Diagonaldi Very well executed

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The Movie Diorama It's all too common now for every time to claim "oh yeah, remakes are never as good as the originals". Unfortunately, with additions like this, the argument is true. However, this is not as terrible as everyone may lead you to believe. In fact, I would say this was rather well crafted. Alex Murphy was just a cop doing his job, where a crime takes place involving him opening his car to a bomb detonation. Omnicorp, who desire a more human leading figure for their meticulously crafted robots, use Murphy's body (or what's left of it...) and put it into a robotic suit. Ladies and gentlemen, we now have ourselves...RoboCop. All those who have seen the original will say "all the graphic content has been washed away in this remake!". I've not seen the original, but from clips it was pretty hardcore and with focus on props rather than CGI. However, for what it's worth this is a fine film to introduce the eponymous character to a new generation. The visual effects used were well constructed and perfectly suited the environment, loved the constant use of Murphy's HUD so we can visualise what he sees. The production was clean, efficient and had a good clinical style. Gary Oldman was perfect as the conflicted pioneer in robotics. Michael Keaton was also decent for his role as the central antagonist. Joel Kinnaman takes a while to warm to, but by the end I thought his monotonous portrayal felt right. The characters themselves are underdeveloped due to the focus primarily being used on the ethical and moral implications of robotics and it's usage in national security. I would've liked a little more exploration in this topic as well. The main problem is how generic everything feels. The action, the characters, the plot...it's far too bland which prevents anything memorable from occurring. Sure it all looks good and is functional, yet all aspects were washed over. Jay Baruchel was odd casting as well. RoboCop is a serviceable remake, just can't quite settle on what it wants to be.

Filipe Neto "Robocop" was one of the most remarkable trilogies of the eighties, and it marked the collective memory of those who lived that time. Even those who haven't seen the movies have surely heard of them. The story retains the essential structure that had been shown in the previous films, which makes me think about why they made this movie if they didn't show a new story. The answer is natural: profit. Anyway, there are some differences between this film and its predecessors. Most obviously, a major effort was made here to humanize what used to be a kind of unfeeling cyborg, that simply performed tasks for which it had been programmed. Another difference is that we watch the design and construction of the robot, as well as the motives and intentions behind it. It's clear the commercial interest, as well as the way the industry takes advantage of an injured man to conquer a new market. Another striking difference is the end of dystopian satire to urban society presented so far: the older films featured Robocop as a law response to a violent escalation of crime in an increasingly inhumane and savage urban world, while here he's only a mean to reach a new market by a large multinational.Joel Kinnaman played a decent Robocop, with some human traits but no emotion or obvious psychological conflict. Michael Keaton is a good villain, a self-seeking man who doesn't look to the means to achieve his financial goals. Gary Oldman is the most humane side of the industry who creates Robocop, and he manages to get out of the job even though there is no effort in betting on his inner or psychological conflicts. Abbie Cornish is the actress who has shown greater ability to demonstrate her psychology, but her character specifically serves this purpose. Samuel L. Jackson is a good actor, but I honestly didn't understand the purpose of his character. At a technical level, good CGI reigns in this film but that could be expected. Soundtrack, unfortunately, is quite forgettable.This movie, made for quick profit, is an unnecessary remake of a good trilogy of the 80's that isn't yet worn out by time. So its almost impossible not to make comparisons. Without much emotion or tension, the film lacks psychological depth and is utterly devoid of satire, though it weaves several harsh criticisms of how certain industries may be impersonal and inhumane. Curiously, one criticism the film doesn't do is that the robot is made in the new American mega-factory... China. We are well aware that companies (and not just US) like to exploit cheap labor of Eastern countries, but to see this on film is some bad taste.

david-sarkies Sometimes I wonder whether the directors of these remakes are sitting down watching the original film and thinking – gee, these special effects are really bad, I can do much better than that – and then proceed to remake the a film that ends up rubbing me up the wrong way. Okay, the world has changed since 1987, and film technology, as well as computer technology, has advanced significantly, but sometimes (actually most times) I feel that maybe the remakes should be left in the past and the creators attempt to use their juices (if they actually have any) to create something original (if that is at all possible).If you know the original film then you pretty much know the plot of this film. Sure, the names have been changed to protect the guilty (not really, but I suspect they wanted to attempt to distance themselves somewhat from the original, but not too far), and the plot is a little, not much, but a little, different. However, the basic premise is the same – Alex Murphy is killed in the line of duty so a multi-national corporation buys his body and turns him into a cyborg. The difference is that in the original film the fully automated robots weren't working, where as in this one they were, it was just that the American government weren't too keen on having them deployed on the streets, so they instead created this Robocop to help encourage the politicians to change their minds.The other really annoying thing was this talk/opinion piece that kept on popping up through the film – it was entirely unnecessary. Well, probably not, but like most opinion shows and shock jocks, I basically hate them because they talk as if their opinion is the only one that counts and anybody that holds an opposing opinion can be quiet. Sure, while I can simply turn off the television in the real world, this is a movie, and when this pain in the neck appeared on the screen it really isn't all that easy to change the channel. In fact, right through the piece, it seemed as if he was in league with the bad guys. The other thing was that the original just had some really cool ads, including a game show called 'I'll buy that for a dollar'.While there were some interesting aspects to this film, in the end, as far as I am concerned, it was a flop. Personally, I think I'll just revert back to the original, and the two sequels that followed on behind as opposed to this failed attempt at a reboot.

hat_city Now I understand that a lot of people feel upset about how this remake departed from the original. After all, the original Robocop was a masterpiece. The dark comedy, the violence, the 1980's.... no remake could ever recreate that. After all, we're not living in the 1980's anymore.But thanks to other people's scathing reviews, I approached this movie with low expectations and I was actually very pleasantly surprised. While the dark comedy aspect of Robocop is very much toned down in the remake, and yes the weepy family moments are a little overdone (and that's why I don't give it 10 stars), I think this movie still maintains a lot of good qualities.Example: in the original Robocop, the battle scenes were actually very disappointing. They involved Robocop lumbering slowly through a warehouse, full of guys just standing there unloading their AK's at him to no avail. He shot them down one by one, and nobody ever grew a brain and realized their rifles were no use. But in the remake, I think the gunfights were a lot more realistic. The new Robocop is fast and agile, and also vulnerable to gunfire. He doesn't just stand there stupidly and let bullets bounce off of him, he ducks and weaves and takes cover, gets hit occasionally and actually gets hurt from it. So in that sense I'd say the remake improved on the original.Also, the evil Omnicorp is as evil as ever, albeit in a flashy 21st century kind of way. The sinister 1980's businessmen in suits have been replaced with soulless, clever Steve Jobs types, which I found to be a pleasing illustration of how the corporate scumbag class has evolved over the past 30+ years.There's also the deep-rooted corruption within the police force and within Corporate America that lies at the root of all evil, and Robocop wants more than anything to root it out. But his programming does not allow him to do so. That, I believe, is the central message of the original Robocop that has been preserved in the remake. I think the movie would have been an absolute fail if they tried to erase that central message.So all in all, this remake has been adapted for the 21st century audience, for better or for worse. I think they did a really good job, all things considered. My only real complaint is that the dark comedy was removed, presumably to reach a wider audience. Because of that flaw, I give it 7/10 stars.