Sharkey360

For every generation, there comes a film that stands out among other films of its genre and gets praised by both moviegoers and film critics in the decades that followed. Such a film may not have made gigantic movie ticket sales during the time of its release but its substance and acclaim made it a classic among its admirers. This is true with 1987's RoboCop directed by Paul Verhoeven. That film stood out among 1980s action flicks not only due to its over-the-top action but also for its outstanding direction, solid performances and overall subversive expression (can you say anti-Reaganomics?).

This year, we have the remake of RoboCop starring Joel Kinnaman, supported by veteran actors Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton and Gary Oldman, and directed by Jose Padilha. Aside from looking flashy and futuristic, the new RoboCop movie is surprisingly good and different enough from the 1987 original to stand on its own.

Made for a PG-13 audience in mind, RoboCop tells a very different version of the story of police officer Alex Murphy with a setting that is near-futuristic and yet reflective of today's manipulative corporate media environment. Like in the old movie, something terrible happens to Murphy which leads to his becoming RoboCop done by a corporation led by Michael Keaton.

This is where the similarity with the old film ends. Unlike in the old movie, Alex Murphy becomes RoboCop with the consent of his wife who really loves him and wants him back with their family. On the corporation itself – Omnicorp – the movie seems less critical on corporations which is no surprise since there is no more anti- Reaganomics influence here. This does not mean that the in-movie corporation is a good organization.

Like the 1987 movie, this film touches on themes like the conflict between humanity and technology, corporate media manipulation of public perception, the conflict between free will and programmed constraint, etc. The new movie tackles those themes with its own set of flavors to give today's viewers something relevant. Speaking of relevance, it sheds light on modern geopolitics as well as serious developments that test national laws. RoboCop is also a lively reminder about society and its people gradually heading towards totalitarianism.

More on RoboCop himself, the film did a nice job explaining how Murphy turned into a machine and how the corporation used him as their premiere tool against a federal law that bans unmanned drones in America. The aspect of family for RoboCop is a welcome approach as it really set it apart from the old RoboCop films' concept.

Apart from storytelling, the acting is overall solid. Samuel L. Jackson as the TV show host is much more lively than he was in the superhero movies of recent years. He sure makes a great host who is entertaining and engaging. Michael Keaton as the head of the corporation performed well although I was not convinced with the way his character turned out in the end of the film. Joel Kinnaman as RoboCop is pretty bland although he makes a convincing family man. His wife played by Abbie Cornish did a good job as the caring wife and mother. Jakie Earle Haley is the antagonistic and easy-to-hate Rick Mattox and he fits in well in the film Nothing special from Haley though.

The standout performance belongs to Gary Oldman as Dr. Norton. Oldman is very lively in his role and thanks to him, Dr. Norton is a more engaging character to watch than RoboCop himself. Really, Oldman stole the spotlight many times in the film and almost feels like a protagonist.

Action? There are several action scenes indeed but if you are expecting a spectacular action sequence or set piece, you will be disappointed. With the action it has, RoboCop is still satisfying to watch as there are a lot of gun battles, some explosions, some special effects combined with stunts, etc. I should mention that RoboCop in this film is faster and more agile too.

Conclusion RoboCop of 2014 obviously will not win any major awards nor will it ever displace the 1987 RoboCop from its place in cinematic history but it is good enough on its own. Think of RoboCop 2014 as a less reflective but action-packed and modernized take on the RoboCop concept. I came into the theater with modest expectations and I left more amused than expected. I should say however that the story fell apart somewhat during the last thirty minutes as there were some scenes or happenings that were not believable.

Overall, RoboCop 2014 is no classic but is fun to watch to say the least.

http://sharkey360.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-review-robocop-2014-by- carlo.html

When the term Halloween is mentioned regarding movies, the name and image of killer Michael Myers often come out. In the art of film, director John Carpenter defined the slasher horror sub-genre of horror films in 1978's Halloween. In that film, his use of the first-person camera views, establishing the final girl trend, showing that people who are promiscuous or drug users get killed and other elements went on to become imitated by other filmmakers on the many slasher horror films that followed. It also established Michael Myers (called The Shape) as the stealthy, almost invincible killer that later became an American pop culture icon.

Of course, the $325,000 movie went on to make tons of money and Halloween II followed a few years later and made nice profit even though it never matched its predecessor's success.

Then in 1982, Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out. Originally, the Halloween film franchise was geared towards making distinct, independent stories with completely new characters dealing with the Halloween season in general. Halloween III proved to be profitable but got slammed by critics and several viewers hated it simply because it was too different and had no Michael Myers (who was shown destroyed in Halloween II).

If you ask me, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is actually an under- rated and misunderstood horror film. It is no slasher. It has no Michael Myers. It has no zombie or vampire elements of horror. But those differences don't make it a bad movie at all.

In fact, Halloween III was more about the witchcraft aspect of Halloween's origins outside of America as well as social commentary about capitalism and consumerism. These three primary elements are, least to say, very challenging to build a foundation of horror with. Still, the filmmakers pulled off nicely with that challenge and what turned was that Halloween III has a more original concept of horror than most other horror films made ever since. It never feels generic and continues to be creepy.

Without spoiling too much of the plot, Halloween III begins with a desperate man running away from mysterious men in suits and ties. He eventually gets killed at night at a hospital and his killer weirdly left the place, entered a parked car, poured gasoline around, lit the gasoline and blew the car up.

Of course, the person who witnesses the explosion and events at the hospital is Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) who is not only the protagonist but also a challenging one for viewers to follow. Why is that? Because Dr. Challis is an undesirable man for a horror film protagonist – when he is not working, he drinks a lot of liquor, spends time at bars, does not care much about his family and is a womanizer. Ironically, this aspect of the film makes Halloween III even more unique from other horror films.

So Dr. Challis meets Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), the daughter of the murder victim. She strongly believes something is very wrong and something big was behind the murder of her father. Together they travel to a far away town where a big company making Halloween masks is being led by an Irish businessman named Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy).

Enough of the story. You will just have to watch the film on DVD or Blu- ray for the Halloween season or whenever you feel like watching a horror movie different from the rest.

Even during its time, Halloween III had a low budget although the production value on screen don't necessarily reflect that. Considering the challenges the filmmakers had to endure, Halloween III works as a horror flick as it provides scary and creepy moments nicely and also expresses the message that there is something behind all the commercialism of Halloween. In any business dealing with seasonal trends, there is always something that keeps people spending their money on products they don't really need and there is always a company that tends to profit from it.

Is Halloween III an anti-business movie? In some ways, yes. Just look at the isolated town where the business and its factory are located. If you listen to the dialog closely, you will realize that locals of the town are being put down by the company (Silver Shamrock) which employs people coming from elsewhere. Also there is that reflection of corporate-led control on the town with those many surveillance cameras and an imposed curfew (who would want to live in a community so restrictive and without public officials to stand up for the people?) and more. Naturally, Conal Cochran is the main villain radically different from not only Michael Myers but all other horror film villains. Dan O'Herlihy's performance is undeniably solid.

Another notable aspect of Halloween III that deserves attention was its defiance of the unwritten rule of movies and television that prohibit the showing of children getting killed on-screen. The filmmakers really had the courage and insight to break that rule to show what kind of evil would happen when kids wear Cochran's masks (each equipped with material from a stolen Stonehenge) and watch the Silver Shamrock commercial (with that very repetitive, mind-numbing song). The bad things that turnout are enough to shock viewers and even send chills up the spines of parents who are afraid of their children engaging in Halloween.

Overall, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is one of the most under- rated and most misunderstood horror films that truly deserves your attention in this day and age. It defied many of the clichés or traditions of most horror films and yet succeeded in delivering spooky moments in unpredictable fashion. It is also challenging to watch given its undesirable protagonist and having no final girl to outlast the evil. To call the film a failure because it did not have Michael Myers is a big mistake. Be sure to watch this film every Halloween.

What can I say about the film? It is good, not great. It's another Bourne film without the presence of Jason Bourne/Matt Damon.

Without spoiling the plot, the movie is in essence a talky movie about an agent who had been dependent on "meds" and finds himself struggling just as the "programs" start shutting down. Compared to the previous three Bourne films, The Bourne Legacy had more dialogue (which could burn you out) and less action.

Surprisingly, Jeremy Renner does make a good action star and you can see more talent from him. Really, his appearance as Hawkeye in The Avengers was just a small preview of what he can do. His character Aaron Cross was arguably shallow but was saved by Renner.

Oscar winner Rachel Weisz plays the supporting role Dr. Marta Shearing but in a big way in terms of screen time. Compared to other action flicks that have female supporting roles, Weisz has a bigger on-screen presence and added some importance to the plot.

And there was also Edward Norton whose sheer talent made up for the lack of depth of his agency executive. Norton makes a good executive who is brash, tough and demanding.

Since this movie had an excessive amount of dialogue, I should say that the motorcycle chase scene that was filmed in the Philippines was the closest thing the film had to an action highlight. For me, the Philippine motorcycle chase was a nice reliever (from the lengthy talk) and added some much needed speed to the film's pacing just enough to save it from being a total bore.

It's kinda hard to recommend The Bourne Legacy to everyone. If you are the type of viewer who is obsessed with the Bourne franchise, be it the books or the films, then this movie just might prove to be good. If you cannot handle a Matt Damon-less Bourne film at all, skip this.