The Case for PG for Robocop

After the fantastic disappointment of the "re imaging" of Total Recall, I came at the new Robocop with a sense of wariness, even if the cast featuring Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton and Samuel L Jackson seemed pretty impressive.

I knew this one would be more... serious the original, but that didn't necessarily meant it would be less fun.



But of course, it was.

It's not the fault of the cast though.  Joel Kinnaman (Murphy/Robocop) is convincing as a soulless robotic warrior with flashes of his own murder and a taste for riding a big motorbike.  Keaton, Oldman and Jackson are similarly all solid, but its more what they are given to do which leaves these strong actors a little shaky...

For example, Keaton is CEO of Omnicorp, a robotics firm that sells the hulking ED209 and smaller human shaped robots to the US military for policing duties in occupied countries (in an uncomfortable opening sequence, Jackson hosts a Fox-like show that claims these bring peace and order while at the same time demonstrating that they do not) but who wants to sell the technology to the only market that matters, the US. However, there is no real plan about engaging with the Police in a partnership, nor are there any hints that this incredibly powerful company holds any sway with any American politicians whatsoever.  In fact, the whole company seems completely reactive in its proactivity, tactical rather than strategic.

Meanwhile Oldman, as Dr Norton, is a mass of contradictions: a man of high morals who does not like to kill but who will strip a person of their freedom, will and dignity without a moments thought.  Brilliant in robotics, unparalleled in cerebral engineering, cutting edge in artifical intelligence and human-computer interfaces, he nonetheless waits until one minute before a press conference to download 30 years of raw data into an untested human brain, even though the data itself is totally irrelevant to the press conference EXCEPT after the download goes wrong.  

This Robocop is less interested in crime then than it is in exploring the technology and the family dynamics of Murphy's change from man to mostly machine.  It's a big shame then that the tech is boring (even if it does look kind of cool) and I ended up hating Murphy's wife and his son becomes pointless about halfway through.

And the "classic" violence?  Well, there is a huge amount of gun fire but no blood at all - I was never quite sure if he was tazer-bulleting people or if Robocop was actually killing them.  There's an improbable bike jump scene that makes no sense to my admittedly limited knowledge of physics, and quite how a half dozen ED209s are allowed into the country with fully loaded cannons to provide augmented security cover when, as I understand it, they are banned by Congressional order again was a bit of a mystery.

And then there is the shaky cam... Normally I can kind of handle it, but in the quieter scenes, where it is just flipping between two mostly motionless, seated characters, was it really necessary?

On the bright side...  Well, it looked great.  And I got free tickets for the screening on Wednesday night, which was wonderful.  While I noticed someone lean forward in their chair at one stage, the response to the film was mostly muted.  There was some laughter at a few jokes and references to the previous film ("Dead or alive, you are coming with me"), but the general impression I got was that people were not bored rather than impressed.

Verdict: Robocop has a lot going for it, but a lot of that is the good will from the original and an incredible cast.  Story-wise, its a bit of a mess and, worse, a tad tedious.  In aiming for a (kind of) family friendly story in among the main Robocop tale, the movie kind of flounders along, never really committing to anything, and feeling a bit cold, distant and yes mechanical.  6 6000SUXes out of 10.