The remake of "Total Recall" opens in exactly...

[KDude]

Arnold is hilarious.. that's part of his charm.

Watch any DVD commentary with arnold too. That shit's funny.

 

[The Ü™]

Roger Ebert gave the new one it 3 stars out of 4. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 21% thus far. I'm gonna bet Roger is the senile one here.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, it was a downer when the reviews of Total Recall were not released until sometime on Thursday. It left me feeling like they were holding them as long as possible, to avoid having the opening day gutted; it's never a great sign.

The initial score was 9%, so I'm thrilled to see it up around 31-32% now. Huzzah! More seriously, not even sure the marks matter; a few of the movies I've seen in the last year and not liked very much were touted in the 70-90% range.

Reading some of the reviews, most of the complaints seem to be more gripes about how the (1) remake doesn't cover new ground and (2) the source material raised a bunch of provocative questions that would have easily made a great movie and were completely squandered. The fact that it's a remake -- and riffs more on the first adaptation of the story rather than going back to the original story -- makes item #2 seem even worse. So it's not necessarily that it's a horrible movie, it's more that it should have been better. Those who have been looking at it as action/summer fare seem to have been more forgiving.

Which is disappointing... the one thing that I can recall from the first movie is the twist, when you find out who was involved in setting up Quaid. For the life of me, I can't understand why Wiseman would avoid dealing with the premise of "what is real" in this film, which is especially made for that kind of questioning. I wasn't thrilled to see who wrote the script, since most of his scripts seem to have been duds; hasn't anyone figured out that if you can make a smart action picture versus a stupid one, the smart one will resonate far longer than pure action? I'm betting more people own Minority Report than Transporter 1, for example.

And I actually really like Wiseman's Underworld stuff -- the first two movies. They aren't Shakespeare, but at least had enough richness in the characters (and decent actors -- I mean, he even snagged Derek Jacobi in the second), and a few plot complexities to make things interesting.

It seems to be a shame to go to the trouble of doing a remake, and then following the first adapation instead of starting over a bit, and stripping out workable elements from the first and not replacing them with something unique. I really dislike many Arnold films -- they're pure cheese, usually, although I have a soft spot for Predator, and the novelty of seeing Alyssa Milano in Commando [and the now long forgotten "Next Thing" Rae Dawn Chong!] is fun), so I didn't mind a more serious remake, but why not take things to the next level rather than just playing them safe and boring? The road has been paved for meta-movies, and this one could have been fascinating if they had kept addressing the notion of "what is real?" in the movie.

Anyway, I'll probably have more to say after I see it.

EDIT: I just noticed RT only gave Underworld a 32% or something, and Evolution only a 16%. I've already watched both of those movies a number of times more than MI:4 (which I barely stomached the first time), which got a rating of somehere around 92%.

So yeah, screw it.

 

[jcloudz]

Roger Ebert gave the new one it 3 stars out of 4. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 21% thus far. I'm gonna bet Roger is the senile one here.

rodger ebert gave "babe in the city" a good review. they lost their credibility long ago.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, I saw it. I'll say I definitely think the RT Pool o' Critics was too harsh on it, they were a bit unfair.

I think basically the similarities to the old pic, while losing the humor and not playing into the strengths of a remake (i.e., taking the original and making it better) really got a bunch of kneejerk sour responses. Also, there were a number of "homage scenes" from the old movie (you'll recognize them when you see them), and they just come off a little disconnected or cheesy. There was also one edit cut that wasn't seamless and lost me for about 15 seconds.

I'd probably give it a B- or a B. In the same genre, I'd say Minority Report was definitely better -- it attempted more, and actually delivered on more, and the characters in MR evoked more pathos. I also felt that Underworld is the better movie, out of two movies by the same director. However, if you look at this pic as a slightly more upscale, scifi version of a movie like Transporter (i.e., any Jason Statham movie), then it works well enough.

I also felt it was more ambiguous about what is real and what isn't, than what most critics said. It actually did play with that quite a bit, and there's an especially excruciating scene in the middle of the movie... wow...I'll let you see that one for yourself. I tried to not recall my memories of the old movie and play it by ear, and I think the beauty of the whole "implanted memories" meme is that even when you think you've been given a clear "Tell," you STILL can never be quite sure... there were a number of scenes in the movie that kept reinforcing that all might not be what it seemed, and not just in the beginning of the movie.

It was kinda cool to hear Kate talk with an American accent for the opening minutes of the movie; she didn't sound at all like herself, even her voice timber sounded different to me.

The strength of the movie easily was the action -- quite a few sequences that were complex and operating in more than 2 dimensions. I just wish (1) Farrell had evoked some feeling, he just didn't seem to exude too much variation and (2) the ending had been better. The movie is kind of flat much of the way through, it's just running "full tilt" in action sequences, and so the ending just kind of arrives and, well, there you are....

I'll probably be stoned for saying this, but I think I'm more likely to watch it again than Prometheus or TDKR. (Well, I might relent on Prometheus, because I want to watch the starmap and cataract visuals and see Michael Fassbender again as David.)

 

[Totenkindly]

In case any of you don't have it, I just watched the 1990 version of Total Recall online for free:
http://www.onlinemoviefree4u.com/2012/03/total-recall-1990.html

Interesting. There's a LOT of stuff that shows up in both movies, but the second movie uses the details differently or puts a different spin on everything. Here are some of the similarities/differences:

1. 1990 has emotional arc but can be over-dramatic/cheesy; 2012 is consistently flat.
2. Three-boobs shows up in both.
3. 1990 has mutants; 2012 has blue-collar workers
4. 1990, the issue is lack of air; 2012, it's lack of space.
5. 1990, the environment of Mars is a key plot point; 2012, the Lift (traversing the core) is a key plot point.
6. 1990, the doctor sweats and shows fear, thus suggesting he's lying, and Quaid shoots him; 2012, Malina sheds a tear, but... what does THAT mean? Even in Quaid's dream, it would have made sense for her to be scared, as he was supposed to kill her. A dream Malina would have cried as much as a real one. So I think 2012 is more murky, it's hard to know if it's real or fake.
7. 1990, Quatto tells Quaid that his identity is not in what he was, it's in what he does now; 2012, Quatto does the same -- Quaid is not defined by his past, but by his present.
8. 1990, there's Lori and there's Richter; 2012, there's just Lori playing both roles.
9. 1990, cops that look like mall cops with swat armor; 2012, robots that look like wanna stormtroopers.
10. 1990, Quaid pulls a bug out his nose; 2012, Quaid pulls the phonepad out of the innards of his hand.
11. 1990, Quaid is disguised as big colorful woman; 2012, there is a similar woman in the foreground, but Quaid is someone else; both use a device that disguises them but that malfunctions.
12. 1990, a LOT of music and kind of over-the-top, in an Airplane sense; 2012, the music blends together without being memorable at all.


Also, I have to say -- many critics bitched and said 2012 gave the mystery away too soon, but it did no worse than 1990, where the doctors in the lab made it clear that they never even injected Quaid with memories, so obviously all of it was already in him. Anyone bitching about this just needs to watch the first movie again -- both of them had about the same degree of transparency and/or uncertainty.

 

[The Ü™]

In case any of you don't have it, I just watched the 1990 version of Total Recall online for free:
http://www.onlinemoviefree4u.com/2012/03/total-recall-1990.html

Interesting. There's a LOT of stuff that shows up in both movies, but the second movie uses the details differently or puts a different spin on everything. Here are some of the similarities/differences:

1. 1990 has emotional arc but can be over-dramatic/cheesy; 2012 is consistently flat.
2. Three-boobs shows up in both.
3. 1990 has mutants; 2012 has blue-collar workers
4. 1990, the issue is lack of air; 2012, it's lack of space.
5. 1990, the environment of Mars is a key plot point; 2012, the Lift (traversing the core) is a key plot point.
6. 1990, the doctor sweats and shows fear, thus suggesting he's lying, and Quaid shoots him; 2012, Malina sheds a tear, but... what does THAT mean? Even in Quaid's dream, it would have made sense for her to be scared, as he was supposed to kill her. A dream Malina would have cried as much as a real one. So I think 2012 is more murky, it's hard to know if it's real or fake.
7. 1990, Quatto tells Quaid that his identity is not in what he was, it's in what he does now; 2012, Quatto does the same -- Quaid is not defined by his past, but by his present.
8. 1990, there's Lori and there's Richter; 2012, there's just Lori playing both roles.
9. 1990, cops that look like mall cops with swat armor; 2012, robots that look like wanna stormtroopers.
10. 1990, Quaid pulls a bug out his nose; 2012, Quaid pulls the phonepad out of the innards of his hand.
11. 1990, Quaid is disguised as big colorful woman; 2012, there is a similar woman in the foreground, but Quaid is someone else; both use a device that disguises them but that malfunctions.
12. 1990, a LOT of music and kind of over-the-top, in an Airplane sense; 2012, the music blends together without being memorable at all.


Also, I have to say -- many critics bitched and said 2012 gave the mystery away too soon, but it did no worse than 1990, where the doctors in the lab made it clear that they never even injected Quaid with memories, so obviously all of it was already in him. Anyone bitching about this just needs to watch the first movie again -- both of them had about the same degree of transparency and/or uncertainty.

And don't forget the spin on

the "Two weeks" lady.

I nearly cried laughing.

It was almost like Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the original. That said, I liked the original better, although the remake was a much more awesome movie to look at due to the advancements in visual effects technology. The amount of detail in the matte paintings created environments was astounding. The art direction as a whole was beautiful. I loved looking at the seemingly floating ghetto neighborhoods and the futuristic car chases were also fun. The robot cops were also seamless.

But I didn't get why the three-boobed hooker was even in the 2012 movie, since it was not about mutants. (This isn't really a spoiler because she's in the trailer.)

Although I totally didn't expect to see the boobs. PG-13 cash cow which I'll get to now.

Overall, the remake was much more cautious due to the studio cash cow trying to reach a broader audience, and therefore tone the content down. No, sadly, Quaid doesn't use a bloody corpse as a shield in this one, and only CG robots lose their arms when they're caught between the ceiling and the elevator, and finally, no...ahem...eye-popping special effects.

But thankfully, the next futuristic thriller remake coming out this summer has a confirmed R rating, so I'm looking forward to Dredd, a remake (or even reimagining) of the Sly Stallone cult classic Judge Dredd, which, with the exception of Rob Schneider, was a lot of fun.

And Harry Gregson-Williams is a clone of Hans Zimmer. Jerry Goldsmith's score in the original was so awesome and inventive. May he rest in peace.

 

[Totenkindly]

... the remake was a much more awesome movie to look at due to the advancements in visual effects technology. The amount of detail in the matte paintings created environments was astounding. The art direction as a whole was beautiful. I loved looking at the seemingly floating ghetto neighborhoods and the futuristic car chases were also fun. The robot cops were also seamless.

I agree with all that. It really felt like the place was real, and almost like being in some Singaporean grunged-out futuristic locale. In 1990, everything was pretty clearly a set.

But I didn't get why the three-boobed hooker was even in the 2012 movie, since it was not about mutants. (This isn't really a spoiler because she's in the trailer.)

Total homage. Like I noted, there's a number of things that seemed to be tossed in "just because." Like the plump woman at the checkpoint.

The hooker actually made news because I think she went to Comic*Con with her boobs on, and people were trying to either grope her or thought maybe two of the three were her real boobs, that she was putting on display. I forget where I saw the article.

Overall, the remake was much more cautious due to the studio cash cow trying to reach a broader audience, and therefore tone the content down. No, sadly, Quaid doesn't use a bloody corpse as a shield in this one,

Yeah, I had totally forgotten about that! What's funny is that I was very immersed in the church at the time, and it was in the same era people had openly complained about "Amy Grant crossing over [to secular music] without the Cross", and now I recall getting into a huge nasty debate about whether it was moral for him to use the guy as a shield.

To me, it was clearly not a big deal because the guy was already dead. It would have been different if he had just grabbed some screaming guy and used him as a meatshield, from a moral standpoint.

Still, it was pretty bloody in the 1990 version.

Harry Gregson-Williams is a clone of Hans Zimmer.

He was pretty forgettable in this movie.

 

[Werewolfen]

It might be good, Colin Farrell is a good actor. Last movie I saw with him in it was Fright Night and that too was a remake.

 

[Totenkindly]

It might be good, Colin Farrell is a good actor. Last movie I saw with him in it was Fright Night and that too was a remake.

He wasn't bad in the remake, he was kind of a badass -- I saw the Chris Sarandon version long ago with a few years after it came out.

I like Farrell best in Phone Booth and in Minority Report, I think.

 

[Totenkindly]

Extended Director's Cut

Well, I have to say, I just watched the Director's Cut, and it's a much better movie than the theatrical release, even with only about an extra 12 minutes of running time and some swapped-in scenes which leaves about 20 minutes of "new material".

It's kind of amazing to me just how small tweaks / alternate versions of scenes, occasional extra lines of dialogue, etc., can make such a significant impact on the quality of a movie. It's Len Wiseman, so it's certainly now Shakespeare, but I think the quality has definitely improved to bring this movie into "watchable" territory now.

This particular release brings the movie up enough in quality that at this stage one's liking/disliking of the movie will probably be more based on whether or not you happen to like Len Wiseman's movies rather than because the movie is just a dog all around. if you hated UnderWorld, chances are you still won't like this; if you happen to like the Underworld films (which didn't fare well from the critics POV but still have their cult following), the Director's Cut might be enjoyable.

For whatever reason, the original movie felt "bare" and just entirely action-oriented, whereas this version inserts just enough dialogue back in where the larger issues of reality vs fiction seem to be more addressed. There's even a shot near the end where the entire reality of the movie is purposefully thrown back into doubt.

Another correction is ensuring that it's clear why Lori continues to try to kill Quaid even after having orders not to. A few ideas here: (1) She is pissed at Cohaagen for sticking her with a guy of his caliber without warning her effectively, putting her at risk, (2) professional jealousy, and (3) she views him as a traitor -- she believes he actually IS a traitor to the government when trying to kill him, so she doesn't care what her orders are. Cohaagen never really tells her what the master plan is; and when the major reveal occurs, Cohaagen threatens her and tells her he'll deal with her insubordination later. I don't recall what appeared in the theatrical version, but it was very clear to me in the director's cut.

I think the largest "correction" of the movie is putting Ethan Hawk back into the film. The premise here (and it is specifically noted by the dialogue) is that Quaid's appearance has been surgically changed. This helps explain why people do not recognize him on the street or elsewhere. I only wish they had had more of Hauser in the movie -- in particular, instead of having Cohaagen doing the "big reveal" in the rebel base, having Hauser do it via hologram. That was probably one of my favorite parts in the original movie, and it was disappointing not to see it here.

The movie itself is as beautiful as ever on BluRay. Underworld was all done in shades of blue; this is done in Blade Runner grit, but there are still vibrant colors of all sorts, including reds and yellows. Wiseman does frame scenes decently, and I never really had trouble following the action. I listened to about ten minutes of the director commentary near the Extended edition, and it's clear that Wiseman does think through his scenes. In the portion i listened to, he was describing how a lot of people use all CGI nowadays but he doesn't prefer having his cameras do impossible things, he likes to use it more realistically. And when they do the motion-detecting suits, for characters who actually are wearing body armor (or the robots, for example), he doesn't like to use skintight leotards because people move different depending on the weight and style of what they are wearing -- so he would build those limitations into the motion-detecting suit itself rather than just adding everything on in CGI.