RoboCop

The great thing about not getting paid to pay attention to your blog is that, by the time you get around to fleshing out a thought or idea that's been bouncing around your head for a few weeks, someone else who does it for a living has probably already written about it. Two weeks ago I watched the original 1987 RoboCop starring Peter Weller, hoping to validate next year's remake. But of course, being a grad student and all, among other setbacks -- cough, Mark never got around to watching it, cough -- I did not have time to write until now. A couple days later a Cracked article was published covering pretty much the same topic. Being a good sport and all (and an avid reader of Cracked), I'll go ahead and link the article here.

(I'll point out that I avoided reading the article before writing this, as not to steal any ideas, consciously or otherwise)

I won't blame you for choosing their article over this one; they have funny pictures. But damn it, I sat down to watch this movie and by God, I'm going to write about it!

Where to begin. How about I first remind everyone of the plot. Alex Murphy (Weller) is a policeman in near future Detroit, where crime is out of control, and the police force is privately owned by a technology company currently developing a machine that will replace cops and more effectively restore order. When Alex Murphy gets killed in the line of duty, he becomes the guinea pig for an alternative program at the same company, one attempting to meld man and machine. As a result, he becomes RoboCop (I think in the '80s it was just cool to prefix words with robo-).

Directed by Paul Verhoeven (Starship Troopers) you should pretty much know what to expect. For one thing, I am now convinced that his main method of world-building is cutting to faux commercials that provide exposition of the setting and time period: futuristic organ transplants, extremely violent video games, and other things meant to juxtapose advanced technology with a declining society. Part of what irritates me about this is that in some sense, this vision of the future has already been achieved. We have medical technology these days that would boggle Asimov, and violence in video games is laughable. And yet, unlike the world of RoboCop, our society continues to function.

RoboCop, having spawned a couple of sequels, seems like a bit of a cult classic. It has the shoddy plot, ultra-violence, and poor CG that are the mainstays of a 'great' '80s sci-fi actioner. And yet, watching it, I was mostly annoyed at how terrible a cop RoboCop proved to be (each perp either got away or was brutally murdered). It also aligned disturbingly well with The Crow, if you replace vengeful ghost with cyborg, right down to the cartoonish villain archetypes. Now that I think about it, a Crow-RoboCop crossover would be pretty awesome (RoboCrow? Crowbot?).

Anyways, let me rope myself in here. This movie is being remade, because robots are obviously a new theme with seemingly endless cinematic possibility.

That is assuming you ignore Elysium, three Iron Man movies, Dredd 3D, and to a lesser extent Avatar, the Matrix, AI: Artificial Intelligence, and Wall-e, all films that ask us what it means to be human. (Well okay, I put Dredd in there because I like it, and the new RoboCop suit is a blatant ripoff of judge armor).

Decide for yourself...

At least Urban gets an ass kicking chin.

Okay, this is just frustrating.

I mentioned something earlier about endless possibilities. I do truly believe that there are new ideas out there to be explored, even in the realm of robot sci-fi. There are thousands of original and exciting robot and man/machine stories waiting to be told. (I'll reference Isaac Asimov again; I'll do it, I swear). And as I said, the technology of RoboCop is not far off, what with pilotless drones and constant advancement in military robotics. So why limit a story idea to remaking a hokey, ultra-violent '80s action movie, when the real world that we live in is already more futuristic and interesting? On top of this, the next few years are going to be overwhelmed with sci-fi movies, all trying to up the "wow, future" ante.

In conclusion, the 2012 remake of Total Recall is a good example of why remaking an '80s sci-fi film just doesn't work. Oh hey, and that was also based on an original by Paul Verhoeven.

As it happens, the trailer for the remake was recently released. Check it out and see what you think.

The Crow

Welcome to the brand spanking new Future Film Flashback. If you didn't read my intro page to this new section, here's the deal: Mark and I have found some films that are soon to be remade, for whatever reason. We're going to watch the originals and decide if a remake is a good idea. This is not entirely a review, as we've done in the past. Since this is the pioneer post, we're not really sure how it's going to go. It will probably mold itself into something more coherent and hopefully interesting once we get into the swing of things.

Our first film is The Crow, starring Brandon Lee and directed by Alex Proyas. It came out in 1994; the remake, according to IMDb does not yet have a release date, though F. Javier Gutierrez is set to direct, and Luke Evans is starring. The original spawned a few sequels, but I don't believe they had the critical approval or cult following of the original.

Netflix: Yes

Mark: This was my first time watching The Crow, so I went into it knowing only what I have gleaned here and there. Mainly that it had good set and production design and some nice action, and really that was all I’d heard. So I went it with 'meh' expectations. That being said, I came out wondering why I’d never gotten around to seeing this sooner. I think the first thing I would want to focus on, since it would be the major thing any remake would go after, is that much touted set design. This is a movie that combined miniature sets with the real streets of Detroit and it worked wonderfully. Proyas, the director, blended them seamlessly, which for it’s time, was remarkable to me. But, from what I know of remakes, all of this will be lost in the “grand” age of CGI.

Dylan: Yea, set design is not something I usually focus on. But this movie totally mastered it. It reminded me a lot of the section of the Narrows (section of Gotham) in Batman Begins. You can tell it’s not a real city, but the way it flows and moves -- which is enhanced by the first person view of the crow soaring over the buildings, through steam and smoke and snow -- gives the city just enough dystopian grit to make it both fantastical and believable. The thing is, this movie came out in 1994, and it really shows. Not necessarily because of the CGI, but pretty much everything else. The aesthetic style, the characters, the music; these are things that make this movie unique and great, but also anchor it to the time period. I mean, come on, the main character is like this hardcore but sensitive rocker, and the bad guys are all metal heads in leather and spikes. It’s kind of goofy in its seriousness. It just seems like a remake would deliberately get rid of all this, since it’s not going to work with today’s audience. But then it’s not really a remake, is it?

Mark: I understand what you’re saying. I mean, Top Dollar (the main bad guy, obviously, with a name like that) wore very gothic outfits and had a ridiculous collection of swords, not to mention his general mannerisms made him at one point unbelievable but at another wildly engaging. Everyone in this movie, beyond the cop and Sarah are, let's be honest, insane. But the movie seemed to be fueled both on the serious thread of revenge and love, and at the same time, it’s manic rush of action and vividly cartoonish characters. They played well against each other, when movies nowadays are often tonally imbalanced. My fear would be that this remake will be in line with comic book movies nowadays: brooding (anti)hero in serious world. There is a moment that is really only a second long, but when the mass of cops tell Draven (The Crow) to freeze, he literally dances off the screen. It was funny, but it fit his character and underlined how ridiculous all this action and violence really is. And I feel a remake would lose that kind of self-aware satiric attitude.

Dylan:In a sense, I think the movie has already been remade, with The Punisher: Warzone. That takes a lot of what works in this film, as well as the general premise, but just loses itself in ridiculousness. It’s hard to say why one works and the other doesn’t. For one thing, dark, goofy superhero movies made sense in the '90s; look at Blade, Spawn, Tim Burton's Batman movies, and even the original Punisher with Dolph Lundgren. But my point is, can something like The Crow still work today, in a world with a million other vigilante/superhero movies?

Mark: I guess, what it has going for it in that regard, is that in the mainstream eye, I don’t think a lot of people know this it's based on a comic book. But either which way, this is still a costumed vigilante out for justice, so it’s all the same in the end. And the problem will be making it stand out. To revisit the Batman analogy, a remake would probably function the same way Batman Begins did after Tim Burton's movies. A complete shift in tone and seriousness that may be new and entertaining, except for the fact that at this point it's not new at all. And of course they'd be looking for a franchise, so you can expect an even mildly successful remake to have at least two sequels. I don’t think a remake has enough to put itself apart from the pack, especially since when it comes out, we’re already gonna be into the new Batman and a whole new wave of DC and Marvel properties. The original Crow stood alone in a genre that wasn’t even a genre then.

Dylan: From what we’re saying, I’m surprised they’re remaking this film at all. You figure, the studios these days are afraid of R-rated comic book movies (Kick-Ass 2 being the exception. And I suppose you could make an argument for upcoming Sin City and 300 films). But chances are this one will get lowered to a PG-13, in order to bring in an audience that is already going to be scratching their heads at the movie’s premise. While I do sort of think The Crow story could benefit from a more modern treatment (Batman again), I just don’t think this is the era for it. And then they’re going to put it in 3D and set it up for sequels and shit. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I just don’t see it.

Mark: Oh they will most definitely set it at PG-13. The film itself is coming up on 20 years old, so most of the people who know it, will shirk the new film since, you know, the original is still good. And the younger audience will have no idea what this is about beyond what is told to them from the studio and whatnot.

Dylan: To be fair, there are like three sequels to The Crow.

Mark: This is true, but let's be honest, less and less people saw them and those who did, probably forced themselves to forget. So, for a remake, they will have to make it more accessible to younger audiences. Unless they go for a small budget, so there is less to recoup from sales, and can risk the R rating. But almost no ones does that without having huge muscle behind them in terms of director or actor. And I don’t see them getting that, since the director they seem to have has done little to nothing and Luke Evans is set to be Draven, and I forget who he is. I just don’t see this remake doing well. Now it’s still early, and little has come out, so maybe they’ll create some really interesting reimagining, but for now, with how well, in my opinion, the original stands out, a remake seems like nothing but a cash grab on a property that has been out of the general public mind for just long enough to seem “fresh”.

Dylan: Fun fact: Luke Evans was also in the movie The Raven. Get it? Raven...Crow. He was born for this role. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. They're remaking The Crow. If you're someone like me, who was young in the 90s, perhaps you haven't seen the original. And that's probably what the studio behind the remake is counting on. Since it's on Netflix, I would definitely recommend a viewing. And then feel free to comment. Do you think this movie deserves a remake? Have you even heard of the original? Tell us what you think.

Future Film Flashback

With a little bit of thought and patience, alliteration can make just about anything sound catchy. Today, Mark and I have decided to throw together some cool-sounding 'F' words and then build a new blog section around it. It's pretty much how we make all of our important decisions. And thus, Future Film Flashback was born.

The idea is based on the realization that movies are becoming less and less original. Either it's our ever-diminishing youth making us cynical and dispassionate, or, equally possible, Hollywood has grown so apprehensive of new material that they are desperately trying to find other properties -- and other media -- on which to base a film; comic books, board games, and even memes are being converted to the silver screen, with varying success.

The other trend that has most film buffs in an uproar -- or whatever the aggressive, sweaty blogging equivalent of an uproar is -- is the remaking of well-known brands. Some are classics, some were originally released too recently to warrant a remake, and some are foreign films that American studios feel would appeal to audiences more if they starred a handsome American instead of some Asian guy (Oldboy).

As you are well aware, we strive, here at Back Row Critics, to find titles that break the mold and present something new to enjoy. With this brand new section, Mark and I are will watch the original versions of films that are soon to be remade, and decide if a remake is a good idea, from the critic/audience member's perspective. We have already watched a few movies that are in the works as remakes, including The Host and The Raid: Redemption. However, with this new section of reviews, we will not just be reviewing the film, but analyzing its merits and its relevancy, to see if a remake could work.