Underappreciated: RoboCop

Underappreciated, Too

Last week, I began a new series on underappreciated films with 2008's Terminator Salvation. The series in February was focused on lower budget movies (beginning here), but this round is (of course) not. It might be a bit more difficult to gauge a film with a big budget as underappreciated because the expectations are so high. But, then again, maybe it is not, since to be underappreciated is simply to deserve better response, from either its audience or critics, or both. Here is number two of three underappreciated films that were meant to be blockbusters.

RoboCop (2014) | Sci-Fi Action

Big surprise, I am a fan of another franchise that prominently features a cyborg. From previous posts, it may have been less evident than Terminator, with only the 1987-1993 RoboCop trilogy as a contender in an "Into the Fray" and brief mentions in a couple of other previous posts. Full disclosure, I have watched through the 1994 live action series. It only lasted a single season for good reason and essentially exists in its own continuity, considering just the basic facts of the first film (do not recommend). I also own the DVDs of the 2001 miniseries, RoboCop: Prime Directives, separately released as each of its four feature-length episodes: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Resurrection, and Crash & Burn. As the focus is not to be on it, briefly: While questionable at best to occur after the theatrical trilogy and while it has low-budget special effects and cheesy acting, it did return to darker story-telling and features a more logical and well-portrayed "RoboCop 2" (hesitantly recommend). After all this came a 2014 remake of the original 1987 film directed by Paul Verhoeven, also appropriately titled, RoboCop.

RoboCop (2014) is directed by José Padilha and written by Joshua Zetumer and Edward Neumeier & Michael Miner (the latter two penned the 1987 film). Joel Kinnaman stars in the titular role with supporting cast including Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley and Samuel L. Jackson. The plot more or less follows the first film in that a Detroit police officer, Alex Murphy, clinically/nearly dies at the hands of criminals and is reborn as a cyborg funded by a corporation with "Omni" in its name. Desiring to regain his humanity, the quest ensues.

There are two primary reasons to produce a remake of a previous film. Please allow me to restate that: There are two primary reasons to produce a remake of a previous film that is not simply cash grab. One reason is the original has a good concept but is in fact terrible. The only offhand example I am familiar with is Gone in 60 Seconds; 2000's with Nicolas Cage is good, but I stopped watching the 1974 film barely twenty minutes in. The second reason has multiple angles of arrival but comes down to: The creative team believes they can present things from an established intellectual property differently without losing what is great about the original. Oftentimes, the secondary goal may be to introduce to a new audience. Quick digress: Both these can also be the motivation behind a legacy sequel (legasequel) or a requel (both a sequel and reboot/remake). Continuing, a shot-for-shot like the "live action" remake of The Lion King will never be anything but a cash grab, but one might forget how the other types come to be made: Filmmakers are fans of films, too. Still, inevitably, a comparison must be made between original and remake to know if the latter was warranted. We already established that Padilha's film followed the basic plotline of Verhoeven's original, but each is also set in the near future from its release date. They both have a dose of timely social commentary, and they are the same messages: corporate greed, bad, and so is the news media. Both films are straightforward with their statement against the greedy mindset of corporations, but they begin to diverge on the other point. The 1987 film makes a farce of newscasts and television in general with its commercials and that "I'd buy that for a dollar!" show that is so popular. The remake, on the other hand, spoofs those loud politically one-sided talk and commentary TV shows on "news" channels, and it's not even over-the-top. Jackson nails this role, and it is, instead, actually part of the story. It further criticizes both media and corporate sway over government leadership. Another deviation from the original is that RoboCop is much more mobile, an improvement. Lastly, the remake's setting changes from a hyperviolent dystopia to a future that is more conceivable in its moderate change. It all melds well together with also great performances by Keaton, Oldman, and Haley. Kinnman is no Peter Weller, but he manages to capture the emotional depth of the character, and lack thereof, as appropriate.

Had RoboCop (2014) not been a remake, I believe it would have been much better received. While I have spent this post comparing the two, I actually try, as a rule, to allow a remake to exist on its own merit as long as it differentiates itself enough from its source. I was already very familiar with the first film and its sequels when I watched it the first time. Before I knew how anyone else felt, I decided it was a decent remake, particularly because of its own version of the messages. I now wonder if this commentary was too on the nose and there are some who simply cannot see the movie's calling out of the corrupted media that has its own dedicated fandom. This country, and this film, deserve better.

Next up...the last in this series of underappreciated films, The Flash!