Itâ€™s a shame that JosĂ© Padilhaâ€™s â€śRoboCopâ€ť is a remake of Paul Verhoevenâ€™s â€śRoboCop.â€ť
Like some of the best remakes, Padilhaâ€™s â€śRoboCopâ€ť (mostly) goes in its own direction. It takes the skeleton of the original, retains the most basic elements but then it goes and does its own thing. Save for a few cheeky winks at the original, Padilhaâ€™s film tries valiantly to be more than a simple beat-for-beat retread. But the fact is that the 1987 version is a stone-cold classic the shadow of Paul Verhoevenâ€™s original still looms large in the minds of fans, which means this one likely wonâ€™t be given the shot it deserves.
The original was a blistering bit of cinema, infamous for its high levels of graphic violence, but it also possessed a sharp, satirical edge that undercut and even made comedic a good portion of said violence. There was Rob Bottinâ€™s phenomenal practical make up effects, Kurtwood Smithâ€™s note-perfect villain, to say nothing of the performance of Peter Weller, who proved that it takes real talent to make a robotic performance interesting and engaging. It was a film that thrilled and wowed but offered a lot to chew on thanks to Verhoevenâ€™s blackly comic sensibilities and ability to draw out the subtext of the script.
About the only thing that Padhilaâ€™s film has in common with Verhoevenâ€™s is the fact that it centers on a Detroit cop named Alex Murphy who suffers near-fatal injuries and is given a robotic body to continue fighting crime. There are some peripheral similarities, like the existence of a massive corporation bankrolling the whole thing and some bits of social satire, but by and large Padhila is interested in examining different facets of the character and concept.
This â€śRoboCopâ€ť wants to examine the ethics of the drone war. In a terrifically staged pre-opening credits sequence, we see how OmniCorpâ€™s drone robots are patrolling the streets of the Middle East. Residents are routinely forced out of their homes for retinal and fingerprint scans. This occupation has virtually eliminated crime and violence and not cost a single human (American) life, but itâ€™s at the cost of creating a robotic police state. The American public, however, is vehemently opposed to any such automated protection, going so far as to approve of a legislative ban on OmniCorpâ€™s domestic drone use.
But OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) isnâ€™t going to let something as fickle as public opinion prevent his company from making billions. He just has to give the people a robot with a conscience, a product they can rally around and cheer for. He finds the perfect candidate in Det. Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), who is nearly killed in a car bombing after he comes close to sniffing out two dirty cops.
OmniCorpâ€™s top scientist, Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) reluctantly agrees to perform the transition operation, assured by Sellars that Murphy will only ever be used for law enforcement purposes, thus birthing RoboCop.
And this is where Padhilaâ€™s version both engages and frustrates. I love the timely and relevant debate over drone use and surveillance. I love the way that OmniCorp tries to rob Murphy of his emotions, at first letting his human side still have control before turning him into a robotic zombie. I love that Padhilaâ€™s is subtlely taking aim at the movie studio who sanitized and focus-tested the idea of remaking â€śRoboCopâ€ť in the first place. There is so much potential here, not just for a smart update on the original, but for one that completely holds its own when held next to it.
The problem is that so much of that potential just canâ€™t seem to pop off the page and reach its full potential. The drone debate gets all but forgotten about halfway through the movie. The emotional stuff never connects in the way it should and Padhilaâ€™s stabs at satire never take deep enough root. It also doesnâ€™t help that Detroit in this film is never really shown to be so overridden with crime that someone/thing like RoboCop would be deemed necessary. I donâ€™t really have a problem with the fact that this is a bloodless remake, only that itâ€™s often a toothless one.
Still, I think as a whole the film gets more right than it does wrong. The fact that itâ€™s at least aiming for an intellectual debate on current political topics puts it streets ahead of the vast majority of other action pictures these days and itâ€™s not as though the film as a whole is incompetently made. Padhilaâ€™s action may be bloodless, but itâ€™s not boring to watch. The script may let him down, but he tries valiantly to keep things on-point. Itâ€™s a slick looking picture that I can only imagine would have been leagues better sans obvious studio meddling.
Kinnaman tries his absolute hardest to give a soul to Murphy, but like Padhila heâ€™s constantly let down by a script that just canâ€™t muster the steam to power into the right territory. Thankfully, Oldman , Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson all bring their A-game and brighten things up every time they are given something to do.
Although, in a way, itâ€™s Keatonâ€™s part as Sellars that ultimately exemplifies how I feel about the film as a whole. Itâ€™s a solid, fun, engaging performance. But thereâ€™s something missing from Sellars. Thereâ€™s undeniably a bit of crazy lurking behind that billionaire faĂ§ade, he just needs one good opportunity to really let the mask drop and get nuts. Heâ€™s held back and defanged, just like the movie heâ€™s in.
When this remake was first announced, I was one of the few who held out hope because I remained confident that there was still plenty of room for a different take to exist. Padhilaâ€™s film, while undeniably imperfect, has proven me right. I just wish it was more able to capitalize on what it so desperately wants to take aim at. Hereâ€™s hoping this is successful enough that another film gets the chance to do so now that a solid groundwork has been put into place.