Audio Reviews - Total Recall - Audio Review

A factory worker, Douglas Quaid, begins to suspect that he is a spy after visiting Rekall - a company that provides its clients with implanted fake memories of a life they would like to have led - goes wrong and he finds himself on the run.

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, colin farrell, bryan cranston, kate beckinsale, jessica biel, bill nighy, bokeem woodbine, total recall

• 
  

  September 09, 2012 at 8:31 AM, said ...

  "I know I should care about this guy yet I don't because he's kind of a dick."

  Or something like that. Exactly why this movie misses the point of 'We're the 99%'. And why the whole '99%' was just a fad because people realized...why support the "99%" when 58% of the 99% are also assholes?

• August 30, 2012 at 9:15 PM, said ...

  the design elements of this remake is amazing. but when you make a remake of a movie that has a number of plot twists, you have to work harder of surprise the audience. i don't think they worked hard enough on the story,especially the final 20 minutes. but overall a good film. Matinee

  
  
• 
  

  August 15, 2012 at 8:58 PM, said ...

  I tried not to compare this to the original and thoroughly enjoyed this movie for what it is. I could overlook some of the flaws & found it very entertaining.

• August 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM, said ...

  Sorry guys, I'm giving this a Some ol' Bullshit! And that is coming from someone who hasn't seen the original believe it or not...

  
  
• 
  

  August 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, said ...

  They said it took 17 minutes to arrive from the colony to europe. To make that distance you'd have to travel give or take is 7900 milers, around 465 miles per minute, 7-8 miles per second, that's 6 times faster than Mach goddamn 7 WHO THOUGHT A ELEVATOR THROUGH THE PLANET WAS BETTER THAN PLACING THE NEW TOTAL RECALL MOVIE ON MARS?! 

• August 12, 2012 at 12:32 AM, said ...

  Kind of a let down for me, didn't leave me wondering about the whole rekall situation, which I thought was the whole point of the movie. Enjoyed the acting and the effects though.

  
  
• 
  

  August 10, 2012 at 5:53 AM, said ...

  Okay Watched the film finally, it was a rather big mistake. The plotline and dialogue in this film is ridiculous. The one liners are given with no emotion and you will not be emotionally connected to any of these characters. The CG was great I enjoyed it but the movie did not have CG for a good chunk of it and I wanted to walk out of the movie in a few scenes. As far as I can tell they never resolved anything as they still have 2 parts of earth separated and at warand bunch of robots to kill.

  This movie has no similarities to total recall they decided to make it their own story while maintaining a title. So it is not fair to review this based on the original. I will give my review just on the movie I saw today. I cannot think of a interesting/memorable scene. I did not care about the characters I thought some of the acting was sloppy and a lot of the movie was confusing/rushed. I'd say its a low rental. 4  out of 10. Bad. Watch when you are doing something else or to fall asleep to.

  Movie rating considering the disgrace this did to the original for this bullshit fill 2 maybe 3.5 for the fine ladies. Watch the original instead.

• August 09, 2012 at 5:37 AM, ricardo diaz said ...

  This movie is the very definition of a Summer matinee. There is no use arguing about this film. Its gonna be forgotten about in a few weeks. If it wasn't for Kate Beckingsale and a few set pieces, I would've forgotten about it when I left the theather.

  
  
• 
  

  August 07, 2012 at 9:16 PM, said ...

  I give it a rentel, not terrible, but really only Kate Beckinsale and the CGI is worthwhile, i was looking forward to Cranston being Cohaagan and all, but it was a waste, honestly. Please stop Arnie remakes Hollywood, and i've already seen Commando 2013/2014, it's called The MARINE starring Super-Cena himself, John Cena!! Ugh.

• August 07, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Robert Michel said ...

  Co-Host wants to see the movie where they drill that hole through the Earth? He's not talking about this, is he?

  Oh, and for future reference (because they're also remaking RoboCop and Starship Troopers) : the name Verhoeven is pronounced like "Vur-hooven", with the stress on the "oo" sound.

  
  
• 
  

  August 07, 2012 at 4:51 PM, said ...

  The whole Mars thing was a really big part of the last film for me. The movie ran largely on just fucking with your head but in a way where at least I found my brain working double time for solutions in a good way. I was really invested in the movie and wondering what would happen and the finale in the last film had my jaw dropping and I was thinking Wow this really seems legitimately possible and what a way to end the movie. 

  BTW this is only if you look past the layer of action and cheese that makes the movie fun. You need to really appreciate the layers of complexity in the old one and when they remove layers of that for this new movie I don't see the benefit other than just being lazy writers. 

• August 06, 2012 at 4:43 PM, darth geekboy said ...

  the guy next to me fell asleep while watching the chase scenes.  i almost fell asleep myself.

  this movie was less than 2 hours.  yet it felt longer than "TDR".

  
  
• 
  

  August 06, 2012 at 10:35 AM, said ...

  Cyrus... it's Beckin-SALE... though I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff in this movie that's stale enough...

• August 06, 2012 at 4:35 AM, said ...

  I'm sorry, but when they said Arnold in the notebook it made me think of the Sex in the City 3 joke from Robot Chicken  

  
  
• 
  

  August 06, 2012 at 4:29 AM, said ...

  @Co-Host 3000

  
  I haven't heard your review yet but I read Manuel's comment and your reaction.

  I don't see why being a fanboy is wrong. Has Manuel even seen the Internet lately? The time of "professional" critics is finished. Opinions are given out by anyone and everyone these days. People have come to realise that being a professional critic is a falacy. Maybe it refers to those people who started out as fanboys and went on to become bitter snobs, don't know, but they surely aren't the ones who will grab people's attention these days.

  Who really cares about the artistic elements in the movies on a Friday or Saturday night out with your friends? In the case of a remake, sometimes all you need to hear is "look, if you want something on the lines of the original, give this one a pass," and that's enough because the review is as unimaginative as the idea that studio had when they produced the remake in the first place so the point will get across to the listener.

  Point being: I don't mind your way of doing reviews. I find it hard to digest that we're living in an age where, when people don't agree with an opinion, they attack the person who offered it citing "lack of professionalism". I don't always agree with you, but that's life. Don't let anyone try to silence you.

• August 06, 2012 at 2:03 AM, said ...

  You go @Co-Host 3000

  

  
  
• 
  

  August 06, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Optimus of the Prime said ...

  I should've listened t the Co-Host on this one. This was a very bland, mediocre movie. The only good thing about this movie was Kate Beckinsale and a couple of the action scenes( especially the elevator scene) but the rest of the movie was very unengaging and I didn't give a f#%k about the characters. When the movie was over I felt like I wasted $ 9.00

  RENTAL

• August 05, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Michael-Orian Bockus said ...

  Bah I made a typo... Grammar Nazis can blast away

  
  
• 
  

  August 05, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Michael-Orian Bockus said ...

  The truth is, every single critic bases their opinion on what a movie made them feel. Sure some critics will sugar-coat everything with long words to make it seem THEIR opinion is THE propar and intelligent opinion, but really that's all bs. The actually reasons behind liking something (or not) is relative and non-quantiviable. I mean why else would Roger Ebert give THE DEVILS REJECTS four stars because it's sick and depraved and 0 stars to THE TEXAS CHINSAW MASSACRE for the same reason?

• August 05, 2012 at 10:39 PM, said ...

  Hey Manuel............SCREWWWWWW YOUUUUU

  
  
• 
  

  August 05, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Lewis Morris said ...

  For the most part, I thought most of you guys were a little too forgiving of the movie.  From my view, the movie is as bland as gruel, and is hopelessly sanitized in ways that make it inferior to the original.  For me, it paid lip-service to the ideas presented in the previous film, pays homage in the cheapest ways to the previous films, but misses what made the previous film so fun & memorable.  The script is AWFUL, and the action, while impressive at times, is routine & stale.  There is nothing that stands out about this movie, even if it weren't compared to a previous original.

  So, for the most part, I agree with co-host.  It's a rental.

• August 05, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Co-Host 3000 said ...

  @Manuel Guardado

  Number one Manuel, I would never call myself a professional critic. That just sounds stupid. Number 2 how does enjoying the first film interfere with my objectivity? When someone hears a remake of a song they like, is it that fucking crazy to compare and contrast the two? Is it that insane to bring that logical way of thinking when it comes to a remake of a film? I haven't listened to this review and I don't know if anything I said was edited out but I'm positive I said that the original was a pretty goddamn ridiculous story and it was the small details of Verhoeven's use of gore and violence that made it so much fun to watch and the story more easy to swallow. When I get upset it's because of all the potential this movie really had. Instead they take the easy summer blockbuster route by taking away all the gore and the more fantastic elements away, making it as sterile as you can make a movie. Plus they constantly remind you of the original. Over and fucking over again. I want to forget about the original and take in this new experience but they keep banging my fucking head with the original dvd! If you've seen the movie and disagree with me that's fine. Tomato, tomahto. If you and everyone else who doesn't agree with me and hasn't even seen the fucking film wants to throw the fan-boy label at me that's fine. My very own Spill crew does it so why shouldn't you. It's super easy and fun. I hope some people are able to dig a bit deeper to understand where I'm coming from but some will only scratch the surface and that's fine. That's what makes my opinion different from yours. Great, now I feel stupid for writing this because guess what, it's not changing shit. Have a good life being you. 

  
  
• 
  

  August 05, 2012 at 6:46 PM, said ...

  Co-Host's "everyman" appeal definitely hurt his credibility in this review. He didn't come off as a professional critic here but as a bitter fan-boy. The crew politely pointed out his criticisms as existing in the original and his only response was "but that was my childhood". It's fine to have you own baggage about something, everyone does, but if it interferes with your objectivity you gotta check it at the door. He didn't.

• August 05, 2012 at 10:24 AM, said ...

  
  
• 
  

  August 04, 2012 at 6:45 PM, said ...

  Leon got it right with the "they are damned if they do and damned if they don't" on the whole three tit debacle. Minus well include it, its a fun nod to the original and why not (regardless how forced it feels) not like it affected the movie in its entirety. 

Post Comment