or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Total Recall (2012) - Page 4

post #91 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

87% rotten. Ouch! But as expected.
Some friends of mine saw an industry screening Tuesday and said it had no sense of danger. Tons of chases and shootouts, but with no real world consequences. The violence "seemed like a cartoon." I know I sound like a broken record with the PG-13 thing, but this is a clear example of how PG-13 has castrated the action film. I was there opening night back in 90 and the audience went berserk during each and every bloody action scene. There was a sense that everybody was going to get killed. It was crazy.
That doesn't happen anymore. VFX have improved, but HBO and AMC now show more realistic violence than Hollywood and that is just stupid. And insulting.
I see a lot of PG-13 movies that project a sense of violence.
Sure, they don't have up close and personal scenes of chestbursters or vivisections performed with a butter knife, but my imagination kinda fills in what's implied on the screen.
However, that's just me.wink.gif
post #92 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAgeTom View Post

Being the first of the PG13-ized Verhoeven remakes to be released, I guess this is a sign of what the others will be like. Cartoonish CGI action is what I expected as well. That might be okay for the Marvel comic movies, but nor for others.

Fully agree! I expect that with the Marvel stuff, but not adult based action films. The only place to find that kind of entertainment now is HBO, STARZ, Showtime, etc.

At least 'Expendables II' is coming soon. smile.gif (I hope Norris has a grisly death (in the movie, of course), 'cause he wanted it rated PG-13.)
post #93 of 264
Build it Bigger had a feature on how they made the sets. Insane stuff.
post #94 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipfreak View Post

Build it Bigger had a feature on how they made the sets. Insane stuff.

Oh! They still make new episodes?
post #95 of 264
This movie to me looks and feels alot like another film CF was in Minority report. Same looking guns and futuristic time frame. It's just another cookie cutter summer blockbuster put together with brand name sexy A-listers and the studios big wigs get their paycheck. They don't give a crap about story, substance, acting like the good old day.s As long as they cover their asses and not in the red.
post #96 of 264
I just got back from this one.

Is it the equal of the original? NO, but it is about 75% of the original, which puts it into the fair-to-middlin' SF movie category.

Lots of scenes are fairly straight lifts from other SF movies. Star Wars, I, Robot, Underworld, The Fifth Element, and of course the original Total Recall are the main ones.

No spoilers here. I will say, this is the second best movie in the theaters right now. (The best would be Moonrise Kingdom.)

I spent $8 on a matinee ticket, no regrets. But I don't think I'll be buying the Blu-Ray.
post #97 of 264
31% on RT.
post #98 of 264
Here's my review, first posted in another Forum:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The 1990 version of Total Recall is a minor classic IMHO. It did not make it into my "Top Ten", but I do own the DVD and it does stand up to about a once per year viewing.

I saw this version yesterday on the first day. This one is NOT a classic, even for fans of Kate Beckinsale or for SF junkies. However, it is worth watching, it is entertaining and about 75% as good as the first version.

Firstly, the cheesy visual effects are present in both. If you ever watched the original version on a good display, perhaps you noted (via the "Pentium Inside" logos) that the computer displays were actually ThinkPad laptop PCs inside wooden shrouds. The "Johnny Cabs" were also strangely familiar to anyone who has spent time on a golf course. I could go on, but you get the idea.

This new version uses CGI and the "Baffle you with BS" principle. You stare at an intricate scene with layers of detail in foreground and background, and accept it - only later do you wonder what the heck you were looking at, and notice it made no sense at all. Then there are compact automatic handguns that fire hundreds of times with normal gun sounds and muzzle flashes, but never eject a cartridge case or run low on ammunition. Then there is a massive elevator called "The Fall" that dives straight through the molten core of the Earth, but doesn't ever get hot, and magicly and mysteriously turns over 180 degrees and is upright on both sides of the Earth. Again, I could go on and on, but you get the idea. I think I prefer the Mars setting of the original, even if we never got to see any spaceships.

Both movies feature lots of chase scenes, and I expected to see better acting in the newer version, and was disappointed. Arnie might not be the finest actor, but he put a lot more joy into his version than do a grim Colin Farrell and a murderous Kate Beckensale. That is a different sort of role for her, and she remains gorgeous in tight fitting black costumes (seems familiar, somehow) but frankly nobody emotes very much in the new version. That remains true until Bryan Cranston comes on screen in the second half of the movie, and positively chews the scenery as a murderous and menacing Cohaagen. He has one brief fight with Quaid/Hauser, but really his role is little more than a cameo.

The hooker with three boobs is far more explicit in the newer version, and has a few saucy lines. I was waiting for the "other" famous line "Consider this a divorce!" but it never came.

Not a bad way to spend two hours, and I don't regret the $8 spent on a matinee. But I won't be buying the disk this time. If my description has caused you to decide to wait for the streaming or disk version, that's not a bad decision either. Allow me to reccomend that you see Moonrise Kingdom instead. It's a sleeper, and your wife or SO will also enjoy it.
post #99 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Oh! They still make new episodes?

I guess? I don't regularly watch it, I stumbled across it.
post #100 of 264
My sister called me last night and said she was going to divorce her husband for taking them to see this "turd-fest." "Not since Godzilla have I been so angry at him." tongue.gif

Thankfully it is not making much money (not what they had hoped, anyway) and is a (hopefully) warning to the producers of the ROBOCOP remake: DO NOT PG-13ize Verhoeven!!
post #101 of 264
They're remaking Robocop?
post #102 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipfreak View Post

They're remaking Robocop?

yup - with Gary Oldman and Samuel L. Jackson, among others... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234721/
post #103 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

yup - with Gary Oldman and Samuel L. Jackson, among others... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234721/
This one of those weird instances where I am looking forward to a re-make of a classic sci-fi.
This has a cast that could be just about perfect for the material...IMO.

Have you went to the Total Recall re-make yet?
I was hoping you could give me a report on how our Fantasy Girl did....tongue.gif
I'll blind buy the BD when it's available.redface.gif
Edited by oink - 8/5/12 at 12:04pm
post #104 of 264
I went to one of the first showings of the first Total Recall more because I'm a PKD fan than anything. Didn't expect a lot from Arnold and thought that movie somewhat entertaining but high quality, no. Colin Farrell is better than Arnold as an actor at least, and buff in his own way. However, I will go find my dvd of that and watch it and see if I can't see something in it I may not remember, haven't seen it in quite a long time. If you had asked me yesterday if that film had been rated R I would have said no, why would it have been? The three breasts, seriously? Progress I suppose although any rating system in the first place I was never a fan of. I remember my dad and I trying to go see Midnight Cowboy when I was a teenager and it was rated X so I couldn't even get in. There's grittier stuff on network tv these days. Perhaps this new one will be worth a view but since that's quite a drive to a decent theater for me, from the sounds of it so far will wait for a rental.
post #105 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Here's my review, first posted in another Forum: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I was waiting for the "other" famous line "Consider this a divorce!" but it never came.
Was the other famous line from the first movie present? "Get yooo ahhs to Maahs!" tongue.gif
post #106 of 264
I really did not like this movie and I wanted to. Kate was fantastic, hell I think she did better in this then say her underworld movies (action wise). This movie was just one big chase movie. I was so disappointed in how this went down. Do yourself a favor if you love the original, rent this one at best.
post #107 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

yup - with Gary Oldman and Samuel L. Jackson, among others... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234721/
I like G oldman a lot but it's getting a bit ridiculous that he's the go-to bad buy in just about every movie that needs a villain. The guy is making easy money for short work, it's getting a little bit tiresome like Liam Neeson playing the same old mentor/guru roles.
post #108 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Have you went to the Total Recall re-make yet?
I was hoping you could give me a report on how our Fantasy Girl did....tongue.gif
I'll blind buy the BD when it's available.redface.gif

I'm seeing it this friday... smile.gif I'm sure there will be at least one thing I can enjoy wink.gif I've read Ebert's review, it doesn't look "that" bad but I tend to agree with Matt, PG-13 probably does harm the final result... I would have liked it the other way around though, Jessica as the villain, not Kate! wink.giftongue.gif
post #109 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

it's getting a little bit tiresome like Liam Neeson playing the same old mentor/guru roles.

It's still not worse than Sean Connery! How many of these mentor characters did he play?...
post #110 of 264
If it was not clear before now, let me state this explicitly: The 2012 Total Recall (PG-13) is only slightly less explicit than the 1990 Totall Recall (R). The standards have moved a lot in 22 years.

The sex and nudity is basicly the same, there is less blood and gore. Most of the violence in the new film is simple shootings. Nothing like the drills, decompression, etc. in the original.

Violence and gore add nothing to the narrative IMHO, so I really don't care much about the difference. The mutants and the over-the-top assorted violence were typical for an Arnold S movie in 1990. If you ask me, the newer film, where "federal police" mow down taxpaying citizens without warrants, attempts at arrests, or other formalities using automatic weapons, is more disturbing.
post #111 of 264
Gary, are you serious? I saw this today. For free (I would never pay to see it). It's laughably PG-i-fied. To make the original PG-13, you'd have to lobotomize it.

By the way, the screening was ruined by the Sony projector being set to 3D for a 2D presentation. I am so so sick of this.
post #112 of 264
Just got back from this one....ugh, when I'm done with this post, you'll wish you had three hands. rolleyes.gif

Wow. So just like I've thought since the first trailer dropped, I wish they had just called this something else and not Total Recall. So many things were just ripped out from the original but presented in such a way that it takes away from the actual fun of it. So many wasted opportunities to be original or straight up un-original. That may not make sense but if you've seen this you'll know what I mean. I'll say the only things I liked about this were the visual effects which were very good. As were all the sci-fi tech-y elements which were very cool. That's really all it had going for it..... Ugh and of course Kate and Jessica. I can't forget to mention them around here. tongue.gif

Oh, Oink...I was thinking about you through the whole movie. You're going to LOVE ....the lens flares. biggrin.gif
post #113 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

If it was not clear before now, let me state this explicitly: The 2012 Total Recall (PG-13) is only slightly less explicit than the 1990 Totall Recall (R). The standards have moved a lot in 22 years.
The sex and nudity is basicly the same, there is less blood and gore. Most of the violence in the new film is simple shootings. Nothing like the drills, decompression, etc. in the original.
Violence and gore add nothing to the narrative IMHO, so I really don't care much about the difference. The mutants and the over-the-top assorted violence were typical for an Arnold S movie in 1990. If you ask me, the newer film, where "federal police" mow down taxpaying citizens without warrants, attempts at arrests, or other formalities using automatic weapons, is more disturbing.
All the "over the top" stuff, especially the violence was part of the charm in the original. Would "see you at the party Richter" have any value in the movie quote world if his bloody arm stumps weren't taken and thrown? I think not. Open your miiiiiinnnnndddd;)
post #114 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

So many things were just ripped out from the original but presented in such a way that it takes away from the actual fun of it. So many wasted opportunities to be original or straight up un-original. That may not make sense but if you've seen this you'll know what I mean. I'll say the only things I liked about this were the visual effects which were very good. As were all the sci-fi tech-y elements which were very cool. That's really all it had going for it.
That's disappointing, but not unexpected.
LW has proven himself to be medicore (Underworld, aside).
And a guy I (and Morpheo) love to hate.biggrin.gif

The FX in the original don't really hold up, and a straight-up redo with modern stuff would be fine.
OR (as you point out) going way off the reservation with this movie into something with only a small connection to the original would have worked too.
But NOT something in between.rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Oh, Oink...I was thinking about you through the whole movie. You're going to LOVE ....the lens flares. biggrin.gif
Ah, f*ck me....mad.giffrown.gifmad.gif
post #115 of 264
I can sorta handle the lens flares if they are less than the ones in the Star Trek movie...
post #116 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipfreak View Post

I can sorta handle the lens flares if they are less than the ones in the Star Trek movie...

The use of flares in this was as much and as often as Star Trek. As I've noted in recent topics concerning the subject of fake flares....I'm usually not bothered. It actually annoyed me while watching. Probably a first. That should tell you something.
post #117 of 264
The 1990 Total Recall was a real mixed bag. I mean, I understand the point that it was like nothing that had been done before.....

Except another chase movie made by Arnold S called The Running Man(1987), or a modest little flick that was 90% chase movie called The Terminator (1984). Both had real similar action sequences and unique visual effects.

Total Recall (1990) also had some really cheezy special effects. Mostly the mutants were silicone makeup and the only CGI was specific stuff like the spaceport "X-Ray Machine" or the alien atmosphere plants. The decompression scenes with the eyes bulging out were rubber manikins.

The 2012 Total Recall is a CGI fest, but the best CGI artists and a top Director were not used. The result is second rate, but not third rate, and definately below the quality of the original, which is pretty normal as remakes go. Face it, GOOD Directors and filmmakers don't do straight remakes. You have to set your expectations lower.
post #118 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The 1990 Total Recall was a real mixed bag. I mean, I understand the point that it was like nothing that had been done before.....
Except another chase movie made by Arnold S called The Running Man(1987), or a modest little flick that was 90% chase movie called The Terminator (1984). Both had real similar action sequences and unique visual effects.
Total Recall (1990) also had some really cheezy special effects. Mostly the mutants were silicone makeup and the only CGI was specific stuff like the spaceport "X-Ray Machine" or the alien atmosphere plants. The decompression scenes with the eyes bulging out were rubber manikins.
The 2012 Total Recall is a CGI fest, but the best CGI artists and a top Director were not used. The result is second rate, but not third rate, and definately below the quality of the original, which is pretty normal as remakes go. Face it, GOOD Directors and filmmakers don't do straight remakes. You have to set your expectations lower.

I'd just rather not give them my money...

biggrin.gif
post #119 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

I'd just rather not give them my money...
biggrin.gif

Not many people did. $25 million opening weekend with a budget of $125,000,000...
post #120 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Face it, GOOD Directors and filmmakers don't do straight remakes. You have to set your expectations lower.

Well, Fincher's Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a remake, even if he wants to call it otherwise. The Coen Brothers' True Grit s another example, or Atom Egoyan's Chloe, or Ocean's Eleven from Soderbergh, the list goes on... Are they better than their original counterparts, not always, but sometimes yes. In the case of Total Recall, I never considered the original a masterpiece, a good sci-fi/action film yes, but not much more. So regarding the remake, I don't know, I'm not expecting a once-in-a-lifetime experience, just good entertainment. I haven't seen it yet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home