In a time where we are bombed by hundreds of unnecessary remakes in the big & small screen nothing seems to outdo the original source. We've had the Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, The Bionic Woman, The A-Team, Spiderman to fill a very extensive list of boring updated versions that lacked the guts the originals all had. Robocop is a classic, having felt much trepidation about the
direction the remake was going in (a PG-13 rating for god's sake!) I went
in with fairly low expectations but still something of an open mind as
I really wanted this reboot to faithfully kick-start a new, successful
Robocop franchise.
I was pleasantly surprised by the first hour of the film and how
Murphy's quite horrifying physical transformation was depicted (there
wasn't much left of him) and the emotional impact upon him. I
particularly liked the first few scenes of him coming to grips with his
new form and his little meltdown in the Chinese factory in which he was
built. Unfortunately the film starts to take a significant nose dive at
the point of Robocop's big public unveiling. A stupidly convenient plot
device whereby the entire Detroit PD database including 17 years worth
of the city's CCTV is uploaded to Murphy merely minutes before he's
about to make his big appearance. This causes Robocop to overload
requiring a change to Murphy be necessitated resulting in him then
becoming more robotic and ultimately making an arrest for murder upon
his big unveiling. This was a clumsily handled plot device done for the
advancement of the plot but defied logic. Why give him a massive upload
at such a crucial time? Others have pointed to a lack of a true
antagonist and this is very true. Main criminal Antoine Vallon is
utterly woeful compared to Kurtwood Smith's vile Clarence Boddiker and
even Micheal Keaton can't hold a candle to Ronny Cox's performance in
the original. There is also little chemistry between Alex and Clara
Murphy both before and after his transformation.
I used to be Batman you know.
So what? I was a jedi, a superhero and 100% muthafucka!
The film is best when it isn't trying to ape and nod towards the
original. The use of Basil Poledouris' majestic music in Pedro
Bromfman's new score is particularly jarring and poorly orchestrated.
When I watched Man of Steel at about the 50 minute mark I realized I
hadn't heard John Williams classic Superman theme but also realized
that this was a new take on the Superman mythos that didn't need to
borrow from it's predecessors. Shame this film didn't follow suit.
The effects are generally good but alas the Robocop/ED-209 battle is
just a typical modern day CGI fest and has none of the weight of the
same scene from the original. CGI is so overrated these days that it has become a dated cliché already.
Batman? Ironman?
Dead or alive you're coming with your children to this lame PG-13 version.
The film's biggest issue is undoubtedly caused by the constrictions of
the PG-13 rating. Hearing arch criminals talk without any swearing
pulls me out if the film and destroys any sense of realism. In one
scene as Murphy approaches a drug factory to make a bust images of the
classic drug factory shoutout of the original came to mind. Alas this
version turns out to be a total anti-climax almost totally devoid of
the carnage so required from such a scene. This follows on to Robocop
taking down Vallon in a night vision shootout where men are shot but no
blood, death or injury are shown in even any mildly satisfying manner.
This shows clearly that gritty subject matter is not befitting of a
teenage rating and similar target audience. Would something like The
Wire work if it was aimed at a teenage audience? No.
Behold the future!
And you want me to masturbate with this robo-hand?
There aren't any particular standout performances other than Gary
Oldman who almost always delivers no matter the role or movie. Kinnaman
is somewhat wooden in places but gives a decent enough performance even
though at times he looks uncomfortable with the role. One aspect of the
film that did nothing for me was Samuel L Jackson's character who opens
and closes the film and offers his very one sided views throughout. If
this is their replacement of the satire of the original they can keep
it. It's ham fisted and provides little more than uninteresting
commentary on the power of the media and plot exposition. It tells us
nothing interesting that we don't already know and Jackson does his
shouty thing to excess, especially at the cringe-worthy end.
I wholly embrace the need to make this reboot from a fresh angle to
that of Verhoven's original but Sony MGM have played it way too safe
with something that would clearly play better if it were aimed at an
adult audience. I genuinely believe that an R rated movie, devoid of
such tight restrictions would have been a far more satisfying
experience. The original Robocop franchise died when they aimed at a
younger demographic. Hollywood greed I fear has caused a repeat of this
mistake. It's not a bad film per se, it's just painfully average and
therefore unable to get out from the vast shadow of its forebear and
like the Total Recall remake, it tries too hard too often to remind you
of the original whilst offering nothing new to compete with it. I doubt
there's even a harder cut tucked away for home release and even if
there was there are plot issues that damage the film as much as the
tame approach. Other gripes include a lack of clarity as to Omnicorp's
role (if any) in Murphy being blown up, and plot threads not being
followed through to any satisfying conclusion such as Murphy's
relationship with his family. The best bits revolve around Murphy's
initial awakening as a cyborg which are very well done indeed.
This is the homage suite.
Michael Bay's Transformers?
Alas there's not really that much else that's in any way as memorable
as the 1987 classic it's based on. As an example of how modern
Hollywood has become all about excessive studio control above
creativity and maximizing ticket sales at the expense of a film's
overall artistic quality then this film succeeds. In all other aspects
it's a bit of a wasted opportunity really. This is Robocop without what made Robocop an interest movie/comic book: Cyberpunk ultraviolence. Watch at your own risk...
Every once in a while, a film comes along that strikes a chord with
audiences in such a way that they react strongly; sometimes, because of
this, the film can become a hit. The opposite can happen as well.
"Showgirls" drew some venomous reviews from both critics and audiences,
and it quickly gained a reputation as a bad movie--most likely among
people who had never even seen it. For instance, an entire generation
of filmgoers who were probably too young (or not interested) to see
"Showgirls" were instructed that it was a bad movie when it was
mentioned as such in the all-ages trailer for the big hit "Scream 2". A
few years ago, people like Tarantino and a few respected film critics
began to admit that they loved the film, and now the herd is reversing.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Yes, "Showgirls" is trashy and absurd, but we do enjoy those kinds of
films. Are we saying that it's wrong to make them? I think the problem
with "Showgirls" is that it's a joke the original filmgoing audience
didn't get, a great looking, big budget film that is a pastiche at
heart. Only after the film was released on home video did audiences
start to understand it.
Elizabeth Berkley, a true hottie.
Yes, she's all blonde.
Whatever people were expecting at the time of its release, they were
definitely not expecting a new "Beyond the Vally of the Dolls" (which,
like "Showgirls", got the strongest possible rating at the time of its
release). Also similar to Russ Meyer, Verhoeven takes Joe Esztherhas's
crazy script and directs his actors to be straight faced at all times,
saying these lines as if they mean it. Just like in 1970, most people
don't seem to get it. This is what amuses me most of all about
"Showgirls": even the people who claim to like it because it's "so bad"
are missing the point just a little. The new MGM DVD features
commentary by a 'fan' of the film who claims that everybody involved in
the film has made the wrong decision, as if a movie like this gets made
by accident. In fact, it seems to me that the only true bungling has
been MGM's marketing. Even now, as they reap the benefits of it being a
cult classic that has sold extremely well on home video, their idea of
how to round out the DVD edition is to get somebody totally uninvolved
with the film to deliver a sometimes amusing but otherwise unnecessary
commentary about the obvious ("Oh, watch this part where Nomi throws
her fries across the table!"). All this instead of paying Elizabeth
Berkley a couple thousand dollars to offer her own insights into the
film, which would have been a couple thousand times better.
Yeah, suck it babe.
the twat karate kick!
Eszterhas writes trashy movies intended to be a good time, and
"Showgirls" is certainly that. But I can't imagine Verhoeven thinking
that this movie would connect with audiences on a large scale basis;
the trailers implied that "Showgirls" would be similar to "Basic
Instinct", which it is not. Maybe if this movie had come later, after
another failed attempt to recreate "Basic Instinct", people might have
accepted it as its own type of film. The dialog is way over the top,
and how utterly boring would the movie have been otherwise? Other parts
of the film are marvelously conceived, and Verhoeven keeps the film in
motion at all times. The only thing that truly spoils the fun is a
violent rape scene, although it does fit with the reptilian tone of the
movie, full of victims and victimizers; it is the one thing that
grounds the film in the real world with real violence. It may not have
been intentional, but it presents an interesting concept: if the rape
had happened to any other character, it would not have been the same.
Because it happens to the film's only sympathetic character, it carries
a great impact. The cinematography is flawless, and the sets are always
interesting and sometimes funny (like the bizarre stage numbers). Pay
attention to the soundtrack as well, Verhoeven has an excellent
collection of songs, many of them written specifically for the film.
Quality time.
Yeah, lemme rub my wet pussy on your body daddy.
Watching Elizabeth Berkley's career self-destruct on camera is one of
the film's most morbidly fascinating pleasures. I beg to differ with
people who call her performance "bad"; what actress could have played
this part and made it anything other than what Berkley did? The truth
is, she worked wonders with a character that was impossible to play.
Her dancing is both ridiculous and a marvel. How she can bend herself
into those positions and hit those marks, not to mention her famous lap
dance gyrations, must be seen to be believed. Gina Gershon is great
too, a leering predator who manages to be both vulnerable and
invincible at the same time, and only because she seems to be the only
actor in the troupe that's in on the joke. Kyle McLachlan is skeezy,
with a haircut and a smile that make him resemble the creature from the
"ALIEN" franchise more than a human being. You expect an inner jaw to
emerge from his mouth at any moment.
Sexploitation returns!
Dance hides sex.
This is my working suit.
"Showgirls" is ridiculous, but to me it's also multifaceted and
fascinating, appealing to the cynic in all of us. It fails as an
engaging story, but the film itself doesn't fail to engage the viewer
at all; you can laugh at it (or with it), and it accomplishes something
subversive in the way it makes you consider the filmmakers and actors
involved. I think most people just say "Showgirls" is a bad movie
because they've already been told it's a bad movie. I revisit it more
often than some of the other films in my collection, and it gets more
absurd, funny, gross, and sometimes even beautiful, every time I watch
it. Bad movies are boring movies. "Showgirls" is not.
Overall, a good B movie revisiting the old glory of the sexploitation genre only with a darker view.
Updating the blog with a 90's sexploitation classic doesn't seem like a bad idea, since every single social network is down, apparently caused by powerful hackers in response to the FBI's action of shutting down world famous download server Megaupload. The SOPA is really getting bigger and bigger, and honestly I don't want my movies blog to be tagged as a pirate treat because it is not. Anyways, today's movie will take us back as far as 1992 to behold Paul Verhoven's number 2 tour de force. Basic Instinct. Number 2, because Robocop is definitely his ultimate masterpiece among the many good films he's done through his career, don't deny it, you know it to be true. You know what's funny? I'm writing this review while watching the live action Green Lantern movie. He's one of my favorite DC comics characters but the movie is so predictable that actually you don't need to pay attention to it. The special effects are standard good.
a Real actress.
Your pussy smells so fine Sharon.
You ain't Sharon but you're a gorgeous gal too.
I don't want to miss the point here, so let's get down to business and talk about one of the greatest and most popular sexploitation films since god know when. Most of the critics for this film see it one way round: a thriller movie with some sex in it. I see it the other way round: A sex movies with a little but convincing script that is of course, developed by qualified actors, unlike most of the early 90's sexploitation flicks. The good guy role is in charge of Michael Douglas a veteran in terms of acting, although he's been into few movies that could be considered as cult items, he's always doing his job. The bad girl role is in charge of the now world famous blonde femme fatale Sharon Stone, this is her ultimate movie, period! Back then in 1992 the film caused controversy with some of the gay crowd (who didn't like the
negative press) and for the 90's erotic standards that considered the movie had graphic sex (with bedroom violence included). On the one hand it became a
blockbuster, that made Sharon Stone a star, and yet on the other hand critics considered the film a piece of crap. The word is the film is better than your average B
movie skin flick, only by the quality of the actors, and Verhoeven's
ability. I feel the film is still not given the respect it's due.
Back then in the 90's I first rented the R-rated version, which was very good, but now you can get
the even better Unrated Director's Cut DVD, which has even more graphic content (let's think of the word graphic according to 90's standards)
If you don't like erotic-thrillers, I'm sure you're not fond of my blog, so if you're here by mistake, GTFOD now. Buuut anyone with taste
will enjoy the thrill ride of events that take place in Basic Instinct. The
script by Mr. Joe Eszterhas was highly thought of in Hollywood, and if not for
the graphic nudity, a top star like Michelle Pfeiffer would have taken the
role made famous by Sharon stone.
Deadly sex.
Perfect Ass.
Those are some fine sheets, aren't they?
Sharon Stone's lethal weapon: her body.
Does the script go too far at times? Yes, but that's part of the films
charm, and after all, the now 'classic film moment' of Sharon Stone's leg
spread interrogation, likely would have been dropped in a conventional film.
Still though, I wouldn't have minded seeing a few less people getting killed
off, to keep even more suspense and realism or sex haha! Her pussy didn't look so clear in the original VHS tape release of the movie but once it got released on DVD the remaster treatment was so pristine that you could actually see her shaved pussy lips. But if you want to check every little detail of her twat, the Blu-Ray edition is the way to go. In case you haven't noticed it, all pictures I post here are most of the times High Quality resolution, so if you want to open them full size detailes will light your darkest hours (a Green Lantern reference haha)
Awwww, The score? yeah the score is also beautiful, and fans of Hitchcock's classic Vertigo can
most definitely appreciate the homage that Paul Verhoeven has included. The film has a lot
of eye candy, but Jeanne Tripplehorn deserves special mention for her
impressive supporting role (sadly she hasn't done much of note since).
Michael Douglas does a solid job also, but I can't help wondering if a
better actor like Clint Eastwood could have brought more to the table. The
dialogue is not up to the level of a Quentin Tarantino movie, but it's still
interesting and fun in case you're interested in something else beside the great amount of Sharon Stone's nude scenes.
Full size zoom please!
Zoom to enjoy her twat.
a classic postcard from the movie.
This pic was rendered from the Blu-Ray edition, oh dear!
Overall, an entertaining erotic thriller movie. It is rated R and that's it, there are no X scenes on this flick, but a porn parody would certainly improve the sex scenes haha. Would Sharon want to do a porn movie? for the sake of humanity let's hope some hidden sex tape shows up some time soon noooooooope! that is if the SOPA wins this match alone.
Here's the movie trailer, and if you still don't know what this movie is about you're definitely living on the mountains.
Keetje Tippel is one of Verhoeven's lesser known movies but it really deserves to be seen and better known, all over the world. Reason why it isn't known better is I think because of "Turks fruit" from 1973. After that movie people expected this movie to be a sort of "Turks fruit 2", also because it was once again directed by Verhoeven and had Monique van de Ven and Rutger Hauer as the two main leads. Turks fruit and Keetje Tippel show some similarities in the way the story is told but it are in fact of course two totally different movies. The movie is also known as Katie's Passion or Katie Tippel and in Spanish countries was known as Una Novia Llamada Katy Tippel.
Rutger Hauer before Blade Runner.
Making her way into high society.
The movie provides a pretty good and insightful view of life in late 19th century Amsterdam. The atmosphere of the old Amsterdam is perfectly captured by Jan de Bont's cinematography and by the costume design and art direction.
What makes "Keetje Tippel" better than the average period drama is the directness of the story telling. This is of course thanks to Verhoeven's typical style of directing that always is very direct and straight to the point. Once more the movie features quite some nudity and confronting scene's. But it all works well because it serves a purpose in the movie and it's obviously not only put in it to simply shock the viewer in a cheap way. The movie however is quite short and it didn't feel that the movie covered the entire story and the ending is abrupt and not entirely satisfying because it still leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.
The acting isn't always top-class but this is more because of the simple dialog, rather than its the actors their fault. Rutger Hauer however deserves credit for his role and he plays his character in a very believable way. Monique van de Ven is good for about 70% of the time but her acting really pushes it at times and her character at times goes a bit too much over-the-top. The movie further more features a good supporting cast.
Some freaks edit videos with only nude/sex scenes here's Keetje Tippel treatment.
Care for some fun?
18th century exploitation.
The story is always interesting and you never know what is going to happen next, thanks to the unpredictable and realistic characters that are being portrayed in this movie. The movie is based on the real life of Neel Doff, which gives the movie an even more realistic and confronting feeling.
Monique Van der Ven.
Better than your average period drama's. See this movie if you get the chance. To become more interested on this early Paul Verhoven's work the trailer would be a fine suggestion to look for this movie, ages before Verhoven made his way into Hollywood and legendary stardom thanks to Robocop. If you want to make your way through this movie you can find it on the 50 Drive-In Cult Classics Milkcreek Entertainment released last year, and for less than $15 you can find this film and plenty more on a nice DVD set. Find them on E-Bay, BestBuy or Amazon.
See you some time soon with some more cool B movies reviews.
Robocop is one of those movies that inspires debate, as well it
should. The director, Paul Verhoeven (who later became an even bigger
player with films like "Total Recall" and "Basic Instinct") has
definitely indulged in extreme violence and has no qualms about
presenting violence as an object of fun. But I would defend it even if
its only virtue was its action sequences because those elements are
handled so well. There's a number of imaginatively staged action
scenes, and it never devolves into an arcade-style shooting gallery
like so many 80s actions films do. The action is compelling because of
Verhoeven's style and because he's given the characters enough
substance that we care about what happens to them, including at least a
half dozen interesting villains. A lot of discussion has revolved around whether or not this film
deserves to be called satire. Those looking for Moliere-like pearls in
Verhoeven's modestly amusing commercial interruptions are
understandably disappointed. This isn't the kind of movie that you can
look at or objectify in order to access its ideas on an intellectual
level. It's a different kind of beast: it must be entered into, it must
fulfill its function as an action narrative first and foremost and it
carries its ideas like a wedding train dragged by a semi-truck… a
prominent after-thought. At any rate I feel it's closer to camp than
satire, one of the first camp action films of the 80s style I would
argue ("Remo Williams" being another, now largely forgotten). It's a
good drinking movie, and this most recent time when I watched it my
friend and I were laughing and yelling so much that we probably missed
half the dialog. But I don't think we missed much of the point. If it
was a satire, Robocop wouldn't emerge as such a serious figure invested
with pathos and personality. The movie itself is best enjoyed in my
opinion as a joyride with some interesting commentary about America's
relationship to violence thrown in by way of farce; you wait for each
villain to meet his fitting end and watch the carnage pile up. The
villains are all so easy to hate, and all the actors playing them are
having a lot of fun. Ronny Cox is fantastic as the corporate heel, but
I've always enjoyed Kurtwood Smith the most. Really this is a very
well-cast movie all around. I love the scene where Miguel Ferrer has
his coke party interrupted by Smith with his bomb and his video. It's
easy to underestimate the kind of skill Smith shows when he's so funny
and obviously has his tongue in cheek but still manages to be
convincingly sadistic and evil. Honestly, a comparison to Vincent Price
in his heyday is not unwarranted.
Starting up!
Bad guys are so fucked.
Peter Weller for his part is adequate and it's a difficult role so that's no
insult. I didn't care for Nancy Allen in the movie but I can't really
put my finger on the reasons. I guess she just came across as very
tentative. I think it was a small mistake for Verhoeven to have her
play it in a more grounded mode; his butt-kicking females are more
fascinating but he does always have problems directing female heroes
(see "Showgirls" and "Total Recall" for example). I think this is a pretty intelligent movie with some layers to it. It's
better as science fiction than you would at first suspect, mining
Frankenstein territory in a number of scenes – particularly where the
callous nature of the creator is shown ("lose the arm") and when the
police force turns on Robocop like the mob of angry villagers in
Whale's film version. In Shelley's time perhaps a single scientist was
a suitable object of terror, but by choosing corporate monster-makers
the writers of this film gave the story a far more prescient object for
paranoia. Indeed, even since I last saw the film in the late 90s, the
film's central premise has become even more relevant due to America's
misadventures with corporate security forces in Iraq.
the Meanest Fucktards.
Just chillin' watching some youtube videos.
This time around I noticed all the elements of Western parody in the
film. Not just the twirling pistol (which also, interestingly, performs
a plot function by identifying Robocop as Murphy) but also in various
other scenes. For example one poster here complained about the
"generic" or obligatory nature of the convenience store scene and the
rape scene where Robocop is introduced as a hero. I couldn't disagree
more. They parallel the arrival of the hero in a traditional Western;
the convenience store works for the trading post in "Shane", the
nightclub scene doubles for a tavern brawl (i.e. the beginning of "Rio
Bravo") and the attempted rape parallels any number of damsel in
distress scenarios. That's a very funny scene for me because of the way
the girl goes up to Robocop after he rescues her and kind of drapes
herself over him ("My hero!"), a very prototypical American bit that
you'd see in a Randolph Scott Western from the 40s. Robocop's sterile
reaction is perfect, again a parody of the emotionless law enforcing
gunfighter of the Old West of American mythology.
Robo Yoga.
More human than human.
I expect to find more and more interesting elements the more I watch
the film over the years. I think recently its reputation has taken a
slight hit – look at the interesting life this film has had. Originally
it was a big hit both in theaters and on video. Over the years it was
not forgotten because action movie fans would return to it and be
surprised at how well it holds up and how many ideas are floating about
beneath the surface. Then based on their recommendations movie-goers of
a more intellectual bent gave the movie a chance and were disappointed.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back and for the movie to be
reclaimed as what it is – an intelligent violent film.
Here's the movie trailer:
And as bonus track for those Robocop fans out there, a compilation of TV ads & parodies based upon this great law enforcer:
