Category: Movies Reflective

Staying Out Of Trouble

Staying Out Of Trouble

Reboots, remakes, recycling old ideas for cash, however you want to put it, Hollywood loves bringing back movies from yesteryear and milking a familiar cash cow. The latest character to get the treatment is Robocop. There was collective sigh asking “why” when the remake was first announced, followed by constant interest. Leaked photos of the new look Robo followed, accompanied with details about plot and on-set action. Forums were alight. The reason: Robocop does deserve a successful franchise. We never complain when Batman gets reshaped, next time around the Dark Knight’s absence will amount to only several years, and Robocop is an identifiable legend too.

That reasoning aside, some people are opposed a new flick because of the old classic line: It won’t be as good as the original. More often than not that statement is true for all remakes/reboots/reimaginings. The new Total Recall made me want to dream it away, and that movie was the tip of the rehash iceberg. So going into the new Robocop one should make peace with the idea that it won’t be as good as Paul Verhoeven’s original (but can’t be any worse than Robocop 3). After this has been accepted then we can judge why this is so in a more positive light.

First off a look at the age rating shows the studio’s intentions, dropping the 18 cert for a wider audience was a financial choice. In itself this needn’t be to the movie’s detriment, intelligent films don’t need blood and guts. So while there’ll be nobody asking, “Does it hurt? Does it hurt?” the sad truth is it starts to hurt the movie in unseen ways. If after stripping away the graphic violence you reveal a product posing less IQ than the predecessor, problems arise. Of course these are hidden by modern polish but the transition from the original’s dystopia to the new franchise’s gloss makes you wonder where the soul is. Remaining positive, I’d say there is one there, but it’s less certain than the classic.

It’s simple to say what doesn’t work. Without giving any plot away it lacks the satire of the Verhoeven’s, yet somehow tries to address this with Samuel L. Jackson’s character. This amounts to a bad impersonation, like watching Elvis live one night then visiting a bad karaoke the next. By trying to pay homage to the original it losses the point on why it worked first time around. The ideas around capitalism, distraction, greed from the first were natural political observations of the time – still valid now. Padilha, director of the remake, has his own points to raise and should have stuck firmly to them. By trying to absorb the sense of the original his head is nodding everywhere but finding a message nowhere. Because of this the humanity of Murphy is lost, which is a sin considering this version has Joel Kinnaman more man than machine (psychologically) after his accident, whereas Peter Weller’s Robocop undertook a journey to regain his human side.

Where it lacks the grit and realism of the first it does come across as a complete and well-thought-out film. In many ways we’ve surpassed the fictional technology presented first time around and yet this movie still feels fresh, even incorporating new ideas to aid our hero. After a viewing nobody could claim it’s been cobbled together for a quick buck; they do care about this brand. They’ve just dumbed it down for the masses, even the fourth directive now comes as a visual aid.

If sequels appear they may find the comparisons to the 1984 movie cease and the groundwork laid here will start to pay off. The only welcoming leftover at that point would be the theme music, which I was happy to hear after all these years. With a production budget of $100M already surpassed by box office totals of $146M it’s possible we’ll get those sequels. With Gary Oldman attached they stand a good chance of success, both with his undeniable ability and his record of being the highest box-office earner in terms of franchises he’s connected to.

Overall you’ll come away from the 2014 Robocop thinking it’s actually okay, not as good as the original – but you already knew that. There’s no one asking Bobby if he can fly, no cool names like Clarence Boddicker, no acute observations on class warfare, media or consumerism, but it is a healthy new take that revives a franchise – something not many reboots can say.

The Dark Knight Relapses

The Dark Knight Relapses
 
1997 was a bad year for fans of Batman. The Caped Crusader, with a few side-kicks in-tow, finally met his match on the big screen. Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane (a less daunting enemy than the Bane we knew from the comics and later would meet in The Dark Knight Rises) were toppled fairly easily. What Batman couldn’t overcome in 1997 was a poor script, bad casting, and a movie that resembled an advert for toys more than a vehicle for the darkest of comic book characters. Joel Schumacher, the director, wanted another chance. A chance to return Gotham’s finest to a more gothic setting but the heads at Warner Bros. had seen enough of this child-friendly incarnation and laid him to rest. They flirted with Darren Aronofsky for a short time before a further hiatus occurred.
 
We all know where they eventually went – with Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight Trilogy. The character restored to status, box office sales surpassing previous Bat adventures, all looking well. Even with Nolan standing firm on his decision to leave his trilogy alone, keeping it separate from the proposed Justice League movie canon, the character of Batman once again had credit on the big screen. It afforded Warner Bros. the chance to slip a person into the cape and cowl and let them enter the “DC cinematic universe” without the need for fan-fare and drawn out back story. Once more the Dark Knight was iconic. Infallible, even.
 
Not quite.
 
Nolan’s trilogy wasn’t perfect, I’d be the first to admit this. But as a body of films they do tell a story – with a few gaping plot holes – from start to finish. The Batman character wasn’t the ideal one we know from the comics. His views and choices contradict what the standardised Batman would do. However, overall they were credible movies. The Dark Knight in particular showed us that comic book stories could be played out like real world crime films. Like Heat with capes and make-up.
 
A trilogy of successful films doesn’t make a franchise invulnerable. If you need an example of this then I give you the original Star Wars trilogy then ask you to watch The Phantom Menace again. In Batman terms I’d suggest making Ben Affleck the new Dark Knight is this new film series’ Jar Jar Binks.
 
Had I been told he was to direct the newly proposed Batman/Superman movie I’d have been pleased. Argo was one of the best movies in 2012, proving his talent behind the camera. What I question is his ability in front of it. He’s not a complete dud, I loved Jersey Girl, but does he have the ability to handle Bruce Wayne? A flawed, complex character, that is somehow rounded as well as ruined.
 
The answer is: he may be more than adequate for next version of the role. I fear that this next incarnation of Batman will avoid the gothic overtones, won’t be too scarred by the death of his parents, won’t be the aging crime fighter we saw in the graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns. He’ll be played safe, and any depth there is in the character won’t be portrayed correctly by Affleck.
 
I was a fan of Zack Snyder’s Watchmenso I had high hopes for Man of Steel. If I’m honest it didn’t quite hit the spot for me. Some of the mythology was played around with too much. I can’t accept a Clark Kent that in his formative years wasn’t aware of his Kryptonian heritage; that Lois Lane knows from the start of their relationship who he really is, depriving us of a great reveal storyline; that this Superman doesn’t mind destroying buildings – that presumably contain lots of people – just to give us some action scenes.
 
Snyder understood his source material with Watchmen and his tinkering there was only for the good of the picture. In this new cinematic universe it seems that Nolan and David S. Goyer used Snyder to reinvent the wheel. I’m all for positive updates to longstanding creations but they should retain core values. I’m also up for superhero films with a darker tone (Batman Returns is a desert island movie for me) but Man of Steel wasn’t so much dark as bleak. And the title character wasn’t developed or even formed.
 
It seems that Warner Bros. have looked at Marvel’s The Avengers and decided they want some of that cross-character-superhero-franchise action. And who can blame them? Their problem is that Marvel used their B-team to create that runaway success. With the exception of the Hulk – who on singular outings has struggled to carry his own film, no matter how angry he got – Iron Man, Thor and the rest weren’t over familiar in the general public’s mind. That’s hard to believe now, but before Robert Downey Jr. breathed life into the 2008 version of Iron Man, the characters from The Avengers couldn’t have been seen as a billion dollar movie.
 
Marvel had no choice but do go down the path they did. Their A-team, Spider-Man and all the X-Men, are tied up in movie contracts to Sony and Fox respectively. So they had to – over a series of several origin movies – develop the best of what was left. Working with what they had they successfully created good family action movies.
 
Warner Bros. do not have this problem. If they wish to create a Justice League movie any character in the DC comics stable can be utilised. Therein lies the problem. They wish to compete with The Avengers so it seems they want to use the formula with different ingredients. Superman and Batman can be billion dollar franchises as separate entities. If Warner Bros. mix them this way and attempt to appeal to a wider audience – like they did with Batman & Robin – what gives these characters such iconic status is watered down. They’ll be diluting the back story and character arcs in favour of cash. The two most famous orphans will be little more than window dressing for excessive CGI sequences.
 
Perhaps I am being cynical and the producers fully expect an exploration of the characters, something that tows the line between family action and The Dark Knight. If this is the case then it brings me back to my first concern: Ben Affleck can’t be the Batman or a good Bruce Wayne. It’d be like a Disney version of the Gotham’s finest and last time I checked they took care of Marvel’s Avengers. There must be some daredevils at Warner Bros. to take such a gamble, and last time I checked Affleck had ruined the comic book version of that on the big screen.
 
1997 showed us that the legacy of characters like Superman and Batman should be preserved above attempts to cash-in. That Batman, by his dark nature, is already reaching his largest audience when left to a more mature age group. If Batman is to remain true to this essence then Ben Affleck is the incorrect choice. I hope I’m wrong, that by the time Affleck swoops onto the screen as the Caped Crusader he fully encompasses the part, and the movie itself is a box-office hit and critically applauded.
 
Fingers crossed 2015 isn’t another 1997 experience for Batman. If it is he’ll be sending his friend Superman to an early franchise grave too.

Evil Dead Alive and Good

Evil Dead Alive and Good
 
Hollywood likes a reboot or remake and the horror genre has seen plenty of attempts in recent years. The Evil Dead franchise has been the latest to receive such treatment in a potentially unique idea that may see the original series (now termed Army of Darkness) run alongside new films to set up a merger movie in the future. Like a horror Avengers.

Evil Dead (2013) doesn’t rely on the name it uses to make the film sustainable, it works very hard to be its own beast. There are scenes that pay homage to the original but it has its own feel that successfully combines horror suspense and psychological edginess with full on gore. I usually prefer the former but there were times during the movie I was hoping we’d get a gore scene just to give my unease a rest, such was the effectiveness of the creeps. Director Fede Alvarez flicks between styles with apparent ease whilst keeping the plot moving forward. I’m sure producer and the original man in the hot seat, Sam Raimi, looked on with great comfort knowing that the name Evil Dead has a healthy future.