 |
| 1987 |
While I’ve read a few science fiction classics, I’ve
gravitated toward crime fiction. The same is true for film. Quite often though a work is a beautiful
amalgam of the two. Blade Runner, for
example, tops my list of all-time favorite movies. I also remember
watching RoboCop years ago, and how surprised I was that I liked it. I
googled it and found out that not only had that been 27 years ago, but that
there had been a RoboCop 2 and a RoboCop 3 and all sorts of Robos. Then,
as if I needed further proof that I’ve slept through a decade or two, I
discovered there was a big-budget RoboCop
released this year. Really? Next you’ll tell me the Republicans have taken the
Senate.
I decided to watch the original from 1987 again as well as
the most recent remake. I skipped 2 and
3 because reviews, including those from Rotten Tomatoes, suggested the two
sequels might not be worth the time.
The 1987 original RoboCop
is compelling. It is a bit more
cartoon-like (as Seinfield says, “not that there is anything wrong with
that”). The lines of good and evil are
clearly drawn. The emphasis is on action-adventure. Blood, explosions and chases dominate, yet
they’ve made some room for not so subtle satire. The setting is a crime-ridden Detroit, where
we see a greedy high-tech security corporation, in collusion with police,
politicians, property developers and the media who benefit at the expense of an
unaware, easily led public. Why are we calling this fiction?
The original classic, directed by Paul Verhoeven gets extra points for being the original and for its
earlier warning about the corruption of the authority we have blissfully
allowed. It also pointed to the many issues having to do with high-tech and
what it means to be human. Peter Weller is excellent. Because he is the first RoboCop and he did it
so well, it makes it difficult for anyone else taking the role. The supporting cast does a great job with
dialogue lacking in subtlety. We can
thank Nancy Allen, Dan O’Herlihy, Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith
and Miguel Ferrer for their solid
work.
 |
| 2014 |
If the 1987 RoboCop
told us what was coming, the 2014 version said, “it’s here,” though perhaps not
as convincingly as it could. On the
other hand, what the story lost in terms of edge and humor, it gained in
creating more depth for its characters and the story beneath the action. Because it is a high tech-film, we expect the
special effects to be better now. They are. There are also more timely tie-ins.
Think NSA spying, the use of drones, the regular and publicly accepted purchase of politicians, not to mention the
emergence of partisan media claiming to provide balanced reporting. You know who you are.
The supporting cast is top notch. Michael
Keaton doesn’t bother with a cardboard cutout of evil. Instead, as the slippery CEO, Keaton almost
convinces me that he means well. Smooth
as a Wall Street banker. In director José
Padilha’s version, Gary Oldman
plays a character not in the original — a doctor who exemplifies the moral
dilemma of creating a crime-free city (and make billions for Keaton’s
corporation) but also allowing computers to override human judgment and hinting
at the slippery slope that implies. Samuel
L. Jackson portrays a pro-corporate political commentator with his own show.
The Peter Weller role went to Joel Kinnaman, who did a fine job of
walking the line between robot and human. His performance was understated as
was the movie itself, compared to the original. Both movies are recommended.
Not particularly romantic or especially profound, both
Robocops are at least thought provoking and certainly entertaining. For those who like to imbibe while taking in
movies at home, beer and popcorn are just fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment