Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

Total Recall 2012


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 of 36 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer



  • 11,997 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationVermont

Posted August 05 2012 - 09:43 AM

Ditto. :) Much better than I thought it would be. 3 stars out of 4
Ditto 2. Didn't even care about seeing this before yesterday, but it was the best choice on a miserably hot summer day to escape the heat for a couple hours. I ended up really enjoying the film, and think this is a better film than the 80's version, IMO. I liked that it was more of a straight-up sci-fi action story, and they got rid of all the campiness of the older film and I didn't miss Mars at all. As with TravisR, I watched the 80's film recently and didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did back then.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#22 of 36 OFFLINE   Rhett_Y

Rhett_Y

    Screenwriter



  • 1,265 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2001

Posted August 06 2012 - 07:13 AM

I'm with Rhett on this one. It's one uninspired chase after another, so much so that I found myself nodding off near the end (this was an afternoon showing).  Colin Ferrell, who can be a fine actor, seems totally disinterested here. The filmmakers made the mistake of casting the two female leads with two actresses (Kate Beckinsale & Jessica Biel) who not only look somewhat alike, they at best have just competent acting skills. To put it bluntly, they are both boring here and neither has any chemistry with Ferrell. Finally, the great Bryan Cranston is just wasted. And am I the only one who thought it odd that in a future where the last two inhabitable land masses are Great Britain and Australia, almost everyone speaks with an American accent?? I wil give major props to the production design team. The visuals of cities that have nowhere to go but up are often spectacular. And the concept and execution of The Fall is pretty cool too.  Despite the eye candy, the new Total Recall is a dreary affair. If you must see it, save your money and go to a matinee.
I laughed at the only two land mass thing and they all speak perfect English. No Australian or British accents for the most part. Also, did you notice that when they are in the "gas" area that it was ok to blow the windows and doors out along with a few walls but didn't need a gas mask?!?!?! Hmmmm. I agree re: production design. The cities were down right cool. Crowded to say the least!
My DVD Collection

#23 of 36 OFFLINE   joshEH

joshEH

    Producer



  • 3,908 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2006
  • Real Name:Josh
  • LocationRoom 303, The Heart O' The City Hotel

Posted August 06 2012 - 11:12 AM

This movie is a gigantic piece of shit. As soon as they started explaining the world in an opening text, and there was some random transportation device called "The Fall" that takes people to one colony to the other, I knew we were in trouble. Actually, I knew we were in trouble when the "Original Films" logo opened the movie, and some dude shouted out, "Not really!" Summer blockbusters: get your dime-store political-philosophy metaphors out of your fucking scripts already. We don't need anymore "99%" analogies unless you truly intend on actually doing them justice, and not being so fricking lazy.

"Pablo, please take Chet's corpse into the other room, and then fix Mr. Hallenbeck a drink."


#24 of 36 OFFLINE   Craig S

Craig S

    Producer



  • 5,660 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2000
  • Real Name:Craig Seanor
  • LocationLeague City, Texas

Posted August 06 2012 - 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Y /t/319786/total-recall-2012#post_3958840 ... Also, did you notice that when they are in the "gas" area that it was ok to blow the windows and doors out along with a few walls but didn't need a gas mask?!?!?! Hmmmm. ...
  Good point. Another huge plot hole (literally): You know an invasion is coming. And you know it's coming on a big vessel from a hole in the ground. Maybe someone could, you know, drop a few explosives down there? Even tossing bricks, rocks, and random scrap metal in the hole would seem worth trying. All you have to do is damage one of the tracks enough to gum up the works. 
Three truths about movies, as noted by Roger Ebert:

* It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
* No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.
* No good movie is depressing, all bad movies are depressing.

#25 of 36 OFFLINE   Greg Kettell

Greg Kettell

    Screenwriter



  • 1,243 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 1998
  • Real Name:Greg K.
  • LocationNY Capital Region

Posted August 07 2012 - 06:30 AM

I thought the action scenes & scenery were decent enough, and was somewhat amused looking for nods to/redone scenes from the original movie. "The Fall" was a neat concept but pretty silly in implementation (gravity wouldn't just suddenly reverse when you pass the core, it would gradually lessen and then increase again). Not to mention to get through the Earth as fast as they did would take a lot more than 1G acceleration and would completely negate the effect of gravity on the passengers. I tried not to think too much about the ludicrous invasion plot that made no sense.

#26 of 36 OFFLINE   Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 09 2012 - 02:27 PM

Yes, Patrick! Wiseman has added a brand new tool to his amazing collection of directorial powers...LENS FLARE!! Ugh. Hoping I never have a reason to see another of his films. But, Kate B is SO fine!

#27 of 36 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer



  • 5,456 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted August 11 2012 - 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig S /t/319786/total-recall-2012#post_3958288 I'm with Rhett on this one. It's one uninspired chase after another, so much so that I found myself nodding off near the end (this was an afternoon showing).    Colin Ferrell, who can be a fine actor, seems totally disinterested here. The filmmakers made the mistake of casting the two female leads with two actresses (Kate Beckinsale & Jessica Biel) who not only look somewhat alike, they at best have just competent acting skills. To put it bluntly, they are both boring here and neither has any chemistry with Ferrell. Finally, the great Bryan Cranston is just wasted.   And am I the only one who thought it odd that in a future where the last two inhabitable land masses are Great Britain and Australia, almost everyone speaks with an American accent??   I wil give major props to the production design team. The visuals of cities that have nowhere to go but up are often spectacular. And the concept and execution of The Fall is pretty cool too.    Despite the eye candy, the new Total Recall is a dreary affair. If you must see it, save your money and go to a matinee.
Just got back from a screening and agree with this post - sums it up nicely!   Fun (?) coincidence: I saw "The Campaign" yesterday, and it included a character named "Tim Wattley".  That name was borrowed from "Seinfeld" where "Tim Whatley" was played by... Bryan Cranston!   And now you know.... the REST of the story!
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#28 of 36 OFFLINE   Craig S

Craig S

    Producer



  • 5,660 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2000
  • Real Name:Craig Seanor
  • LocationLeague City, Texas

Posted August 11 2012 - 05:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin /t/319786/total-recall-2012#post_3960432 Yes, Patrick! Wiseman has added a brand new tool to his amazing collection of directorial powers...LENS FLARE!! Ugh. ...
  Good point on the gratuitous lens flare, guys. Not the worst I've seen, however. I give it about a 6 out of 10 on the Abrams Scale.  
Three truths about movies, as noted by Roger Ebert:

* It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
* No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.
* No good movie is depressing, all bad movies are depressing.

#29 of 36 OFFLINE   DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter



  • 2,779 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted August 11 2012 - 05:52 PM

I found the lens flare to be far worse and more nonsensical than anything Abrams has ever done, but I actually had a good time in this movie. Yes, it has its problems and is preposterous at times. Still, I found myself enjoying it---though I doubt it will stick with me. EDIT: Thinking about it yesterday, I decided I was being far to easy on this movie (perhaps I was enamored with the female leads). It really is just mediocre. I don't normally give letter grades to movies, but if I did this one would be in the C-range. Maybe a C+.

#30 of 36 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 13 2012 - 11:57 AM

:star::star::half: out of four for me. I will admit that I think the 1990 film is one of the most overrated movies out there. I didn't care for it when I saw it in 1990 and I didn't care for it a second time when I viewed it a couple years later. I re-watched it a few weeks ago just to see if time had helped it and it didn't. I didn't care for the movie because I found the story, characters and the entire situation to be rather boring and I just couldn't care for the entire structure of the movie. The same was true with the remake as I just didn't care about ANYTHING that was going on. I'd say the remake was slightly better because the visual and special effects were just amazing. I thought they did a terrific job at building up this future world and I also thought the performances were much better this time around. Sorry, I love Arnold but I didn't buy him for a second in the original movie but Farrell was very believable as this "average" man thrown into this battle. The "eyes" that were thrown in the room at the start of the film were great and I thought the subway like chase sequence was better than anything in the first film. Still, there won't be a reason to watch either one again. With that said, I was the only one in the theater this morning and when buying the ticket it was funny to see a billboard up warning people about taking kids into the movie. The billboard brought up the violence, nudity and profanity and when I asked the manager why they did it he said that several people had demanded refunds because they brought their kids to a "family" movie and got something else.

#31 of 36 OFFLINE   cineMANIAC

cineMANIAC

    Screenwriter



  • 2,028 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008
  • Real Name:Luis
  • LocationNew York City/San Lorenzo, PR

Posted August 13 2012 - 12:23 PM

You can't go into a movie called TOTAL RECALL and expect it to be a life-changing experience :). I hope most of you who disliked the film didn't actually pay to watch it (unless you've got money to burn. Or time to kill. Or nothing better to do. Or...)
RIP Roberto Gomez Bolanos.

#32 of 36 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 13 2012 - 03:02 PM

Who in this thread said they wanted a life changing experience? I think most people expected more than what they actually got but I am curious to know if you've ever paid for a movie you ended up not liking or if you actually like everything you pay for.

#33 of 36 OFFLINE   cineMANIAC

cineMANIAC

    Screenwriter



  • 2,028 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008
  • Real Name:Luis
  • LocationNew York City/San Lorenzo, PR

Posted August 13 2012 - 03:37 PM

I don't go to remakes of movies if I hated the original. Nuff said.
RIP Roberto Gomez Bolanos.

#34 of 36 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter



  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted August 14 2012 - 01:34 AM

:star::star::half: out of four for me. I will admit that I think the 1990 film is one of the most overrated movies out there. I didn't care for it when I saw it in 1990 and I didn't care for it a second time when I viewed it a couple years later. I re-watched it a few weeks ago just to see if time had helped it and it didn't. I didn't care for the movie because I found the story, characters and the entire situation to be rather boring and I just couldn't care for the entire structure of the movie. The same was true with the remake as I just didn't care about ANYTHING that was going on. I'd say the remake was slightly better because the visual and special effects were just amazing. I thought they did a terrific job at building up this future world and I also thought the performances were much better this time around. Sorry, I love Arnold but I didn't buy him for a second in the original movie but Farrell was very believable as this "average" man thrown into this battle. The "eyes" that were thrown in the room at the start of the film were great and I thought the subway like chase sequence was better than anything in the first film. Still, there won't be a reason to watch either one again. With that said, I was the only one in the theater this morning and when buying the ticket it was funny to see a billboard up warning people about taking kids into the movie. The billboard brought up the violence, nudity and profanity and when I asked the manager why they did it he said that several people had demanded refunds because they brought their kids to a "family" movie and got something else.
I guess people have forgotten what a PG-13 rating means anymore. Sheesh! Who the heck would think this was a family friendly movie anyway?

#35 of 36 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted August 14 2012 - 06:44 AM

I don't go to remakes of movies if I hated the original. Nuff said.
I can't say that makes any sense to me. I understand people holding something to their heart and not wanting to see another version of it but if you don't like a movie it seems all the more reason to want it remade so that someone can do it better. They did do it better here so watching this was certainly more rewarding than seeing the original again. Perhaps the next version someone will remember to write some interesting characters.

#36 of 36 OFFLINE   Stan

Stan

    Screenwriter



  • 2,313 posts
  • Join Date: May 18 1999

Posted August 17 2012 - 03:52 PM

I think most people expected more than what they actually got but I am curious to know if you've ever paid for a movie you ended up not liking or if you actually like everything you pay for.
Movies that I'm truly looking forward to I usually enjoy. I avoid reviews, spoilers, etc. and go into it open minded. Maybe a teaser or trailer catches my eye or I've read the original book the film is based on, but nothing else. To many movies over the years have failed me, even though on later viewings they may actually be pretty good. A lot of it is the hype, excitement, the slick, over-produced advertising and many other reasons. You end up expecting so much more that what is actually delivered. With this film I was looking forward to it, but it was hard to avoid the negativity surrounding it and broke my own rules. I even predicted it to be one of the big summer bombs a few weeks ago. But given some time, wait til it hits Redbox or whatever, and I'll give it a chance. Going into it with such low expectations, might actually enjoy it.
Stan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users