Reviews & Ratings for
Total Recall More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 2 of 44:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Index

440 reviews in total

---

80 out of 132 people found the following review useful:
Well..., 24 August 2012

Author: tiger86-2 from Bulgaria

Well, reviewing this movie can be quite difficult... How am I supposed to evaluate it? As a stand-alone movie or as a remake? Because if you are not falling from, um, Mars you probably know this is a remake of one of the best Arnold Schwarzenegger movies ever...

Hmm... Let's see. How about starting with its' critical acclamation? I guess you can easily see the movie's rating on Rotten Tomatoes. If not, I recommend seeing it if you want a good laugh. 30%. That is it. Needless to say, any sane person would be shocked. Not because the movie is too good for that rating. You don't need to like the movie... You don't even need to have seen it to know something is very, very wrong here... I mean, 'Die Hard 4.0' has 81%... How the hell can the next movie created by the same writer/director have almost three times lower rating? I know, writers/directors don't always make movies of equal quality but the quality NEVER fluctuates that much. A little research about RT helped me realize a few things.

First, critics tend to give sequels of beloved franchises high ratings - of all movies of that kind that I checked only one - 'Die Hard 3' - had less than 65%. Everything else - even the abysmal 'Attack of the Clones' - was rated as "Fresh".

Second, critics tend to have a certain bias against sci-fi, fantasy and horror if they are not directed by a supposedly great name like Ridley Scott or Nolan. 'Willow' - a fantasy genre icon - has 49%. Go figure.

Third, Rotten Tomatoes is not even a good representative of critics' opinion... I mean, does anybody believe the critics considered the last Indiana Jones movie better than 'Forrest Gump'? Check their awards and you will see. And yet.. Go and see. So much for RT being a good source...

---

I wasted your time with this but it just had to be told. Now, about the movie itself. Well, it IS good. It has its' shortcomings, mainly in the writing department, but it stands on its' own.

As a stand alone movie... Well, after 'Prometheus' disappointed everyone, TR2012 is probably the best sci-fi movie of the year. It has a great story, great chemistry between the actors and the writing is at least acceptable although sometimes flawed. The acting was good from all actors. The only slight disappointment comes from Bill Nighy - he delivered a fine performance but he looked like he spent no more than an hour on the movie set. However his character, although important, has no more than 10 minutes of screen time so... Action-wise this movie is EXACTLY what 'Die Hard 4.0' was - relatively bloodless, wonderfully captured and complicatedly choreographed. Smooth camera movement, NO shaky cam, extremely long cuts - look at the first fight in the trailer and you will get it. And, believe me, the action looks better than that on the big screen. What is also worth mentioning is the fact that the movie feels more real than most sci-fi blockbusters recently, mostly because the use of CGI and green screens is as minimal as possible. I don't know why so many people think it is loaded with CGI. It isn't, trust me.

Overall, as a stand alone movie the new 'Total Recall' works, and it works well.

As a remake... Well, it did keep the basic story but that is it. Verhoeven's humor is gone. The blood is gone. The gore is gone. Mars is gone. Mutants are gone. Richter is gone. Arnold and his one-liners are gone. Although the story is basically the same, the new movie is completely different from the original. There are a few nods to the 1990 movie but that is it. This is a new movie.

If you want to see the old one, see it. It is great. If you haven't seen it you will love it. If you already have seen it... you will love it again.

The new movie is different. If you see it with an open mind you will probably like it at least a bit. Give it a chance. It is a good movie and a great entertainment.

---

67 out of 109 people found the following review useful:
totally entertaining!, 11 August 2012

Author: MM SS from United States

What can i say, i really enjoyed this movie. There are similarities to the original but the new twist was very entertaining. It is definitely a special effects lovers dream come true.

I don't really understand why some people gave this movie a bad review when clearly this is much better than most of the c*ap out there. I presume that most of the haters are either somehow against the movie to begin with or just don't acknowledge a good movie when they see one.

Overall i give it an 8 out of 10 and would recommend this movie to everyone. It was just as entertaining as the original albeit with new theme.

---

40 out of 63 people found the following review useful:
Total Crap, 5 August 2012

Author: Michael from Netherlands

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What can I say? Although this remake of the 1990's version with Schwarzenegger is visually different and planet Mars has been changed to Australia, the script is a regurgitated copy of a movie we already saw. Except padded with millions more bullets and thousands more explosions. That does not make it a better movie. In fact, the fully packed action filled all room for suspense.

The visuals are OK, but are clearly stolen from director Ridley Scott's 1982 Blade Runner: overcrowded dystopia of concrete, Asian influenced mega cities. Making the film visually unoriginal as much as the script.

I suspect Hollywood writers nowadays are using some kind of computer software to randomly generate "new" scripts based on existing blockbusters from the past. I genuinely believe that, because it is the only explanation for how bad this movie is. Imagine a script writer using software, feeding it with an existing script from the 1990s, and then going through multiple choice options like: "Add (here) a scene questioning the meaning of human identity? Click Yes." and "Add (here) more action with bullets fired? Choose how many bullets to add: 100, 1000 or *mega*." Seriously, this script was written by a computer.

Female antagonist Kate Beckinsale "gives good wife" to male lead Colin Farell, but this film may also have effectively ruined the rest of her film career. She plays a psychotic super-woman that jumps around more than Batman. Her motives are unknown - we do not get to know her character. She is hot, but has no content whatsoever, as so many leading female roles nowadays. What a pity.

30 minutes into the film I almost got up and left. But I was only too tired to do it, so I decided to doze off and fall asleep instead. I did not miss a thing: I already saw this movie in 1990. Overly predictable plot twists (again, copied from the original) make this movie an incredible bore.

The reason I give it 3 stars, is because 1 and 2 stars are not included in the calculation of the average rating, and I want to make sure that the average goes down.

---

38 out of 60 people found the following review useful:
Terribly Boring, 4 August 2012

Author: (Scorpionhl) from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Comparing this film to the original Total Recall would be like saying the phantom menace was the best star wars movie ever. This film simply bored me to tears, and I like action movies. Even removing the back history of the original, I can't believe they let this one reach the theaters with its thin plot line and unoriginal action sequences.

First off, the idea in this film is not to present you with any kind of real story line (at least nothing original), or provide any semblance of a movie experience. It's just 120 minutes of Colin running away from the bad guys with no break for a plot. Plot holes, while numerous, were filled in with other plot holes and a good story was filled in with iRobot meets Blade Runner graphics.

Now, sometimes a bad movie can at least save its face with some 'appeal' with its stars, but they couldn't even give us that from Kate or Jessica. If you want me to pay for a 120 minute chase scene, next time tell us up front and don't hide behind a legendary name.

---

39 out of 62 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, 8 August 2012

Author: dg135 from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The story: the government of Britain is going to wage war and wreak havoc on one of its colonies until the heroic American saves the day! Seriously, it's that stupid.

The fact that this terrible movie shares the same name as the mysterious and intriguing Schwarzenegger/Stone film of 1990 is an absolute insult. There is no suspense, mystery, or intrigue in this version of Total Recall. Both the central character and certainly the audience pretty well know the real situation from the beginning. So, rather than sharing in the doubts of the central character who, in the 1990 original, isn't sure what is real and what isn't, we instead simply get formulaic action mixed with a bit of romance. So, don't forget your barf bag if you dare see this abysmal stink-bomb. This movie is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

---

84 out of 152 people found the following review useful:
Total Waste of My Time, 5 August 2012

Author: jimc-441-437929 from Houston

I think the other reviewers here were too kind. The movie is unforgivably terrible. No storyline, no dialogue to speak of other than almost-verbatim regurgitations from the original film, poorly acted, and utterly boring. I couldn't wait for the drawn-out affair to end.

The CGI elevators and car chase scenes were quite fantastic but with no story to back-up such graphics and artificial set, there was little point other than to wonder during the film why all the money went into the visuals and marketing and not into plot development or storyline. If just some budget had gone to the story the film could have been wonderful.

For those who never saw the original, I don't know how you will ever figure out what this movie is trying to say or accomplish other than to take some hard-earned money out of your wallet.

This film in now on my Top Ten Worst Films of All Time list.

---

192 out of 368 people found the following review useful:
Nothing new in this high-octane sci-fi flick, but Beckinsale rocks, 2 August 2012

Author: Jeff Lee

I HAD high hopes for this flick as I really enjoyed the 1990 original on DVD. You can read my review of the original flick, which I had written last month.

Where did it all go wrong? Quaid (Farrell, whom I last saw in a sex tape) just runs and runs and surmounts every obstacle thrown in his way.

However, the action is nothing new and viewers would have seen all the running, explosions, bullets ricocheting and close-combat fights in other flicks.

The flick does pause for a brief moment to ruminate on Quaid's desire to find out about his past, while the rebel leader tells him that the heart wants to live in the present. What new age mumbo jumbo is this?

Another problem with the flick is the casting of Farrell. In the original, Arnie looked really confused by what was happening around him and viewers would have empathized with his predicament.

Farrell, on the other hand, just seems to be going through the motion.

The movie's atmosphere is also nothing new. The teeming crowds amid the rain come from 'Blade Runner' and 'Fifth Element'. The car-chase scene comes from 'Minority Report' and 'Fifth Element'.

The idea about robot cops getting ready for an invasion comes from 'I, Robot', and the look of the robots also comes this flick.

The one good thing about this flick is Kate Beckinsale, the director's wife, who plays Quaid's wife. She's not one person viewers will want to mess with in a dark alley. She exudes arrogance and strength, and a certain amount of sexiness and sultriness.

---

53 out of 91 people found the following review useful:
Horrible - All special effects, poor plot development, 8 August 2012

Author: gsmith513 from USA

I don't typically review many movies, but I felt compelled to warn people about this film. My husband, 14 year-old son and I have very different movie preferences but we were all looking forward to seeing this film. None of us liked it. The worst part about it was that there was sooo much going on in virtually every scene that it actually became irritating to watch. Too many special effects can detract from a film and this movie was crammed with so much "action" that it was just complete overkill. Granted, it has been quite a while since I saw the original, but I remember there being at least some amusing parts and I felt some connection to the main character- not so with the re-make. I could also follow the plot and thought it was better developed in the previous version.

Before the halfway-point I found myself checking my watch every 10 minutes or so, and my husband and I both admitted afterwards that we dozed off a couple times (in self-defense I think) - something I NEVER do when I go to a movie theater. This was the closest that I have ever come to walking out midway through a movie. The only reason we stayed until the end was that we invested $25 for the tickets and felt stubbornly compelled to stick it out. I hope that others who decide to see the film have a better experience than I did, but I honestly wouldn't even recommend renting it when it is released to DVD.

---

23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Rekall here i come, 29 August 2012

Author: snowman2k from United Kingdom

It's truly awful and you will need a trip to Rekall after watching it to wipe this horribly dull film from your mind after you have seen it.

Arnie's version is now a classic this is rubbish and Philip K. Dick will be spinning in his grave.

There were some good moments up until the end of the car chase scene, but after that this is a floater with one stupid, brain-numbing scene after another.

Without putting spoilers in this review lets just say in the future the world is populated by too many stupid people and robot cops that can't shoot to save themselves.

Also no Johnny cabs :(

---

32 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
Total Recall Remake is a Total Waste of Time, 5 August 2012

Author: danmankp37 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Easily one of the worst movies of 2012 and one of the worst popcorn movies I have ever seen. It's quite a feat for Colin Farell to add less to a role than a former Austrian Body Builder turned action star but he managed. He had no charisma in the part, he had no presence whatsoever and no chemistry whatsoever with any of the female leads. Other than that he was great... Speaking of the female leads, I feared from the trailers that Wiseman was basically going to give Beckinsale a huge role in the film or he'd be sleeping on the couch and sadly that was the case. She essentially took the role of Richter from the first movie and was chasing Quaid around for 2 hrs. Every fight scene was overdone and cheesy. Kate's line delivery had me rolling my eyes and she was just trying too hard to be good in a terrible film. Jessica Biel looked good but she was just there. She had Nothing much to add, just a pretty face in a bad action movie. What else can I complain about oh yeah, the movies design was ugly, there was waaaaaay too much CGI and the rehashed plot was hard to follow. They didn't bother to copy anything from the old Total Recall that made it good, just redoing most of the major elements poorly to make the film lousy.

2/10 and that is being generous..

---

---

Page 2 of 44:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history