Robocop (1987) Vs. Robocop (2014)

Robocop (1987) - 4 Stars (out of four)

Robocop (2014) - 3 Stars (out of four)

And so the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood continues with the continuing rape of good R-rated adult fare being sanitized so children can watch inept PG-13 "rebootings" of old properties.  What's next?  Justin Bieber doing Scarface as a candy merchant on the lam set to a throbbing teen-synth-pop-autotune soundtrack?  It took me almost a year to watch this film, and now you ask, how was it?

In all fairness, not too bad.

I must admit, I went into this movie with a fair bit of trepidation and anxiety, considering how good the 1987 version was.  I had every intention of hating this PG-13 ripoff, but believe it or not, I did go in with an open mind.  And I must say, against all my instincts, I found myself enjoying the 2014 film, much to my amazement.

For those of you who don't know the story, the basic arc is the same in both movies.  Detroit police officer Alex Murphy is killed by criminals and then rebuilt by Omni Consumer Products (OCP) into a cybernetic organism: part machine, part man.  He is then put into service as a robot cop, an unstoppable law enforcement machine.  But his creators don't reckon on the human side of the machine, which overrides his programming to go on a personal quest to solve his own murder.  After running through various thugs, he finds the corruption goes straight to the top of OCP.  When they realize they've lost control, they try to kill Robocop, but in the end, he triumphs.

So far, the story is exactly the same.  Where they differ wildly is the overall tone of each movie.  Robocop 87 is an incredibly ultra-violent, very R-rated satire (once X-rated due to violence scenes cut down into the theatrical cut.  You can see this X-rated or unrated material reinserted in the Criterion Collection's very good treatment of this film as well as another recent rerelease.) on cutthroat 80's corporate culture as well as a sly commentary on high concept action movies that littered the 80's and early 90's before superheroes became the popcorn fare of summers.  I didn't think Robocop 87 could be improved upon, and I was mostly right.  But the filmmakers of the Robocop 14 pulled a sly one on us.  Gone is the over-the-top satirical violence of the Robocop 87 and is replaced by a more straightforward (read: semi-family friendly PG-13 fare) and sometimes heavy-handed commentary on current events, specifically the morality of drone warfare.  While this new version neuters the film of any real excitement, which frankly, is not for kids in either case, it does give the film some timely themes on which to reflect.

First, Robocop 87 is a wonderfully gratuitous, blood-spattered romp that was never meant for kids, as the R-rating suggests.  If you let your children under 15 watch this version, you are officially horrible parents and are partially responsible for the lack of empathy children have today.  For those who saw it as adults, it was a very cogent funhouse mirror to the over-excess of the 80's taken to their ridiculous extreme.  Robocop 87 is perfectly realized precisely because it is so anarchaic and gruesome.  Everything is delightfully bombastic from the overly pyschotic criminals, to the amoral cutthroat executives to the sexed-up Benny Hill-style TV show that everyone seems to enjoy in the movie.  It was holding up a distorted mirror to the amorality of the excess of the 80's and was saying, "This is where we are headed.  Without rules governing our morality and actions, the system will collapse."  Which is precisely what happened 20 years later when the U.S. economy hit the skids due mostly to unregulated greed and avarice that began in the 80's.  Robocop 87 works so well precisely because it is unapologetic in its satirical eye on the unchecked violence and gratuitous sex that permeates the whole film.  It is extremely well-written; tight with no loose ends.  It is basically entertaining us while simultaneously accusing us for taking pleasure in its shenanigans.

Robocop 14 is another animal entirely.  This is a movie that has something to say in a plain-spoken way; that is, drones bad.  U.S. bad for using.  That's really it.  Unlike Robocop 87, Robocop 14 was written for the dullards of a post-MTV, post-Baby Boomer empty-headed Occupy-(fill in stupid, näive, misguided, self-hating idiot cause here) generation too dumb to actually grasp complex problems.  It is extremely simplistic.  However, I was willing to go along with it because it wasn't too pushy at first.  That is, until the end with Samuel L. Jackson's rant on American jingoistic expansionism under threat of death-from-above drones as our enforcers.  The saving grace of the film, however, is that there is a beating, human heart at its core.  It attempts to bring the humanity back to the film.  Robocop 87 is essentially soulless anarchy made flesh.  Robocop 14 posits, I think correctly, that the human soul cannot be left out of any decision that may involve violence.  Where Robocop 87 was trying to warn us of the dangers of no soul, Robocop 14 was pointing out how important morality is in any decision, and ultimately is the more optimistic message.  Robocop 87 stares into the abyss and sees despair, Robocop 14 sees hope for humanity.  Outside of its heavy-handed sermonizing on what it considers the recent evil U.S. drone policy, I also took points off Robocop 14 because it left plot threads unresolved.  Not everybody gets their comeuppance.  In fact, those corrupt people at the top are largely forgotten.

So, what is better, satire or sermon?  In this instance, satire wins out because it is pulled off so well.  What could have been a pretty stupid 80's film like Gymkata or Time Rider, Robocop 87 pulls off an over-the-top morality tale without being overbearing.  It is also a complete little package, tightly told, and stays true to its own reality quite well.  Robocop 14, while more positive, seems both incomplete and violates the rules of its own universe with the rant at the end, as if to say, "Just in case we didn't hit you over the head enough, we are going to be even more obvious at the end just so there is no possible way you can confuse the fact we don't like U.S. drone policy."  This rant took me out of the story and left a bad taste in my mouth, hence the 3-star rating.  Also, as a personal peccadillo, I am also turned off by the recent cynical trend of de-balling great R-rated adult movies so they can get more butts in the seats with a PG-13 rating.  This trend MUST stop.  Both versions are good in their own ways.  Both are entertaining, but the original is tough to beat.  I hope they don't try with a sequel.

Whiplash

4 Stars (out of four)

This was one of those films that rivets you to your seat with its intensity.  It has amazing performances and is not one to be missed.

Andrew (Miles Teller) is an amazingly talented jazz drummer attending the Shaffer Music Conservatory, the best music school in the country.  He is discovered by the school's brilliant instructor Fletcher (J.K. Simmons) and is put into the school's most prestigious band.  What follows is a trip through Hell as Fletcher berates and pushes Andrew to reach his fullest potential.  But at what cost?

At first, this movie seems to be the musical equivalent to Full Metal Jacket's boot camp sequences.  Both Fletcher and Gunnery Sergeant Hartman want to coax out the best their students can be by incredibly intense methods.  But what elevates Whiplash is that as much as a bastard Fletcher is, he really does seem to have his students' best interests at heart.  Anyone who has seen J.K. Simmons' brilliant work as the evil white-supremacist Hank Schillinger in HBO's Oz will already be familiar with his intense and magnetic acting style, vascillating wildly between sympathetic and psychotically cruel in the blink of an eye like a bipolar pinball.  Miles Teller, to his credit, keeps up with Simmons step by step, which makes this an amazing tour de force by two great actors.  It is amazing to watch.

Now, some may look at this and scratch their heads over the motivations of why Andrew would continue to put up with such abuse and still come back for more.  I remember actually having a few flashbacks in this film to my band days being a part of a couple of organizations that were a cut above the regular.  And anyone who has been in a team, athletic or otherwise, that is known for excellence will understand the drive of both the students and the teachers for greatness.  It is not enough to just be "good."  Greatness must be scratched out, and it is agonizing in attaining it.  In my experience, most great music teachers and students become very singularly focused and don't really care about anything or anyone else around them.  There tends to be a lot of collateral damage and bloody bodies on the path.  This film, better than any other, shows the drive and grit needed to be better than most when talent just isn't enough.  Now, Fletcher holds that the only way to realize that full potential is to push the student far beyond anything they thought possible to the point of sadistic cruelty.  Is this necessarily needed?  Who knows?  But the great ones usually suffer for their art.  Everyone has heard this little cliché, but this film lays bare as to just what that really means.  Great artists suffer for their art because if it was easy, everyone would do it.

A Most Violent Year

3 Stars (out of four)

This movie did an annoying little bait-and-switch.  It promises an interesting gangster movie in the trailer, but is really just a character piece.  That is not to say it isn't worth seeing, however.  The acting performances by Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastaine are quite vibrant and entertaining and turn a mediocre story into something a little more.

The time is 1981 in New York City, a time when New York was at its most dangerous.  An ambitious immigrant, Abel Morales (Isaac) is trying to protect his heating oil business and his family against very cutthroat competitors.  The rub is that he is actually an honest broker in a cesspool of corruption and violence all around him.  The movie opens where he is closing on a deal for an oil depot that will give him a leg up over his competitors.  He has gone deeply in debt to make a big expansion.  Unfortunately, there has been a spate of robberies of his truck from unknown people who are also assaulting his drivers.  On top of that, he is the target of an ambitious DA (David Oyelowa) who is trying to root out corruption in the heating oil business.  It doesn't help that Morales' wife, Anna (Chastaine), has a father and brother who are prominent figures in the underworld.  In short order, his financiers walk away from him, the attacks against his business and family intensify, and the law keeps harassing him.  All the while, he desperately tries to keep his business practices on the straight and narrow, against the advice of all those closet to him.

The trailers, as I stated earlier, promised this would be a gangster-style flick, but the movie isn't like that at all.  I think the ad campaign does the movie a disservice by essentially lying about the content.  That said, it also gets butts in the seats by intriguing you to see it.  But the problem, or asset actually, is that the movie is actually pretty good, but very unexciting.  It feels like a real story about the mundane aspects of real life, albeit under extraordinary circumstances.  This is really a morality tale, with Morales being our Aesop.  He is a truly honest man in dishonest times.  He is an embodiment of the American Dream, but without the schmaltzy clichés that usually go with such stories.  We always hear about the plucky little guy who does good, but we never really talk about the real struggles they have to face when going up against very established interests.  But the problem is that for the most part, the story is pretty straightforward and not very interesting.  The reason I rated it so high is that the acting transcends the material above itself.  It's not bombastic, but entirely believable.  It is almost a master's class in thespian prowess and is quite good.  But ultimately, is not enough to save the story from a somewhat dull arc.  The two leads are the propelling force in the movie, and boy, are they compelling. It also helps that there is not a bad performance in the whole cast.  So see it for the acting and lower your expectations on thrills and you will probably like it.

Inherent Vice

1 Star (out of four)

This was one of those movies I genuinely wanted to be good.  Boogie Nights, another film from writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson, is literally one of my favorite movies ever.  Based on the interesting characters and vitality of the story and screenwork of Boogie Nights, I fervently hoped Inherent Vice would follow in its footsteps.  It would seem that those big shoes left behind by Boogie Nights may have been too big to fill and that my hopes were doomed to be dashed on the rocks of disappointment.

I'm not quite sure what the movie is about other than what IMDB contributer Huggo says, "1971.  Larry Sportello - better known as Doc (Joaquin Phoenix) - is a pot head hippie private eye based out of Gordita Beach in southern California.  He is approached by ex-lover, Shasta Fay Hempworth (Katherine Waterston), who believes her current boyfriend, married land developer Mickey Wolfmann (Eric Roberts), is the target of an abduction attempt by his wife and her lover.  In helping Shasta, Doc not only goes on a search for Wolfmann, but others who go missing, including Shasta, and one who is assumed to be murdered.  Along the way, Doc gets involved with a crazy cast of characters and a wide variety of issues including politics, cults, prostitution, the drug trade and dentistry, most of it surrounding the mysterious "Golden Fang."  Along for most of the ride is LAPD detective Christian Bjornsen (Josh Brolin) - Bigfoot to most who know him - who is strait laced on the outside, but has a dark underside, which is supported by a hefty therapy bill."

Did you get all that and how it fits together?  Neither did I.  This is one of those movies that is trying too hard to be more than it is and fails miserably as each attempt to be more clever and complex falls flat on its face.  Far from being clever, this is a muddled mess that can't decide what it wants to be.  What starts off as a promising film noir rapidly flies off the rails as Anderson also tries to make it an edgy drug film along the lines of Trainspotting or Pulp Fiction.  As I soldiered on through the very dense story meeting newer and more surreal characters and situations as the story plodded on, I became more and more confused and angry.  The movie has a feeling that the script was being written while it was being shot, a la The Big Sleep.  Unfortunately, Phoenix and Waterston are not Bogey and Bacall and cannot carry this drug-fueled melange of crap to any comprehensible ending.  To make matters worse, Doc is an extreme pot head, who is very paranoid and gets flashbacks that may or may not be real, but yet are presented to us with everything else, blurring the lines of fantasy and reality.  We are in Doc's drug-addled brain, and it's not a pretty sight, because, like Doc, at times we don't know what is real or unreal.  In the end, I was left with a huge question mark over my head and asking myself, "What the hell just happened?"  The story makes no sense, is too complex with too many peripheral characters that give no flow or context to anything in the movie.  The movie is killed by its own pretentiousness and earnestness.  Ultimately, what promised to be a sumptuous feast was really of mouthful of lard mixed with bacon grease and crap.  Do not waste your time and especially your money on this stinkburger.

American Sniper

4 Stars (out of four)

The story of American Sniper is absolutely mesmerizing.  It seems almost unbelievable, but it is true.  It has a little of everything, from drama to exciting scenes to real, genuine pathos.  It focuses not just on war, but the consequences of it as well.  And all of it was perfectly realized through Bradley Cooper, who is rapidly becoming one of the best actors out there.

First the story: it focuses on the life of Chris Kyle, who as the movie taglines have said, is credited with being the most lethal sniper in US military history.  It starts briefly with his childhood with his father dinstilling to him that there are three kinds of people: sheep who need protection, wolves who prey on them, and sheepdogs who could be wolves, but use their strength to protect the sheep.  His father admonishes him and his brother to never become a wolf, but to protect those who can't protect themselves.  This philosophy has a profound effect on Kyle for the rest of his life and the choices he makes, and is a running theme throughout the movie.  After the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the former rodeo-bronco rider has a Pearl Harbor moment and enlists in the Navy to become a SEAL...at 30.  By comparison, most guys become SEALs in their early 20s.  This alone is a pretty amazing feat.  Just after he gets married to his wife (Sienna Miller), the 9/11 attacks happen and he is mobilized to Iraq for four tours.  This would make an interesting film all its own.  But where the movie shines is that it focuses just as much attention on the issues coming back home and the onset of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The movie makes it very clear that he never really came home until he confronts the underlying psychological issues that caused it.  It also focuses on his work with other returning vets who also have PTSD, further returning us to his instinct to help those in need. The ending is all the more tragic as it was another vet with PTSD who would kill Kyle as he was trying to help him.

I have said before that the best war movies are also anti-war films.  This one is no exception.  What makes this film a cut above the others is that while it is exciting in parts as war movies tend to be, it never loses sight of the fact of the incredible damage they wreak on all involved.  In this case, it focuses on the psychological problems after the war is over.  We are led to witness Kyle's steady erosion of his soul, bit by bit, and the horrible toll it takes on him and everyone around him.  Ultimately, we also see he is one of the lucky ones who was able to deal with the demons and moving on the road to restoring his redemption.  Other films have also dealt with these issues from The Best Years of Our Lives to Coming Home, to Born on the Fourth of July, to yes, even First Blood.  As good as all of these movies are, they tend to be forgotten until the next war, and this is why movies like American Sniper need to continue to be made.  The war doesn't stop after the last shot is fired, and I believe we, as a nation, have a moral obligation to our vets to help them after they have been wounded.  Movies like this remind us of that toll and hopefully will stir others to help.

I almost took a half star off due to the semi-cliche ending where we spend five minutes on Kyle saying goodbye to his family on the day he will be killed.  This was a little over-sensationalized Hollywood moment that makes us say, "Okay, film's about to end," and is a little sacchriney compared to the very upfront tones of the rest of the movie.  It pulled me out at the critical denoument and cheapens the ending a little, in my opinion.  But when compared to the rest of the movie, it's too nitpicky.  Cooper is amazing as we see his slow descent into hyper-awareness of everything happening around him and not being able to do anything about it.  It seems to me his PTSD resolves itself a little too abruptly, but I have been led to understand that it can happen abruptly when the person confronts the issue and resolves it in their mind in their own way.  I cannot recommend this film highly enough.  Go see it ASAP.

The Theory of Everything

3.5 Stars (out of four)

What is it with the Brits?  Their actors are so good and their storytelling stands head and shoulders above the U.S. in recent years in both movies and TV.  The Theory of Everything is a master class on acting and effective moviemaking, all done with no huge stars to speak of.  And that's why no American audience will watch it.

The story of The Theory of Everything is simple enough.  It is the story of Stephen Hawking (masterfully played by Eddie Redmayne) and how his illness began, how he fell in love with his wife Jane (Felicity Jones, also amazing), their beautiful love affair and eventual sad dissolution of their marriage.

Like the earlier Fault In Our Stars, this is a movie that seems designed to manufacture tears.  Hawking is an incredible example of the triumph of the human spirit, but also suffers his share of sadness just like everyone else.  The movie was based on Jane Hawking's book My Life With Stephen.  What is interesting is how honest the story is. It does not seek out blame, but merely chronicles a fairy tale relationship that eventually crumbles.  I was surprised at the candor Jane had when she talks about her infidelity and that try as she might, she did not have the strength to be in a relationship that includes the special needs of Hawking, particularly as he slides deeper into his illness.  It does not turn away from the hard truths, but at the same time, celebrates the small triumphs in their relationship.  It is absolutely heartbreaking to see them grow apart, because we all are rooting for them.  But this is life, not a fairy tale, and things get messy in the real world.  Few movies have touched me more than this one.

I had mentioned in my earlier review of Exodus: Gods and Kings that it had a curious lack of intimacy and warmth.  It always seemed to be waiting for the next big event.  This has been a hallmark of American movies of late, all bluster and no substance.  The Theory of Everything is the exact opposite.  Redmayne and Jones have amazing chemistry together which translates to incredible intimacy in their performances with each other.  It feels as if we are intruding in their most private moments, many of which are absolutely heartbreaking.  You almost feel ashamed to be in the same room with them, as if you are invading their privacy.  It is this intimacy that drew me into the story, I got emotionally involved and invested.  It is a testament to how good British actors can be next to their more bombastic American cousins.  American actors strive for The Method, to be so immersed in the role that you don't know where the actor ends and the character begins.  Good British actors, by contrast, usually act within a smaller range of emotions, but with greater emphasis on nuance, which comes off more believably.  I don't know if this has to do with the reserve of British society, but those small performances tend to be more professional and effective than the loudest Al Pacino moment.  This was a bravura performance all around.

Finally, I am making an Oscar prediction.  I think Redmayne will receive the Oscar nod for this amazing physical and emotional performance.  He transforms into Hawking, and it is absolutely breathtaking.  This is the type of acting the Academy should be celebrating and rewarding.

The Interview

2 Stars (out of four)

Well, what can I say?  Now that the dust has settled over the initial uproar on The Interview, what have we learned?  It's amazing how a fortuitous turn of events in the real world can turn a so-so movie into a mini-blockbuster.

The Interview, for those of you living under a rock, is about a phenominally successful celebrity tabloid interview show and its host, Dave Skylark (James Franco) and producer Aaron Rappaport (Seth Rogan).  They discover that the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, is a big fan and would consent to an interview.  Aaron longs to produce something of real substance as his colleagues openly mock him as a sell-out.  When the CIA learns of the interview, they enlist the two in an assassination plot.  When the times comes, Kim takes Skylark out on the town and the dim-witted Skylark begins to have second thoughts.  Hilarity ensues.

Let's address the five hundred pound gorilla in the room first.  This movie has been a fascinating glimpse at the mob mentality for me.  At first, what seemed to be another raunchy comedy from the minds that brought us The Pineapple Express and This Is The End, The Interview has mushroomed into a cause célèbre for the First Amendment.  If Kim Jong Un would have kept his mouth shut, this movie would have probably come and gone in a couple weeks.  That's not to say it stinks, far from it.  But it is not really the sublime comedy it could have been.  It's interesting however, that the public picked up on it with such ferocity without seeing anything more than the trailer.  The producers must be thanking their lucky stars for the cyber attacks on Sony and the resultant fallout as they were probably the best incentive to get people to watch it; proving once again the maxim that in show business, there is no such thing as bad press.  Never underestimate the stupidity of uninformed people to make dumb decisions and statements.  Witness how the RNCC demanded the film be released, Congressional Representatives clamoring for a showing in the Capitol and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, the most powerful man in the Free World even weighing in saying Sony "made a mistake" in pulling the film.  All this over a stupid little stoner movie.  It is akin to the Westboro Baptist Church demanding a screening of Monty Python and the Life of Bryan in the middle of Vatican Square or the Mormons demanding a Cheech and Chong film festival in the Tabernacle.  Never have I seen such a diverse group of people who, under any other circumstances, would be calling the film sophomoric and juvenile.

But I hear you asking, "Dummy, is it any GOOD?"  To that I say...

sorta.

It's not horrible.  It has a few funny jokes that did make me laugh out loud, but it is falling into the same trap that comedy keeps doing today.  It is frantically waving its hands in the air and yelling, "Look!  We're being funny!"  In almost every film anymore, from Anchorman to Ted to American Pie, we keep getting served up farce akin to the Three Stooges.  And while I do like the occasional dick and fart joke just as much as anyone else, it can be too much.  I did enjoy Franco's dim witted Skylark.  He's one of the funniest things in the movie.  But, this movie could have been sublimely funny with great satire and does occasionally show some smarts.  But in the end, it relies too much on sophomoric inanity and people saying "fuck" to be considered any good.  It IS funny, but an opportunity was missed.  The wackiness of the Hermit Kingdom in real life provides more than enough fodder for very funny jokes, similar to Albert Brooks' satire on Indian/Pakistani relations in his Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World.  Ordinary events in these areas are interesting and strange enough to be funny on their own without a scene of Seth Rogan having to shove a beer-can sized missile into his butt.

Okay, that was kind of funny.