Cinema Reviews

Total Recall Review

5th Sep 2012

Writer’s note: This review was going to attempt to be spoiler free, but for reasons that will become clear in the review, that would be a little pointless.

Re-Makes

Re-Imaginings

Re-Interpretations

Re-Adaptaions

A strange breed, no doubt about it; the remake has always been part of Hollywood’s kitbag, and although varying in popularity over the years; always a firm staple in their approach to doing business. It is in recent year’s, the over-emphasis on the ‘business’ part of the equation (to the detriment of all other considerations), that has seen too many a poor remake, trade on it’s illustrious forebear’s strength, and exist simply because the studio’s bean counter’s sums say it should. For many cinema goers, this purely financial ‘return on investment’ reason for being, is never enough. Yet, somehow, we continue to finance the practice by our patronage of the latest horror remake, sci-fi remake, or whatever else comes our way with enough pre-existing interest to make us hand over our doubloons.

Very odd indeed.

Case in point, I was keen to see this particular movie right from the first moment I heard about it’s existence. I have no real idea why, other than my love of the original Philip K Dick short story, the Arnold Schwarzenegger adaptation of it, and an insatiable curiosity just to see what they would do.

So seemingly with very little studio fanfare, and even less public anticipation (other than me), late summer 2012 finally brought us Len Wiseman’s Total Recall. Starring Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, and Jessica Biel, this movie could have been many unusual and wonderful things, but chose instead to be the one thing ‘artistically’ it should never have been.

When the first teaser trailer hit, and here at Filmwerk Towers, most folks were all (somewhat nonplussed), but nonetheless discussing how a remake of Total Recall could play out; I was cautiously optimistic. Although using the title ‘Total Recall’ was a given, purely in terms of marketing a new movie, I was speculating on perhaps a purer take on Philip K Dick’s original short story [We Can Remember it for You Wholesale], forming the heart of its narrative. Encouragingly, we found out early on that in this movie; we would not be going to Mars, or learning about aliens, and there would be no mutant conjoined rebel leaders. This seemed to support the notion of it not being just a retread. Hope lifted, that it would not be a remake at all. However, It would seem that instead of doing what John Carpenter did when he set about re-making Howard Hawks’ The Thing (i.e. returning to the source novel/short story ‘Who Goes There?‘ for expert and intelligent guidance); Wiseman (despite the etymology of his surname), chose instead to almost completely remake Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 adaptation of Dick’s book. So much so, that I noticed Ronald Shusset and the late Dan O’Bannon (as the screenwriters of the Verhoeven version), get a very prominent credit here too. We also got a three breasted prostitute….

Problem 1 – How do you set about remaking a movie that was an 18 certificate (and deservedly so), simultaneously cover so many of the same beats AND obtain a kiddie friendly 12a rating?

Problem 2 – How do you solve problem 1, without emasculating the movie and making it seem like an irrelevant, watered down, sanitised ersatz pastiche of Verhoeven’s film?

Problem 3 – How (and why) can the movie take itself so seriously, and still be fun like the original was?

Problem 4 – How do you cast the Arnold role with someone who packs a similar action gravitas? Do you even try? What are the alternatives? How does this affect the feel of the movie?

Problem 5 – Given that it is a retread, how do you nonetheless make this film something that stands on its own, and is relevant to anyone who saw the Arnold original?

I can’t really answer too many of those questions of course, and it would seem from watching the film, that Mr. Wiseman and co couldn’t either, at least not completely satisfactorily.

Don’t get me wrong, there is actually much to like about Total Recall, after all, we liked the original right? This film is certainly visually stunning, with a design and SFX realisation that is sometimes breathtaking, and never cheap looking (a serious demerit in some scenes in the original). The money is definitely up there on screen for all to see.

The movie also features some genuinely exciting set pieces, and thrilling action sequences. I don’t mind that the movie’s fabric (while being condemned in some quarters as far too Blade Runner-esque), is actually also riffing on Asimov so much I almost expected the Robot factory to bear the USR logo. I liked all that. I liked the fact that the mag-lev cars that feature in one of the aforementioned exciting set pieces are absolutely designed to look related to the Spinners in Blade Runner. Why not? Brilliant, no problem there for me, bring it on. In fact, I really like the fact that an obvious mandate must have gone out from Wiseman to his production design crew; to make damn sure that the world of Total Recall (particularly on the Colony side of the planet), must look like it exists in the same Philip K Dick universe as Blade Runner (even though in Dick’s stories, it is neither confirmed nor denied, that the two worlds have any internal connection or chronology). That’s cool. I also liked the casting (unlike many it seems), and thought Farrell was more than serviceable. I enjoyed his attempt to play Quaid more as an average guy (who isn’t an average guy), that extraordinarily un-average things are happening to (as distinct from Arnold’s more instantly bombastic ‘Gung-Ho’ approach). Also, as a fan of Beckinsale’s ‘Selina’ (the vampire from Wiseman’s Underworld series), I enjoy her diminutive and shapely arse, kicking even more arse and taking numbers, immensely. The idea of incorporating the Richter and Lori characters (from the original movie), into one kick arse femme fatal is, in my opinion logical, economical, and enjoyable in concept and execution. The downside is that in the process, you lose most of the jealousy, spite, and bite of both original characters. Worst of all, you lose the motivation of the pursuing character (in this case the amalgamated Lori role), when compared to Richter’s obvious, malevolent yet so entertaining hatred of Quaid/Hauser (for not only being Cohaagen’s favourite, but also for screwing his girlfriend (Lori), and then killing her). At one point in the movie, it seemed like Lori’s heart of stone might actually be beginning to melt, and she would see the error of her maniacal drive to see Quaid dead at all costs (even against orders). However, it didn’t happen, and she (rather boringly), stayed on point right to the end. The real let down character for me was Bill Nighy’s rebel leader Matthias, who had so little to do, and so little apparent relevance, it’s actually a wonder that Cohaagen wants him dead as much as he does. Very disappointingly drawn, and underdeveloped, we also don’t like Nighy with an American accent either thanks guys.

However, another strong plus point for me was Harry Gregson-Williams’ excellent soundtrack. Like the visuals; it too is laser focused on a clear agenda to place the movie within that same Blade Runner reality. No bad thing in my book, particularly as the composer manages to do this without really sounding anything like Vangelis (beyond the use of synths and reverbs of course). I stayed right to end of the credits to listen and absorb every last second of that sub-bass rumble and synthesised ear candy infused score. I will definitely be adding this to my music collection in time.

The problem that makes all of these good things crumble is foundational, and simply this: Why remake a film that didn’t need remaking? The 12a rating does as feared, hobble and emasculate many of the parallel scenes with Verhoeven’s film. Every time one of these deja-vu dripped, yet sanitised scenes happen, we long more and more for that adult rating and a return to some really brutal thrills and spills. It is indeed in setting out to remake the 1990 film, that is this movie’s single biggest mistake. Wiseman should have looked to Dick’s original story, and taken nothing from Shusset and O’Bannon but the title and character names for his movie. I would have liked to have seen the movie focus more on Dick’s existential questions of perception i.e. what is reality? what is real, and what is not real?, and what is the difference really? Alas no, like Arnold before him, once on the move, Farrell’s Quaid doesn’t have time to spare too much thought on questions of perception, morality, reality and the nature of being. Existential navel gazing takes a back seat to a lot of running around trying not to get shot. Wiseman even junks Verhoeven’s famous fade to white at the end, which was the dutchman’s only real nod and wink to the idea that the whole thing could really be in Quaid’s head after all. No, Total Recall 2012 fades to black, the end. No questions posed, and none answered. This short-changes the inquisitive viewer, and reduces the movie to mere by the numbers popcorn fodder, enjoyable popcorn fodder, but lacking in any real substance. I would like to have seen what someone like Christopher Nolan would have done with this property. The notion of ‘property’ brings us full circle, and I will end on this note: Ultimately Total Recall 2012 is a beautiful looking, technically outstanding, often thrillingly entertaining, but ultimately pointless and safe retread of a far braver and greater movie.