IMDb > Total Recall (2012/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Total Recall
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Total Recall More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 55: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 549 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Colin Farrell is trying to be Arnold Schwarzenegger.

7/10
Author: jokexom from Czech Republic
30 August 2012

Analogy, comparison, evaluation ... This is what tormented me before viewing, no secret that the "Total Recall - 2012" is a remake of "Total Recall - 1990", where Arnold Schwarzenegger was then captivated by the charms of Sharon Stone, and then tried to find myself with Rachel Tikotin . In the new movie does the same thing Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale captivated at first, and then charmed by Jessica Biel. Going to the gym, I decided for myself to avoid comparisons with the original film, but at first look, everything else later. And anyway, I do not regret the money and time. If we compare the films themselves, they are different, the old wins in the story and dialogs, the new leaves no chance visuals. The picture is excellent, there is a lot to see and enjoy "hanging skyscrapers" and a magnetically levitated vehicles, wonderful structures moving through the Earth's core, types of poisonous chemicals post-apocalyptic cities. Len Wiseman paid tribute to the film showing and Verhoeven three chest girl, and commemorated the planet Mars, but otherwise his film stand-alone product that falls under the definition of "fiction thriller," for emotional intensity of the original was still lost.

But the comparison of past heroes and modernity turned funny. She personally did not expect such results. Colin Farrell on his charisma is clearly inferior to Arnold, but takes his "unassumingly appearance of the people," it more believe he works in a factory and lives in a poor neighborhood. His attempts to "remember" get natural, the way Schwarzenegger was also convincing in his doubts about the split personality. Arnold, if Farrell wins then only on points, and then with a slight advantage (using boxing terminology). Kate Beckinsale vs. Sharon Stone, as if the choice is obvious in favor of the Stone, but giving her all sexual rounds (in this respect, it looked better than at the time), is forced to a passion for the alleged murder of a victory to give hubby Keith. Her obsession to the point of disobedience of the order in any way to kill the hero Farrell can not go unappreciated. I give it as a victory by a whisker. But Rachel and Jessica Biel Tikotin world apart - a draw, both in the roles of bridesmaids second resistance looked good. Like the films themselves, playing the main roles played by different characters, well then a matter of taste, so, at the end it turns total draw, in my opinion, rightly, the actors looked good.

Perhaps, I would level the movies, but if not, first - action sometimes freezes and forms a sort of "slack" in the second - in the film Wiseman ending seemed to me, "plush" and illogical. Save the world is good, but it is desirable that it did not cause confusion among viewers.

The result, films can be compared, looking for the pros / cons, where the "Total Recall 1990" better where the new score points. You can watch a movie, do not spoil the mood, I liked, but not a masterpiece, but a nice, above shortcomings have, who will go to a nice view, those who abstain, probably will not lose anything.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

'Recall' is forgettable

6/10
Author: Fluke_Skywalker from United States
15 January 2014

Though it boasts impressive special effects and decent--if increasingly repetitive--action sequences, the re-make of 'Total Recall' is ultimately undermined by a weak script and dull performances.

Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Bryan Cranston are all solid actors, but their performances here lack energy and charisma. Even though the film was attempting to strike a more serious tone than the original, it's no excuse for the nearly comatose acting on display here. It doesn't help that the script fails to supply them with even a semblance of humor or wit. Most egregious of all, it fails to do anything fresh or original with the premise.

Ironically, 'Total Recall' ends up being utterly forgettable.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A major disappointment

4/10
Author: canadian58 from United States
28 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As its own movie, it's average at best. As Total Recall, it's terrible. What a clusterf**k to say the least.

As its 1990 predecessor is one of my favorite movies of all time, I had little hope that I would be overly impressed by the remake a mere 22 years later. First of all, Total Recall did not need a remake. The original itself is not that old. It's not like it was made back in the 70's. And the worst part? It shows almost no resemblance to the original other than a few familiar names and minor (and I mean very minor) references to the Arnold version.

The storyline makes a far-fetched pathetic attempt to follow the original. Hmm, let's see. Take Mars, Kuato, the Martians, Benny the taxi driver, and anything of any importance to the plot, write them out of the script completely, oh, and drop in the three-breasted chick out of nowhere just to please the fans. If anything, that tells me that the writers knew this new script was bad, so they try desperately to add a few entertaining elements from the first film to squeeze another IMDb star out of the viewers.

That's right. Mars is completely out of the picture, and in comes the story of chemical warfare on Earth, making 90% of the planet uninhabitable. Add Cohaagen, Lori, and their army of robots (stupid) to chase after Doug Quaid through this post-apocalyptic world for reasons we (the audience) don't even care about anymore.

All that being said, had the new Total Recall not had a predecessor that set the bar so high (almost unreachable), it would be a decent movie on its own. Not by any means terrific, but a 6/10 on the IMDb scale. Plenty of action to stay entertaining, and the acting is not bad. I will also compliment the visual effects as being outstanding throughout the entire movie, of course, only what is to be expected of a $120 million budget. Unfortunately, the original holds its head high and crushes the high-dollar remake, proving that no matter how much money you spend, it does not necessarily make a movie good. To the makers of this movie, next time you want to do a remake, pick a movie that was just "average" to begin with and make it better. You can't make something better that is already perfect to begin with. Go team Arnold!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Where were all the Australians?

5/10
Author: c-kelsall from United Kingdom
15 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So, a remake of Total Recall....I mean, why bother? The original wasn't perfect, but it was grand and slightly ridiculous, and of its time. Surely the only advantage of a remake could be better special effects? Well, I'm happy to report that, on the whole, the special effects were pretty good. And it wasn't a terrible film; I enjoyed it for what it was, slightly interesting sci-fi action. But a fulfilling remake it most certainly wasn't. Let's take a moment or two to address the shortcomings: 1) Where were all the Australians? Seriously! Just to put you in the picture, this is a dystopian future in which the Earth has been ravaged by global chemical warfare, to the extent that the only habitable territories are most of Britain, and Australia. Somehow, though, the majority of the people seem to have American accents whether they live in the 'Federal Territories of Britain' (sic) or The Colony (aka Australia). I didn't detect a single Australian accent, though many of the Colonists did seem to be south-east Asian, and to have been transplanted with their buildings from the set of Blade Runner! So either the Americans were the aggressors and basically stole all the habitable land, or the film-makers didn't really give a ****. I'll leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide which it was. 2) The Fall? Seriously? What utter nonsense. The only means of transport between Britain and Australia was a giant underground train that skirted the Earth's core. This isn't science fiction, it's pure fantasy. Similar ideas were pedalled in The Core (don't get me started on that one), and they were just as scientifically misguided then. I'd have had a lot less trouble believing in a colony on Mars to be reached by spaceship. Which, by the way, was a fundamental plot element of Philip K Dick's original short story upon which the first Total Recall film was based. At least Arnie's version had the spectacle to leave the viewer uncertain as to whether the whole thing might not be a delusion after all. Daft as the remake is, it never conveys that feeling; just the idea that it's all a load of badly-conceived hogwash. 3) The pointless nods to the original film - why bother? It might as well have had a different title, so little did it resemble the plot of the original in any meaningful way except the identity crisis of the hero. 4) The acting. Okay, it wasn't terrible, but to a man/woman the cast had nothing to get their teeth into with the dialogue. The blame clearly lies with the screenwriter and the director, because the leads (including cameos) have all been much better in other roles. So, not phoning in their performances from Mars so much as...well, Australia maybe. So what has this film got going for it? The aforementioned special effects are perfectly respectable, some of the fight scenes are well- choreographed, and the pacing isn't bad. And maybe that's all it really needs if you're happy to switch off your brain and reach for the popcorn.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not worth watching

1/10
Author: dan evans from London, England
4 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first version of this movie with big Arnie was actually ahead of its time. The special effects look pretty dated now but the storyline itself actually managed to capture my imagination. The thought that man might one day inhabit mars and that they might discover evidence of aliens. Everything is entirely plausible, from the greedy corporation to the idea of implanting memories and the whole plot, however far fetched, works.

What this new version does is to take out the only point .. namely the alien presence on mars. To limit the plot to earth and some implausible core-transit train just mystified me. Where was the motivation for any of the characters to do what they do? I found the film utterly devoid of any purpose, I forced myself to watch every excruciating second to the end, and believe me it was hard work. The special effects are impressive, The acting is acceptable and the fight/chase sequences are well done. But a film without a plot is pointless and this is the main flaw in this version. There are a few subtle references to the original film but all that does is remind you how good the first one was! Save your money and get your nails done instead, or better still... redecorate your bedroom and lie on your bed and literally watch the paint dry. You will be more entertained than watching this drivel.

Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I don't think so. In the original you had Sharon stone as the (fake) wife of our hero Arnie... who recovers his memory during his total recall procedure in which he had requested an implant to be a spy. it turns out his fantasy was true already and he had his original memory erased... intrigue! - his wife goes postal and he learns about his previous life... on Mars... more intrigue... he travels to mars and discovers a planet dictated by a greedy corporation that rations air to the inhabitants, some of whom have mutated... more intrigue... finally we discover that an alien artifact had been discovered, a machine, that can change the atmosphere of mars and provide free air for all... the penny drops, thats why the greedy corporation went to all those extremes to protect the secret. Arnie activates the machine and saves mars...

the new film has no mars, no aliens, no artifacts... (it bizarrely has a 3-breasted woman but fails to explain why a woman would have 3 breasts in the first place)... we just two habitable areas of earth, England and Australia, and some no-mans-land in between due to chemical warfare. The entire film seems to revolve around the single train line that connects england to Australia via a super fast tube that goes straight through the earths core (even less plausible than finding alien artifacts on mars!). The train travels at supersonic speeds yet at one point our new hero manages to ride on the outside ... notwithstanding the incredible pressures, but he doesn't seem in the bit put off by the supersonic speed at which the train travels.

I'm staggered that this film got the funding to be made to be honest, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people that paid to see this at the cinema would have done so on the sole basis of seeing the first Arnie film of the same name... but that I'm afraid, is about the only similarity between the two.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not worth your time

2/10
Author: thu-4 from Colombia
7 November 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you want to see a fun movie, watch the original with Schwarzenegger. The 2012 version is just so full of plot holes, it is disappointing. Also there are so many situations which are just plain unrealistic. Imagine you have 10-20 guys all pointing their weapons directly at you. You are unarmed. And you get out of there and kill them all? And after that, several times you are surrounded by even more enemies with weapons who have free space to shoot directly at you and you always escape. No way!

By the way, someone commented, the only reference to the 1990 movie was the three breasted woman. Thats not true. After that, where Hauser gets past security check, you first see an older fat woman, which is very similar to the costume/mask Hauser uses in the 1990 movie to get past check point.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

You are not you...you are me!

4/10
Author: filmfauxpas from Sri Lanka
30 September 2012

The plot is a near carbon copy of the 1990 version sans the Colony being in Mars and the fascinating mutants. Instead, this version's Colony is formerly Australia and the other habitable territory of Earth is the United Federation of Britain. The colonists want autonomy and the federation wants dictatorship over the colony. The key to freedom for one and control for the other lies in the hands of one Douglas Quaid. Never thought I'd miss Arnold Schwarzenegger's cheesy one-liners but I did. This film's dialogue is real-world based which compliments the overall feel of the movie. Colin Farrell takes to action like a duck to water, he is completely believable. Beckinsale is a seasoned action pro and it's clearly evident in all her scenes. Cranston's character is one-dimensional and underused while Jessica Biel's role could have been played by any off-the-shelf Jessica Biel. The two reasons to watch this film on the big screen is for its cinematography and set design. The look of the film is loaded with minute details and the atmosphere is akin to that of BLADE RUNNER, the car chase scene is similar to THE FIFTH ELEMENT and even the robots look like a militarized version of those seen in I' ROBOT. The film is a visual feast for the eyes but it sorely lacks original content. Len Wiseman is one of the best action film directors in Hollywood right now and he doesn't disappoint when it comes to certain action scenes, but his version is missing the sheer grandiosity and magic of the 1990 version.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Incomplete Recall

7/10
Author: stermix501 from Greece
7 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

after reading so many bad reviews, I expected to see something awful. Certainly the current about 1 point overall rated difference from IMDb viewers between the old and new difference seems too little, because the 1st one was much ahead of its time and really impressive when it hit the screens. The new one is not a bad movie, especially if we forget the comparisons with the 1st one. The plot is a bit changed, but the 2 little parts of the world separated by vertical elevator passing through earth's core (especially like nothing happens except a switch of weight's direction) is a bit weak to keep us believing in what we see. The acting and dialogs are too expected, quite weak and flat. Colin is nearer the average person to help one identify with, but Schwarzenegger was so much more believable in that role. There was a total absence of humor. Just a flat running. But if you want to do a remake, you have to show something different. Not just update a few items and change the wording in the same sentences. Also in the original there was an excellent music. Here there was not any music. The positive points go for the performance of Beckinsale who probably did slightly better that S.Stone and deserve to keep up to the last scene. The Chinese-like town was quite well thought, with those small water canals and Buddhist Total Rekall center. The 3d elevators scene was quite interesting. Finally I like the clin d'oeuil at the older version, when at the station a yellow dressed red-haired fat woman passes in front of Chinese faced Quaid, confusing us about who will finally be Quaid. I put a 7, but the old one deserved at least a 9.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Average genre movie, all the way through.

7/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
7 August 2012

In all fairness, this is not a bad movie at all. As a genre movie it's simply providing some good fun and eye candy as well. However when you start comparing it to the first Paul Verhoeven movie version, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'll have to conclude that this movie, by far, is being an inferior one.

There really were plenty of problems I had with this movie but the bottom-line of it all was that this movie is being nothing more but an average one, in about every regard. It stands out in absolutely no way, except maybe for its looks.

Visually it's being a great movie to look at. Not only are the special effects just fine but so its set design. The movie really has a very typical futuristic/science-fiction Philip K. Dick look and feel to it and the movie is incredibly detailed looking. They definitely spend some money on this movie, which luckily can all be seen back on the screen.

But lets get back to the problems of this movie. Probably the biggest problem of the movie is that it does a poor job at handling and telling its story. I would imaging that anyone who had never seen the first movie version, or has read the Philip K. Dick short story, will have an incredibly hard time figuring out what is going exactly on in this movie. It's never really focused enough on telling its story and the main plot line gets introduced far too late in this to its audience.

Basically this is being a movie in which its main character is constantly on the run. It's like a non-stop chase movie, in which the movie never stops or slows down to elaborate on anything or let stuff sink in. It probably sounds like a good and awesome that this movie is incredibly fast paced and basically has non-stop action in it but let me tell; you get fed up with all of it after a while. It's also hard to remain impressed with everything this movie constantly throws at you. Instead of having one or two standout action scenes the movie is being like one, big, long but average action scene.

This is probably why this movie will be a big disappointment to most people; it does absolutely nothing to stand out. It's sort of funny how the movie is constantly paying homage to the first movie version (also to please the fans no doubt) but it leaves out all of its greatest moments and does almost nothing creative or interesting by itself.

It's hard to really feel involved with this movie, or with its main character, played by Colin Farrell, since it's mostly being average and predictable all the way through with its story and developments. This takes away so much of the tension and thriller aspects of the movie and besides ruins everything that potential could had been interesting and clever about this movie its story.

Nothing wrong with being average. It just means that it isn't being very memorable, or all that great and interesting to watch. It's still good as a genre movie and definitely also as eye candy!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Total recall 2012

2/10
Author: lees-karen58 from United Kingdom
30 December 2012

A total waste of money compared to the original with Arnie. The red herrings -the original 'two weeks' exploding head decoy and the one and only mutant girl three boobs who looked completely out of place - were just cameos copied from the original in an attempt to placate those of us who loved that version. It didn't. There was no Mars, no mutants, just blank expressions, car chases and fights in a wet, cluttered set. The chosen story line was very confusing and unclear and I was continually waiting for something interesting to happen. At least the original version was filmed in good lighting, clear to watch with a real futuristic, extra-planetary sci-fi tone to it. This remade rubbish looked like 'storm trooper meets blade runner' but with even more rain. If you must do remakes instead of using imagination to create something new, then at least do a good job of it. This version grossed millions at box office but I bet few will want to see it twice. The original is still fun to watch a dozen times over - the remake won't be. Very disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 11 of 55: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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