‘RoboCop’ (2014) drops the satire for slick, familiar sci-fi

“RoboCop” (2014) is the definition of a thankless task. Director Jose Padilha and writer Joshua Zetumer do a workmanlike job but aren’t able to make the case that this movie needs to exist – certainly not under the “RoboCop” banner. Its best traits are “The Killing’s” Joel Kinnaman, as the internally tortured Alex Murphy/RoboCop, and the classic sci-fi exploration of the line between human and robot.

The film smartly drops the satire – the best part of the 1987 original – rather than compete with it. But it doesn’t drop the news-clip interstitials; here we get “The Novak Element,” very much like a 2014 punditry show (although the film takes place in 2028) where the host allows time only for soundbites, and favors one side. As Novak, Samuel L. Jackson plays his own persona from the “What’s in your wallet?” commercials combined – in an ill-advised late blast of “dark comedy” — with his penchant for bleep-worthy swearing.

The issue is the same as in “Minority Report” – to which this film owes a style debt with its sterile, emotionless near-future: freedom versus security. Freedom is potentially messy, but security is constantly stifling. Novak wants security, but “RoboCop” is one of those falsely nuanced SF films: It wants the viewer to want freedom, and it knows we do, at least within the scope of the clear battle lines.

---

---

RoboCop himself is a metaphor for security versus freedom, since – like Michael Crichton’s “The Terminal Man” even more so than the 1987 “RoboCop” – his brain is not under his own control. All that’s left of Alex is a head, an upper respiratory system and a hand. Seeing him outside the suit is the only thing I recalled from my first viewing, and it remains harrowing. Like Darth Vader, the suit keeps him alive and safe, but he can never escape it.

He’s got soul, and he’s a soldier

Zetumer, via Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman), does a good job of explaining the logistics. The computer system makes the decisions for RoboCop, but due to the way information and impressions cycle through Alex’s brain, Alex thinks he’s making the decisions. The body is the company’s, the brain is the company’s (although Alex thinks it’s his own), and the soul is Alex’s. If a soul is a real thing, he perhaps has a fighting chance at overthrowing his corporate handlers.

Kinnaman is pretty great considering how hard this internal pain is to communicate, especially with only the bottom half of his face. Overall, “RoboCop” 2014 is on the short list of greatest casts in service to a film you’ll mostly forget. In addition to Oldman and Jackson, we have Michael Keaton as the corporate head and Jackie Earle Haley as a military man who trusts his robots, not this man-machine hybrid.

Why is the film so forgettable despite the cast and harrowing theme? We can see where it’s going and we feel the time it takes to get there; while we get much more of the family tragedy than in the O.G. (Abbie Cornish is the wife), the fatalism isn’t exactly fun. In the original, the free-wheeling insanity kept us off-balance. Here, the action sequences are serviceable, and Padilha tries for style with video-game POVs and strobe lights, but ultimately it’s RoboCop fighting a bunch of ED-209s in a CGI-scape.

The production design of this Detroit-set, Ontario-shot film is in the ballpark of “Minority Report” and “Total Recall” 2012, and I like that look, but I don’t marvel at it anymore.

It’s the right call to play things straight rather than satirical, because you can’t compete with the Verhoeven-Neumeier team by that metric. But that also means “RoboCop” 2014 feels like it’s lecturing the audience about these SF themes rather than trusting us to understand the issues and escape the horror by laughing at it. This is intelligent, textbook sci-fi, but whatever box-office blessing comes from the “RoboCop” name, it’s a critical curse when comparing the two films.