Skip to main content

That’s all we need. A robot who’s into equal rights!

Short Circuit 2

(SPOILERS) Evidently, the inspiration for Babe: Pig in the City. And, in turn, as Time Out put it “a chromium Crocodile Dundee”, as our anthropomorphic hero is led astray in the Big Smoke. Johnny 5’s the original Chappie, and on balance, far preferable. Short Circuit may not have been able to boast an actual Indian benefactor/human sidekick, but it at least avoided the blight that is Die Antworte. This sequel was divested of stars Steve Guttenberg and Allie Sheedy (the latter has a voiceover), and director John Badham also opted out, so it’s unsurprising the box office halved. Short Circuit 2 is by no means terrible – Johnny 5 is nothing if not personable, in an irrepressible, ADHD, Roger Rabbit kind of way – but it’s unmistakeably a big-screen TV movie.

Johnny 5: I possess immortal soul?

And a big-screen Disney TV movie at that (although, up until about 1980, were there any other kinds of big-screen Disney movies?) Johnny 5’s a quirky, quotable, kid-friendly character of a kind the Mouse House would have loved to own.

Johnny 5: I do not travel with bananas, sir!

The Film Year Book Volume 8’s Stephen Dark considered Short Circuit 2 a “shopworn one-joke wonder” but admitted Johnny’s “attempt to understand its mechanical nature is sometimes poignant”. Dominic Wells was approving, claiming it better than the original, “But why, when the theme is prejudice encountered in Johnny Five’s quest for acceptance among humans, is his Indian friend an absurd stereotype played by a blacked-up white actor?” It seems Stevens and Aziz Ansari had a conciliatory chat about the role (hidden behind a NYT paywall, so I can’t vouch for it), where the latter didn’t consider Stevens had played Ben as “a tired stereotype”. But I guess that depends what you’re picking up on.

Johnny 5: Like a sweaty duck.

I’m actually on-board with the position that Short Circuit 2 is superior to the original movie, albeit that’s all about degrees of not-that-good-actually. And, on the “positive” side of brown-face, Ben is now a romantic lead and no longer a sex pest. He’s allowed a plotline in which he gets to woo white girl Sandy (Cynthia Gibb), who doesn’t just see him as part of the cheap labour, immigrant workforce (eventually). Albeit, that’s okay, viewers, don’t worry, as you all realise Ben is a white guy underneath?

Mostly, though, Ben’s replete with the mispronounced phrasing that speaks of channelling Peter Sellers in The Party twenty years earlier (also a sympathetic Indian protagonist). This means he can get away with such PG-certificate references to “hard-ons”, “We are manufacturing them like gangbangers” and “It does not mean that your mother is sleeping with my dog” (so erections, rape and bestiality).

Johnny 5
: Johnny 5 not a thing.

The plot features the very Disney concoction of foiling an attempt to rob a bank of its diamonds. However, here, instead of some pesky, meddlesome kids, it’s Ben, wheeler-dealer lowlife Fred Ritter (Michael McKean, a welcome presence) and Johnny 5 who are up against the thieves. Johnny has rather unwisely been sent to join Ben and Fred’s efforts to manufacture a supply of little Johnnys for a toy store; their “warehouse” just happens to be the same location Jones (David Hemblen) and Saunders (Dee McCafferty) plan to use to break into the bank.

Johnny 5: Two excellent books. May I have these, craphead?

Writers Brent Maddock and SS Wilson have returned from the original, and if this is no Tremors, it’s also far from the worst thing with their names attached. They do endeavour to inject something of a unifying theme; Johnny learns more about his humanity as Ben learns – with Johnny’s help – to express himself.

Tim Blaney’s Johnny performance is winning enough, if ever in danger of becoming wearing, and his naivety creates some decent gags. Now equipped with a massive – ahem – 500mb of memory, he’s soon out on the streets (“It’s like Montana. Only vertical”), noting the local punk populace (“Woah! Human porcupines”) and being pressed into service by “the department of car stereo repairs” (a Latino gang ripping of motors). He duly gets graffiti’d (“No, decorations. Multi-coloured petroleum by-products!”)

Johnny 5: I like Oscar, he’s very friendly and he treats me with RVSP.

Despite the fact the he was earlier hoodwinked – “I was tricked? Flim-flamed? Hornswoggled?” –he’s soon at it again at the behest of “pal” Oscar (Jack Weston), tunnelling through to the bank for the criminal gang. Johnny’s weakness is assuming others are as well-meaning as he, and his quest for knowledge, understanding and reciprocity leads him to bookstores (“Major input!”), galleries (he is mistaken for a modern art exhibit) and the Church.

Jonny 5: Yes input from The Bible, Koran, Upanishads.
Priest: Yes, well I take The Bible myself.

The latter is interesting, in as much as Johnny enters by direct invitation (“Can someone direct me to the answers, please?”) and is initially soothed by the priest’s promise that he has an immortal soul… Only for man of the cloth’s admonishing “You don’t play games in the House of God!” when he discovers Johnny is a robot.

Johnny has, after all, been granted a soul by God (a divine spark – he was struck by lightning). It’s not for nothing that Johnny is afflicted with an existential dilemma, then, one he seeks solutions for through reading and rereading texts on the same (Frankenstein, Pinocchio) or trying but failing at “Mixing in with all the other living bipeds”. The emphasis that this is somehow ordained from on high – Johnny was a SAINT robot, after all – is further emphasised when he captures Oscar, who in defeat asks “What are you? Punishment from God?

Johnny 5: Please allow me to demonstrate the law of centrifugal force!

Johnny 5 thus represents a sentient robot in a manner we can all get on board with. Of course he should be America’s “first robotic citizen”, granted “the same rights and privileges of any citizen of this nation”. Who would disagree? There’s even a scene in which – pointedly so, given her male colleague’s bemused response – a female exec at the firm interested in purchasing Johnny tuts “That’s all we need. A robot who’s into equal rights!

Such an innocent and innocuous upbeat ending to a kids’ (well, family) movie barely merits attention, does it? Perhaps it does, in retrospect, with various proposals (European parliament, various US departments) to confer legal status on AI. The knock-ons for this are, of course, all things to be deeply suspicious of, not least the transhumanist creep (where is the line drawn on what constitutes humanity?) This also raises more mundane and practical boundaries (what is the effect on the human workforce, pushed aside to make way for the AI/robotic one? Who is it who benefits, with the corporations – already granted legal status – controlling the AI, freshly granted legal status?)

Our sympathy for Johnny is milked by not one but two near deaths, the first where he is savagely beaten up by Oscar and his stooges. And then, having defeated Oscar, he requires revivification via a defibrillator. This climactic scene finds a welcome humorous boost through the use of Bonnie Tyler’s Holding out for a Hero; there’s a sudden glimpse of how the film might have benefited by a more playfully self-referential approach and confident visual style.

Johnny 5: One whose person is under control of another as master is a slave!

A number of continuity fudges from the original have been noted (Ben changes his surname and is no longer a US citizen). The main issue, though, is Johnny’s freedom of movement. There’s a scene in which Fred attempts to sell Johnny, and it’s noted that Nova Robotics went bankrupt. But how likely is that a sentient AI would be allowed to roam free by TPTB. The answer is “kids’ movie!

Johnny 5: I think the chauffeur did it.

Johnson made a “not all lizard oppressors are bad” TV show (they may eat mice, but Robert Englund was a friendly ghastly reptile invader), so it’s interesting that he should make a “robots are our equals” pledge picture, however benign it seems. This was his first feature, a curious departure for someone in the business since the ’60s; it suggests, whatever his aspirations, that Columbia saw Short Circuit 2 as a cheap cash-in quickie, one illustratively shot in Toronto (Johnson would direct one other cinema movie, Steel, with Shaq).

Johnny 5: Oh wow! Input! Mega-bytes of input!

There have been various remake iterations in development over the years. The latest (as of 2020) has a Latino twist. Huzzah! Latinx Johnny 5! Johnny 5 embroiled with cartels! Johnny 5 illegal border crossing! And there I was, hoping they’d bring back Fisher Stevens (if the mooted version comes to pass, slim hope for an actual Indian actor in the Ben role, per Stevens and Azari’s discussion).

Popular posts from this blog

The minotaur isn’t even history. He’s mythology!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) The long awaited, some might suggest past-its-sell-by-date, return of Ron Burgundy doesn’t begin well. It pretty much confirmed my fears this was a sequel with no reason to be, one that weakly rehash the gags and set-ups from the first movie. It isn’t until the gang gets back together that Will Ferrell and Adam McKay hit their groove, by which I mean there’s a higher hit than miss ratio to the jokes. Many of the ideas that come with the central concept are soft connects, but the more absurd The Legend Continues gets, the funnier it becomes, leading to a final act (if you can call it that) so glorious in its silliness that much of what fails before becomes virtually irrelevant. Anchorman 2 was on-again, off-again for quite some time before it finally got the green light, with a stage musical even considered at one point. It seemed to me to be messing with a good thing; the inspired lunacy of the first picture had already shown

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

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.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’ve had enough of this 2012 Alamo bullshit.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016) (SPOILERS) Not The Secret Private Military Contractors of Benghazi , as that might sound dubious in some way, and we wouldn’t anything to undermine their straight-shooting heroism. That, and interrogating the politics of the US presence in Libya, official and unofficial, and involvement in the downfall of Gaddafi (Adam Curtis provides some solid nuggets in his rather sprawling HyperNormalisation ), is the furthest thing from Michael Bay’s mind. Indeed, it’s a shame 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi bears the burden of being a tale based on (murky and disputed) facts, as it’s Bay’s most proficient piece of filmmaking in some time. So, you’re not going to find out what the CIA was actually up to in their Benghazi base (most likely, the dodgiest conclusion you can reach will be the right one). You’ll only be informed that a brave team of ex-military types were there to protect them, and stepped up to the plate, ju

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990) (SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall  (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “ They take these absurd stories and make them too serious ”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.