The Hitman franchise always seemed like an odd choice to be turned into a film franchise; a dark, moody third-person stealth assassin game where you play as an unstoppable killer. The game came to be from Eidos Interactive, a British games company which later became part of Square Enix Europe after the software giant purchased the company. But Hitman was one of their most successful game franchises with eight titles in the last fifteen years.
Anyone outside of the games industry would still find making not one film but also a remake of that film with this franchise a strange choice, especially when video game franchises like Max Payne and Prince of Persia only get one entry so far.
What is interesting is that both the 2007 entry and the 2015 are both directed by relative newcomers and written by the same writer.
It is a perfect opportunity for a Cinema Cocoa Remake Rumble Review!
Hitman (2007)
Hitman in 2007 is director Xavier Gens' only notable feature film, and while half of this film gives plenty of evidence why, the other half isn't that bad.
A covert group known as The Organisation trains an army of lethal assassins known as Agents, but when Agent 47 discovers one of his targets, a powerful Russian politician, survived his attack he becomes a target. With Interpol tracking him down, 47 has to finish the job he started.
This film is a conflict of emotions for me. On the one hand, it has a terrible plot, ambiguous backstory spontaneous action sequences, but on the other hand it is a decent video game movie adaptation with good action and is impressively gory. For every good moment there's another bad one to balance the film's overall neutrality.
Perhaps the most glaringly annoying aspects include lead star Timothy Olyphant as Agent 47, and the script given to him. He just doesn't look like a stone-cold killer; he appears to soft and bright eyed throughout the film, you cannot believe this guy has been raised to be the ultimate killer. He's more like someone pretending to be Agent 47. The other major issue with this film is its opening: a flashback style sequence while Ave Maria plays showing us the orphan kids in training to become Agents, only for some of them to attempt escape.
This isn't referenced again, and 47's relationship with The Organisation seems ambiguous at best in context with this opening, and add to that how the Agents in the video game weren't orphans but in fact clones. I couldn't shake the feeling I had seen this opening before... From the last time I watched this film, right?
Nope. It is footage from James Cameron's television show Dark Angel (2000). They even cite their use of the footage at the end of the film's credits.
Wow. Wow... Not only is your film's protagonist's backstory incorrect to the source material, but the backstory you decided to give is just ripped from something else?
I should condemn this film just for that.
So what could possibly balance this out? Well, it is actually refreshing to watch an action film (an action film based off a video game, no less) that actually has gore and blood squibs used in it! This film includes an action sequence that almost equals some RoboCop (1987) in terms of number of squibs used, its insanely violent. It was wisely rated R and a 15 in the United Kingdom.
Plus there's some nice nods to the game. Agent 47 walking through corridors while the director has the camera tracking behind and above him, like a game's third-person perspective, or Agent 47 breaking into a house to find people playing the Hitman game. Existential crisis there.
It is a bit of a mess. The film feels uninterested in its own plot, focusing on Agent 47 and his lack of heart for female lead Nika (played by Olga Kurylenko) who is quite annoying, reminding me of Transporter 3's female "lead". She didn't seem necessary, as if she could have been written out of the plot.
It is an incredibly throw-away action movie, but in terms of video game adaptations, it wasn't awful.
Hitman: Agent 47 (2015)
This is a remake nobody asked for, and will likely be
forgotten about like its predecessor, but honestly they did alright with this
remake of the popular video game.
After his project of manufacturing perfect assassins is
destroyed, a scientist goes on the run and now only his daughter could possibly
know where he is. She is tracked and hunted down by a mysterious, ruthless
assassin known only as Agent 47, a product of her father’s work, and a new
organisation called The Syndicate.
The main issue I always had with the original Hitman movie
was the script and portrayal of Agent 47; Timothy Olyphant didn’t look like a
genuinely ruthless and methodical killer. In this film, Rupert Friend (of
Homeland fame) takes up the role of 47 and he gives a far more genuine
performance, even channelling some of The Terminator earlier on; walking, not
running, and forever on the heels of our heroine, Katia (Hannah Ware) and her
initial protector John (Zachary Quinto) combined with the slick surroundings
and Agent 47’s impeccable suit.
It is rewarding to see the assassin be a threat, and while
the video game has him as the protagonist I feel a film needs to establish this
man as a cold, emotionless killer, and the film opens with this perfectly. Also Katia's character is a fair few steps ahead of Nika from the original film, in that she is actually integral to the story and she progresses the plot! Agent 47 is more like a means to an end in this film, and other characters supply the story, which is how it should be.
The story progresses neatly enough, hitting all the traditional marks of an
action, chase thriller with some neat little twists in there to keep you
intrigued. Although there are some moments that defy belief: the police officer
interrogating Agent 47 while having a
sniper rifle and ammunition in the room… or some quite incredible
technology that is only experimental today that will raise some eyebrows.
But these are small issues compared to the general lack of tone from the
original film.
I will say though, contradicting the sleek styling the film has, the combat sequences were fairly messy with an abundance of shaky-cam. I thought we were through with this? Hitman would have benefitted more paced, methodical combat instead of frenetic chaos. On the plus side there was still buckets of gore, Hitman incredibly maintaining its 15 certificate and R rating!
While the film is a fairly by the numbers chase film, and it loses a little bit of traction towards the end with its mysterious antagonist, I enjoyed it a fair bit! It had decent acting for a video game movie, the action was decent and the character felt well portrayed.
Additional Marshmallows: Incredibly Hitman: Agent 47 is director Aleksander Bach's debut and also solo career entry on IMDB! Whether he has done more and the site has not been updated, I cannot say, but for a debut director, Agent 47 is something to be proud of!
In light of the disastrous team up of director Josh Trank and film studio 20th Century Fox, I wanted to rewatch the two films from ten years previously, also produced by 20th Century Fox and directed by Tim Story (a man who has since directed little more than the comedy Ride Along) and were generally panned critically.
The 2007 sequel killed the franchise as a financial flop, despite it being the best of the two. But with such newcomers as Transformers arriving and major comic franchises such as Spider-Man and X-Men in full swing, Fantastic Four was regarded poorly.
But despite all that, I remember finding the first two films at least entertaining and far, far better than Fox's recent disaster. So here are the three reviews for a new Remake Rumble review!
Fantastic Four (2005)
Back in 2005 when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and Bryan Singer's X-Men 2 were the biggest things in the comic book scene, Fantastic Four was seen as a bit of a misfire. Nowadays it is regarded with absolute disdain.
Four scientists are exposed to a energy phenomenon while on board a space station and are gifted incredible powers: one can fly and turn into fire, another can stretch his body impossibly, one can turn invisible and another had his body turned into rock. While they attempt to understand what has happened to them, a billionaire who had funded their project, Victor Von Doom, was also transformed in the accident...
Fantastic Four is a product of the time; it is campy, colourful and full of ridiculous detours that really have no place to further its own narrative.
It starts fast and strong though. No time for introductions lets get into space and get these superpowers already. It is barely what we would call an "origin story" by today's standards; things just occur and we have to roll with it. But what is it in a rush to achieve exactly? Some bold, stark character development as these people are turned into freaks... not quite.
The second act is a bit of a mess, comprising of little more than Sue Storm scolding her brother and Ben Grimm failing to pick up spoons over and over again. Rampant product placement as we get one of the team's many internal squabbles taking place outside of a stadium, and everything is played for laughs. How exactly is an invisible person going to have more luck getting the team through a crowd and police blockade than a normal person?
The third act feels a little segmented and somehow cumbersome. Victor has been very slowly evolving into the menace of Doctor Doom, but grievously too slow in my opinion. If the film wasn't so keen on showing Johnny Storm (played by lovable Chris Evans, pre-Captain America) snowboarding, stunt biking riding and numerous other needless distractions earlier we might have cared about what happens when Doom arrives. As it reaches its climax, the film feels rushed and quite careless.
But, that all said, I did find myself laughing occasionally. The film does have some good levity and humour, Chris Evans is having a riot as The Human Torch and the film embraces how ridiculous the whole premise is such as with their superhero names gifted to them through Johnny's obnoxious turn in front of the media's cameras. The cliches are rampant, Michael Chiklis' The Thing being loved by a blind woman, the lover's squabble between Reed Richards and Sue Storm, but it is all serviceable, if predictable and misfiring.
Overall it is as silly and random as I remember it, but with a team such as this I cannot imagine it being made much better. It isn't a good movie and it is overshadowed completely by its more savvy peers, but it knows what it is.
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
The full cast returns for this sequel to the 2005 film, and although it became a critical flop upon release, this film actually has a lot more integrity than its predecessor.
When Reed and Sue are about to get married, a mysterious being arrives from space and terrorises the world. While the team try to uncover its motives Victor Von Doom also wants to capture the creature, yet the entity might only be the herald for something much worse.
Ioan Gruffud, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon all return for what is a pretty competent interpretation of the Fantastic Four.
Once you get over the first quarter of the film being Reed and Sue's wedding, ooft. That is a lot of time considering the film is only ninety minutes long, do we really need a mindless bachelor party scene so we can have Alba's Sue Storm looking at her husband-to-be with disgust, only to drop the matter immediately?
Certainly the film starts off poorly, but when the titular Silver Surfer arrives and literally crashes the party, the film's pacing tightens up and it has a singular focus to drive towards. Something such a clustered story of multiple characters with multiple powers and personalities really needs. Von Doom is even better here, released from the shackles of being "a rich guy" and fully invested in being a monster to be reckoned with.
The Silver Surfer too is very well portrayed, director Tim Story doing a Darth Vader and having Laurence Fishburne voice the character but creature actor specialist Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) playing the part on set. The effort pays off for this alien creature and the visual effects are still great. The chase between Johnny Storm and the Surfer is still awesome to watch.
There is a problem with a deux ex machina by means of Evan's Johnny Storm temporarily losing his powers after making contact with the Silver Surfer, then proceeds to swap powers with his teammates whenever he touches them. This isn't explained and makes for most of the film's comedy in the second act but also provides the team's solution... somehow... before eventually correcting itself, somehow. I can forgive it though, since it gives Chris Evans more to do; I feel as though they knew from the first film that he was the exceptional actor out of the four.
It feels as though it learned some lessons from its predecessor, although issues still exist (the first twenty minutes) there are some really decent action moments and the team has good chemistry (beyond The Thing being unable to pick up spoons!)
Fantastic Four (2015)
Fantastic Four’s 2015 reboot proves to be less than fantastic and more a victim of directorial and studio disputes, rendering it a completely mute, grey and uninspiring experience.
Reed Richards grew up from being a child science prodigy in his parents’ basement creating a working teleportation device. Hired by Professor Franklin Storm he completes the device and Reed, his best friend Ben, the professor’s son and daughter Johnny and Sue are sent through to another world. But when they do they gain superhuman powers, one’s limbs can stretch, another is now a beast made of rock, another can turn invisible and the final one can fly and turn into fire. While attempting to fix what’s happened to them, their other colleague, Victor, believed to be lost in the other dimension, returns…
This film has a good bit of talent behind it: director Josh Trank made waves with his debut film Chronicle, a gritty superhero found-footage film that graced my top ten of 2012; young actors including Miles Teller (Whiplash) and Michael B Jordan. Unfortunately what we get is not so much a mess, but a film without identity or story, or plot, or even decent editing or direction.
This film has some of the worst editing and continuity blunders I’ve seen in a long time, including example moments such as: Jordan’s Johnny Storm having a broken arm one scene, before he is suddenly welding metal one scene cut later, no broken arm in sight. Or our capital villain, Victor Von Doom, miraculously gaining a green cape from absolutely nowhere.
The list of errors and problems goes on, and this isn’t me nitpicking. The film has no structure; it is an origin story without character arcs, or conclusions. Again take the “Human Torch” Johnny Storm as an example: he is considered a rebel, not a team player, “he doesn’t take orders well”; this trait is established but never followed through, there is no conclusion for him as a character! And replicate that for every, single, character.
So for what happens, as a story, you don’t care a single iota for these characters, there is nothing to care for. The climax is rushed, the film is short at 100 minutes, there simply isn’t anything to hold on to.
The film is getting panned left, right and centre (apart from the seven-year olds) and deservedly so, I don’t suggest you pay money to see this.
But part of me is sad for Fantastic Four in light of the hatred being thrown at it. In my mind, Trank is a good enough director from Chronicle alone. He was even shortlisted to direct a new Star Wars movie because of it! But just recently… coincidentally… he has been pulled from that project. He has even been quoted to have had a better version of Fantastic Four a year ago… suggesting that 20th Century Fox pulled the rug from under him at the last moment and took matters into their own hands. Either that, or Trank simply wanted to mimic his first film and Fox, somehow, didn’t realise this when they took him on board.
It isn’t a good film, it is a disaster, there’s no chemistry and no sense of fun or intelligence, but there is a concept buried beyond recognition under so much rubble like Jamie Bell’s character; Trank had an idea. The only scene that strikes me as unique or even inspired, is the team’s transformation into their superhero personas. Trank was quoted to have used David Cronenberg films as reference, and these scenes are clearly such. These aren’t heroes being born; these are innocent people being turned into freaks, and though (one assumes) Fox twisted the film somehow into the bland, uneventful filler that now remains, that concept is unique and would directly counter the earlier campy Fantastic Four movies. A team of brilliant scientists reduced to monsters and how they can or cannot cope…
But, the film doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do anything, and will be forever remembered like theAmazing Spider-Man films, if not even worse than that. I feel terrible for Trank, if for creative differences he lost this and a Star Wars film, but for you filmgoer: you will want to skip this one.
Additional Marshmallows: And no Stan Lee cameo??
In final verdict, The Rise of the Silver Surfer is the best of the three existing films, although credit where credit is due, Trank's reboot has more convincing characters. Despite them being too young (something Trank likely championed) I did see them as scientists, were as in Tim Story's films I mostly saw glamorous actors and actresses "playing" scientists. This is due to Trank actually trying to build up an origin for Reed and Ben, unlike the 2005 film's total lack of backstory for anybody.
The visuals on Ben Grimm's The Thing also looked better in 2015 than ten years before... but that isn't wildly surprising.
But, in terms of film making... Tim Story's films are actually well constructed, albeit campy and light-hearted. They actually have character development, regardless of how cliche it is, and three act structures. Plus they know what they are; they are designed to be lighthearted and fun.
And Doctor Doom actually looks threatening in the earlier films (especially in Rise of Silver Surfer's climax)
None of the films are spectacular though, and all hit a remarkably balanced response of "meh" across the board, the second film being an exception merely because it rose a little higher at times. It is clear that The Fantastic Four team is so diverse that making a decent film out of them is like spinning multiple plates and will take a writer/director more akin to Bryan Singer or Joss Whedon to make it light but intelligent.
Or a better studio. Cough, cough.
Fantastic Four’s 2015 reboot proves to be less than fantastic and more a victim of directorial and studio disputes, rendering it a completely mute, grey and uninspiring experience.
Reed Richards grew up from being a child science prodigy in his parents’ basement creating a working teleportation device. Hired by Professor Franklin Storm he completes the device and Reed, his best friend Ben, the professor’s son and daughter Johnny and Sue are sent through to another world. But when they do they gain superhuman powers, one’s limbs can stretch, another is now a beast made of rock, another can turn invisible and the final one can fly and turn into fire. While attempting to fix what’s happened to them, their other colleague, Victor, believed to be lost in the other dimension, returns…
This film has a good bit of talent behind it: director Josh Trank made waves with his debut film Chronicle, a gritty superhero found-footage film that graced my top ten of 2012; young actors including Miles Teller (Whiplash) and Michael B Jordan. Unfortunately what we get is not so much a mess, but a film without identity or story, or plot, or even decent editing or direction.
This film has some of the worst editing and continuity blunders I’ve seen in a long time, including example moments such as: Jordan’s Johnny Storm having a broken arm one scene, before he is suddenly welding metal one scene cut later, no broken arm in sight. Or our capital villain, Victor Von Doom, miraculously gaining a green cape from absolutely nowhere.
The list of errors and problems goes on, and this isn’t me nitpicking. The film has no structure; it is an origin story without character arcs, or conclusions. Again take the “Human Torch” Johnny Storm as an example: he is considered a rebel, not a team player, “he doesn’t take orders well”; this trait is established but never followed through, there is no conclusion for him as a character! And replicate that for every, single, character.
So for what happens, as a story, you don’t care a single iota for these characters, there is nothing to care for. The climax is rushed, the film is short at 100 minutes, there simply isn’t anything to hold on to.
The film is getting panned left, right and centre (apart from the seven-year olds) and deservedly so, I don’t suggest you pay money to see this.
But part of me is sad for Fantastic Four in light of the hatred being thrown at it. In my mind, Trank is a good enough director from Chronicle alone. He was even shortlisted to direct a new Star Wars movie because of it! But just recently… coincidentally… he has been pulled from that project. He has even been quoted to have had a better version of Fantastic Four a year ago… suggesting that 20th Century Fox pulled the rug from under him at the last moment and took matters into their own hands. Either that, or Trank simply wanted to mimic his first film and Fox, somehow, didn’t realise this when they took him on board.
It isn’t a good film, it is a disaster, there’s no chemistry and no sense of fun or intelligence, but there is a concept buried beyond recognition under so much rubble like Jamie Bell’s character; Trank had an idea. The only scene that strikes me as unique or even inspired, is the team’s transformation into their superhero personas. Trank was quoted to have used David Cronenberg films as reference, and these scenes are clearly such. These aren’t heroes being born; these are innocent people being turned into freaks, and though (one assumes) Fox twisted the film somehow into the bland, uneventful filler that now remains, that concept is unique and would directly counter the earlier campy Fantastic Four movies. A team of brilliant scientists reduced to monsters and how they can or cannot cope…
But, the film doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do anything, and will be forever remembered like the Amazing Spider-Man films, if not even worse than that. I feel terrible for Trank, if for creative differences he lost this and a Star Wars film, but for you filmgoer: you will want to skip this one.
Additional Marshmallows: Also, no Stan Lee cameo??
So it finally happened, the studios bent the Terminator over their knee and snapped it in half like a twig, making the entire series feel about as relevant in the process.
From what one can gather from the plot, when Kyle Reese is sent back in time to protect Sarah Connor from a cyborg assassin known as a Terminator, he discovers a new timeline from what we are familiar with from the 1984 The Terminator film. Sarah has been protected by another Terminator since she was nine. Now this new trio must do battle with multiple enemies in a final effort to stop the apocalyptic artificial intelligence Skynet from being created.
Terminator Genisys is a travesty of gargantuan proportions, not just because it is the total undermining of two of cinema's finest achievements (that isn't just me saying that, it is fact) but it is a terrible action film with one ugly script and no heart.
Within the first thirty minutes this film compacts the first two movies: we get a jumble of action sequences that set the tone; we get shot-for-shot scenes of The Terminator's 1984 arrival (neatly halted before any actual gore occurs, befitting of this trashy 12A nightmare) we get regular Terminators, we get T-1000s we get old Arnie, we get future war scenes. All packed so tightly it is a complete mess; like watching a 30-minute Youtube video of "all the best Terminator fights from all of the movies", and about as well edited.
That's only the start! It doesn't let up. As evident of the script, this film cannot rely on talking; when it does it descends into a constant stream of time-travel mumbo-jumbo and critically laughable chemistry between our main protagonists Reese and Connor. While Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke isn't bad as Sarah, she has such a young face that when coupled with her "I'm a soldier, grr-grr I am strong and I don't need you" attitude, she comes off like a brat at times. No fault of hers, the script made her that way. This is no Terminator 2 Linda Hamilton.
Then there's Jai Courtney... who I don't think studied who Kyle Reese actually is before walking on set. There's nothing behind his performance, and this is not the Kyle Reese we all know - critically his character should be the exact same as Michael Biehn, he's the only one this new timeline hasn't altered.
Arnold's reprise of The Terminator is... quite average actually. At worst he is The Expendables answer to this franchise: the catchphrase "Old, but not obsolete" is thrown around liberally. The film prefers to stick with the Connor/Reese romance, occasionally throwing Arnold in to glare at them, asking Sarah: "Have you mated with him yet?" All of his lines are okay, but they are all used at least twice!
You could go on and on about how bad this film is, the layers upon layers of nonsense, but it is often best to use broad strokes.
Genisys, in my opinion, is the worst Terminator film made to date. When a film looks bad from the trailer, the poster and even the promotional material and lives up to that, you know it is failure.
Additional Marshmallows: I don't know why JK Simmons is in this film.
Additional, Additional Marshmallows: What they do to Skynet is worse than Helena-Boham Carter in Terminator Salvation.
Additional, additional marshmallows: During the nonstop opening thirty minutes we get a "tense" moment that involves molecular acid. The scene is so poorly established that I wouldn't have been surprised if a xenomorph from Aliens was about to jump out.
It is very stupid, very loud and with a pacing that never slows down, but as dispensable as it truly is it still feels like what a Turtles movie is. I enjoyed it.
News reporter April O'Neil suspects there are vigilantes in New York City that are fighting back against the notorious terrorist cell known as the Foot Clan, yet has no evidence. However her investigation makes her life a whole lot weirder.
Writing a synopsis for something so engrained in public knowledge seems preposterous, the Turtles have been in mainstream circulation for nearly thirty years (almost as old as I am, and include the original comics and they ARE as old as I am!) yet the film seems at odds about how to treat this issue.
It plays narratively like an origin story (with some alterations) yet is edited as though we already know these characters. Is that a roundabout way to say "The characters aren't fleshed out enough"? Yes, yes it is.
I grew up with the cartoon so I know these characters, yet when in the third act we get big sweeping character moments it feels completely out-of-the-blue due to the lack of characterisation! It doesn't bother me personally, but it bothers me as a critic: characters haven't been established in this origin story.
However the characters are great fun, despite all of this, as they remain unchanged. It feels like the Turtles of old are back again and bigger than ever (literally) I personally have very little to say about how they look, which apparently is a massive problem for many people. I will take a new, fresh look over replicating the same thing over and over.
Shredder too is a very important aspect in my affections for the franchise, Shredder was always a favourite of mine and when this film apparently advertised American actor William Fichtner to be Shredder I had to swallow a lot of my frustrations to give it a chance... But as it turns out, I am happy to say, Fichtner is NOT Shredder! This Shredder is quite bad ass actually.
So Shredder is good, the Turtles are good, designs are good, story is pulpy and full of predictable cliche that will make reluctant parents roll their eyes but is serviceable, now onto what I considered the biggest problem in the film's production: Ms Megan Fox.
Any actress could play April, honestly, it isn't a hard role to play. But why Fox, why? Luckily though the film, with a dollop of self-awareness, defuses this disdain by beginning with Fox's recent career metaphorically summerised in one humourous tirade. Also most of the supporting cast begin by suspecting April's sanity is in question. Did that alleviate all of my disgust? No, but it certainly helped!
It isn't as ADD as the Transformers movies, the story behind this film is so incredibly simple that you are just awash with action sequences and can accept it as just that. That being said, I would have liked a quiet moment or two tossed in there to help the pacing. The script does what you'd expect: poke fun at the ludicrous premise while having our heroes quip and cheer obliviously as they always do.
You've probably already decided whether you are seeing it or not, and my pro-Transformers opinions probably don't sway any of you naysayers, but I enjoyed it for what it was. It wasn't as good as it could have been, but it did feel like a Turtles movie.
Additional Marshmallows: I am a big enough Turtles nerd to have spotted the little Usagi Yojimbo reference!
So I finally have some time off to talk about this.
I have had some criticism about my opinion regarding remakes, and this post has been a long time in the making.
I hate remakes. "Hate" may be a strong word, and I am well aware that there are exceptions and examples that blur the lines of what isn't acceptable... but for the most part remakes/reboots/re-envisioning, or whatever you want to call them, are dreadful, unnecessary cash-ins that lack all sense of respect or creativity.
Let's go head first into the most recent debacle:
RoboCop.
The 1987 original was not based off existing source material, it was not an adaptation, it was the film industry (and a pioneering screenwriter's) unique and original story. It was popular too! Spinning off two sequels (of questionable quality) a kids cartoon, a toyline and a television show. All from a screenplay no one had any preconceptions for. All from a script that could have failed, bombed and to never resurface.
Why? Because it was given its own personality. Director Paul Verhoeven is an artist with a distinct style, elevating Robocop above the rest, and allowing its message to be remembered and cherished over the decades.
RoboCop 2014 on the other hand. Sure, it is reminding us how popular the original is by merely existing, it is as much a tribute as the original's sequels (and about as good).
And of course, the original still exists, why be bothered about a new interpretation?
Well asides from it being generally a BAD movie, I'll tell you.
Do we honestly believe that RoboCop 2014 will be remembered three decades on, in 2044, as fondly as the Paul Verhoeven version was? Does a skeptical, cynical audience going in to see a film only to come out saying things like: "Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" really a testament to memorable, masterful film making?
No! It most certainly is not.
I ask again, will anyone care, quote or remember RoboCop 2014 in the year 2044? Sure, the kids who went to see it might. In the same way I hold the original to my heart. But you want to know the difference there?
RoboCop 1987 was an 18, an R-rated film. I had to wait to experience it. RoboCop 2014 is a bland 12A experience. A kid getting it immediately has none of the anticipation, or any of the gleeful daring of simply getting to watch it.
In 2050 when we look back at the film history between the years of 2000 and 2020 what will we say for it as a medium? Oh, well they adapted comicbooks, they copied and remade creative properties, they even rebooted adaptations not five years old (cough, Spider-man, cough). Is that a good legacy to remember?
Need another example?
Remember the Total Recall remake only two years ago? No? It had Colin Farrell in it. No? With the crazy elevator-thing that went through the centre of the Earth? Nothing? Point made.
Of course, these two are money spinners, plain and simple. Total Recall 2012 had the opportunity to follow Phillip K. Dick's original book "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale" more closely than the Schwarzenegger film. But it decided to lazily remake the existing film. Best to try and hit average than to burn out trying to be your own adaptation, right?
I've yet to watch the Spike Lee Oldboy remake... I hold the original Chan-wook Park film in such high regard... but from the overwhelming amounts of criticism that panned the remake before it had even released makes my point for me.
(I will watch it... one day... you need my opinion, after all.)
The same goes for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Funny. The original Swedish film managed to weave the entire trilogy together with a remarkable sense of continuity, something rarely seen in even the most popular trilogies and sagas.
How many entries of the trilogy did the David Fincher remake get through?
...
Oh... Oh I see, just the one? No worries; you join my pile of ammunition too.
(Don't even get me started on how those two examples are merely because people are too lazy to read subtitles).
Now at this point I could keep going and skirt around what many of you are now arguing against me with. But I will address it, don't worry:
Judge Dredd / Dredd.
Possibly the biggest exception to any rule. But hear me out.
Sylvester Stallone's 1995 Judge Dredd is awful.
Now sure it has been long enough that the film has entered "So bad its good" territory, but that doesn't ignore the fact that it is an awful film. It is awful in how it doesn't respect the source material, and as a result it has fallen into obscurity.
2012's Dredd was a necessary remake. The source is excellent and lends itself to film interpretation, and director Pete Travis and actor Karl Urban obviously saw it as such. What we got is so far removed from the 1995 version (Judge Dredd was a 15, though by today's standards it could easily be a 12A, while Dredd is very, very much an 18 or R-rating!) that they are almost indistinguishable.
They didn't "remake" Judge Dredd, they made a more faithful adaptation of the source.
People argue with me that "You shouldn't compare" the remake to the original. But how can you not? Dredd by its own merits is an incredible achievement, but it earns that by being so much better than the 1995 film, no? Look who's comparing now.
I insist that when it comes to remakes or reboots, comparison is absolutely vital. If not, then your Total Recalls, RoboCops, Spider-Man-Infinitums will not stop, and we will end up with a creative medium that simply regurgitates itself, making obscene profits from an audience rolling over and mumbling: "Eh, it wasn't too bad."
Finally, people ask me what could be done instead?
I'm certain that there are many, many, many original screenplays out there that Hollywood outright ignores in preference for remaking classics. Screenplays written by talented individuals who deserve recognition and/or a visionary director to make their dream come to life. Your RoboCops of the 1980s. Something fresh and exciting with new characters and new worlds, to define a generation with and make new franchises with.
Even if it is a screenplay even remotely similar to an existing property, that is better than straight up remaking that property. You want an example of that concept? How about instead of remaking RoboCop, why not have a soldier from the wars in the middle east come home terribly wounded only to be reborn as a half-man, half-machine soldier? Why not? Relevant to the times, new characters, new settings. New franchise.
No. That wouldn't work, I hear you cry. Everyone will know it is a rip-off RoboCop.
You see this original film from 1991? One of the first major films from Academy award winning director Kathryn Bigelow? Point Break?
It could be regarded as the original to this:
It is a common comparison, but no one cries that The Fast and the Furious is just a rip off of Point Break, do they? No, of course not. What happened to this very similar "remake"? Did it fade off into obscurity? No, it just made millions, had video games franchises, and inspired just six sequels.
(by the way, there's only ten years between these two films)
Does my belief in an original screenplay similar to RoboCop doing better than a direct remake seem so ridiculous now?
And just to end this with a big, fat nail in the coffin...
Point Break is getting a remake next year.
Oh, Hollywood... please stop doing this.
Alex Murphy, police officer of Detroit, is fatally injured in a car bomb explosion and is remade as a cybernetic law enforcement robot. The company who made him, OMNICORP, create military robots to battle in the Middle East, but cannot bring such faceless enforcement into American cities without causing panic. RoboCop is their solution. But Alex's humanity starts to get in the way of their perfect designs...
If you follow Cinema Cocoa you already know how I feel about remakes, but I went to see this one in a hope that the character gets a bit more conviction than in previous installments (the original's sequels, to be exact.) What I get however is still a watered down, play-it-safe and emotionally depleted money spinner.
Let's get technical, shall we? In the original film Alex dies, and is rebuilt as a machine with human reflexes. The corporation who built him, built him to a specific standard, as a product, as an implement to be used for their purposes. But the film's theme is the power of human spirit to break free of corporate shackles; its a testament to human loyalty and inner strength.
In the reboot, Alex doesn't die, but is 99% replaced with robotic parts (I find this a little severe, bordering on laughable, considering he was burned and not shot to ribbons this time...) He is a man in a metal body first, he has all of his humanity. The conflict starts when OMNICORP realises having a human in combat isn't as efficient as a robot, and they slowly modify him with stricter coding. Wouldn't a corporation perhaps appreciate the human element before committing to a multi-million dollar project? This narrative makes OMNICORP not so much evil as just a bit... stupid.
I won't lie, having Alex's family involved here is a good move; the original films needed to play this up and have those emotional bonds, and this film finally does that. But the execution is so drab and dull in terms of characterisation. I didn't feel for any of the characters, not even Murphy himself, even before he becomes RoboCop his personality was wooden. His son doesn't react at all when he sees his dad come home as a towering superhero!
A lot of the film is talking. Dark Knight'ing it up big time. Want to know the pseudo-science behind RoboCop, want to know the business plans and corporate backlash from RoboCop's actions? I hope you do little under-twelve-year-old kiddy, or you're gonna be boooooooooooooored. Seriously studios, you make this a 12A so you can get the family/kiddy cash, then pad your movie with millions of boardroom chat scenes and science jargon? What? Or is this your panicked way of making a longer film without any of Paul Verhoeven's violence, satire or wit?
Oh yeah, there's no satire or wit. I was in a cinema full of mid-twenties to thirties men, I think there were two chuckles throughout the entire film. This isn't just my opinion, the film has nothing of the original's theatricality, brutality or satire. If you aren't twelve, you'll probably get bored fairly quickly.
How about the action? I've not touched on that
A lot of it is decent; the tech involved shows how RoboCop is so effective in combat; we see from his eyes enemies weaknesses etc, which does make it engaging. But unfortunately... for some reason... they made the final gun battle take place in the dark. Oh, great. So lots of strobe lighting and not being able to see what the hell is happening. SMELLS LIKE A 12A ACTION SEQUENCE!
Ugh. I had some hope too. Gary Oldman and Michael Keaton are great but even their combined efforts cannot save their monotonous scripts. I don't even mind the redesign of RoboCop or ED-209, the aesthetics are good, the CG isn't bad either, and the family aspect is good. But gah, its such a... such a safe, boring and money-grubbing remake of something that exists already!
You want a final good statement on this film?
It is better than RoboCop 3.
A re-envisioning of the classic comic superhero, not five years since the last trilogy ended, is causing a serious stir in Hollywood.
Now the Sam Raimi trilogy can be a love-it-or-hate-it series, me personally, I enjoy them a lot. They are quirky, bright and clearly fun (Spider-Man 2 remains one of my very favourite comic movies) they were different, electrified with snappy characters and dialogue.
The Amazing Spider-Man... is not.
It is back to the beginning: we see a recluse and mumbling Peter Parker begin his journey trying to learn more about his parents and why they left him. His journey directs him to Oscorp's Dr Curt Conners, a scientist researching gene splicing, specifically reptile and human DNA.
The tone is far removed from Raimi's vision; dialogue is muted and with Peter and Gwen Stacey's romance everything is downplayed and subtle; you won't find any J.K Simmons outrageous Daily Bugle boss character either. They need to work on the script writing in future films. I missed the Raimi zaniness...
It also suffers from "Origin-story-lacking-good-villain" syndrome (see Iron Man and Hulk) Curt Conner's character felt inconsistent, at least I wasn't sure how to feel about him. Sympathy? Hatred? I don't know. Also Peter's quest to find out about his parents seems to evaporate after people start to gain superpowers.
Is it bad then? No... certainly not as bad as some critics claim. Once Parker dons the suit he becomes a firecracker of overconfident wise-cracks, a good sense of reckless humour that the first half of the film was lacking. I'd also like to stress that Emma Stone does a lot better as Gwen Stacey than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.
It is great to see Spider-Man on the big screen again, the film looks awesome, fight scenes are dynamic and exciting, and while I only saw the 2D showing, I can see that 3D would have worked well here.
Ultimately, I enjoyed it (as someone who wanted to hate it, I might add!) but being someone who doesn't follow comics, I don't see why it needed to be a reboot. Why not make a James Bond-esque move and continue the story, new Spider-Man, new villain, new girl? Bring in the parents' plot as a new story foundation. It's not like we need reminding who Spider-man is... and this film scarcely changes the origin story anyway!
Additional Marshmallows: Oh yeah, and anyone saying Raimi's trilogy was "silly"... this film's "I've been bitten" line was atrocious! It was also disgustingly easy for Peter to sneak into Oscorp's laboratories...
