Skip to main content

Sir, I've never met anyone who wanted to be a robot.

Robocop 2
(1990)

(SPOILERS) The potential for a decent movie is lurking somewhere within Robocop 2’s torrid metallic shell. Cast aside the tone deaf visuals, the horrendous score from Leonard Rosenman (quite possibly the worst such to afflict a major motion picture outside of, well the ‘80s; and at least they aren’t accompanied by the unheavenly choral charge of “Robocop!”) and the unerring facility for unpleasantness, and there’s something in there, deep underneath.


Unfortunately, though, I suspect it was a doomed enterprise from the off. It falls apart through lacking the fundamental ingredients that make Robocop an abiding classic; an unwavering vision of what the picture is about. That sureness came through in the sharp satire of Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier’s screenplay, and was cemented by Paul Verhoeven’s pitch black sense of humour and muscular iconography. More fundamentally still, the first film, for all its broad strokes, prescribed a potent emotional through-line for its man-machine moral musings such that, once Murphy has decided who he is, the character has nowhere left to go.


The end of the original may be a little pat in that regard, but that’s essentially because it’s pushing its broad brush but finely honed comic book stylings as far as they can go, short of flipping into a heavyweight meditation on the self and its relationship to the material, and so irreparably throwing off the deceptively effortless balance. Verhoeven and his writers knew precisely how to get their points across through symbolism and allusion rather than hammering it out didactically. To their credit, Frank Miller and Walon Green (the latter rewrote Miller’s screenplay) attempt to evoke this aspect during the first half of Robocop 2, and several strong scenes result, but there’s a reluctance or inability to follow-through.


Holzgang: Are you human?
Murphy: No. I am a machine.

Murphy as stalker is quite a strong turn, and it leads to the well-observed exchange – as good as any in the first, aside from Jeff McCarthy’s OCP guy being a bit too uniformly oily – where Robocop is asked what he thinks he could offer his wife (a man without a body, without manhood), and nudged with the cruelty of making her suffer again (“She’s just started to accept the loss”), he must resign himself to forsaking that memory of another life. This leads to a potent scene where he chooses to be cruel to be kind (“They made this to honour him. Your husband is dead. I don’t know you”).


As it turns out, this is as engaged as the picture gets in exploring its hero (even if it is essentially a betrayal of where Murphy was left in the original), as it immediately falls back on a rehearsal of the torture of Murphy in the first. In and of itself this is another reasonably effective scene, as Robocop is dismembered, lubricant fluid squirted in his face as he screams in anguish, but by drawing such a parallel line to its predecessor, Kershner and co only mark out how deficient the villains are and diluted the concept has become.


Tom Noonan was phenomenal in Michael Mann’s Manhunter a few years earlier, but evil drug lord Cain is as uninspited and one-note as his generic bad guy in Last Action Hero. So much so that, when he becomes Robocop 2 (one wonders if they thought of the title twist before they thought of the plot; appearances suggest so), you scarcely notice his absence (all you do notice, more of which shortly, is that Robocop is up against a stop motion maquette for the big finale, no matter how proficiently individual moments of altercation are in terms of artistry). Cain is serviced with maybe one good line in the entire film (“Jesus had days like this”) and even that has the whiff of being sourced elsewhere.


The gang of Nuke-retailers are unpleasant without being memorable, which goes for much of what they get up to. One has the look of an Elvis impersonator, another is a generic girlfriend type (Galyn Görg), more than partial to Nuke, who has to play up the most clichéd addict behavior (just how Nuke is so great and what its effects are isn't very clear; all we’re told is that it's bad, and observe its appealingly tidy delivery system, injected into the neck. She is nevertheless granted one noteworthy scene, as she attempts to smooth the rage of the metallic monster her monstrous boyfriend has become, caressing its huge pincers before being crushed like a grapefruit.


The most remembered villain, though, is devil child Hob (Gabriel Damon), a choice that seems to be more about pushing taste boundaries than saying anything smart about the corruption of innocence. Damon’s performance is reasonable, but he’s forced into awkwardly constructed scenario of unconvincing tough kid scenes; this might work in a gritty, realist take, but not with the starchy, surface gloss on supply.


There’s the occasional glimmer of purpose amid the grimness, as Hob is forced to watch when rotten cop Duffy (Stephen Lee) is split open with a surgeon’s scalpel (a scene even more gratuitous in the original cut, unsurprisingly), but since this is the baseline in the picture’s non-existent struggle with taste, it’s really rather by-the-by (we, the audience are repulsed, so no wonder the demon spawn is too). It’s also a bit rich that Hob is allowed to revert to a little boy lost for his death scene, after a movie’s worth of thorough malevolence, since he as far from earned our sympathies. If it’s misjudged, like so much here, Weller plays Murphy the compassionate hero with subtlety (“Lie still”).


Murphy: Bad language makes for bad feelings.

But by that point we’ve been all over Detroit trying to find a fit for the post-acceptance-of-his-lot Murphy. First he has reverted from the final shot of the original, unable to adjust, and he’s pursuing his wife. Then he gets torn apart, and reprogrammed, in what amounts to a slapstick episode that has its sort-of appeal, but is another leering shift in tone; Murphy ministrating to a corpse, lecturing a wayward scout troop and, in a moment made for the trailer (and which was also used as a general ad on the subject in cinemas) thanking a citizen for not smoking after putting bullet holes in the wall surrounding him.


In some respects, this is pure filler material, a tactic to delay the main event, but it’s much more interesting than that main event, even if it’s completely undisciplined in approach. The content varies from the gleefully absurd, throwing open suggestions for his modification to focus groups (“If he just talked things out with people, instead of firing that big gun of his”), to Weller’s staccato of delivery eccentric dialogue, recalling great practitioners like Shatner and McGoohan (“I’m touched”), at least when it doesn’t tip into the outright daft (“It’s the thought that counts” he affirms, after waxing lyrical about the lovely moon during daylight).


The humour is much, much cruder than in the first film, bordering on ineptly-judged parody, and this can be seen in news summaries, the adverts, and the performances. It’s nice to have John Glover show up in the ad for Magnavolt (the lethal auto theft deterrent), but Sun Block 5000 (“Caution: Frequent Use Will Cause Skin Cancer”) is evidence of a screenplay aiming squarely for crude gags rather than with any intent on satire.


Likewise, Cain’s desire to make a success of Nuke (“Made in America. We’re going to make that mean something again”) has a kind of warped resonance, coming as the picture does in the wake of Michael Moore’s dissection of the disintegration of Flint, Michigan’s manufacturing base in Roger and Me. And the depiction of the unstoppable corporation, never short of a scapegoat to ensure it survives any setbacks and lives to fight another day (“Sir, whether it exists or not, I know I can find it”, advises Johnson of finding evidence on Dr Faxx). 


Balance that against the toe-curling, goofball portrayal of the mayor by Willard E Pugh, as if he’s just been fired from I’m Gonna Git You Sucka for being too unsubtle (but even this caricature masks a decent idea, a mayor overseeing a bankrupt Detroit, that actually happened 23 years later).


Old Man: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, Robocop 2.

It’s no different with the new Robocop. The programme is backed up by a sound central premise, that it is Murphy’s code, his sense of duty, that enabled him to survive the loss of the physical, stripped of body, which has led other offices to go mad or become suicidal. But the execution is strictly slapstick, with silly designs and deaths of prototypes played strictly for laughs.


It’s a deranged and drastic leap too, that OCP would go straight to the criminal fraternity for new test subjects. Indeed, the whole Cain-as-Robocop 2 is an ungainly mess, lurching from B-movie brains in tanks (with eyeballs) to his instantaneous (not just gradual) unmanageability; it speaks to the undifferentiated construction of the picture as a whole. Where the original had a finesse borne of its director’s wit and verve, this is crass, clumsy.


Such is the design of Robocop 2. Robocop had a highly memorable supporting bot, superbly visualised (ED209). This construction is entirely indistinct, presumably based on what would work best work for the purposes of rigorous stop motion. And the virtual Cain face that pops up on a monitor screen only serves to underline a junk idea, fashioned as junk spectacle.


The finale, because it’s so identifiably based around model work, fails to have much impact; you’re always aware the characters aren’t in the same frame as Robocop 2, or that it’s a model Murphy “interacting”. Added to which, there are no human stakes because the action has been reduced to a sub-Harryhausen fracas. We’ve already had signs of Murphy being equated with the superhero/comic book character he riffs on, but not in a good way; he gets to ride a robo-bike (he’s like Batman!), and next time it will be a jetpack. And, with a passion for deserted industrial sites that became a cliché in the space since the first film, it’s no wonder the writers introduced a Robocop stealth mode for the remake, since Murphy isn’t creeping up on anyone in that suit.


Kershner also fails to shoot that suit from the best angles, often unable to emphasise the character’s dynamism and rather emphasising how much of the first movie’s cool iconography was illusory (in particular, the penchant for having Robocop shoot in the opposite direction to the one he’s looking becomes annoying, not a signal of his skilz). 


Not helping matters is flat, bland cinematography, overlit like a ‘90s John Carpenter picture (aside from some early David Cronenbergs, Mark Irwin’s CV is less than impressive, increasingly tending to the comedy and TV movie arena), and this Detroit is a city only ever populated by a dozen or so extras. Lacking the grainy, gritty milieu of the original, Robocop 2 feels fabricated.


There are positives here, naturally. Belinda Bauer, despite lacking an even remotely convincing character (in terms of plausible scientific motivation, rather than her desire to get ahead), lends Dr Faxx an implacably self-assured quality. Felton Perry takes advantage of the absence of Miguel Ferrer, as Johnson moves more into the spotlight; his character is perhaps the most consistently written, both in his desire to climb the corporate ladder, and as a vague point of audience identification, purely by virtue of everyone else being even more ruthless, amoral, sociopathic.


Dan O’Herlihy continues to be reliable as the Old Man, and is rightly repositioned as calculating and ruthless (lest anyone thought the contemptible posturing of Ronny Cox’s Dick Jones in the original took the edge off him). The "Behave yourselves!" admonishment makes everyone look very silly, though. Nancy Allen, aside from getting an inappropriate hairdo ("Your hair looks lovely that way"), berating kids who have beaten up a shopkeeper as if they are simply naughty young scamps, and nearly being garrotted by the demon imp, is forgettable, so it’s no wonder she didn’t last long in the second sequel (she also asserted that Kershner took out all the intelligence and humour from the film, and hated working with him).


Robocop 2 went through a number of iterations before reaching the screen. Original writers Neumeier and Miner were first up, but their concept was unused (that of pushing Murphy 25 years into the future –  a little worrying, a bit too Highlander II – and was later used for the pilot of the Robocop TV series). Tim Hunter quit as director over Orion’s interference. Nils Gaup was also offered the gig, while Alan Moore turned down the chance to write. Frank Miller’s original screenplay eventually became a less than adulated comic book (Alex Cox was asked to direct this version, but didn’t like the politics; as he put it, “Unlike the original Robocop, which trod a path between right wing politics and left wing irony, Miller’s script was reactionary and obvious, pitting its robot police hero against homeless people. No wonder he is so popular with the Hollywood one percenters”).


But I doubt this particular franchise had anywhere left to go beyond the original, at least without a hand at the tiller every bit as clear of purpose as Verhoeven (that’s partly why the remake floundered). It’s in the DNA of the thing that it has to examine the man in the machine, so pared down, more generic, Dirty Harry, or TV cop show approaches don’t work (Weller, who is never less than commanding, knew this, saying the picture’s finale needed a moral angle, so it’s no wonder he opted out of 3). And neither does lip service to the satire. The movie didn’t perform especially well at the box office (in a crowded sequel summer), and Robocop 3 was mired in the demise of Orion. Alas, in terms of Kershner’s dalliances with sequels, Robocop 2 is more Never Say Never Again than The Empire Strikes Back.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…