotions and the humanity side of Murphy, the main character who eventually becomes the titled cyborg law enforcer. The film ultimately wins for not trying to be the original (1987 version). The story of Murphy is similar (since it's a remake) but does its own thing to provide something new instead of retelling the same thing again. The film focuses more on the development of Murphy's character, his initial response to his cyborg body and relationship with his family, making the character more emotional and relatable to the audience. The film delves into the meaning of humanity, family themes, media influence on public opinion, corporate greed (capitalism), authoritarianism and corrupt law enforcement authorities. It provides a brief view of the struggles we might face with machines or digital surveillance of the future. It also briefly raises the question whether it's ethical or legal to eliminate the human factor in law enforcement to reduce crime rates by creating merciless cyborgs or robots to replace humans. The action sequences are updated with a higher body count, with better CGI and sound effects, making them cooler, stylish and more entertaining than the original. The new black tactical design of Robocop is found to be acceptable and nice...the updated Robocop is more agile, flexible and stronger compared to the original. However, I personally find the right human hand to be slightly distracting. (I prefer no human hand at all, entirely machine except the face) There's quite a lot of credible actors in this film: Abbie Cornish, Jay Baruchel, James Earle Haley, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson all providing decent performances to this remake. Although it's hardly a ground-breaking film or a masterpiece, Robocop is a decent and satisfying remake that delivers on many levels. There's currently no plot problems, inconsistencies or plot holes found in this film at this time of writing this review. So, it's good enough for a recommendation to watch it. Rating: 7.5/10
256 out of 446 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Comparing with Paul Verhoeven's 1987 original version is unfair, but the new ROBOCOP here manages to stand on its own as a reasonably engaging effort.
caseymoviemania29 January 2014
In 2010, acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky (THE WRESTLER, BLACK SWAN) was originally attached to direct the ROBOCOP reboot. Frankly, I thought he was the right choice to reboot the once-popular franchise back in the late '80s. Unfortunately, he quits the project and Brazilian director Jose Padilha (ELITE SQUAD, ELITE SQUAD: THE ENEMY WITHIN) was brought in as his replacement. WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT? When police detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is critically injured during a car explosion in front of his home, CEO of OmniCorp Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) sees him as a golden opportunity to make him feel alive again by turning him into "Robocop" -- a cyborg police officer which is touted as the future of law enforcement in America. However, OmniCorp doesn't realize that Murphy still has a personal vengeance in his mind to pursue the criminals who nearly caused him dead. THE GOOD STUFF Like the first two ELITE SQUAD movies, director Jose Padilha delivers the same raw intensity that gives ROBOCOP a quasi-documentary feel to the action sequences. Even though Padilha utilizes shaky camera-work, at least he doesn't make the scene so wobbly until the viewers unable to see what's really going on. The special effects are spectacular, while the costume design for the all-new Robocop in a black tactical body actually looks quite nifty. Swedish-American actor Joel Kinnaman (best known in the US for TV's The Killing) delivers an emotionally engaging performance as Alex Murphy and Robocop, while Michael Keaton steals most of the spotlight as the slimy CEO of OmniCorp Raymond Sellars and Gary Oldman gives a perfectly restrained performance as the sympathetic Dr. Dennett Norton. Other minor roles -- including Abbie Cornish as Murphy's wife, Clara; Jackie Earle Haley as the military tactician Mattox; and Samuel L. Jackson as the media host Pat Novak -- are all equally impressive. MOST MEMORABLE MOMENT(S) The brief but intense battle between Robocop and a small army of ED-209 during the climactic finale. THE BAD STUFF The biggest weakness in this ROBOCOP reboot is Joshua Zetumer's captivating but bloated screenplay. First of all, the story drags too much with Murphy's personal family matter with his estranged wife Clara (Abbie Cornish) and son David (John Paul Ruttan). Then there's the underwritten plot involving Murphy's personal vengeance against Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow), who is responsible for the car explosion. Even the so-called social commentary involving the "robo-phobic" issue quoted by Samuel L. Jackson's Pat Novak doesn't really say much that worth a debate. FINAL WORDS While the new ROBOCOP is far from a genre classic by any means, at least Jose Padilha's version isn't as bad as most people might have expected. Just put your mindset of the Paul Verhoeven's original 1987 version aside, and treat this as an entirely new movie altogether.
226 out of 393 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Roel Timmermans23 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Before I went to go see it, I already knew it couldn't compete with the original. But this actually was worse than I expected. What was great about the original just like Terminator is that it was grimy, dark and although robot cops offcourse aren't that realistic they we're not beyond belief.

This pushes everything, RoboCop has to weigh at least a couple of hundred kilo's but it runs like Usain Bolt. The way it jumps could easily make him a star NBA player. If you are a fan and actually wanted to believe this could be real, this alone ruins it completely.

Then there are the "let's-make-him-modern-and-cool" errors. Why paint him black, he's not Batman. Why does his visor light up red, he's not Cyclops and he has thermal vision so, he doesn't need a light. Why does he have to recharge at least 10 times during the movie, did Apple make him?

The Human Hand Pffff, Why GOD why?

Taser The original Robocop had part off his awesomeness because of the automatic Desert Eagle. Everyone wanted that gun. This one has a taser. A taser,... really?
48 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too Much Exposition, Meandering and Bland
SeussMeTub5 February 2014
With Hollywood at a loss to make original movies, it was inevitable that the Robocop franchise would eventually get the reboot. In 1987, the original Robocop became an instant box office hit with its mixture of witty satire and over the top violence as well as top notch acting by Peter Weller, Kurtwood Smith and Ronny Cox; the deciding factor in what made that movie so fresh at the time was the addition of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven who seemed to understand what the audience at the time needed: a high tech cyborg (artfully designed by special effects whiz Rob Bottin and its robotic suit would become a cinema icon) who fought crime in a near future world overwhelmed by greed, hypocrisy, corruption and excessive, almost cartoonish violence.

In this reboot, the studios were able to acquire the services of Brazilian director Jose Padiha (who directed Elite Squad and its sequel, two intense police thrillers set in his native Brazil) but unfortunately they forgot to give him a good script to work with (there were rumors during production that Padiha had a lot of ideas that were nixed by studio bosses. Figures.). The other reason why the original movie also worked was because its R rating worked in its favor: the enormous amount of bloodletting added to its satirical view of the future as well as that of American culture which really spoke to the audience. With this reboot aimed at more family friendly crowds, the PG-rated violence is filmed using rapid jump cuts which makes it totally confusing, its like watching a video game on fast forward so that by the time your mind registers what's going on the scene is finished.

The movie itself also suffers from pacing problems- just when the narrative is about to steamroll forward, the scenes abruptly change so that any emotional momentum is lost because there just isn't much characterization of the main parts; everything that should have an emotional impact is glossed over by a jump to a new scene with way too much focus on explanations of what the characters are doing so that the audience fails to gain sympathy for anybody.

I can't really judge Joel Kinnaman's acting in the title role since there really isn't much for him to do other than walk around in the Robocop suit and utter a few words every now and then- he seems to spend too much time bug eyed and in shock more than anything else. The supporting cast also seems wasted, with Michael Keaton and Jackie Earle Haley's screen time largely limited to trying to explain whats going on rather than actually doing anything. Even Michael K Williams seems lost as Robocop's sidekick. Patrick Garrow as the heavy is pretty much a cardboard villain compared to the 1987 version with the menacing Kurtwood Smith and his gang of killer psychos. Gary Oldman's performance is pretty much average since he's also got nothing much to do.

Alas, the biggest disappointment is the movie's absence of any sort of humor: the 1987 film had boatloads of wacky commercials that interrupted the narrative yet provided a great view on how that future world was set up as well as crazy, sadistic villains and a pun on the name of the chief baddie (Dick Jones- best name ever). Instead, we get snippets of a news media show run by Samuel L Jackson whose presence in this movie is also wasted since he spends more time recapping what we already saw and his jokes fall flat.

The only good scene happens right at the beginning with a battle between Iranian insurgents and the robot army but soon after the movie quickly loses momentum and never regains it. Better to skip this one and wait for the rental, or better yet, watch the 1987 version- its way better.
161 out of 282 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
To much unnecessary criticism
urosdovzan13 February 2014
I just don't see, why any other recent science fiction movie deserves more respect than this one. The story is fluent, the characters are well built, everyone has its own motive. Yes film is more of a personal struggle journey of the main character and that is what I like. For the fans of action it is also good, why when (quite often) there is, it is good one. The effects are quality mastership. The most memorable scene is when Murphy sees what he has become.For my regards it has some philosophical connotation to, because it also concerns the influence of technology to the society. It clearly shows bads and goods. I recommend watching this movie for
201 out of 358 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shocked how rubbish it was
I really am shocked at how rubbish this was. I had high hopes from the average score here. I was pleased when I heard the original theme tune at the beginning, leading me to expect other loyalties to the original. Then, nothing, no loyalties to the original, or the comics. However, I am good at getting over such things, I can treat new remakes as Individual films. I have to say though that they just didn't do very well here at all. Most of the film was contained to the subject of his development, more so his combat mode, where by his cyborg side killed so many targets in so many seconds. It seemed to me that they made this film to make video games as that is all the story line seemed to revolve around. I am sorry as I really thought it might have been a good one.
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No Peter Weller and no soul
krycek1919 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I'm watching "Robocop", witch is not Robocop for the second time. Just to see if it is really as bad as I recall it, watching it the first time.

And I stilll don't like it.

Despite better effects and a more robot-like Robocop, the original still prevails.

Here is why.

First of all Joel Kinnaman is no Peter Weller. In the original, despite only 15 minutes or so as a human, Weller created a very likable Alex Murphy. Kinnaman can't create a likable Murphy. He comes off too much like a tough guy and a smart-ass. Murphys death in the real Robocop movie is to the date still a very hard scene to watch. And the evil sadistic Clarence Boddicker (brilliantly played by Kurtwood Smith) and his ditto gang are to this date still awesome bad-guys. And when Robocop remembers its an absolute delight to watch him kill every member of the gang one by one.

In this "Robocop" movie Murphy is almost killed by a car-bomb and I still don't like him nor do I care what happens to him either. That is a clear sign that the movie isn't working at all.

And of course because "Robocop" is PG13, there is no blood whenever someone dies, no Boddicker, no Dick Jones (awesome Ronny Cox) no Bob Morton(awesome Miguel Ferrer) or any other bad-guys, just a Fallon whats his face and a Dennet Norton (Bob Morton get it?)Fallon (a woman's name)has too little screen time to even be noticed.

"Robocop" has no drive or motivation to go on living as a machine. In the real Robocop movie he had revenge that pushed him forward. The CGI version of ED-209 that like OCP has a different name moves exactly like the much more menacing stop-motion-robot in the original. So what's the point? Much like the rest of the movie.

They spend a lot of time letting "Robocop" go through the motions with his new robot-body and showing he he is made. And running simulation programs where he fights other robots. Again probably the rating. Had it been rated R, he would have been send out on the streets right away killing bad-guys, because that's what the real Robocop does.

And what's with all that crap with his wife and son? Who cares. Like he could ever have a life with them again after his transformation. In the real Robocop movie they wiped his memory and he barely remembered them and that worked really well. There was not a single scene with Murhy together with his wife and son. And yet we felt Robocops pain (now that is good acting from Peter Weller) Seeing the new "Robocop" cry as he talks to his wife on a Skype like connection made me wanna puke.

And all the satire and humor of the real Robocop movie is gone here. Instead we have a movie that takes it self way too seriously and the action-scenes feels like they were shot and directed by a teenager.

Avoid this crap. Even if you've never seen the real Robocop movie from 1987 and you were born later and it seems outdated I guarantee that you will still prefer that to this crap.
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not only a failure as a remake, but fails on its own.
tiberianfiend14 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It would've been fine that RedoCop abandoned the themes of RoboCop, but it didn't even get its own themes right.

First, there's Sam Jackson's O'Reilly-esque character who constantly defends the use of robots overseas. The real problem with American media is that it tries to avoid controversial subjects like drone strikes altogether.

Secondly, there's the robots' use against foreign civilians. Rather than show Americans the real consequences of drones, like innocent and unarmed women and children being shredded and mutilated, the robots shoot suicide bombers, and even the boy we're supposed to feel sympathy for is trying to attack them with a knife.

Third, the stand-ins for drones are actual robots. The most heinous thing about drones is that the trigger is pulled by real humans, and the targets are decided by our leaders with often little information about what they're attacking.

Fourth, there's the dehumanization of Murphy. He isn't a dead man brought back as an inhuman monster like the original; he's a burn victim benefiting from already-existing cybernetic prosthetics who transforms with a whirl of the camera and some Sinatra. There's no "lose the arm" moment here. Even as we find out that Murphy has been sapped of his free will, Murphy is mowing down CGI robots to rock music like a superhero. There's no real moment when Murphy turns into RoboCop. He's normal at the beginning and just kind of fades into RoboCop mode inexplicably, then fades out again just as inexplicably later on.

Fifth, the drones are supposed to come home, but they don't. RoboCop only attacks two criminals before going on the revenge spree we want him to. Detroit is hardly oppressed by his presence.

Finally, Omnicorp builds RoboCop to get around the law that prevents robots from being used on American soil, and spend a lot of money doing so, yet they continue to focus on getting the law repealed. Not only that, but they actually sway public opinion and get the law repealed in spite of the fact that they promoted RoboCop as a human operator and not a robot. Omnicorp furthermore seems preoccupied with making RoboCop popular with the public and as efficient as a robot, but why? Their target market for RoboCop is governmental. It's like Dick Jones said: "Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not?"

RedoCop gets much worse when compared to the original film. The original RoboCop looks like a gleaming weapon, but the new one looks like he's wearing a black rubber suit. The Omnicorp of the original is an imposing megacorporation filled with nothing but cut-throat suits, whereas the face of the new Omnicorp is the avuncular and likable Gary Oldman, and leader Michael Keaton, who doesn't wear a suit at all. The dark humor is completely gone from this remake, and there isn't a single memorable line. There's almost no profanity or blood for this thoroughly PG-13 remake, either, and RoboCop doesn't start patrolling the streets until an hour in.

There are only two good things about this movie. It tries to establish a relationship between Murphy and his wife (and fails, giving us only two scenes of generic wife-love before he's RoboCopped, and one after, before she spends the rest of the film whining and crying). The other is a scene where we see what's left of Murphy with his robot body removed. He's a head, lungs, and without reason, a dangling hand. Yes, a hand and no arm or shoulder. It's the best scene of the movie, but like every scene, just shows how poorly thought out RedoCop is.

Overall, RedoCop is a boring and idiotic CGI explodefest meant for children. Take that $13 of ticket money and spend it on the unrated director's cut of the original instead. You'll get far more enjoyment.
38 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than I expected
Dark_Trooper6 February 2014
OK, so the trailers for this movie had made me very badly predisposed towards it, being a really big fan of the originals (yes, Robocop 2 and 3 included). But I won an invitation for the first screening in my country so I thought why not.

Well, it is much better than I expected and than what the trailers show. I won't go into spoilers, but my biggest issue with the trailer was the fact that Murphy knows from the beginning what they did to him, no memory erase and all. Well, I have to say that they are actually handling this very well in the film and it's not that simple. It actually sets the tone for the impressive second half of the movie.

During the first half of the movie I was like "OK, it's a nice film but not near what the first film accomplished". Well, it's like they heard me, because the second half feels pretty much like the old ones!

The script uses actually some of the best concepts of the first two films. Joel Kinnaman does a pretty good job as both Alex Murphy and Robocop. He doesn't manage to steal the impression that Peter Weller made of course, but he truly does a good job. I hope we see more of him in the future.

All in all, to all those who, like me, had low expectations from this film: give it a chance. It's much better than what the abysmal trailers let you think. By the way, what is it with awful trailers to good films lately? First Pacific Rim and now this...

Oh, and there are sequel hooks for a movie that will be even closer to the originals. Here's hoping...
91 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pass the Popcorn! review
PassPopcorn7 February 2014
I'm a fan of the original 'RoboCop' movie – I find it to be fun, satirical, enjoyably violent and overall very good. Naturally, I wasn't very thrilled when I heard it was getting a remake. I was even less thrilled when I heard the remake will be rated PG-13. I mean – how can you make a 'RoboCop' movie without excessive violence and blood squibs? Now that I have seen the movie, I can freely say that the PG-13 rating is the least of this movie's problems. Initially, I didn't want to compare the remake to the original, I wanted to view it and review it as a stand-alone movie. Now that I have seen it, I think I'll have to compare the two movies after all, since the remake possesses none of the qualities that made the original such a classic, and by simple comparison I can easily explain why the remake is an utterly flawed and ridiculous movie. The movie opens with a political show, called the Novak Element, led by the host Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson), during which we see a news footage of OmniCorp droids (including the famous ED-209 and the freshly introduced humanoid drones called ED-208) patrolling and inspecting the streets of some Islamic state. Novak compliments the droids and then starts attacking The Dreyfuss Act – a law that forbids the deployment of such drones in the USA. We are then introduced to Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), the CEO of OmniCorp, who is trying to find ways of tricking The Dreyfuss Act and start deploying his products in the USA. He gets the idea of incorporating both man and machine into an ultimate law enforcement product. We are then introduced to our protagonist – Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) – who is soon heavily injured in an explosion and is used as a guinea pig in this newest OmniCorp program. Like I said before: the 'RoboCop' remake lacks everything that was good in the original movie. First of all, there's no worthy satire in the movie. Society is sometimes mocked through the character of Pat Novak, but the satire isn't very subtle nor intelligent – actually, I'd say it is very primitive and expeditionary. Second of all, the nature of Robocop's character is very different from the original movie; he's not a robot, but more a man in a robotic suit, and his family plays a fairly big role in the movie. And I would be perfectly fine with these changes if the main actor, Joel Kinnaman, didn't have the charisma of a paper bag and could, as a matter of fact, act (!), and if Abbie Cornish (who plays the role of Alex Murphy's wife – Clara Murphy) wasn't so irritatingly bland. The revelation of the RoboCop suit and the suit itself were also poorly done. In one scene, Michael Keaton's character criticizes the suit design that appeared in the original movie by saying something along these lines: the original suit wasn't tactical enough. Well, at least the original suit didn't look like a black dildo! The villains in the movie didn't get a much better treatment, either. Among the several villains that appeared in the movie, none was memorable or even remotely interesting. But, to be fair, not everything sucks about the 'RoboCop' remake. Some of the acting was OK (mostly by experienced actors like Jackson, Keaton and Oldman) and the special effects did look really good. But what's the use of awesome special effects when the majority of the movie's boring and tedious? Add to all the aforementioned flaws the PG-13 rating, which destroyed the potential of some scenes, and you'll get one weak and forgettable movie. In the original, one of the most memorable lines goes 'I'd buy that for a dollar'. In addition to butchering everything else, the remake also butchered this line. In one scene, Jackie Earle Haley's character Mattox bashes the concept of Robocop saying he 'wouldn't buy that for a dollar'. As for myself, if I knew upon purchasing my ticket what horrors were awaiting, I wouldn't have bought it for a dollar. Rating: 4/10
205 out of 402 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Different, but enjoyable
Neil Welch14 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Alex Murphy, damaged in an explosion to the point of death, is the ideal candidate for a new initiative to join human sensibilities to computerised and robotic peace-keeping hardware. But Murphy has his own mind, which leads to conflict with those responsible for the attempt on his life (plus others), which may stretch beyond the criminal fraternity.

The 2014 remake of Paul Verhoeven's classic 1987 sci-fi satire includes most of the story beats from the original, but has quite a different heart. This makes it into a different film, and one which I enjoyed as much as the original.

Despite being full of action, it is a much gentler film. The violence is not as sadistic, there is no profanity (imagine that!), the relationship between Alex and his family is much more important, and Gary Oldman's conflicted Dr Frankenstein - sorry, Dr Norton - is a fine character: he is the actual heart of the movie.

If you loved the 1987 version with a passion then you may hate this. If you merely liked it, you may like this version too.
38 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Failed attempt at re-making a classic
hnt_dnl23 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
ROBOCOP (2014) is the latest in a LONG list of remakes/reboots that have come in droves in the 21st century. For the most part, modern remakes just simply do not work, and this film is no exception. The first strike against them is the seeming requirement that they have to be PG-13, when the original was most probably R in the 80s, and I can even remember a few PG-13 movies back in the day that pushed the envelope more so than anything now! The original 1987 version of Robocop was a lightning-in-a-bottle classic, a perfect amalgamation of action, sci-fi, horror, satire, and drama. Sometimes, a film works simply because it doesn't TRY to be anything more than entertaining and everything else just comes together. I think that the problem with this 2014 version is that it TRIED to be different to the point that it focused so much on what it was trying to be, that it forgot that movies are meant at their core to simply entertain.

In watching this film in the movie theatre, I could not help but be reminded of the relatively recent "The Dark Knight", a monumentally overrated "comic-book" film from 2008 that has unfortunately changed the way that superhero movies are being presented. First there was "Man of Steel from last year, which had way too much pontification, meandering, and dizzying action to be entertaining. Now, with this film, there is a similar tone of characters talking way too much about man-versus-machine, the price of sacrifice, and, similar to TDK, minimal yet confusing action sequences. In this version, the dialog spells everything out to the viewer and it feels like characters are talking directly through the movie screen. In the original, the character actions spoke for themselves and everything felt organic. By the end of the original, I felt uplifted. By the end of this, I felt confused.

This re-boot tells a much different tale of Detroit cop Alex Murphy (essayed by a very-underused Joel Kinnaman from AMC's "The Killing"). In this film, Murphy is an undercover detective and is fully entrenched within his department (in the original, he was a uniformed-street cop who had just been transferred). Murphy's partner had just been shot in an arms deal gone wrong and he suspects a couple of his fellow officers of being dirty cops working for the city's biggest arms dealer Antoine Vallon (a literal useless character played by Patrick Garrow).

The Murphy-Vallon rivalry is virtually non-existent in this film and acts as a red herring. Turns out the film is not really about revenge, so much as Murphy's subsequent adjustment to living as a machine after one of Vallon's goons sabotages Murphy's car with a bomb, thereby almost killing him and turning him into a vegetable. In steps Omnicorp, run by billionaire Raymond Sellars (brilliantly played by Michael Keaton in the film's standout performance), who repair Murphy by making his body over 90% robotics, only leaving vital organs and his right hand in tact. So in this version, Murphy never really dies. He is actually still "human". I know that this is supposed to be science "fiction", but even this plot point goes way too far over my head! When I saw how Murphy really looked without the suit, I just couldn't wrap my head around how this was even possible.

The main scientist tasked with re-building Murphy is Dr. Dennett Norton (played earnestly by a very over-used Gary Oldman). In fact, Oldman actually has the largest role in this film, not Kinnaman, who's barely in it. And I couldn't really buy Oldman as a scientist. It seemed like he was channeling his Commissioner Gordon character too much from TDK.

A decent subplot involves how Murphy's wife Clara (well-played by Abbie Cornish) and son David (nicely played by John Paul Ruttan) react to Alex's fate. This is in contrast to the original film where Murphy's family was only ever seen in flashbacks and as far as they knew, he was dead. What worked about this in the original is it added to the tragedy of Murphy's fate. But at least in this one, the family scenes felt like a relief from all the boring corporate and political shenanigans. Most of this movie was like watching a Sunday morning politico show! In particular, Samuel L. Jackson has an odd and thankless role as a conservative talking point host of a national network news show. These scenes were a replacement for the satirical commercials that appeared in the original. But in the original, those commercials were deftly entertaining and funny. In this one, this faux news show is a boring chore to sit through! Jackie Earle Haley also has an annoying role as a military strategist who derides and trashes Murphy-Robocop every chance he gets. I also found the actors playing the respective assistants to Sellars and Denton to be bland and annoying, especially the nasal Jay Baruchel as Omnicorp's top marketing person.

Of course, the film throws in obligatory famous quotes from the original, but in a very uninspiring and cheesy way. Every time I would hear this dialog, it just made me cringe because it was so cheesy and didn't even belong in this movie, which is too different from the original for that to work. And, as mentioned above, there is actually very little action, and what there is, it's confusing, unrealistic, and cartoony, as most modern CGI-laden films tend to be. The movie itself doesn't seem to know what it really wants to be. In trying to be something different, it fails at being anything.
40 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A disgrace
cbcburns316 February 2014
This is a disgrace to the original, at the time it was a groundbreaking and very shocking film, with great actors very original and well done ideas and such an original style to it, well this crap is exactly the opposite, terrible story line, very slow to start I would go as far as saying boring, and for the actors in it got to give it to the director the whole film is just all terrible acting, the overall very bad crime feel in Detroit doesn't come across, where are the crazy adverts, where is the infamous bad guy, and the setup to murphys story? All missing, why mess with the story line from the original which was excellent anyway, this is nothing short of an epic fail, it just manages to scrap 1 star rating as robos HUD view is quite cool but that is literally the only good thing I have to say, I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed with a film, please director don't do any more films, a complete waste of what could of been a brilliant opportunity
74 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Exactly what Hollywood wants
Meinos Kaen9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Robocop Review

This is exactly the kind of movie Hollywood wants: a convoluted mess full of plot-holes, unnecessary subplots, bad direction and little fun to be had.

Minor Spoiler, Signaled

Plot holes

The most infuriating ones are tied to the RoboCop character who, by the way, only starts actually doing something 50 minutes in the movie.

They go too deep in how RoboCop works and how OGP can control him and shut him down whenever they want. But when RoboCop rebels the first time, Gary Oldman's character is asked why and his line is literally 'I have no idea'.

In the original RoboCop they don't explain how Murphy starts regaining his memories. It's left to the viewer's imagination, just like the whole process of creating him was. But if you start going into that much detail about something, you can't suddenly go 'I have no idea'. That's called a cop-out.

The worst thing is that it happens twice. The most important time RoboCop manages to do something that goes against his programming, they never explain why, nor were any hints given for us to make our own idea. It just comes out of nowhere.

SPOILER Another blatant plot-hole is this system that they implant into RoboCop which basically has access to all the digital archives of the police, crosses evidence, and tells him who to arrest. Which begs the question: why didn't they give the police this system to begin with, in a Computer if all they wanted was good PR?

On top of it, this system makes makes it appear like RoboCop is only needed because he has that program in his brain. It makes all the other policemen look like idiots, and it makes him even less intimidating than he already is. END SPOILER

Unnecessary Subplots

The most unnecessary is Murphy's family. They have fifteens minutes of screen-time and they add nothing to the plot. You could remove them from the movie, put his colleague in place of his wife in that one scene, and nothing would be lost or change.

The one that made me the most angry was the one that was interesting and goes nowhere.

The first five minutes of the movie are more interesting than anything else that happens afterwards. Surprisingly, they seem to retain the spirit of the original movie. I would have much preferred to see RoboCop in that contest. But as I said, it goes nowhere. And that's a damn waste.

Bad Direction

There's so much shaky cam in this movie that I almost got nausea.

It ruins every single action scene in this movie. In the very first one there are cuts where I couldn't tell what is going on at all. Who got injured, why, how, where did they shoot this guy from!

It's even more aggravating when they use it in scenes where people are just standing in front of each other talking! There's no action to make 'more dramatic'. There's no need for shaky cam!

And that's not the only questionable directing choice. There's an action scene in the second half of the movie where I literally had no idea what was going on from start to end because on top of the shaky cam, you have another bad directing choice that also makes no sense plot-wise

But never is the bad direction as evident as it is in Samuel L. Jackson. Michael Keaton gives a great performance, Gary Oldman gives an okay performance, Samuel L. Jackson seems to not give a flying snake about the movie he's starring in.

That's half on him, and half on the director who, I guess, was intimidated by his star power and never bothered to correct him.

Little Fun

The movie is just no fun at all to watch. The fight scenes aren't fun because you can't follow them properly. There are very few jokes, and those that exist are not exactly funny. The plot is a mess.

Worst of all, the characters are not entertaining. No bad performances in this movie, but there sure are boring performances. Michael Keaton's character has that potential to entertain, but the script gives him almost nothing to work with.

Joel Kinnaman is no joke either. His character is not well written to begin with, but even before transforming into RoboCop, he's so inexpressive! No matter if he's making a weapon deal undercover, playing with his son or making out with his wife, he always has the same expression.

When he puts on the suit his face's lack of expression becomes even more evident, and his body language is not intimidating at all. Again, half of this falls on the director's shoulders. If you really wanted to make this RoboCop have emotions, make sure he emotes them well.

I know it's not an easy role, but we have lots of examples of people giving a great performance even with some kind of disadvantage. Like Marlee Matlin in Children of a Lesser God, Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta, and of course, Peter Weller in the original RoboCop.

Final Thoughts

I wouldn't suggest going to see this. People who aren't fans of the original will find it boring, and people who are fans of the original will come out of the movie theater infuriated and with their stomachs lurching.

If you really want to see a fun movie based on the original RoboCop, I suggest watching 'Our Robocop Remake' at OurRobocopRemake.Com. A joined effort from 50 groups of people to make a fitting homage to the original movie.

It's completely free, it's very funny and it's many times more entertaining than this Robot Bore Fest.
80 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than the reviews said.
antonioeli13 February 2014
To start, I'm a Robo fan since I was 3. Have seen the 1987 movie like 30+ times. Have lots of merchandise and even a tattoo. Stop reading reviews, go to a cinema and watch it. If you can get there alone better, girlfriends don't like this movies in valentines weekend, and old Peter Weller fans will talk dirt about it even without watching it.

The movie is Perfect. Different than the original but it is not better and it is not worse. I'm not a Marvel super heroes fan but the Avengers movie/IronMan3 are the top 10/10 in the scale to compare with Robocop. And Robo gets a 9/10. Forget it is a remake. Forget it is a PG13. Forget the human hand. Forget it is not Peter Weller. Watch it and you will rate it 8+/10 for sure.
55 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
insulting movie and a huge disappointment...!
fardadhaddadpoor13 May 2014
i think this is a totally bad reboot like "totall recall" ! and it was a huge Insult to Persian people , it show Persian like taliban or some other crazy terrorists which is not right !!! that creepy city wasn't even similar to Tehran !!! i hope this movie get more bad ratings... !!! i mean they didn't even take a time to know what or where is Iran!!! its right that Iran has the wrong people as The Leader or president or a lots of those politicians that doesn't worth that post but people are not like that and there is no terrorists in Iran , at least we wont kill each other in cinema or school...!!! lets look at the movie , if we just see it as an action movie it will be a OK movie with a lot of problems but as a reboot of RoboCop it was totally awful !!!
28 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews