I like the first film and the whole RoboCop franchise. I've watched the films, played the games and seen the animated TV series. I don't find it to be a masterpiece like some, but it's a unique action film with other influences, which represented Detroit at the time of the film (6000 SUX). I do feel though that it is held up too highly by fans, who are the same people who for some reason are offended by remakes such as this. I was on another forum before its release and this never really had a chance with people with 1987 glasses on. But that's for another time. Firstly to the differences between the original and this film. The all-important 'death' of Alex Murphy which sets the tone for the rest of the film and RoboCop himself is replaced by something tamer than the original chilling scenes. If you have seen the trailer you would have seen this. The programmed directives aren't really a factor in this until the end of the remake unlike the original. The great scene of seeing through RoboCop's eyes right after he is dead including seeing them deciding to remove the arm they saved is missing. Labelling the new with dystopia is kind of a stretch. Set in 2028 in Detroit, it looks more like a modern city and doesn't have the same dreary rundown feel at all. Obviously the major problem in this, and the biggest bugbears of fans of the original is with the rating, which has meant that the gore is toned down. There is nothing like ED-209 malfunctioning in the boardroom or Emil's disgusting transformation from the toxic waste. We also see less intimately into the Detroit Police Department. Does the more family-friendly rating ruin this? In my opinion, if you are going to hate a film before it is released because it won't be able to have a bit more blood and guts then you probably need to reevaluate things. Would it be better with a higher rating? Sure. Especially with Murphy's incident which sets the tone for a lot of the characterisation that occurs, be it the villains or Murphy/RoboCop. Again though I don't think it is a reason to take off too many points. What is disappointing? Given the director who was signed on for this, I think everyone would've expected more satire and themes akin to the original. I guess times have changed but it is light on on this and is more of a straight action/drama film. In saying that, having rewatched the 1987 version it doesn't have as much of this as I remembered either, and really most stems from side note advertisements. Unlike the original where some comedic moments are sown through it, in the remake it is more serious, with the few times, it tries to conjure a laugh, like when Samuel L. Jackson's TV presenting character swears for humour towards the conclusion, not fitting very well. I didn't hear the few other people in the cinema laugh either. The very beginning also fell a bit flat for me, with the second half being an improvement. But I guess that happens with many movies like this where the origins of the characters are told. Think of great action films though like The Dark Knight. The first scenes made the film be love at first sight. The most disappointing thing though is the villains. Keaton does great work in his role, but all top 'superhero' type of films like this have a great villain. For whatever reason, the rating, or going for a more realistic feel, this film doesn't have a truly memorable evil villain. Reading an interview from Padilha, he said he wanted it to be grounded. So maybe this explains keeping the characters real and the omission of a villain you'd more likely find in a comic book than in real life. What works? While it has less gore, in comparison to the original it feels darker at times. The way Murphy reacts to realising what has become of him after his attempted murder, what he has been transformed into, and the scenes with his wife and young son are arguably more emotive than the original. There are also graphic scenes which show RoboCop in parts, with his lungs expanding and contracting. The action scenes are fairly slick, there also aren't enough for certain critics to be calling this a shootout like I have read. There were a couple of times as well where, like Batman in his recent outings on the silver screen, RoboCop appears and gives off this rush of coolness. Other times during the action scenes though leave questions, such as how could all of those robots fighting RoboCop have missed him? The acting is good from all involved. I did feel though Abbie Cornish who has to play an upset grieving wife in all most all of her scenes could've done a better job in some of them. In comparing the RoboCops. Peter Weller did not sell me as a cop in the original. Once he becomes Robocop it's a different story though of course. Kinnaman looks more like a police officer. Just like Reeve will always be Superman, as RoboCop, to top Weller when it's all everyone knows is impossible, but he does a fine job. To compare other characters. We see a lot more of Murphy's wife who plays an important role. The doctor (Gary Oldman) plays a vital role to the plot as well, being a crucial character to the story. From a white women, Murphy's partner becomes a black male. Unlike in the original where Boddicker is the main villain closely followed by Dick Jones, who both get taken out not long after one another. In the whole scheme of things, RoboCop's attempted murderer plays a minor role with the corporate villain (Michael Keaton) being the main foe. It's hard to separate originals from remakes but overall I thought they made a reasonable film here, which like the original did, represents the current time, including RoboCop's ability to connect to CCTV cameras around the city and to match any face in the crowd to someone on a police file. I'm sure the studios have done the maths, but why they continually want to water down films with a large following like the 1987 RoboCop, which no doubt means worse reviews, which no doubt means less ticket sales from the core fanbase is something I question.