IMDb > Total Recall (2012/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Total Recall
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
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 3 of 54: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 538 reviews in total 

22 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Worst Remake Ever

Author: Kirk Hamilton from Dallas, TX
26 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm a big fan of the first Total Recall and of Kate Beckinsale, so this remake was an astonishing disappointment. How could they have released this garbage?

The original screen play was entertaining and contained several plot twists and surprises. This remake changes almost everything about the original story for the worse. There is no Mars, no mutants, and almost no entertainment value in this new version. Practically all clever and memorable scenes in the original movie were either removed or altered.

It's the details that count when making a good film. How could such a big budget production go so terribly wrong? This remake was so boring and generic that I struggled to finish watching it. In contrast, I've watched the original about 5 times and always enjoy it.

The only good thing about this film is that it can be used by film students as the epitome of how not to do a remake. This film is a disaster of shocking proportions and compelled me to write my fist review on IMDb.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

My Heart Skipped a Beat

Author: pjyellowtiger from United Kingdom
31 August 2012

Two stunning brunettes that oozed sex appeal throughout. What more could a man want in an action film. Jessica and Kate were stunning throughout, with looks that made my heart skip a beat.

Not seen the original for many years, so can't comment on how it compares. However, I thought the story line held together and kept you in suspense throughout. I'm sure there were a few inconsistencies, but nothing that poetic license shouldn't cover. The pace of the film was fantastic, with never a dull moment. Effects made the whole thing look real (which it clearly wasn't). Robots looked a bit too much like Star Wars storm-troopers crossed with those in I-Robot, which was a bit strange.

But the best thing about this film: Two stunning brunettes that oozed sex appeal throughout. Only dilemma, which one to add to my "friends list" (and who to bounce). I've decided to cheat and add them both under one entry, as a threesome.

The story, CGI and everything else would make this an 8-9 out of 10, but the ladies make this film at least a 12 out of 10!

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

I liked it. Not like the original, but that's why I liked it.

Author: changx02 from Los Angeles
31 October 2012

Too many reviews comparing it to the 1990 film with Arnie. If the Arnie version was never put out, then everyone would be saying how great this adaptation really is in it's own merit. (And seriously can you really say that you would have given the Arnie version a 10 if you saw it today, come on now).

The action sequences were great. The fighting choreography was good. In all honesty I think Kate Beckinsale is one of the better female action stars out there, I mean she can really kick ass. Well the CG was awesome. The interpretation of the future was well though out. I especially liked that there were cars hovering and not "flying" using a magnetic levitation system (very realistic look into the future of transportation).

The plot was decent, and this is where it loses 1 star. I thought it did a great job adapting Philip K. Dick's science fiction story into it's own. However, I thought that it followed too similar in plot sequence of the 1990 film. It would have been a 10 for me otherwise.

I wished that they could have really gone another way making it a complete mind f*** that would just blow our minds away. They could really had more fun with the memory thing.

Overall, great action film and worth seeing. Just don't compare it to the 1990 film.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

The critics where being to harsh

Author: DarkVulcan29 ( from United States
8 August 2012

Agreed it is flawed , but it's nowhere near the disaster of a film thats it's made out to be.

In the far, far, future. Doug Quaid(Colin Farrell) a factory worker, and is happily married to Lori(Kate Beckinsale), but feels his life has more to it then it should be, goes to a place called Rekall, a place that can make fantasizes as real has possible. But when they hook him up to the machine, he suddenly being called a spy, and troops come in, and Quaid takes them out(Jason Bourne style), he goes on the run, and goes home in hopes that Lori will help, but she quickly tries to kill, only to discover that the life he thought was his, is not. He catches up to Melina(Jessica Biel), someone who helps him, and she might be from his past? Will they uncover the truth before it's late?

The futuristic setting is awesome. Colin Farrell is good, so is Bryan Cranston has the main villain. Kate Beckinsale steals the show as the evil Lori. Now Jessica Biel is so bland as Melina, there is nothing to her character, she is just there, nothing more. Action scenes, and effects don't disappoint. It's not as humorous like the original, but still an enjoyable popcorn action flick.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

A Len Wiseman Special

Author: speeddefreeze from Netherlands
28 February 2013

I wasn't expecting much from this movie at the start. I had not watched the original movie (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) so I didn't really know what the story was. I was expecting an overdose of action and a confusing plot.

I was pleasantly surprised by Colin Farrel's acting. I feel he has really improved as an actor and I thought the chemistry between him and co-stars Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel was great. The action sequences were fun to watch and exciting. Fast paced action sequences kept me refreshed and the stunning Kate Beckinsale, who you may know from 'Underworld' and 'Van Helsing', nailed the antagonist role.

The director, Len Wiseman, who previously surprised by making 'Live Free or Die Hard' a fantastic action film, has once again done his job well. The storyline was clear and made sense, which was more than what I had expected. I admit that it could have been better, because the climax was kind of dull compared to the rest of the movie, but definitely worth the watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Recall this film!

Author: alexm-3 from United Kingdom
10 August 2012

Has the world gone mad. Has Hollywood decided that bad is now good. Are we all now living in an alternate reality. Will dogs and cats start living together?

Basically I'm lead to these conclusions based on the continual re-emergence of Colin Farrell in lead roles. There are two possible reason for this.

Reason 1,

Hollywood Producer A: "Hey lets sling a film together, not something original, just a rehash of a classic."

Producer B: "humm...good idea. Colin Farrell is cheap and will do anything."

Reason 2,

Producer A: "I want to destroy the originality in film making. Why! (He says rhetorically) Because originality is difficult and risky, that's why. (He says replying to his own rhetorical question)"

Producer B: "Who can we get to deliver such a mesmerising, just missing the point of everything, kind of a performance?(Short pause) There is only one man... Colin Farrell."

There may be other reasons. Please send answers on a postcard to:

Reasons why Colin Farrell gets lead roles, Fictitious Address 395, Loudfartington, LF19 421

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 31 people found the following review useful:


Author: nsoderi from London, England
6 October 2012

As most of everything else nowadays, another action movie with no chemistry or identity that stole a name of a great production from the 80's in order to make money. Lots of money invested in a movie with no context. It's hilarious how there is no one out there to make great scripts like the old times. Is lack or talent or motivation the main ingredients required to make movies today? What is it that avoids producers, directors and actors to make great movies and consequently great money? Sincerely, this decade is far winning the golden globe of rubbish movies in a decade ever released.

Don't wast your time or money with that!

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Don't see this movie!

Author: Lukin900 from Australia
24 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have just seen this film, and have to warn others not to see it. This film is rife with inaccuracies and things that don't make sense. The most obvious is, the film is set in Australia and Britain and all but a handful of characters have an English accent. Why Bill Nighy had to have an American accent I will never know. Even the chancellor of the Federation of Britain has an American accent. I find this odd, because as we all know no foreigner can be an American president. And Australia was treated even worse. Not an Australian accent to be heard, not even a fake one, as Hollywood likes to do. The renaming of Australia, I can only assume, has to be a reference to her past. It's odd how Americans forget that England had colonys in the Americas at the same time, and using these colonys for the exact same purpose. Australia's renaming can't be because of its relationship with Britain ( being in the commonwealth) because anyone who had done their research would know that Australia is a sovereign state. Then there's the issue of the currency, I understand that Barak Obama is a popular president but why would he appear on another country's currency? Also, anyone that had done research would know that military personel in both Australia and Britain pronounce lieutenant ( leftenant) only Americans mispronounce it(lootenant). I just could not follow the idea that these two great nations took all the worlds refugees after a chemical fallout, and all the other countries perished including the US, the only difference is the US had emptied. Everyone moved to the UK or Australia enough to destroy their language and culture. The last thing that didn't make sense, was the fight at the end between Quade and Cohagen. This battle takes place in the rain, but there was no water on their faces. It's a small gripe, I know. But it pulled me out of the movie. One last thing. Enough with the lense flares, looks like a design student that has just found the lense flare tool in photoshop.

Not as smart as the Schwarzenegger version. And it's odd that a company called "Original Films" made a movie that is based on a book, has already made into a film, and uses every cleche in sci fi film most notably "Bladerunner"

This movie is one long chase movie, it goes from one too long chase to another. Which would be fine, but it's at the expense of plot and character.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Remake shows all the pros and cons of modern film making trends

Author: xamtaro from
8 August 2012

What makes up who we are? Are we the result of our past experiences and memories or does our identity stem from something much deeper? These are questions that the 2012 remake of the classic action film "Total Recall" could have delved into. What we have instead is a showcase of the best and worst of modern science fiction film making. It is Definitely a product of 2012 as much as the original was a product of the early 90s.

The aforementioned themes are only teased but never developed in this intense tale of on man's quest to uncover the truth of his identity and past. In a vastly overcrowded, class segregated future, everyman Douglas Quaid is haunted by dreams of being a secret agent on the run. Convinced that these are repressed fantasies brought on by his monotonous life assembling security automatons (which are like Cyber Stormtroopers) Quaid visits this place called "Rekall"; Rekall claims to implant fake but realistic fantasies into one's mind. So he gets a fantasy of being a double agent implanted. Suddenly, its discovered that he already has memories of being an agent: meaning he actually is an agent with his memory erased. A swat team busts in for some reason and he dispatches them to some beautiful camera camera pans. What follows is "Kurt Wimmer's 'Salt: dystopian future edition - minus Angelina Jolie" (surprise surprise, this movie is also written by Wimmer) with Quaid's wife turning out to be a psychopathic killer, his past a complete sham and his grip on that fine line between reality and fantasy slowly slipping. In the background lies a dastardly plot by a rich chancellor involving the poor dissidents of the overcrowded Colony and the leader of an underground resistance.

The most striking feature of Total Recall would be the stunning vision of this overcrowded future. Floating buildings to make up for scarce land, a country confused by its melting pot of cultures, cyborg police, hover cars, it is amazing. This is a future that seems very real judging from our current world: Strict class segregation taken to the extreme. The dichotomy in the design between the rich and elite United Federation of Britain and The ramshackle Colony is beautifully rendered thanks to the amazing production design headed by Patrick Tatopoulos (the guy who worked on Independence Day, Starship Troopers and Dark city).

A pity that the rest of the movie is fairly typical of modern day chase thrillers. Compared to the original Total Recall film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, this remake has Less twists, a less ambiguous ending and lacks the cynical dark humor that made the original so memorable. Instead of keeping it ambiguous as to whether the events unfolding are real or part of Quaid's implanted fantasy, this remake spoils its own mystery for the audience.

Director Len Wiseman brings in all that is good and bad in modern day film making into this movie. He shoots Total Recall with an over reliance on shaky cam and lens flare, almost like a "Paul Greengrass meets J.J Abrams". Think Bourne Supremacy with the visual style of the 2009 Star Trek film. The future is epilepsy inducing, we get it; and sometimes this really distracts from the tip top designs.

The cast is basically a reunion of mist actors that were in Len Wiseman's Underworld franchise. They do an excellent job with the acting and chemistry but the good actors like Bill Nighly felt under utilised. Only Kate Beckinsale was able to truly shine playing Quaid's wife-turned-assassin. Quaid himself is played by Colin Ferrel and is perhaps the only improvement this remake boasts over the original. Schwarzenegger's Quaid was the quintessential action hero but Ferrel's portrayal of the character had a greater sense of peril: he looks nothing like an action hero and this makes his transformation from everyman to savior of the downtrodden all the more powerful.

Whether one finds this a good movie or not depends on whether one can accept the modern trends of science fiction film making. It is the same plot as the original with all the "1990s" elements taken out and replaced with "2012" elements. Art Aficionados will be impressed by the overall look, style and camera-work showcased here. Those looking for a deep meaningful dive into the nature of human identity or even those looking for clever twists or smart dialogue will be let down. Take away the visuals and it's a rather generic, straight forward modern chase thriller.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Don't compare it to the 1990 movie of the same name.

Author: haikallp from Singapore
8 August 2012

I managed to watch total recall a couple of days back, and have watched it a second time. The reviews I've read so far reveals how many are comparing this to the 1990 movie staring Arnie.

Well, there are many differences in these two movies and if you want to truly enjoy this remake, you have gotta forget bout the original one. Try not to compare Arnie with Farrel and Beckinsale with Sharon Stone.

Graphically, Total Recall is beautifully crafted with good CGI work. It makes you wonder how believable the place is. It paints a future of the world where only two 'countries' exist while the majority of the Earth have become inhabitable. The difference in these two countries is vast and both of them looks amazing.

Collin Farell acting here is good but not worthy of any awards though Kate Beckinsale was amazing. She was definitely the best actor in this movie, hands down. The guy who played Cohagen was average a best. The other actors seemed blend and no one really stood out.

I have watched the original Total Recall and i have to say that these remake is slighty better. It feels more epic, saving a country seems more intense than saving a bunch of people living on Mars. The notion 'What is real' works well in this movie, especially in one of the scene in the hotel lobby i believe. What this movie lacks as compared to the original was a lack of witty lines. Arnie had some witty one-sentence line whereas Collin was pretty much serious throughout.

Total Recall started out great but by the time it hits the 60-80mins mark it starts to become a mindess action movie and it was pretty much predictable after that.

All in all, Total Recall is a great movie for someone who has never watched the original. I would give a rating of probably 7-8 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 54: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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