How good did the remake of Robocop actually have to be? Basically all it had to do was a) be moderately entertaining and b) not be boring. It almost achieves "a" in spots but unfortunately couldn't manage "b."

For  a movie about a cyborg cop this move is maddeningly talky and if anyone can can come up with a plausible reason why Samuel L. Jackson is in this movie it would be great to hear (most likely it is so he can say "motherfucker" at the end). If you excised every moment he is in the movie it would make no difference and it is a LOT of moments. It brings an already slow film to a screeching halt. His segments are so hamfisted in their writing and delivery it is embarrassing.

This said, Robocop may be the best action film released in January or February, 2014. Of course being the "best" of anything released in the first two months of the year is sort of like being the best reggae band in New Jersey.

Some of the good things about the movie include the acting and the fact that they make some effort to update and change the plot. It is nice when a remake isn't just a rehash. As much as they tried to alter the plot they kept some things around, like the criminal kingpin. But in this case that is a side-plot that is disconnected from the rest of the movie. Regardless, it is tough to get beyond boring.

Too much talking will kill any action movie. When you walk into Robocop do you want to see people debating ethics or a faux cable TV news show? No, you do not. You want to see a robot shooting bad guys and maybe some humor. 

Of course, in this film one of the best segments is when Joel Kinnaman's Alex Murphy wakes up to find he is mostly machine. The brief scenes of his psychological turmoil over this information are surprisingly effective. If they hadn't sprung for the exceptional cast this movie  would probably have been unwatchable--Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley and pretty much all the smaller roles don't phone in their performances even though the material isn't particularly great.

Also, if they are robots would they spray and pray with their guns? Wouldn't they fire more sparingly? The action sequences in the film are also oddly clipped and anti-climactic. They are poorly staged and run of the mill. Add that to talky and it isn't likely to yield a good result. It isn't awful but it barely hangs on to that least coveted of movie adjectives--mediocre.

Robocop redone is sort of difficult to write about because it is just so middling. Nothing new and not terribly fun, this is a sequel that should have remained in the can.

Monuments Men is something of a missed opportunity. The film deals with a fascinating part of World War II in Europe--the attempt (belated during the war) to preserve and rescue sites and art that was in danger or outright stolen during the war. There is something appealing in this--the notion that that war was not fought just for political reasons but was a clash of civilization versus barbarism.

It’s never boring? Maybe if you need a lot of explosions you might find yourself nodding out. It just doesn't develop characters and sort of lacks drama. You do not get a sense really of who these people are. Bill Murray is Bill Murray no matter if you show him up on a Chicago scaffold for a few seconds. Bob Balaban is pithy and has some funny lines but who he IS, as a character, is something of a mystery. George Clooney is a movie star and a great actor. He can do action, drama, and comedy. But here he, while he isn't bad, his role is just not memorable. The only actors whose characters come to life at all are Matt Damon's James Granger and Cate Blanchett's Claire Simone. They seem human, you care about them. This is in part due to there being enough personal interaction between them (and between them and other characters) that you get more of a sense who they are.

Monuments Men isn't at any point BAD really. It just has trouble vaulting to a level where you could say, without reservation, it is good. It has compelling moments. One of these is Balaban doing something nice for Murray. The two apparently do not get along but you never really know why. The "moment" that is moving but it goes on far too long. A scene where Damon and Blanchett have dinner works nicely. Many scenes where they value and importance of the art they are chasing work well too. A scene where Clooney talks to an SS officer is, at least, satisfying.

This scene brings up another problem with the movie; who are the bad guys? Are the bad guys the Nazis in general? The SS officer who presided over the massive thefts from France is one villain. Another villain is a different, more murderous SS officer. Then the Russians are brought into the mix (and to be sure when the Russians came across art they were not big on trying to get it back to the original owners). For the sake of a film it might have been better to pick ONE--even if it was an amalgamation of different characters.

The film moves along nicely but, as noted, the drama that should be there is not. It may be that it is all played a little too light-hearted for the subject matter. It skates past truths like the fact that the American demolition of Monte Casino was totally unnecessary (the Germans were definitively NOT using the monastery itself). This is mentioned in the film? If you mention it? Take 30 more seconds to explain what happened and they knew at the time because they covered it up, blaming the destruction on the Germans.

It isn't really a history lesson that some of the "Its BORING history" folks are saying. As an aside, if you say "history is boring" you should just add "I am a moron" because history is everything. History is last year's Super Bowl. History is your parent's wedding anniversary. History is also wars, politics, entertainment and everything else that has ever happened. If that bores you are clearly a moron.

This isn't history. It barely even tries to be and that is something of a shame. If it had paid more attention to the details of history and been a more personal movie instead of an ensemble one it might have worked. Clooney is a talented director as shown in films such as Ides of March and Good Night, and Good Luck. But this one got away from him a little.

Lone Survivor is a film you might think risks being a flag waving bit of jingoism. Let's put that to bed right away; it is not that. It doesn't really take a stand on "should we be there?" It comes down squarely against the Taliban but most people on the planet are not fans outside of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

It is also an exciting action film that has something else too--it is a true story and is depicted fairly close to accounts of what happened (the book of the same name).  This also gives the film something totally fictional films do not have--gravitas. You realize, before the film proper even starts that the characters represent real people. What happens to them, or something similar, happened in real life. They had families and friend. It gives the film a different feel. It opens with actual SEAL training and ends with photos of the actual soldiers who perished.

One thing I wish the film had gotten across is that these Navy SEALs are not just bad asses. You have to be smart to do this, you have to have the sort of leadership qualities that, frankly, the world needs. It is tragic when anyone dies in war but it is even worse when men of such promise do. That is, however, not about the film that was made.

The acting is, across the board, solid. The ensemble cast never let you think of them as actors. Of course this is IDEALLY what should happen in every movie. It doesn't. I am not sure anyone stands out in the film, that anyone steal the movie. In a way it is an analogy for the military men they are portraying; they work together.

The film doesn't go into a great deal of backstory--something I talk a lot about because in some movies you need that, in others it is a distraction.  Here you know enough about the men to make them real but not in the depth to make you really care for the character in the movie. Again, in the back of your head you realize these were real men so the characters get mixed up with reality. That makes it compelling so that the snatches of backstory work.

The relationship between the Taliban, Afghani villagers and the U.S. military comes of as a little false here. Perhaps it isn't so much "falseness" but rather the relationship being complicated, perhaps too complicated for a details in this film. Without giving anything away there are interactions, at the end of the film, that seem like they need more explanation. They don't ring true (although they may well be). Yet, it is also true that further details, a few more minutes, likely wouldn't help.

The film isn't Blackhawk Down or Zero Dark 30. It doesn't have the scope of those films. Yet it succeeds in telling this story. It should make you think about the gravity and tragedy of war too, which is always a good thing.