Demona
Dominique Destine
- AKA
- Sizheng
Total Recall (2012)
- Thread starter Cookie Monster
- Start date
Octo
KULT OF KERMITU
- AKA
- Octo, Octorawk, Clarky Cat, Kissmammal2000
I probably wont get to see this until it comes out on dvd, the trailer looked retarded and Colin Farrell's eyebrows bother me to the extent that I can never focus on what his characters are saying.
I just liked how the original had its tounge firmly in its cheek with its elements of satire - quite a few of the 80's Schwarzenegger films were like that, I think its kind of clever to make a film which on the face of it is brainless action but has these hidden depths. Basically you got out of the original what you put in y'know?
Anyway I guess its unfair to judge something on the basis of a trailer but it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm.
I just liked how the original had its tounge firmly in its cheek with its elements of satire - quite a few of the 80's Schwarzenegger films were like that, I think its kind of clever to make a film which on the face of it is brainless action but has these hidden depths. Basically you got out of the original what you put in y'know?
Anyway I guess its unfair to judge something on the basis of a trailer but it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm.
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
wat.
just... wat.
Let me re-phrase that short summary in a way that's slightly more accurate to the actual film - assuming that it's a fake. "Guy tired of being not being able to get the better life that he wants has a pre-generated scenario of a memory of being a spy implanted into his mind that uses characters from his own subconscious to fill the roles in the story." The memory that gets put into his mind at Rekall is one that's pre-programmed, and isn't something that he's coming up with. He doesn't have agency over the role that the characters play in any scenario, and the way you phrased it (in addition to your earlier comments) make it seem like he does out of some male-chauvinist-driven fantasy - which is completely not the case.
The ambiguity of the truth is in fact the whole point of the film, and it comes down to memory = reality being true subjectively, but not so objectively (a conversation that's had and is brought up just before this all happens). Part of the intrigue of something like Rekall is the idea that you could have a memory that's not based in truth, but you'd still have actually lived it for all intents and purposes - from your point of view. You don't have any control over the scenarios that play out any more than just saying something like, "Yeah, being a spy and saving the day seems like something that I'd like to do, but will never be able to." which is essentially all that he does, so at its roots, it IS about that sort of "it'd be awesome to shoot guns and save the day and stuff" type fantasy. The way that you're projecting this awkward overtone of how the women are involved is just... not at all what's taking place in the film.
When he has the dream at the beginning of the film, you don't know if it's a piece of his past, or just a dream (and gives justification for the possible belief that something might go wrong at Rekall). Rekall is just like a dream, in that you don't really have any control over who shows up doing what. He doesn't mention the girl to his wife, because it's not clear that he wanted to be dreaming about someone else, plus it leaves it open as an avenue for the dual truth to run along in ambiguity. His dissatisfaction doesn't come from his relationship with his wife at all but the repetitive living scenario that he's trapped in it because of his class. The breaking point is when he doesn't get the promotion that he's more than over-qualified for because he's from The Colony and he also hears positive things about Rekall-ed memories from his new coworker.
If he was just interested in some sort of shallow "get away from his wife" scenario, he'd have been seduced by the three-titted hooker and have been done with it, or he'd have chosen a scenario at Rekall that was about having an affair or something similar. He instead goes from the spy fantasy, which isn't connected to any of that. Everything about the roles that his wife and the girl in his dream play are set up by the scenario that's been presented (as well as being taken from the original Arnold film), and are not at all the machinations of Mr. Quaid. This also shows why he's very hesitant to accept his role as someone else, when it seems that the events bleed into his own reality. Ultimately I think that it's the scenario of what stands to be lost (losing his real life to potentially save the entire Colony from being destroyed, vs. saving his real life only to be over-run anyway) that makes his decision one way vs. the other.
Skipping to the end of the film - If it's real, then he made the right choice and saved a ton of people from being killed. If it's not, he's either one of the victims trapped by the allure of of living a fantastic escape from his real life, or he wakes up and has to face the consequences of his decision to choose Rekall's dream over his real life. However - the consequences of his actions aren't the point of the film (which some people may find to be bothersome). The point is that as a viewer, you definitively can't say whether or not what he experienced was real or a dream engineered by Rekall. Did he do the right thing by going to Rekall, or did he mess up his actual life? At that moment, neither he nor you has any way to tell whether or not the entire scenario was Rekall's fantasy or an actual event. It's that sense of ambiguity that you can't say yes or no for certain that's the overall message about Objective vs. Subjective reality.
If he was just interested in some sort of shallow "get away from his wife" scenario, he'd have been seduced by the three-titted hooker and have been done with it, or he'd have chosen a scenario at Rekall that was about having an affair or something similar. He instead goes from the spy fantasy, which isn't connected to any of that. Everything about the roles that his wife and the girl in his dream play are set up by the scenario that's been presented (as well as being taken from the original Arnold film), and are not at all the machinations of Mr. Quaid. This also shows why he's very hesitant to accept his role as someone else, when it seems that the events bleed into his own reality. Ultimately I think that it's the scenario of what stands to be lost (losing his real life to potentially save the entire Colony from being destroyed, vs. saving his real life only to be over-run anyway) that makes his decision one way vs. the other.
Skipping to the end of the film - If it's real, then he made the right choice and saved a ton of people from being killed. If it's not, he's either one of the victims trapped by the allure of of living a fantastic escape from his real life, or he wakes up and has to face the consequences of his decision to choose Rekall's dream over his real life. However - the consequences of his actions aren't the point of the film (which some people may find to be bothersome). The point is that as a viewer, you definitively can't say whether or not what he experienced was real or a dream engineered by Rekall. Did he do the right thing by going to Rekall, or did he mess up his actual life? At that moment, neither he nor you has any way to tell whether or not the entire scenario was Rekall's fantasy or an actual event. It's that sense of ambiguity that you can't say yes or no for certain that's the overall message about Objective vs. Subjective reality.
If you enjoyed the original Arnold film, I can't think that you wouldn't enjoy this one as well (unless of course you were just there to see Arnold). I didn't think that it was in any way more exploitative of the gender-roles than the original film was. Also, the action-consequences about the reality vs. non-reality of his trip to Rekall is still present in the new film.
Lastly, I have to mention a few things that didn't really get brought up anywhere else. The nods to the original film are especially well-placed, and give a little something extra if you've seen the original film. I also have to say that visually, it does the best visual portrayal of a Blade Runner-esque dystopian future that I've seen (excluding Blade Runner itself). Obviously there's lots of crazy action sequences which were quite awesome (even more awesome when I found out that the hovercars were actually physically constructed ON TOP OF RACE CARS to make them seem like they were floating, and filmed practically while bring driven below by race car drivers, with the actors in the vehicle above. Oh, and yay for Bryan Cranston!
X
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
How is that any different than what I said?
So you concede to my argument. And yes, it is what is taking place with the women, but that's only a small aspect that contributes to the eye-roll worthy, Michael Bay-esque chauvinism.
Why are you focussing in on one tiny quip out of what I said.
You're missing my point entirely because you're getting bent out of shape because I made a snide remark about his wife ending up being a villain in the film.
That's a small example of my overall point, but not it at all.
The plot of the film itself is a male-chauvenist driven fantasy. Everything else is just an extension of that.
Which is somehow more noble than the getting away from his wife scenario.
Give me a break.
and I'm saying it doesn't matter. That's why the whole Rekall existential bullshit hamfisted into the film is shallow. Because whether or not it was real or not - it doesn't matter (and yes I do realize what you're saying that is was preconceived and whatnot, I did understand what was going on). It doesn't matter if he machinated it and frankly I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that the message of the film doesn't change either way.
Except no matter which way you spin it, the character benefits from the events of the film.
Bored white guy is unsatisfied with mediocre life but oh wait no this isn't the life for him, he's meant for something so much greater in this retarded escapist fantasy.
Oh and if it isn't real, then that's okay too because obviously his life sucked and being trapped in this memory is so much happier. Does it matter if his life was screwed up? Well as a viewer, I can think it was, or I could be comforted by the nice thought that it was real. And hey! If it wasn't real then at least he's happier than he was!
gosh this movie is so smart and clever with its commentary on such a ~deep~ ~existential~ ~postmodernist~ context i mean gosh those are such interesting concepts.
except nope sorry it's all bullshit. Honestly the biggest question I had at the end of the film: was this thought up by a bunch of pretentious dumbasses who think they know better? Or was it made by a bunch of really clever people who knew the type that would latch on to this dumb fuck of a film?
also lol this is anywhere near the same calibre as Blade Runner.
Last edited:
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
He doesn't/it's not made clear. They talk about some dude being lobotmized by Rekall early on in the film, but I don't think it's mentioned again after that (I think it was more of a throw away reference than anything). The movie ends with Collin Farrel embracing Jessica Biel with a quick shot of a Rekall advertisement.
Last edited:
Ite
Save your valediction (she/her)
- AKA
- Ite
That sounds dumb. Watch the original. Here it is:
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6573424/Total_Recall_(1990)_720p_BrRip_x264_-_700MB_-_YIFY
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6573424/Total_Recall_(1990)_720p_BrRip_x264_-_700MB_-_YIFY
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
No I don't, and no it's not. Chauvinism is an unfounded belief of superiority in the race/gender/class/etc to which you belong, which isn't at all a part of Quaid's character, or a part of his fantasy. His want to have the memory of having been a Jason Bourne-like spy, who kicked ass and saved the day isn't chauvinistic, let ALONE male chauvinism. Nothing in his actions in the film, or in his fantasy is built to belittle or demean the role of women or singularly accentuate the role of males being superior, so I have absolutely NO idea where you're getting this point of view from.
Why I'm being rather persistent about this, is because all of your listed issues with the film stem from putting the entire plot through this weird, chauvinism-centric lens coupled with misinterpretations of the points of the plot and the outcome of the film. It's an enjoyable sci-fi action film, and while not as tongue-in-cheek or ridiculous as the original, it's absolutely nothing like this weirdly sexist movie that you're making it out to be.
Um, yes. Yes it is. One is tailored to escaping his life and the other is tailored to escaping his relationship.
Example: If my life is repetitive and boring as hell, and I'm stuck in a job role that I'll never get promoted in, and so I decide to make up for my shitty life by going to get some fake memories (the premise of the film), or hell even just play a VR video game. One - I'm a super-soldier who saves Earth from getting overrun by evil mutant invaders. Two - I'm a celebrity who has a 48-hour orgy with supermodels.
If you're talking about bare-bones escapism, one of those certainly isn't noble, while the other one arguably is. One, you just want to get away from your life and live something else, and in the other you want to feel like you've accomplished something of worth. Two, you're only ditching out on the relationship aspect of your life, and instead of getting the memory of accomplishing something, you get the memory of having been a douchebag.
So yes, within the confines of escapist fantasy, it is more noble.
Except... no, it IS made clear.
after discussing the bits about objective vs. subjective reality with the Rekall tech, that they scan his mind for anything that might cause issues - which they state will fuck up his mind. Then, when they start the procedure, it immediately turns into a catastrophe that they attempt to cancel, while yelling about how it'll mess him up, which leads to the "is he trapped in a botched Rekall procedure believing he's a spy, or did he wake up because it killed his memory wipe of being a spy?" duality of the film. This is later briefly re-mentioned by his coworker during the "is it/isn't it real" scene.
The Rekall logo showing up at the end along with the quote, "Doesn't this feel like it's too good to be true?" which is meant to reinforce that "is it or isn't it real" question, since that would be the end of his faux memory created by Rekall. Also, the bit about the guy being lobotomized earlier in the film is a reference to the previous film. It's a quote that's
"I heard some guy went to Rekall and got lobotomized trying to become the king of Mars" "Nah, man, that's just a rumor."
Why don't you actually, read my statement - I was talking about the VISUAL PORTRAYAL of The Colony as the continually expanded and built over eastern-culture-influenced dystopian future model. I never even once mentioned that it's anywhere NEAR the caliber of film that Blade Runner is - which for the record, it's not even close.
X
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
Shit I maybe high and maybe a little bit drunk right now but at least I have critical thinking skills and decent taste in movies.
Octo
KULT OF KERMITU
- AKA
- Octo, Octorawk, Clarky Cat, Kissmammal2000
Well......this is awkward 
Anyway, for anyone who is interested heres the original short story: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Dick_Wholesale.pdf
I haven't read it yet but I will to see how it compares to the Arnie version, someone who's seen the new version can say if its more/less similar.
Edit: Also lol 'Douglas Quail'
Anyway, for anyone who is interested heres the original short story: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Dick_Wholesale.pdf
I haven't read it yet but I will to see how it compares to the Arnie version, someone who's seen the new version can say if its more/less similar.
Edit: Also lol 'Douglas Quail'
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
Yeah, I did read the story and I mean
Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to X-Soldier's post because it's pretty much as dumb as the movie he's defending. But I will say in regards to the last part, I did take a long piss during a 15 minute interval where I was considering leaving* so I missed a bit. Unfortunately having being filled in that there's absolutely no way that his brain was fucked up at all at any time just... makes my opinion sink lower.
I'm not saying the plot of the film is sexist. That's too strong word. I think the film is too busy trying to distract the viewer with its own retarded sense of cleverness that it misses its own commentary.
you don't exactly have to be a literary critic to notice the themes I brought up. I'd say they're blatantly obvious, both the original and the new film. Reading the ss just affirmed everything because it made it even more clear. I can say without a doubt that the criticism against escapism is one of the primary themes of all incarnations of the story (as yes, that includes the raised question of how societal roles play into it). The new one is probably "closer" to the short story, but it really waters everything down to the point where everything is pretty much pants-on-head retarded and misses the point entirely. Not to mention incredibly too corny for something that takes itself seriously.
I mean, it's a short story so in both cases it's expanded to a point where it can fill a feature-length film. Overall, I think the original is better and captures the message better.
*please note since I don't pay for films/work at the cinema, my walking out of a film means a lot less than most people. I walk out of movies all the time since I usually am forced to watch the same scenes over and over again during my shifts.
Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to X-Soldier's post because it's pretty much as dumb as the movie he's defending. But I will say in regards to the last part, I did take a long piss during a 15 minute interval where I was considering leaving* so I missed a bit. Unfortunately having being filled in that there's absolutely no way that his brain was fucked up at all at any time just... makes my opinion sink lower.
I'm not saying the plot of the film is sexist. That's too strong word. I think the film is too busy trying to distract the viewer with its own retarded sense of cleverness that it misses its own commentary.
you don't exactly have to be a literary critic to notice the themes I brought up. I'd say they're blatantly obvious, both the original and the new film. Reading the ss just affirmed everything because it made it even more clear. I can say without a doubt that the criticism against escapism is one of the primary themes of all incarnations of the story (as yes, that includes the raised question of how societal roles play into it). The new one is probably "closer" to the short story, but it really waters everything down to the point where everything is pretty much pants-on-head retarded and misses the point entirely. Not to mention incredibly too corny for something that takes itself seriously.
I mean, it's a short story so in both cases it's expanded to a point where it can fill a feature-length film. Overall, I think the original is better and captures the message better.
*please note since I don't pay for films/work at the cinema, my walking out of a film means a lot less than most people. I walk out of movies all the time since I usually am forced to watch the same scenes over and over again during my shifts.
X-SOLDIER
Harbinger O Great Justice
- AKA
- X
Classy way to avoid having to cite a SINGLE example of anything you're claiming actually being present in the film. At least I understand that you need to actually watch a movie before you can make an informed opinion of the implications plot. Also, your juvenile flame baiting tactics aren't appreciated. I'd suggest that you cut that shit out.
Related, I'm more than willing to continue this discussion with someone who's actually watched the film.
X
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
I shouldn't have to cite what's obvious bro.
That'd be like asking you to cite how FF7 is about environmentalism. That's silly.
anyways to i'll be honest i've been troll-biting this entire thread because i know there's a tendency on this forum to be apologist for literally everything.
and I'd be more willing to discuss this with someone who doesn't eat up almost every single big-budget piece of crap Hollywood churns out every summer.
ciao probably until i'm inebriated enough again
That'd be like asking you to cite how FF7 is about environmentalism. That's silly.
anyways to i'll be honest i've been troll-biting this entire thread because i know there's a tendency on this forum to be apologist for literally everything.
and I'd be more willing to discuss this with someone who doesn't eat up almost every single big-budget piece of crap Hollywood churns out every summer.
ciao probably until i'm inebriated enough again
