Robocop (Reboot)

ps3lover · 19-12-2013 02:43PM

Even the star of Robocop has said the PG13 rating is a big mistake.

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/joel-kinnaman-talks-robocop-reboot

pixelburp · 19-12-2013 02:51PM

That article suggests to me that they shot a R-rated movie, or at least Kinnaman believed they were doing so, and that the PG-13 will come from the editor's knife - doubtlessly paving the way then for the dreaded 'Unrated Cut' home release.
Edit: Wait, that article's more than a year old, a lot can happen between May '12 and now so not sure how relevant it is really...

ScumLord · 19-12-2013 06:00PM

pixelburp wrote: »

That article suggests to me that they shot a R-rated movie, or at least Kinnaman believed they were doing so, and that the PG-13 will come from the editor's knife - doubtlessly paving the way then for the dreaded 'Unrated Cut' home release.
Edit: Wait, that article's more than a year old, a lot can happen between May '12 and now so not sure how relevant it is really...

As far as I can tell with some movies the only difference between the PG13 rating and a 15 is how much blood they add in post. But I think if you're shooting a movie so that it could go either way it's going to fail on both counts in the end.

Bolderdash · 19-12-2013 10:24PM

If this isn't 18s I won't be going to see this. It's obviously muck if it isn't 18s.

ancapailldorcha · 19-12-2013 10:38PM

Bolderdash wrote: »

If this isn't 18s I won't be going to see this. It's obviously muck if it isn't 18s.

I think people seem to be misinterpreting the age certification as some kind of indicator of the film's quality. It doesn't need to be a gorefest to be good. What made the original so special for me were the story and the satirical elements just as much as the action. You can still have a good story but here, they seem to have dumped that for a half-arsed "Man in the Machine" meets "Iron Man" mash up. To me, age certification is the least of the film's problems.

ps3lover · 20-12-2013 05:02PM

One thing I think is kind of hilarious is the friends I have that don't care about the rating don't go to the cinema or buy DVDs, they illegally download everything.
They are appealing to the pirates and pissing off the people that spend money to go to the cinema.

ancapailldorcha · 20-12-2013 05:34PM

What pisses me off when I go to the cinema is seeing poor quality, derivative films time after time. I should probably start reading johnny_ultimate's posts to find better films. If someone wants to pirate, then that's their choice. There's always been a knock-off market, it's just become more effective over time and Hollywood has no interest in offering a better product.

NUTZZ · 21-01-2014 09:58PM

The new TV spots;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhaC6F_x5KE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygps5PGNakQ

FlashD · 21-01-2014 10:19PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What pisses me off when I go to the cinema is seeing poor quality, derivative films time after time.

There's been a lot of quality in the past few months, just stop going to the rubbish!

A 100million budget with crash bang wallop effects does not guarantee quality.

ancapailldorcha · 21-01-2014 11:09PM

FlashD wrote: »

There's been a lot of quality in the past few months, just stop going to the rubbish!

A 100million budget with crash bang wallop effects does not guarantee quality.

I never said it does. Most of the quality releases I've seen have only just been released. I went to Cineworld in Dublin as I had a day to kill in December and the most appealing thing was 47 Ronin.
I don't go to the rubbish, I just enjoy going to the cinema as a whole. A poor selection is probably going to save me money in the long run though.

BrookieD · 05-02-2014 07:59PM

just seen the below review - sounds a little better than i had thought. will spoiler just in case.....

I just watched this film.

Give it a chance.

I was ready to be disappointed by a shallow cash-grab, but was pleasantly surprised to find more meat and depth than I expected.

While the running time can be punitive at 2 hours and 15 minutes, Robocop hits the ground running. It retains the theme of what makes a man vs. what makes a machine, but updates it for modern geopolitics (and US policy) by raising certain topical issues: the increasing use of drones versus humans; the ethics of such a use; the surveillance state's danger of veering into totalitarianism; and the collusion of big business and government.

Acting is solid all around; even the newbie actor essaying the title role acquits himself well. I had feared he would be the hunk du jour; a good-looking but wooden and uninteresting Caucasian lead in the mold of Charlie Hunnam, robotic leading man of Pacific Rim. But Joel Kinnaman did a credible job as an idealistic cop and family man turned cyborg, who must find his path amid a web of deceit and manipulation.

Michael Keaton is in good form, as well; a strong comeback performance as the manipulative antagonist, industrialist Raymond Sellars. To his credit, Keaton doesn't play Sellars as a standard diabolical baddie. He gives the character believable nuances: the ruthless determination, the singular vision, the controlled sociopathology that underpins the successes of many captains of industry.

But it was Gary Oldman, unsurprisingly, who dominated this movie. Such is Oldman's talent that I didn't recognize him at first. But the realization slowly dawned, as gleefully as unwrapping a birthday present. His morally-ambiguous Dr. Dennett Norton was mesmerizing to watch, and Oldman's presence (like the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) elevates any movie he is in by several levels.

Robocop also gives ample nods to the original, without devolving into fanservice.

The action sequences and effects were well executed; nothing cheap or cheesy in that aspect, although there were no action set pieces that would make cinema history (like Keanu Reeves dodging bullets on the rooftop in The Matrix, Schwarzenegger's motorcycle vs. ten-wheeler chase in Terminator 2, or the more recent tanker-as-baseball bat-to-the-face-of-a-rampaging-kaiju in Pacific Rim.)

Still, these are minor quibbles, in a surprisingly adequate film.

As far as I'm concerned, Robocop 2014 is a worthy tribute to the original.

Not better.

Different.

Which is a good thing.

Because it is one thing to slavishly warm over a classic; quite another to take the essential ingredients and season the recipe for the times.

krudler · 05-02-2014 10:12PM

2 stars from Empire

Bacchus · 05-02-2014 10:44PM

krudler wrote: »

2 stars from Empire

The marketing people mustn't have done their job so. #1 rule of movie marketing. Send Empire a mug :P

transylman · 05-02-2014 11:00PM

So its a stinker then.

Not surprising really. The whole plot of the original was his loss and rediscovery of his humanity, all while getting revenge on those who took it from him. The remake removed this entirely, completely robbing the film of its heart and instead replacing it with 12A violence. They did the same thing with the total recall reboot. Hollywood has become really really dumb.

ScrubsfanChris · 06-02-2014 12:47AM

They just reviewed it on BBC Film show there, never have I seen such distain and annoyed frustration for a film on that show.

I what for a couple.more reviews obviously, but for now I'm keeping my few euro

nyarlothothep · 06-02-2014 01:47AM

It got a 7 rating on imdb and some of the reviews on the discussion board are positive. That said I refuse to see this as I'm sick of remakes especially in the way they're making everything conform to early 21st cultural sensibilities which are conservative and suck.

_Kaiser_ · 06-02-2014 10:19AM

transylman wrote: »

So its a stinker then.

Not surprising really. The whole plot of the original was his loss and rediscovery of his humanity, all while getting revenge on those who took it from him. The remake removed this entirely, completely robbing the film of its heart and instead replacing it with 12A violence. They did the same thing with the total recall reboot. Hollywood has become really really dumb.

Honestly I'm not sure that's true - at the risk of going very off-topic I think the blame lies more with the audience and current culture

(Bear with me now as I'm still only half-way through my first cup of coffee here

)

I think current blockbusters are so dumbed-down and frustrating because today's target audience is much the same. The current generation of 18-30 year olds grew up in a time where political correctness and touchy-feely sensitivity became the norm ultimately leading to a dumbing down of western society I think. Think about it... things that we "oldies" (rapidly pushing 40) took for granted in the 80s (such as over the top cartoon-like violence in films to keep this in some sort of context) are now seen as unacceptable and harmful (look at the stuff that comes out around games like GTA etc)

Take Facebook as another example. Grown adults spouting complete nonsense for all the world to see, or the same type using txtspk and phrases like "OMG amazeballs" etc. Or the obsession with taking "selfies" and so on - and don't get me wrong, I've worked in IT for many years now and love new tech and means of communication, but I think a harmful not-often-commented-upon side effect of all of this that a lot of people never grow up as a result.

Hence sanitised dumbed-down movies that are so frustrating to those of us who are a little older and grew up with a more practical "get on with it"/"copped on" attitude.

What a difference a decade makes eh? Anyone get what I mean, or should I just go back to bed?

krudler · 06-02-2014 01:42PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It got a 7 rating on imdb and some of the reviews on the discussion board are positive. That said I refuse to see this as I'm sick of remakes especially in the way they're making everything conform to early 21st cultural sensibilities which are conservative and suck.

I'd usually be of the "well there's still the original" mindset but fcuk this movie, until people stop paying to see inferior remakes of already good movies then it'll never stop.

Hollywood should remake BAD movies, and make them better, not remake already classic ones.

Warper · 06-02-2014 01:48PM

It looks awful, the 12A rating says it all really. This looks like the worst remake of a film ever made. Robocop for kiddies and a crap Robocop at that

ancapailldorcha · 06-02-2014 02:45PM

That positive review has me tempted to see it. I've a Cineworld Unlimited card so I won't be paying anything extra to see it.

Mr Freeze · 06-02-2014 03:39PM

ror_74 wrote: »

Unless its games. In which case their motor skills and ability to correlate large amounts of dissparate information makes them far from dumb. Gah.. I dont know what my point is. :pac:

I don't think its games, as the stories in some games is often way more complex than something you would find in a hollywood film (and often its exactly what you find in a hollywood film too).

I also don't think its a generation thing, fair enough, the younger generation might read book or as many books as we did. I think its more an American audience/commercial thing, more bums in seats and all that, and make it dumb fun.

I hate when people say, "Oh you have to leave your brain at the door for this one", well I didn't when I saw the first Robocop, and I was probably only 10 then. Most hollywood films now seem to the Leave the brain at the door variety, which doesn't interest me, so I rarely go to the cinema.

So I won't be seeing this, till its on Netflix or something.

ScumLord · 06-02-2014 06:10PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I think current blockbusters are so dumbed-down and frustrating because today's target audience is much the same.

The problem is the idea of target audiences and engineering the film as a product that fits into a comfortable marketing solution.

Films used to be stories, the writer constructed his plot not always as a simple form of entertainment but to convey a message that was important to them.

Modern movie scripts are constructed based on marketing surveys and internet chatter.

It's even true with the age old targeted audience of children. There's always been childrens stories but they've always been a way of passing on knowledge to children. Now that age old system has been hijacked as a way of marketing to people who don't have self control.

I don't know why the general population have bought into this systemised version of story telling, it's always going to be soleless because the main objective is profiteering not passing on knowledge.

06-02-2014 07:57PM

SFX have given the film a glowing review and honestly from the various publications it seems that this is far from the disaster than many hoped it would be.

I don't see the lower ratings for film such as this as evidence of a dumbing down of society. Honestly Robocop is a great film and a real reflection of it's time but you have to move with the times and where it released today I doubt it would have the impact as it did then.

I think that far too many people associate gratuitous sex and violence with something being adult in nature. Basic Cable shows have changed how people define it and it's getting to the stage where many shows are being written off as childish simply because they're not full of sex and gore. The same thing has happened with cinema, how many people wrote off Olympus Has Fallen or the Last Stand as sanitized, bloodless action films, simply because they didn't come with a big 18 rating. Some of the most adult cinema has no sex or violence but rather deals with themes that are adult in nature. I'd much rather a 12A rated Robocop film that explored a few interesting themes than I would a brain dead 18s cert film that was full of unnecessary violence.

Just to add, I'd take SFX's review with a pinch of salt. Their reviews are about as credible as Empire

ps3lover · 06-02-2014 09:50PM

Didn't SFX have a big Robocop issue last month with exclusive interviews and access to visit the set? I'd take that review with a pinch of salt.

The word I keep hearing about Robocop is it's very average, nothing about it stick out, it's painfully plain, takes no chances or risks and ends up being kind of dull.

safetyboy · 06-02-2014 11:30PM

Good cinema fodder if you are into that claptrap. I went on my own and enjoyed it even after all my cynical cinema friends put me off it! Some classic actors playing **** roles, the same as if I was a kid again! leave you're brain at home and enjoy!

07-02-2014 01:25AM

Something that always strikes me as odd is how whenever a remake or a new action film comes out we have dozens of people complaining about it and the dumbing down of cinema going audiences. They talk about how 80s action cinema was the pinnacle of the genre, yet when ever a film like Homefront comes out they're nowhere to be seen. In fact, if I recall correctly there was only a single reply to the Homefront thread, a film which is the most 80s of action films and one that didn't skimp of the red stuff either.

oxygen · 07-02-2014 03:42AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That positive review has me tempted to see it. I've a Cineworld Unlimited card so I won't be paying anything extra to see it.

You could probably go to see it guilt free. I dont think a cinecard counts towards the box office.

Personally, I have no cineworld unlimited card and have no intention of adding to the box office of a 12's rated remake of an 18's B movie from my youth that absolutely rocked.

Bacchus · 07-02-2014 09:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Something that always strikes me as odd is how whenever a remake or a new action film comes out we have dozens of people complaining about it and the dumbing down of cinema going audiences. They talk about how 80s action cinema was the pinnacle of the genre, yet when ever a film like Homefront comes out they're nowhere to be seen. In fact, if I recall correctly there was only a single reply to the Homefront thread, a film which is the most 80s of action films and one that didn't skimp of the red stuff either.

Thank you. Added to my watch list

ScumLord · 07-02-2014 03:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that far too many people associate gratuitous sex and violence with something being adult in nature.

That's true, and the movie studios probably know that too and can make 18s films with no real content to them just because they know people will have assumptions based on the rating. It works both ways.

Pre watershed stuff or anything under 18s does have restrictions though, no gore, no sex, but it can go further into sanitizing storylines that might be about violence or racism or any other topic that might upset the children or show them a side of life that goes into the topics that we want to hide from the younger generation.

I'm of the mind that the film should be made and then sent off for whatever rating it gets. Rather than building the film around it's rating. I know that isn't going to happen in the blockbuster world because they're making a product that has to make a profit. But we're going to see the quality of filmmaking suffer for it until there's some sort of cinematic movement away from it once everyone had enough of that style.

This is a cash in film, it might be a somewhat enjoyable waste of time but at the end of the day it's riding on he coat tails of a good film.

ancapailldorcha · 07-02-2014 05:01PM

oxygen_temp wrote: »

You could probably go to see it guilt free. I dont think a cinecard counts towards the box office.

Personally, I have no cineworld unlimited card and have no intention of adding to the box office of a 12's rated remake of an 18's B movie from my youth that absolutely rocked.

That's the plan. It was one of the reasons behind me getting the card and there's been a few quality films out recently. If I go twice a month, it pays for itself.

Robocop (Reboot)

Comments