Verhoeven's version is actually a lot closer to the original Philip K. Dick story than this new version, which takes a lot more from Verhoeven than from Dick, including its title (the original story was not called Total Recall).
I can't think of one reason to see this film. I watched the 1990 version not a month ago and it's still among my favourite action/sci-fi films. Absolutely no appeal for me and reviews are not in it's favour.
I admit my physics knowledge is poor. But basic math tells me the lift would have to average 40,000 km/h to make that trip in 20 minutes as the film states. Did Newton ever calculate what the stresses of deceleration would be? The lift did set up that wonderful zero-G action sequence in the middle, but raised more questions. If they can build & maintain a 13,000 km elevator shaft, why can't they clean up the rest of the planet? Or build underground colonies?
I still thinking have a problem why this remake didn't go to Mars or that Quaid wasn't an office clerk like in the book. I had no problem with Colin Farrell playing Quaid but he could of been a clerk as he is a good actor. Also the 12A was a problem.
the issue i had with it that there was no satire which is in the original 1990 film and the original source material. And with no use of the planet Mars in there lacked the racial discustion undertone the story was about.
I have to disagree about Underworld 2. I thought it was pretty intense, partially because it didn't waste much time on the predictable story established in the first, but instead went for all-out action. However, Wiseman also directed the horrendous Die Hard 4, and for that I can never forgive him.
AH, I was listening so intently during Kermode's synopsis since I have seen the original a few times and have never once understood the plot of the movie. kermode failed me, of course, never even describing the conflict of the movie. I cannot understand in the original film, what is the "shit" that hits the fan that kick starts the action movie that is "Total Recall." I don't get it. He goes to a place where they implant memories and then Wala! - an action movie springs out of nothing!
Exactly... literally two words from the original film, more memorable than the entire remake movie. This was a disgraceful film, a cash grab with talentless hacks at the helm.
in the original the one problem I had was that mars seemed to have the same gravity as earth when in reality the gravity of mars is much weaker. Other than that, the original is an excellent movie.
The film is well casted, well acted & stylish, however the film’s underwritten, poorly directed, cheap & is an unfocused remake. (36%) (2/5 stars) (mixed to negative)
i agree its not a terrible movie but it is a forgettable movie...it lacks the humour , style, memorable script and quirky character development of the original, woman with 3 boobs need i say more :))...ok so it has amazing cgi effects but thats all it has and the days when thats all a movie needs to impress are long gone
Egalitarian means unbelievable. I thought Sharon Stones character was one of the most interesting parts the original. Now you just have a women playing a man .
Verhoeven's version is actually a lot closer to the original Philip K. Dick story than this new version, which takes a lot more from Verhoeven than from Dick, including its title (the original story was not called Total Recall).
"Farrell COULD be a genuine blue collar schlub"
Backhanded compliment if ever there was one.
I kinda liked the remake , but it badly missed the badass MICHAEL IRONSIDE character
The original was great fun see no reason to see this one
Looking forward to your review of Dredd!
I can't think of one reason to see this film. I watched the 1990 version not a month ago and it's still among my favourite action/sci-fi films. Absolutely no appeal for me and reviews are not in it's favour.
I admit my physics knowledge is poor. But basic math tells me the lift would have to average 40,000 km/h to make that trip in 20 minutes as the film states. Did Newton ever calculate what the stresses of deceleration would be?
The lift did set up that wonderful zero-G action sequence in the middle, but raised more questions. If they can build & maintain a 13,000 km elevator shaft, why can't they clean up the rest of the planet? Or build underground colonies?
'...boring life..' but married to Kate Beckinsale . So um, swings and roundabouts.
Your response made me chuckle.
I still thinking have a problem why this remake didn't go to Mars or that Quaid wasn't an office clerk like in the book. I had no problem with Colin Farrell playing Quaid but he could of been a clerk as he is a good actor. Also the 12A was a problem.
I get all the Rick Wakeman references. Should I be concerned? LOL
Be proud
i'd love to know what kermode thinks of luke scott's (ridley's son) short, film 'loom'
I liked the Arnie version but i personally preferred this version.
suppose it all comes down to taste. i really enjoyed it.best thing to do is to go and watch movies and make your own mind up
No need for that. Also why the question mark at the end?
John Carter effect I guess; Hellboy 3 is seriously struggling for backing right now, for example.
Man you just dissed the Daleks, you bad man :)
Yes i guess you are right . I will leave TheAmerican732 to flounder in his own frustrating puberty blue's. Thank you for the advice
I liked the film
That too.
the issue i had with it that there was no satire which is in the original 1990 film and the original source material. And with no use of the planet Mars in there lacked the racial discustion undertone the story was about.
A bit harsh don't you think?
I agree with the review.
I have to disagree about Underworld 2. I thought it was pretty intense, partially because it didn't waste much time on the predictable story established in the first, but instead went for all-out action.
However, Wiseman also directed the horrendous Die Hard 4, and for that I can never forgive him.
AH, I was listening so intently during Kermode's synopsis since I have seen the original a few times and have never once understood the plot of the movie. kermode failed me, of course, never even describing the conflict of the movie. I cannot understand in the original film, what is the "shit" that hits the fan that kick starts the action movie that is "Total Recall." I don't get it. He goes to a place where they implant memories and then Wala! - an action movie springs out of nothing!
Did he died?
two weeks
Exactly... literally two words from the original film, more memorable than the entire remake movie. This was a disgraceful film, a cash grab with talentless hacks at the helm.
in the original the one problem I had was that mars seemed to have the same gravity as earth when in reality the gravity of mars is much weaker. Other than that, the original is an excellent movie.
She is hot but Sharon Stone was much hotter!
too right mate. bourne legacy was a far superior action movie
Fan of his, but thank God Cronenberg's Total Recall never happened.
Kate Beckinsale made this movie.
now now don,t you be getting all upset petal
love the truth
Didn't say it was good, just said is was superior to Total Recall.
LOL. What a shit comeback. BOOM OWNED.
The film is well casted, well acted & stylish, however the film’s underwritten, poorly directed, cheap & is an unfocused remake. (36%) (2/5 stars) (mixed to negative)
i agree its not a terrible movie but it is a forgettable movie...it lacks the humour
, style, memorable script and quirky character development of the original, woman with 3 boobs need i say more :))...ok so it has amazing cgi effects but thats all it has and the days when thats all a movie needs to impress are long gone
Hogwash!
what.;s my name ?
Egalitarian means unbelievable. I thought Sharon Stones character was one of the most interesting parts the original. Now you just have a women playing a man .
The first one was bad enough.
what? have u seen the original? funny, yes. decent no!
awefull film.cgi only and unexciting action scenes
Take off your rose tinted glasses the original was terrible