Having just watched Spring Breakers, I'm definitely surprised by the high rating it has. Not so much because I hated it, but I just didn't expect it to be so well received. Some of this movie feels like Girls Gone Wild, the subplot about Selena Gomez's character being religious doesn't go anywhere-maybe there is some vague connection about her rightfully wanting to leave after they go to jail-but really, anyone with sense would've wanted to leave, you wouldn't have to be a believer. Ashley Benson's character doing strange things with a water pistol is odd, to say the least, maybe it's meant to be humorous, there are a number of repetitive scenes and dialogue, like when the "You're Sacred Aren't You"; sentence is retold 10 times, and the plot just isn't that original or entertaining. James Franco does well to be basically unrecognisable as to what looks like an imitation of the joke that is Riff Raff. Not hard to get through, but I definitely didn't connect with it like many have. 2.5-2

This is almost one of those it's so bad it's good films. Bobcat Goldthwait plays a stockbroker named Fred, and unsurprisingly does it as a version of Zed of Police Academy - although a slightly toned down one. John Candy provides the voice of his sidekick, Don the talking horse, who provides Fred with market tips early on in the film that set the scene for the movie. Not a lot works here, particularly enough of Don's jokes, which were apparently improvised by John Candy after the script didn't work well. There are a few moments of laughter though, particularly if you like Bobcat Goldthwait's famous psychotic/neurotic-like character. 1.5-2/5

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.

I'm not a Michael Bay hater, while I dislike Transformers and others, I like the Bad Boys films and a couple of others he has done, but I can't help but come away from this thinking that this would have been a better film in the hands of another director, who has perhaps dabbled in more genres than Bay has. The real-life families of the victims have understandably demonstrated anger at the film's comedic undertone. While some of it is understandable given what the criminals did is so unbelievably stupid, Rebel Wilson's character, with the kind of humour she has used in every movie she has been in, together with her jokes didn't seem to fit. Tony Shalhoub's character also goes for the comedic at times, and portrays Victor Kershaw/Marc Schiller as a horrible unlikable person in the film. After seeing the real Marc Schiller in a documentary, that's not how he comes across. The character being unlikable eliminates much of the sympathy one should feel for a victim of torture, kidnapping and multiple attempted murder. Disregarding those issues, it still has its moments. The writers had gold to work with as the material-which I'm surprised wasn't made into a film earlier-is, as mentioned, unbelievable, the acting is good, and as usual Miami is an aesthetically pleasing setting to view.

PMI Positive: - It is dark. It does take itself seriously. One review I read said this about the film: "unrelieved atmosphere of oppressiveness". While I wouldn't agree completely with that opinion I liked the grim atmosphere. Do we want the campy 'Batman and Robin' back? I loved the tone of the film. I prefer the tone of this and Nolan's Batmans than what a lot of Marvel films provide. The day they make an R-rated Batman (apparently a cut of this is) film with the tone of Schindler's List I'll be happy. Batman/Bruce Wayne are not happy characters. - I was glad it doesn't go into the origins of Batman too much. Even what they did was too much for people who know the story. I guess it was necessary as the connection between Batman's and Superman's parents is important to the plot. - Despite fears the casting of Batman/Bruce Wayne was a-okay. Jeremy Irons fits the role of Alfred perfectly too. - There are a number of powerful moments. Particularly with Superman. I think the whole God theme was well done. - One thing I've loved about 'Man of Steel' and this over the older Superman films is that they demonstrate the real power of Superman where you feel his strength. These have done it really well. Minus: - I don't know if it just because we are caught up in the plethora of other media how Lex has been portrayed, and I could be wrong as I don't know the comics that well, but Jessie seemed more like Ledger's Joker than he does the previous portrayals of Luther in this. I think he did a good job doing what he was trying to do but again, I think Lex was miscast here. There are a number of differences to the classic Batman story but this seemed to be a major alteration. Jessie could still pass for a teen as well, there seemed too big an age difference. This is no doubt the biggest flaw with it and was from the audience testing as well. - If you hadn't seen 'Man of Steel' I don't know if I would go as far to say that the viewer would have been lost but I think they would have benefited from a touch more callbacks. I wished I'd watched it again prior to viewing this. - The reason for them fighting. Wouldn't Superman just tell Batman quickly that Lex has tricked him rather than wait until he is on his death bed? - Lex's motivation to kill Superman? Again, I'm not very familiar with the comics but I gathered from the Reeve movies it boiled down to Lex not being able to do what he wanted to do with Superman around and him constantly foiling his attempts at World domination. I didn't get a clear reasoning in this. Maybe I missed something. Interesting: - I can see why people feel like the movie was trying to pack too much into it during the first half while I was watching it, which is a common criticism I'm seeing, but by the end, I didn't feel that. When you break it down there isn't that much to it. I'd rather have it this way than a more formulaic superhero movie plot where nothing happens. See Deadpool. - Wonder Woman. For 95% of the movie you don't see her. One of the few scenes she is in she is promoting the upcoming Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg films. One comment I read hit home about how "Lex apparently gave them names/logos" - The dream sequence within a dream sequence... It was cool but seemed out of place. - Batman had time to change costume between the Superman fight and getting in the batwing towards the conclusion of the film to fight Doomsday? Maybe he had it on underneath? - People have complained about all of the special effects. Do you want Doomsday to be a man in a gorilla suit? - The Batman fights in the lead up to save Martha were quite reminiscent of the moves from the Arkham Asylum to Arkham Knight video game series. - The people saying Batman doesn't kill. Yes, he has many times before. - In an early court room scene did anyone notice the two Batman like figures out of focus? - The extended cut does add to the film, explaining some events in greater detail, but I don't think it improves it as much as many claim. I'd heard from a friend that this film wasn't being well received from critics but I tried to stay away from the reviews and ratings until I saw this about six days into its release and I had to admit after seeing it I was shocked at the negative reception. It's not a perfect movie, there are holes, but the acclaimed Nolan Batmans had holes as well. I really don't feel like a lot of the criticisms are just and I thoroughly enjoyed this one. I'm thinking about going to see it again. A lot more engrossing than any superhero film I've seen probably since 'TDK'. I mean, 'Ant Man' got far better reception than this...talk about a boring movie. I'd rather a film have some plot issues than be a complete bore. --------------------------- The Extended Version - Adds some more explanation to some subsplots but it doesn't add as much as some claim it does.