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 guide
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 9 of 55: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 547 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: kosmasp
3 January 2013

I am still very fond of the original movie. And you have to have a lot of respect for Paul Verhoeven for getting that performance out of Arnold Schwarzenegger. A performance that was like the movie itself: Hard to define and borderline insane. And therefor had a genius written all over itself!

It was not greeted well, when it was announced and I'm sure a lot of people didn't even bother watching it (the fact it was rated PG-13 drove away another wave of fans of the original). You also don't have as many one-liners for our main character here as there were in the original (most one liners are delivered by Kate Beckinsales character and she's doing an awesome job). Speaking of Kate: Let's say her role is slightly different from Sharon Stones. But not only character tweaks can be found, there also some little story tweaks. I can't tell you if you'll like them. I can tell you, that the special effects here are fantastic though. And I'm looking forward to the extended cut, which will have more "gray" areas, coming even closer to the Original.

Which brings us to the final question: Was it necessary to do a remake? The box office stats would suggest, that yes it was.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

'Recall' is forgettable

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?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Better than I was led to believe...

Author: Andy Steel
19 May 2013

Very heavy on the special effects, which are all very well done by the way, this film looks great. The narrative, although quite well known to me, was told in a unique enough for me to accept it as a new take on the same story. The performances were all very good, particularly Colin Farrell and Kate Beckinsale. I just wish they had made Jessica Biel look a bit more different to Kate Beckinsale; they look too similar, a different hair colour would have helped! On the downside, I did find the premise a little weak and that did kind of spoil it for me. It does look very spectacular though and for those who are fans of the original; yes, there a triple breasted hooker to be found. Worth a look; yes… Unless you're a die-hard Arnie fan.

SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 6.7/10

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

My views about the movie

Author: gzmnuruzun from Turkey
20 April 2013

Last summer , I watched Total Recall on cinema . It is a since fiction film . İf you love since fiction film the Total Recall you should watch .

The Total Recall ' s story really very interesting . Full of surprise . Is it really or imagined ?It understand very difficult .

Total Recall of the lead actor Colin Farrell very successful actor . The movie ' s actors very successful and good actors .

Total Recall is very gripping , it is very excited , it is very good , it is not predictable , it is not dull . In short total Recall spectacular movie .

I like the movie . In my opinion everyone should see this film . It is the worth watching . So I think that .

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A major disappointment

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 7 people found the following review useful:

Where were all the Australians?

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 7 people found the following review useful:

Good action scenes but disappointing

Author: davidjemitus-534-606702 from London, England
6 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I loved the original starring big Arnold but looked forward to a remake starring Colin Farrell.

The action scenes are great, the sets are amazing with an extreme Blade Runner type vision of the future with mega buildings, rain, vehicles everywhere and nowhere to breathe.

Some of the gadgets are well wicked and the two leading ladies enjoy kicking ass.

BUT, changing the story to be earthbound was a big loss and the acting early on was woeful though it did pick-up once the hero was in spy mode.

Worth watching but really it is a wasted opportunity as the film certainly had the budget and the actors to be very special.

Bring back Arnie.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

wish someone would rewrite my memories so I didn't think I'd seen this movie

Author: robin-broughton77 from uk
11 December 2013

In this poorly conceived dystopian future, that is trying to look like a poorman's bastard offspring of minority report interbred with bladerunner, failing on both counts to improve on the originals. The Veneer of the film look like it was made for TV. Paying homage to the original by badly rehashing all the best scenes . I mean cummon, In a futuristic world where lifts/elevators move like something out of "the Cube", they still have a little hatch in the top. Poor Very poor!! Some might have thought Arnie was too big a character in the original, but he pulled it off a whole lot better than this and it has aged gracefully. It didn't need remaking, maybe the director crew and cast knew this deep down, and their heart just wasn't in it.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Arnold Schwarzenegger the more charismatic option. Never thought I'd type those words.

Author: alsation72 from Australia
4 November 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am WORKING for this review, because I didn't want to see the rest of it. Firstly you know the general idea from the first (and far superior) movie. Secondly its bang this, special effect that; yet it doesn't draw you in.

Clearly the writers really felt like pissing off Australia and Australians!

In what parallel universe would England become a world power again? And in what parallel universe would Australia willingly call itself "the colony"?

If you want to get technical Australia hosted a collection of separate colonies which later became states. And no, ignorant ones, not all of the colonies/states on Australia proper hosted penal settlements, just three.

Britain had just lost America so they had to hurry a slave labour force to what was then called 'New Holland' so the Dutch didn't start making settlements. They sure as hell didn't want to lose control of another continent!

But where do you find enough people to do all the work? Arrest everyone, that's how! Most of the "convicts" were people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages. They weren't sending mass-murderers to a sunny paradise. FYI 5% of Australia's population can trace its roots back to convict ancestors, and they are damned proud of it!

Australia had Japanese troops on its soil, and its cities were being bombarded. We fought Japan off at the height of its power, and the U.S. joined us to became our closest allies when it became clear the English wanted to send our *kind of busy* soldiers to some side-battle in Burma. Bye bye England, don't call back. OKAY DONE!!

So the very idea that this ridiculous speculation about the future of world politics is not only highly unlikely, it seems designed to insult a whole continent from the first few moments.

United federation of Britain ... what does that even mean? Why would they dismantle the United Kingdom? Idiotic.

Chemical warfare was used by Saddam Hussein against the ever-persecuted Kurds. That land is not uninhabitable. Idiotic plot device.

The writers have totally written Mars out of the film. Totally. Now the "Colony" replaces Mars and we're all apparently expected to be thrilled by a lame 'drop-train' that goes through the centre of the earth.

There is no Mars, no mutant underclass, and, there's little actual connection to the hero of the story nor the villain for that matter. There are a couple of nods at the original but I'm guessing they were more like a slap in the face reminding you of how dreary and predictable this mess actually is compared to the original.

"I really thought you were a loser! Turns out I was living with the greatest intelligence agent alive."

When you've finished laughing at the wooden dialogue, does that direct quote give you a sense of the level of the writing on offer here? Because its abysmal.

2 out of ten. Amazing graphics and CGI but on the whole unwatchable.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Not so total recall

Author: siderite from Romania
4 November 2012

I remembered the old Total Recall movie with fondness and for that reason I decided to watch it again before watching the new version. While the 1990 version was 80% Robocop with a different script and Conan instead of a robot, the 2012 seems to be 80% Underworld, without vampires and werewolves, yet, ironically, with robots.

Mars was replaced with Earth. Mutant workers replaced with the population of a controlled colony, the ridiculous scientific ideas in the 1990 version were replaced with other ridiculous scientific ideas, only completely over the top (transporting people from one side to the other of the Earth via a giant elevator, for instance), and the CGI was punched to the max, on the tune of Blade Runner and Minority Report.

The general idea remains the same, though, with Colin Farrell doing a very decent acting job and the two insanely lovely actresses mostly running around and kicking butt. However this version places a lot of the emphasis on the action scenes. Remove them and the entire plot is stripped down, empty, mediocre. That's why, even being better on all counts than the Paul Verhoeven version, it doesn't measure much above it overall.

Bottom line: visually stunning (and not just because of Kate and Jessica), exhausting speed, good acting, a plot that makes no sense and a very small, oh so very small role for Bill Nighy. Average overall.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 55: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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