I do, because it makes movies technocratic. It used to be that there were all kinds of things you couldn’t show in a movie, and hence you had to get good actors, good writers, maybe (heaven forbid) some ideas and themes in there. Now, CGI basically says ‘what do you want to put on the screen?’ and so you end up with incredibly shallow, vapid, immature films. It is partly about budgets, but it’s also about what CGI has enabled. I very much blame it for that.
No no no no no no no, nothing of the sort. I genuinely believe those are, when I look back on the (however many) films I’ve watched in my life, those two endure above all others. Also, I’ve seen both dozens of times but never get bored watching them.
I love Robocop because it’s a post-industrial dystopia come transhuman sci-fi epic come conspiracy thriller. And I just love the noises, the fact that they’ve actually got a dude inside a robo-suit, the too cool for school dialogue, the twists, the way the police cars always cause a spark on the ramp as they exit the underground carpark, the satirical news broadcasts and adverts that are the hallmark of most of Verhoeven’s great films. Basically, it has everything a growing boy needs in a movie. Plus Robocop would kick the arse of Alien, Predator, Terminator, and any other mothafucka going, with the possible exception of Black Dynamite.
I love Who Framed Roger Rabbit? because, similarly, it’s a Hollywood satire (or more specifically, a Disney satire) masked as a classic noir detective/conspiracy story, with a whole load of existential quandaries thrown in, like the classic line about ‘I can’t help it, I’m just drawn this way’. I like movies that are constantly pulling me in different directions, and that blend genres without you really noticing or caring. Plus I find Roger a really funny character, really endearing.
However, if someone wishes to challenge my claims regarding these two movies then I am certainly prepared to duel over it.