Well, ladies and gentlemen, after a rather long hiatus, I have returned. As promised, your review for the remake of
Total Recall is finally here!
Now, before we start, I'd like to answer some questions that are on (mostly) everyone's minds:
Question 1: Where have you been?
Answer: I have been on "break" as it were. Since there was nothing for me to go and see at the movie theatre ever since The Dark Knight Rises, I've been a little deprived of something to bitch about. But, now that I have made my triumphant return, I can properly conduct this review.
Question 2: You review movies the day they come out. So why didn't you review this when it came out a week ago?
Answer: That was also part of my "break". You see, during the weekend of August 3rd, my family and I went out to the lake to visit family. It was quite alot of fun, except that I didn't get any time in the water because the weather was crap. I had intended to review this movie, but since I didn't know about this until a week or so prior, there was nothing I could do about it. Sorry about that
.
Question 3: Since you review movies the day they come out, why aren't you doing a review of The Bourne Legacy?
Answer: Truth be told- Christ, I'm gonna get alot of flack for this -but I really have no interest in it. I haven't seen the other Bourne movies in their entirety so I wouldn't be able to properly judge, much like how now I'll be talking about
Total Recall and comparing the two. Besides, last time, I promised to do a review on the remake of
Total Recall, so there.
Now that we have that established, let's get to the review now, shall we?
"Fun but Forgettable". That's what the title of the newspaper article said about
Total Recall. I had seen that in last week's paper. I didn't read the article. Why? Well, because the title, in three words, managed to sum up perfectly what I needed to know. But, to delve more deeply, the film is your slightly-above-average action movie. That's it.
What made the original stand out amongst all of Arnold's films is that it had so many memorable things about it: like the eyes popping out on the surface of Mars, the three-breasted mutant hooker, Kuato, the resistance leader on Mars, who is also a mutant coming out of a guy's chest, and many memorable one-liners from Arnold, like the famous "Get your ass to Mars". If you think that any of that is in the remake... then your just out of your mind.
Well, okay, I lied. The three-breated hooker is in the movie but, when given the context and settong of the movie, it makes no sense. In the original, it made sense. When the people living on Mars were exposed to its atmosphere, they mutated. .... Okay, that part doesn't make any sense, but atleast it was explained.
In the remake, it's explained that global chemical warfare (which should have been abolished after World War 1) has caused most of the earth to be uninhabitable. Only two habital places remain: the UFB or United Federation of Britain, and Australia, also known as the Colony. Yeah, there's no Martian colony like in the original, which sucks, but whatever. Point is, while the nod to the original is nice, it's not needed, and actually, makes the established world more confusing.
Another thing that's really confusing is the fact that Australia is now known as The Colony. Why the hell not just keep the name Australia? Britain keeps its name, so why not just keep calling Australia "Australia"? Not only that, but doesn't Australia have its own independent government and economy? Why would it need to be dependent on Britain for everything? I know Australia was a former colony of Britain and the whole chemical warfare thing happened, but why would they need to go back to them again? Can't they just get by on their own?
I know I seem like I'm making a big deal out of seemingly nothing, but it isn't really explained well in the movie
at all! If it is and I missed it, feel free to message me on Facebook or Google+ and tell me how much of an idiot I am.
Another thing that's really odd about this setup is that Britain is reliant on workers from The Colony. They travel back and forth between the two every single day by travelling through the Earth's core. Okay, how is that possible? What kind of metal on Earth can withstand temperatures of over 5,700 Kelvin, or 5,430 degrees celcius? Also, every time you pass the inner core, gravity reverses... I'm not sure, but wouldn't getting closer to the core make the gravity heavier? Then again, I'm no geologist or whatever, so I can really talk about it.
Another big problem I have with this movie is the look and tone of it all. While I really admire how the film looks, it looks like
Blade Runner to me. I haven't seen
Blade Runner and yet I still know what it looks like! How fucked up is that!?
Now, the tone for the movie is also very
Blade Runner meets the Bourne movies. Basically, it's a much darker tone than the original. Without Arnold, I can understand this angle, but
that's what made the original awesome!! The original film had a sense of wonder and intrigue and that was brought on by the film's overall-corny feel. It felt thrilling and intense, but also a helluva-lot-of-fun; and it was like that because of
Arnold-FUCKING-Schwarzenegger! He can be a complete badass, but still be campy enough to not really be too intimiidated by him. This movie severly lacks that feel that made the original
so awesome!
(Obligatory joke for all of the bronies: check!)
So, after all of that, you probably think that there's nothing about this movie that I like. Well, actually there are a few things. Like I said before, the look of this movie is gorgeous! I don't think I need to reiterate much again, so, yeah.
Another was the action sequences. They are all shot very well and are impressive. Unfortunately, there not very unique. Since it only takes place on Earth and the only real people the characters fight are actually robots, the tension is also pretty weak.
The performances were really good. Colin Farrell as Quaid gives a much more believeable performance for someone who finds out he was once a spy and had his memory wiped and his wife, Lori, played by Kate Beckinsale, is alot of fun. In fact, she's probably my favourite character in all of this. I'm not so sure if that's a good thing when the villain becomes the unintentional favourite of mine.
While the performances are very good and certainly better than Arnold and his campy ways, that's also sort of the problem. Since the movie has gone to such great lengths to take itself more seriously than the original, it lacks that which made the original a classic.
(By the way, you're out of your mind if you think I'm typing all of that again! You have a mouse for a reason!)
There are two reasons for making a remake. One: to change/fix mistakes from the original. Two: The more cynical of the pair- to make money! Well, I'm sure from this, you can guess which one the director Len Wiseman got right!
The final verdict for the remake of Total Recall is...
2.7 out of 5 (and that's me being extremely generous)!
It is a fun, action-packed movie, but it's plays it too safe and doesn't give off as memorable impression that Paul Verhoeven did with the original. The only real memorable thing that I'll remember about this movie in about a week is (and I'm not kidding) Obama Dollars!
You heard right! Obama Dollars... what? What!?
