Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Total Recall

When I first heard they were remaking 'Total Recall' I thought it was another excuse to poach and audience who fondly remembered the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic. New actors, new effects, same old story. The shadow of the first film loom heavily over this one despite an appealing star in Colin Farrell.

Most of the surprise is reduced because we already know the story and the characters - or at least we think we do. This movie uses more of the original source material by Phillip K. Dick than the original film ever did. For example, in this version, there is no adventure on Mars. Everything takes place on Earth, an Earth dealing with overcrowding and scarce resources.



The effects and future gadgets are pretty impressive, however. The slick hover cars and police gadgets ground the film in it's own reality and for the most part it works for me. A little of these effects, however, goes a long way. I felt they were showing me the same scenes over and over again.

The two female leads are from the kickass school of Mila Jovovich and Scarlett Johanson. They are the equal if not better of all the men around them. The inevitable fight between Kate Beckensale and Jessica Biel doesn't disappoint but in the end they bring nothing new to the tale.

The film is basically one long chase scene and I was along for the ride for the first hour. If you can suspend your disbelief at all the damage Farrell takes, you will have a good time. If not, you will only be annoyed with all his last second escapes. He barely even registers a scratch.

This film does looks great on screen. The futuristic scenery is vivid. The robot army – think “Star Wars” storm troopers – is ominous and dangerous. A high-speed chase in futuristic, magnetic cars is brainless fun but you will forget this experience on your way out of the theatre. Unlike RECALL, you will have no lasting memories to take with you.



4 comments:

Erik Johnson Illustrator said...

Now they've produced a remake of film that was first released during my lifetime. I feel old.

I've said before that if "Get your ass to Mars" was the tagline for the new movie, I would be there on opening night. However, I understand why Mars is absent. Theres a trend in remakes/reboots to trim as many supernatural or outrageous elements as possible so that whatever remains is grounded, contemporary and easily understood by a new audience. Ex: The Nolan Batman villains have no "powers", Jason Vorhees and Michael Meyers are just crazed killers rather than lumbering zombies, Spidey has techno web shooters, The Doctor's revival series didn't leave Earth until around Series 3.etc.

I'm always curious when I hear about remakes that are "closer to the original source material". They said the same thing about John Carpenter's 1982 version of "The Thing" compared to the looser adaptation in Howard Hawk's 1951 "The Thing from Another World". Although the differences between those two probably owe more to changes in tone as well as technology.

Another example is Francis Ford Coopola's "Bram Stroker's Dracula" (in case you forgot who wrote it) which claimed to follow the source material closer than previous films, although there was still some creative license thrown in. When you see the FFC Dracula, you realize why the previous films with Bela Legosi or Christopher Lee were based more on the stageplay adaptation than the original novel, because the book has a certain pace to it that I would describe as "bloated".

I'd be interested in seeing some comparison of the differences between the original James Bond novels and their film counterparts. I imagine they would be exceptionally different.

Erik Johnson Illustrator said...

I still can't shake the feeling that I've seen this movie before...

Powdered Toast Man said...

I really just care about the 3 breasted woman.

Pat Tillett said...

I really didn't think a remake was needed, but after hearing what a few people I know have had to say about it, I'm going...
That was pretty funny PTM!