Skip to main content

The past is a construct of the mind.


Total Recall
(2012)

I wanted to like this, partly because I don't think Paul Verhoeven's 1990 film is some kind of untouchable masterpiece (it's got Arnie in it for a start, and the whole thing feels like it was shot on sets) and partly because there's enough material in the premise that it could stand a few different takes on the Dickmeister. But director Len Wiseman and writers Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback do nothing interesting with this remake. What they do change is frequently so daffy you can only conclude that you're supposed to think that Quaid's dream at the beginning is real and[i] everything[/i] else is a dream. This, despite the ploddingly literal approach screaming (or dully echoing) otherwise.

So we have the Earth divided (chemical warfare miraculously resulted in two English-speaking land masses surviving!) into two territories, United Federation of Britain and the poor, blue-collar Colony (Australia...). Workers from the Colony travel daily to UFB through the centre of the Earth in a giant lift called the Fall. Terraforming Mars in minutes while Arnie's eyes pop out of his head seems utterly believable after this. It's almost as if the writers are daring you to take it seriously, but then the subsequent film is so po-faced you conclude there was little rhyme or reason involved. Despite the window-dressing of the setting, whole scenes slavishly follow the plot beats present in the original. At one point there's a visual reference to the woman Arnie disguised himself as. It's a nice gag that works as misdirection due to the lack of originality on display everywhere else, and one of the few in the mix (for example, revisiting the three breasted woman is indicative of how devoid of ideas the film is).

To be fair to Wiseman, his highly derivative (of Blade Runner, Minority Report, The Fifth Element) future world has a physicality and tangibility despite it's reliance on CGI effects. And he stages the action competently and clearly (something nothing short of miraculous in current cinema). But there's nothing to be involved with. 

The casting is utterly bland. Not just Colin Farrell (someone pointed out that he can only be relied on to give a good performance when he uses his native accent, and this is further evidence; he's not bad or anything remotely Arnie-esque but he's completely forgettable so there's no one to root for), but Biel, Beckinsale (she makes a convincing Terminator-bitch, but Sharon Stone was a far stronger presence with a third of the screen time), Nighy (who appears for all of two minutes) and Cranston. The latter is especially  pay-cheque grabbing. It's a fairly unnuanced villain role but it it needed someone to do something "big" with it. The only time Cranston breaks a sweat is the groan-inducing extended fight with Farrell at the climax. When we're asked to believe that Farrell's supposed super spy will take a beating from a furious politician. You can see the thinking in filling a future vision with actors rather than stars, but it required those actors to be invested in, or inject some charisma into, the proceedings. Everyone present is as going-through-the-motions as the script and director (actually, John Chu made an impression with his bleach blonde cameo as the Rekall guy).

The design is, as stated, derivative, but there are some nice touches here and there. A journey by train into the London wasteland (again, logic rears it's ugly head; how are people free of pollution a few miles away when anyone journeying to the wasteland has to wear a gas mask) suggest a far more interesting milieu than the wall-to-wall cityscapes, while the only chase sequence that provokes interest requires the pursued and pursuers to dodge a criss-cross of lifts as they hotfoot it down different shafts. But it's future world building where you have to be told how it is, rather than be shown. Why is there a working London with double-deckers at ground level below the flying cars and city in the air? Particularly with the aforementioned chemical nastiness not far away? Because visually it makes you pay attention, not narratively.  At least Wiseman makes sure his robot stormtrooper knock-offs are men in suits rather than Clonetrooper-CGI, and gets points for that.

The big climax, when it comes, relies on punches and explosions and lacks anything particularly intriguing (however, it occurred to me that the invasion force can't have been that large given the means of transporting them). Indeed, any cerebral element has long since been divested in a tiring display of non-stop action, lacking any hook to draw the audience in. 

I don't think the issue with the film was getting rid of Mars, it was not coming up with different-enough plotting or any philosophical backbone to base the remake on (its food for thought is all lip-service to the Arnie film). Ostensibly there's a stronger political edge to the script this time around (Cohaagen is waging a War on Terror which, for the most part, he has instigated, engineering proceedings in order to invade another continent and make use of its "natural resources"), but there's no bite or conviction to it. Maybe someone who hasn't seen the original would enjoy it more, but I suspect even then the lack of any real enthusiasm from its makers would leave them feeling short-changed.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.