Total Recall 1990....a masterpiece of a sci fi action flick set mostly on Mars ,Arnie is great in it probably his best film ever. Special effects that still look good today,Has some of Arnies best 1 liners ("Scruuuuw youuuu " as he jabs a bad guy with a 6foot cordless drill!) . 18 rated as well
Total Recall 2012....utterly shit 12 rated remake with very little in common with the classic(no Mars WTF!)
This pap would be a bad original film let alone a remake .
It has flopped massively at the worldwide box office.
Avoid at all costs
You have to rememebr that this is adapted from a Philip K. Dick SHORT story.
Douglas Quail never actually visits Mars in the story, he gets the implant and everything goes crazy like in the film, buts that's where the similarity ends. if fact the story pretty much ends after the SECOND implant procedure to undo the FIRST implant procedure to make him think he is a spy...
It may well be the Total Recall REMAKE sticks closer to the story than the original which is very loosely based around the story. We will wait and see.
BTW: I don't think there are any three breasted hookers in the original story...
The original TR was 22 years ago. Come into the next century old people.
If you have actually seen the 2012 version which I think a lot of posters have not, it is very different. It is a different hi-action sci-fi movie. Described by my sister as awesome.
It has faults, the main one being that the USA has been totally destroyed in a nuclear/chemical war and yet this is never talked about in the movie. USA people must not like that. There are also no young people in the movie, and the final threat could have been more convincing.
It would be best watched on a cinema screen and not on a small screen.
So no, do not see the original first as you will be comparing the two, which would be a mistake.
The original TR was 22 years ago. Come into the next century old people.
I can't comment on the original vs remake issue because I haven't seen the remake, but what exactly has the last century got to do with anything? I and plenty of others admire and enjoy many films from the turn of the last century, never mind the 90s.
It may well be the Total Recall REMAKE sticks closer to the story than the original which is very loosely based around the story. We will wait and see.
Everything I have read about it suggests it is no closer than the Arnie film was. Despite claims by those involved in the production that it is a re-adaptation of the original short story rather than a remake of the Arnie film, the evidence to the contrary suggests otherwise.
" Why should Total Recall (2012) be called a "remake" of Total Recall (1990)? For starters, they share the same title, and much of the same plot and characters. Quaid is a blue-collar worker bee who has fantastic and vivid dreams involving a woman other than his wife. He later learns that his "wife" is actual a secret agent planted to make sure he does not remember his past association with "rebels," and she tries to kill him. He later meets with the woman of his dreams and they later meet with a rebel leader who tries to recover additional information from Quaid. But it turns out that this was a trap set by Quaid's former boss to find and kill the rebel leader. Quaid later escapes before being implanted with his old personality, kills his former boss, and saves the day for the rebel's cause. Both movies also include a triple-breasted hooker. None of this is in the original story, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" (where Quaid is named "Quail" in the original story). Total Recall (2012) has much more in common with Total Recall (1990) than the original PKD short story. If the producers of Total Recall (2012) had made this movie without the rights to the source material, they would be liable for copyright infringement. A remake does not have to be a slavish shot-for-shot copy. Jjuo (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "
- It uses character names from the Arnie version (e.g. Quaid and Lori instead of Quail and Kirsten).
- It uses actual *characters* from the Arnie version, ones that never even existed in the original story (Melina, Hauser, Cohaagen, the Resistance leader...).
The original TR was 22 years ago. Come into the next century old people.
No thanks. I'll stick with the original one, the one that hasn't been critically panned as being a soulless and unnecessary remake. It may have been released 22 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's bad or not worth watching.
If you have actually seen the 2012 version which I think a lot of posters have not, it is very different. It is a different hi-action sci-fi movie. Described by my sister as awesome.
I think I'll stick with e.g. Rotten Tomatoes as a gauge of whether I should spend a tenner seeing something at the cinema, rather than your sister saying it's "awesome".
I know full well how much it costs to go to the cinema in 2012.
My local cinema is a Vue, and I go there regularly. This week I will be seeing The Expendables 2 and Dredd. I also have membership with the Cambridge Picturehouse.
The cost of a peak-time ticket at the Vue (after 5pm Friday, plus the weekend) is £9.40 (excluding the online booking fee).
Want to go on a Monday to Thursday evening, and have a "Saver" ticket? That'll be the slightly lower price of £7.95 (excluding online booking fee).
Alternatively, I could go to the Cineworld, which is further away and less convenient. An adult ticket there costs £9 after 5pm Mon, Wed-Sun, and £7.90 before 5pm.
I don't need to see Total Recall 2012 to condemn it - the overwhelming majority of critic reviews and audience reviews state that it is not very good, at all.
Given the strong consensus among the critics *and* the public regarding the crapness of Total Recall 2012, and given that it is a remake of something that has had far far better reviews from critics and the public, then I see no point in wasting my money to go and see it.
Reviews are not the be all and end all, but when there are so many things to see, and a trip to the cinema is so pricey, they are a very useful guide as to whether it's worth bothering with something or not... and Total Recall 2012 does not sound like something worth bothering with.
Carehome? I'm 34. Appreciating a classic SF action film from 1990, and not wanting to waste money on a pointless cash-in remake of it, does not make me old...
Yes, I thought that was obvious? You even pointed it out yourself previously by saying "Matt D, you have not even seen the 2012 TR and yet you condem it", which is why I replied with what I said.
As before... The remake has been widely panned by critics and audiences. Given how awful it is meant to be, and given that it is just a poor remake of a much more positively reviewed film (albeit an "old" :rolleyes: one from 22 years ago), I see no point in wasting money to go and see it at the cinema when there are better films out - films that have far better reviews, and which are not just pointless remakes of classic films.
It is not practical or economical to see *everything* released, so judgements have to be made on what is worth seeing and what is not worth seeing.
Given the awful reviews, I am of the opinion that Total Recall 2012 is *not* worth seeing... Why waste money seeing something that is just a crap remake of a good film, when there are better things to spend money seeing?
Yes, I thought that was obvious? You even pointed it out yourself previously by saying "Matt D, you have not even seen the 2012 TR and yet you condem it", which is why I replied with what I said.
As before... The remake has been widely panned by critics and audiences. Given how awful it is meant to be, and given that it is just a poor remake of a much more positively reviewed film (albeit an "old" :rolleyes: one from 22 years ago), I see no point in wasting money to go and see it at the cinema when there are better films out - films that have far better reviews, and which are not just pointless remakes of classic films.
It is not practical or economical to see *everything* released, so judgements have to be made on what is worth seeing and what is not worth seeing.
Given the awful reviews, I am of the opinion that Total Recall 2012 is *not* worth seeing... Why waste money seeing something that is just a crap remake of a good film, when there are better things to spend money seeing?
Yet another post about something you know nothing about.
I have actually seen the movie (twice) and it is worth seeing. But if 8 pounds is a lot of money to you, then save your money.
It's pretty bad. I'm no film snob at all, and actually it was my choice to see it.
I tried to view it as a film on it's own merits and not compared to the original, which admittedly was quite difficult since im a kid of the 80s and love Arnie.
But really, it's just a poor movie. Had it not been my friend's treat as a celebration, I would have left. It's hard to put into words why exactly, but the whole movie felt very flat. None of the characters were interesting in the slighest, and Colin Farrell seemed almost bored. There was no tension throughout the whole thing, and the dialogue was pretty poor (or delivered poorly, actually I think a bit of both).
Suprising really, as it ticks all my boxes (in theory). I love the sci setting, Kate Beckinsale is one of my faves, I like Colin Farrell as an actor (In Bruges/Minority Report) and I have no strong feelings towards Len Wiseman.
I enjoyed the original film. It took Dick's story and made it a bit more interesting (and changed the rather silly ending).
Being an Arnie film it didn't try to take itself too seriously (rather like Arnie's other sci-fi outing The Running Man) and it was decent, comic-book silliness and full of the usual corny one-liners.
The special effects were fairly poor, though, even for the time. There was a lot of unintentional laughter in the cinema during the "eye-popping" scene.
I haven't seen the remake so can't comment on it but from what I've read it's a more "serious" take on the subject. Possibly a mistake. Verhoeven knew exactly how to pitch the original and I think it was well done. I'm not sure if it would have worked with the seriousness of, say, Blade Runner.
The original film is a fun piece of 80s/90s style uber-violent action. It's your stereotypical Arnie flick. It's all about the big guy mooching around and delivering dodgy - but hilarious - one-liners, whilst laying waste to an endless sea of extras. Hearing it described as a sci-fi masterpiece boggles my mind! It really isn't. It's hugely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick, but intelligent sci-fi it ain't.
Now I won't deny that there is an intelligent sci-fi story buried in there. It's enough to raise it above the average random action flick with no appreciable story. But for the most part, the underlying ideas are never truly explored to a level that makes you think. They are, at most, used as plot devices to keep the action moving. If anyone other than Arnie were in the lead role, the film would have sunk without a trace.
Just look at half the posts on this thread; just quotes of some of Arnie's best one-liners. The reason those lines stand out is actually because they are hilariously bad, but Arn makes them endearing with his dodgy acting and wonderful accent. He pretty much carries the whole film. As PKD adaptions go, its not in the same league as films like Blade Runner or Minority Report, which successfully combine action with a deeper exploration of the story's concepts. As Arnie films go, Terminator is a better film when it comes to mixing violence with a well-developed and explored concept. TR touches on them once or twice, then covers the screen with blood in case the clever stuff was making you bored.
It's a film I always felt was a wasted opportunity. I do enjoy it for what it is, but as a sci-fi fan, I could see so much potential for so much more. It could have been an exceptional sci-fi movie, but it wasn't. Consequently, I always hoped it would be readapted and we'd get a serious take on the story and the concepts.
I haven't seen the new one yet, but its not sounding like we've managed to get it second time around. With most of the responses being poor and the fact that it sounds like it is a sanitized version of the Arnie original, then I'm less than optimistic. Why take the weaker aspects of the original and then remove the only elements that ended up making it a fun movie? Doesn't bode well, to me. I'll check it out when its available to rent. I don't feel like its worth wasting money going to the cinema to see something that might not be any good.
I haven't seen the new one yet, but its not sounding like we've managed to get it second time around. With most of the responses being poor and the fact that it sounds like it is a sanitized version of the Arnie original, then I'm less than optimistic. Why take the weaker aspects of the original and then remove the only elements that ended up making it a fun movie? Doesn't bode well, to me. I'll check it out when its available to rent. I don't feel like its worth wasting money going to the cinema to see something that might not be any good.
Careful - you're not allowed to post about it if you haven't seen it :rolleyes: Also: Liking the original means you're "old" and stuck in the last century :rolleyes:
i recently just watched them both (the original first) and have to say i'm not fussed by either.
the overall plot in the first one is far superior to the new one, but somethings in the first one were so ludicrously bad and have been fixed in the remake, and it does, obviously, LOOK better.
the 3 boobed woman worked in the first one because it was set on mars and there were mutants everywhere. the remake is on earth, with no mutants at all.......so WHY does she have 3 boobs?? are we supposed to believe that's the future of boob-jobs or what....?...
and that scene at the end of the first one where apparently asphyxiation makes your eyes pop out and you skin melt....but it's ok, because mass evaporation makes it IMMEDIATELY better...you won't even have a new wrinkle!! so glad that's gone.
as for actors....arnie's terrible! yet somehow, i preferr him to firth. wasn't fond of beil.
imho, kate beckinsale kicked ass and was faaarrrr better than stone. her and the slick effects are the movies two saving graces.
in short, i think the remake LOOKS better than the original, is less cheesy and, nitpicking, i would say makes more sense. but the original has the more engaging plot and interesting story.
Careful - you're not allowed to post about it if you haven't seen it :rolleyes: Also: Liking the original means you're "old" and stuck in the last century :rolleyes:
I was very careful not to make any definitive judgments, just in case I incur the wrath of the forum police. But at the end of the day, my money is a finite resource and I can't spend it on everything that might possibly be unfairly judged by the masses at large. As it stands, I don't have enough reason to think it will be worth spending my money on and there are other places that money could be better used. If that's me unfairly judging a film before I've seen it, I'm pretty sure I can live with that.
Despite the lack of story the original one had, it is actually a decent standalone action film.
I saw it today and i thought it was ok. Decent special effects, some good action sequences and the plot/story was fine for what it was. All in all it was a reasonable movie but it was just ok to me. Nothing particularly special or something i'd want to see again. Along the same lines of The Bourne Legacy it's a film which wasn't needed and really didn't warrant being made i.e. no one was crying out for it.
I've seen a fair few Colin Farrell films now and this is another one in the line that makes me think Colin Farrell does not make a good leading man. Good actor, yes but i've never seen him as a leading man and watching Total Recall today with him in it hasn't made me change my mind. Despite a twinkle in his eyes there's no star quality about him, shame as i actually think he's very talented.
However there was one specific standout and that was Kate Beckinsale. She was one mean, bad-ass, scarily crazy bitch. I thought she was fantastic! Loved her in this, she really gave it her all especially in those fight scenes.
Comments
You have to rememebr that this is adapted from a Philip K. Dick SHORT story.
Douglas Quail never actually visits Mars in the story, he gets the implant and everything goes crazy like in the film, buts that's where the similarity ends. if fact the story pretty much ends after the SECOND implant procedure to undo the FIRST implant procedure to make him think he is a spy...
It may well be the Total Recall REMAKE sticks closer to the story than the original which is very loosely based around the story. We will wait and see.
BTW: I don't think there are any three breasted hookers in the original story...
But...cutting out half the story, the mutants, the air supply, mars, aliens.....made it worthless and forgettable.
If you have actually seen the 2012 version which I think a lot of posters have not, it is very different. It is a different hi-action sci-fi movie. Described by my sister as awesome.
It has faults, the main one being that the USA has been totally destroyed in a nuclear/chemical war and yet this is never talked about in the movie. USA people must not like that. There are also no young people in the movie, and the final threat could have been more convincing.
It would be best watched on a cinema screen and not on a small screen.
So no, do not see the original first as you will be comparing the two, which would be a mistake.
I can't comment on the original vs remake issue because I haven't seen the remake, but what exactly has the last century got to do with anything? I and plenty of others admire and enjoy many films from the turn of the last century, never mind the 90s.
Everything I have read about it suggests it is no closer than the Arnie film was. Despite claims by those involved in the production that it is a re-adaptation of the original short story rather than a remake of the Arnie film, the evidence to the contrary suggests otherwise.
e.g.
- It has the same basic plot as the Arnie film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_(2012_film)#Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Total_Recall_(2012_film)#Remake.3F
- It uses character names from the Arnie version (e.g. Quaid and Lori instead of Quail and Kirsten).
- It uses actual *characters* from the Arnie version, ones that never even existed in the original story (Melina, Hauser, Cohaagen, the Resistance leader...).
No thanks. I'll stick with the original one, the one that hasn't been critically panned as being a soulless and unnecessary remake. It may have been released 22 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's bad or not worth watching.
I think I'll stick with e.g. Rotten Tomatoes as a gauge of whether I should spend a tenner seeing something at the cinema, rather than your sister saying it's "awesome".
Original: 84% (critics) / 71% (audience)
Remake: 29% (critics) / 47% (audience)
May I suggest you leave your carehome and go to the movies one afternoon.
My local cinema is a Vue, and I go there regularly. This week I will be seeing The Expendables 2 and Dredd. I also have membership with the Cambridge Picturehouse.
The cost of a peak-time ticket at the Vue (after 5pm Friday, plus the weekend) is £9.40 (excluding the online booking fee).
Want to go on a Monday to Thursday evening, and have a "Saver" ticket? That'll be the slightly lower price of £7.95 (excluding online booking fee).
Alternatively, I could go to the Cineworld, which is further away and less convenient. An adult ticket there costs £9 after 5pm Mon, Wed-Sun, and £7.90 before 5pm.
I don't need to see Total Recall 2012 to condemn it - the overwhelming majority of critic reviews and audience reviews state that it is not very good, at all.
Given the strong consensus among the critics *and* the public regarding the crapness of Total Recall 2012, and given that it is a remake of something that has had far far better reviews from critics and the public, then I see no point in wasting my money to go and see it.
Reviews are not the be all and end all, but when there are so many things to see, and a trip to the cinema is so pricey, they are a very useful guide as to whether it's worth bothering with something or not... and Total Recall 2012 does not sound like something worth bothering with.
Carehome? I'm 34. Appreciating a classic SF action film from 1990, and not wanting to waste money on a pointless cash-in remake of it, does not make me old...
So you admit you have not even seen the movie you are making posts about ?!
As before... The remake has been widely panned by critics and audiences. Given how awful it is meant to be, and given that it is just a poor remake of a much more positively reviewed film (albeit an "old" :rolleyes: one from 22 years ago), I see no point in wasting money to go and see it at the cinema when there are better films out - films that have far better reviews, and which are not just pointless remakes of classic films.
It is not practical or economical to see *everything* released, so judgements have to be made on what is worth seeing and what is not worth seeing.
Given the awful reviews, I am of the opinion that Total Recall 2012 is *not* worth seeing... Why waste money seeing something that is just a crap remake of a good film, when there are better things to spend money seeing?
Yet another post about something you know nothing about.
I have actually seen the movie (twice) and it is worth seeing. But if 8 pounds is a lot of money to you, then save your money.
Despite the lack of story the original one had, it is actually a decent standalone action film.
I tried to view it as a film on it's own merits and not compared to the original, which admittedly was quite difficult since im a kid of the 80s and love Arnie.
But really, it's just a poor movie. Had it not been my friend's treat as a celebration, I would have left. It's hard to put into words why exactly, but the whole movie felt very flat. None of the characters were interesting in the slighest, and Colin Farrell seemed almost bored. There was no tension throughout the whole thing, and the dialogue was pretty poor (or delivered poorly, actually I think a bit of both).
Suprising really, as it ticks all my boxes (in theory). I love the sci setting, Kate Beckinsale is one of my faves, I like Colin Farrell as an actor (In Bruges/Minority Report) and I have no strong feelings towards Len Wiseman.
Being an Arnie film it didn't try to take itself too seriously (rather like Arnie's other sci-fi outing The Running Man) and it was decent, comic-book silliness and full of the usual corny one-liners.
The special effects were fairly poor, though, even for the time. There was a lot of unintentional laughter in the cinema during the "eye-popping" scene.
I haven't seen the remake so can't comment on it but from what I've read it's a more "serious" take on the subject. Possibly a mistake. Verhoeven knew exactly how to pitch the original and I think it was well done. I'm not sure if it would have worked with the seriousness of, say, Blade Runner.
Now I won't deny that there is an intelligent sci-fi story buried in there. It's enough to raise it above the average random action flick with no appreciable story. But for the most part, the underlying ideas are never truly explored to a level that makes you think. They are, at most, used as plot devices to keep the action moving. If anyone other than Arnie were in the lead role, the film would have sunk without a trace.
Just look at half the posts on this thread; just quotes of some of Arnie's best one-liners. The reason those lines stand out is actually because they are hilariously bad, but Arn makes them endearing with his dodgy acting and wonderful accent. He pretty much carries the whole film. As PKD adaptions go, its not in the same league as films like Blade Runner or Minority Report, which successfully combine action with a deeper exploration of the story's concepts. As Arnie films go, Terminator is a better film when it comes to mixing violence with a well-developed and explored concept. TR touches on them once or twice, then covers the screen with blood in case the clever stuff was making you bored.
It's a film I always felt was a wasted opportunity. I do enjoy it for what it is, but as a sci-fi fan, I could see so much potential for so much more. It could have been an exceptional sci-fi movie, but it wasn't. Consequently, I always hoped it would be readapted and we'd get a serious take on the story and the concepts.
I haven't seen the new one yet, but its not sounding like we've managed to get it second time around. With most of the responses being poor and the fact that it sounds like it is a sanitized version of the Arnie original, then I'm less than optimistic. Why take the weaker aspects of the original and then remove the only elements that ended up making it a fun movie? Doesn't bode well, to me. I'll check it out when its available to rent. I don't feel like its worth wasting money going to the cinema to see something that might not be any good.
I know that it has been widely panned by critics and viewers.
I know that the original film that it is a remake of had far better reviews.
I know that there are other films out, or due out soon, with better reviews.
Conclusion: It is my opinion that seeing this would be a waste of my money...
Careful - you're not allowed to post about it if you haven't seen it :rolleyes: Also: Liking the original means you're "old" and stuck in the last century :rolleyes:
the overall plot in the first one is far superior to the new one, but somethings in the first one were so ludicrously bad and have been fixed in the remake, and it does, obviously, LOOK better.
the 3 boobed woman worked in the first one because it was set on mars and there were mutants everywhere. the remake is on earth, with no mutants at all.......so WHY does she have 3 boobs?? are we supposed to believe that's the future of boob-jobs or what....?...
and that scene at the end of the first one where apparently asphyxiation makes your eyes pop out and you skin melt....but it's ok, because mass evaporation makes it IMMEDIATELY better...you won't even have a new wrinkle!! so glad that's gone.
as for actors....arnie's terrible! yet somehow, i preferr him to firth. wasn't fond of beil.
imho, kate beckinsale kicked ass and was faaarrrr better than stone. her and the slick effects are the movies two saving graces.
in short, i think the remake LOOKS better than the original, is less cheesy and, nitpicking, i would say makes more sense. but the original has the more engaging plot and interesting story.
I was very careful not to make any definitive judgments, just in case I incur the wrath of the forum police.
I saw it today and i thought it was ok. Decent special effects, some good action sequences and the plot/story was fine for what it was. All in all it was a reasonable movie but it was just ok to me. Nothing particularly special or something i'd want to see again. Along the same lines of The Bourne Legacy it's a film which wasn't needed and really didn't warrant being made i.e. no one was crying out for it.
I've seen a fair few Colin Farrell films now and this is another one in the line that makes me think Colin Farrell does not make a good leading man. Good actor, yes but i've never seen him as a leading man and watching Total Recall today with him in it hasn't made me change my mind. Despite a twinkle in his eyes there's no star quality about him, shame as i actually think he's very talented.
However there was one specific standout and that was Kate Beckinsale. She was one mean, bad-ass, scarily crazy bitch. I thought she was fantastic! Loved her in this, she really gave it her all especially in those fight scenes.
the only original idea was the tunnel from UK to Australia - but even that seem muddled - was it just for transport ?
The car chase - good
The elevator chase/fight - excellent
The bits in between - meh!
That's pretty much spot on! Haha!