Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast
Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!
Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions
ROBOCOP is probably one of the best action films ever made on so many levels, especially during the 1980s. It's a movie that's really tough to review without feeling a bit of nostalgia, since I grew up on this film. It still amazes me how damn great it is after all these years. Sure, some things are a bit dated. But the violence, the social commentary, and just the story about a man struggling to become an object against his will still resonates today as much as it probably did back in 1987. ROBOCOP is a kickass film in every way.
The rest of the characters aren't really all that deep, but at least you understand who they kind of are through their actions. Alex Murphy is just a stand up guy put in a world where none of that really exists anymore. He learned how to twirl his gun to impress his son. He loved his wife. He treats his partner, who is a female, with respect, never looking down on her due to her gender. And he gets murdered while on duty trying to protect the city he loves. The guy is pretty much a hero before the transformation into RoboCop. Ann Lewis doesn't know Murphy all that long before he's killed. But she respects him enough to sort of be his guide into being more human again. The villains, especially Clarence Boddecker, are just the scum of the earth. They kill without a care. They sell drugs that is destroying Detroit. And they're being funded by corporate jackasses. They're total creeps that you can't help but want to see get their just due via RoboCop. The heroes are strong. The villains are strong. The conflict works here between the characters.
The acting is pretty great here. Peter Weller is just iconic as RoboCop. Although I prefer his acting before he dons the armor, he still makes the cyborg character work with his dry, serious delivery. Funny that Arnold Schwarzenegger was originally considered for the role, but was considered too bulky for the costume. Nancy Allen is sympathetic as Murphy's partner, Lewis. She and Weller have nice, comfortable chemistry with each other that makes it totally believable they would be working together. Again, Allen was not the first choice, as Remington Steele's Stephanie Zimbalist was originally cast. But due to scheduling conflicts with the show, she lost the role. Ironically enough, Pierce Bronson would lose his first chance to play James Bond in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS due to the show as well.
The reboot of ROBOCOP is a different film entirely. Yes, the sci-fi and the action aspects still remain, although they're now hindered by a strange PG-13 rating. This version of ROBOCOP is more focused on the philosophical aspects of a man being turned into a crimefighting cyborg against his will, struggling to retain as much humanity as he can. While this may turn fans of the original series, I actually commend the screenwriters for taking a different approach. While it's not perfect or anywhere as great as the original film, I'm just happy I didn't watch the same film twice.
The characters are decently written, but that aspect could have been more explored as well. While Murphy is a bit more fleshed out this time around, I wish his wife and son were given the same treatment. Clara is just the stereotypical supportive wife who brings her husband back to reality when he needs it. She's the emotional aspect to Murphy's tale, but we don't really know much about her other than that. Same with their son. The villains, while clear, don't really feel like personal threats to Murphy in any real way. Antoine Vallon is the Clarence replacement, but extremely less memorable. He's the one who hires the hit on Murphy - via a car bomb. Hated how impersonal that was. It made the revenge aspect seem less exciting, compared to the original. Raymond Sellars is the head of OmniCorp and comes across as vindictive in terms of business and making sure things go his way in terms of money and notoriety. He's portrayed as a clearer villain than Vallon, but he doesn't really feel like a threat until the final act, when he tries to shut the RoboCop program down. Rick Mattox, OmniCorp's military tactician, is more of a threat to Murphy, since he makes it quite clear he doesn't approve of his assistance and constantly puts him down.
The direction by Jose Padilha was also pretty good as well. While I would have loved to have seen what Darren Aronofsky would have done with the original project, Padilha managed to deliver for the most part. I liked that the film had a gritty feel to it, even under a PG-13 rating. The video game aesthetics were there, sometimes making the film feel like a first person shooter. The action scenes had a lot of energy, and are visual eye candy. For a 2 hour film, I never felt bored as the film moved quickly from scene to scene. Plus, did Padilha actually use the Basil Poledouris theme song from the original? YES! I thought Padilha did a very good job bringing the franchise back to life. The script may have been hindered a bit by the rating system and just overall screenplay issues, but I thought the visual presentation was mostly solid.
I think both versions of ROBOCOP are worth a look. The original is such an action/sci-fi classic that's pretty timeless. The remake, while not as good, is definitely a worthy restart to a franchise that really needed it. Both films are fun, with some very good acting, and nice visual presentation. The stronger script and social commentary definitely lies with the 1987 film. But the reboot's take on the familiar story is actually refreshing. If you go in hating the idea of a ROBOCOP reboot, don't bother watching it. It probably won't change how you feel. But if you can go in with an open mind like I did, you'll probably have fun. And when it comes to being entertained, I'd buy that for a dollar!









The 1973 version is more often praised for what it is, although it does have its critics [I used to be one of those until my recent re-watch] due to its subject matter and its presentation. As for the 2006 version, most people hate it. But due to unintentional comedy, it's a film that gets a lot of replay due to Nicolas Cage becoming a one-man screaming ham of an actor who made a ridiculous story into something somewhat entertaining. It's obvious which one I, and probably many others, prefer in terms of quality. But why? Does the original deserve its praise? Is the remake as bad as many say? And how did those damn bees become so popular?
Robin Hardy's THE WICKER MAN is one of those 1970s movies that has a major cult following that seems to grow every year. It was a decent success during its release [although Americans didn't get the film until 1978], but THE WICKER MAN wasn't a horror film that many thought about until the internet boom and the release of the 2006 remake. There's probably a few reasons for this. It's not a particularly exciting film. It's more based on story and mystery, rather than visual gore and frights. It also deals with a topic many people have trouble talking about due to unwanted debates: religion and individual beliefs. But there's also a reason why a remake was even thought of to begin with - 1973's THE WICKER MAN is a damn good film that will bewilder you for all the right reasons.
In a lot of ways, Howie is written in a way that's sort of hard to sympathize with him entirely. He's presented as the protagonist, but the way he conducts himself makes him very flawed. He's not the most interesting guy to follow. And usually when he speaks to the people of Summerisle, he talks down to them and calls them "heathens". Jerk. Sure, these citizens are definitely shady and not heroic at all. But Lord Summerisle comes across as more civilized and open-minded than Howie, making him more likeable. And he's the villain! But that's okay, because it allows the story to play out in a grey color instead of plain black and white. This aspect creates an interesting melodrama in which a man, who is stuck to his beliefs uncompromisingly, is driven mad by a culture he fails to understand.
The acting in THE WICKER MAN is probably its best asset. Edward Woodward, who would become a bigger star in the 1980s by starring in The Equalizer, is great in the role of Howie. In a role originally presented to Peter Cushing, Woodward really plays a dour character well, not shying away from displaying the character's flaws through his stubbornness and ignorance. Woodward also presents Howie as a thinking and active character, making us believe he's not leaving until he figures out the mystery of Rowan and Summerisle. We both identify ourselves with him, because he's figuring things out while we do. But we also have trouble sympathizing with him because he's too stubborn in his ways. And Christopher Lee - who claims that THE WICKER MAN is his best film - is just fantastic as Lord Summerisle. He's so classy and civilized, yet there's something really slimy and shady about the man. Lee plays really captivating villains you can easily love, and this role is no exception. Britt Ekland is very sexy in her role, which is pretty much all it really calls for. And the other actors are great as well. Just a great cast.
The 2006 version of THE WICKER MAN is probably one of the biggest blunders on the remake train. Take everything that made the original so damn good and just crap all over it. A simple story that becomes more complicated than it needs to be, acting so bad it borders on hilarious [one of the few highlights from this remake], and direction so lacking that you wonder why they even bothered. THE WICKER MAN (2006) has a terrible reputation, and it's well deserved.
But other than that, THE WICKER MAN is a miserable failure. The script is just sooo bad. While I love the feminism pitch that replaced the religion themes of the original [just because the remake tried to be its own thing in that aspect], the screenplay does nothing with it really. Why were the women of Summerisle doing this to men? Why couldn't the men speak? Why are there more girls than boys on the island? And if you're going to sacrifice anyone for some God, why is it being done in a wicker MAN instead of a wicker WOMAN? Doesn't that contradict the whole deal? It just didn't make sense, since the script doesn't allow anything to develop.
Besides Nicolas Cage, there's no one else really worth talking about in this remake. Ellen Burstyn is totally wasted as Sister Summerisle. The woman is a talented actress, but the script just makes her look like a fool. Kate Beahan is kind of hot as Willow, but her character was ultra annoying. Leelee Sobieski needs a new agent, as she does nothing of note here at all besides getting superkicked by Cage. Molly Parker plays two roles, although I don't know why. I will say her scene at the school was pretty decent. Diane Delano was picked to play the typical "lesbian stereotype", which is a shame since she's a better actress than that. I felt sorry for this cast.
Two films of the same name, but with totally opposite qualities - THE WICKER MAN is a story that has been proven to both be successful and a failure. The 1973 version is a film deserving of its cult status, with an interesting screenplay, tense direction, and fantastic acting by Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee. The 2006 remake is just an abomination, not understanding why the first film worked so well. Sure, it has unintentional comedy that will entertain you during the last half hour. But the script is terrible, the direction is blah, and the acting is just poor. Save the 1973 film, but sacrifice the 2006 remake inside of a giant wicker man. It may not make your crops grow, but it sure will help you save money on therapy sessions.