If you don't already know by now, I am a huge fan of the science-fiction genre (the person who constantly writes about "Star Wars" is a sci-fi nerd? What a shock). In fact, one of my favorite sci-fi films, and films in general, is the 1990 sci-fi action film "Total Recall". The film is based, loosely, on a short story by Philip K. Dick called We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. The original "Total Recall" follows an average working-joe in the future named Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who becomes tired of his mundane life and goes to Rekall, a place where they can implant vacation/fantasy memories. He chooses a memory where he is a secret agent on Mars. However, the procedure is botched when the process seemingly reveals dormant memories within Quaid, revealing that he actually was a secret agent named Carl Hauser and underwent Rekall to infiltrate a resistance movement on Mars... or did he? The film, like many of Paul Verhoeven films, is a beautiful blend of B-movie sci-fi cheese and over-the-top gory action that highlights a story with a surprising amount of brains and satirical wit behind the fun. Which is why the remake made in 2012 is one of the most disappointing films I have ever seen.
The remake of "Total Recall" (which I will be calling "Total Recall (2012)" from now on) is not just a bad film, it is a film that embodies all of the worst aspects of Hollywood's "cold and calculated" approach to remakes/reboots. To start with the film is visually ugly, bland, and uninspired. The original film had this colorful and slightly cartoonish edge to the visuals, which were a common calling card of a Paul Verhoeven film. The original was a fun and silly action film with weird looking mutants and scenes were peoples' faces expand and eyes bulge out due to Mars' lack of atmosphere. The 2012 film has none of this. Instead of creating an original visual style the film just rips-off sci-fi visuals from other famous movies. The "Colony" in the film rips-off the Pan-Asian, rain drenched, neon lit alleys from "Blade Runner". The "United Federation of Britain" rips off the massive metal-grey buildings and futuristic cars on geometrically angled roadways from "Minority Report". It shows a lack of creativity and effort with the film makers. They took a visually interesting film, and made a bland and hollow copy filled with recognizable visuals so they could lure in the movie going masses with something familiar and comfortable. However, the most obnoxious visual aspect of this film is how it uses lens flares.
Almost every shot in the film has an obnoxious and digital lens flare added in. These lens flares obscure many scenes and are extremely distracting. I bet, like every other unoriginal and derivative decision made in this film, this was done because J.J. Abrams uses them (so often that they have become his calling card) and his movies are popular. However, the film makers go overboard on their use of it (J.J. never used lens flare to this extent). Most people don't even like it when Abrams does it anymore, which is why he held off doing it for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens". I also hate seeing other movies use it just because it's a popular trend (why did the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" movie from 2014 need lens flare). "Total Recall (2012)" looks so derivative that it feels like it was a product that was "Frankensteined" together using popular trends that tested well by businessmen who don't have a single artistic bone in their bodies. The film just feels bland and boring compared to the original film. However, many filmmakers would say that the bland art style is an attempt to make the remake feel more real and serious than the original film. This brings me to my next point; the illusion of intelligence through seriousness.
In the 2012 remake, the film's overall dreary and soulless tone is reflected in the performances as well. Colin Farrell plays Douglas Quaid in the remake and brings almost no personality to the character. He never expresses a single facial emotion beyond stern seriousness or mild sadness. This is especially depressing when you compare him to Arnold, who gave a Quaid a cartoonish and fun attitude (typical of Arnold) that reflected the bizarre and unique tone of the film. He gave Quaid a relatable personality that made us connect with him. The remake feels like it's too afraid to give him any personality traits or give him a sense of humor. In fact, humorless would be a good way to describe most of the characters in the remake. It feels like they are actively trying to avoid some of the more fun and silly aspects of the original because the filmmakers are operating under the false pretense that this makes the remake smarter and worthy of greater respect. This is a trend that has ruined many films. One that immediately comes to mind is "Fant4stic", that reboot of a whimsical and fun superhero family that was dark, gritty, bland, and boring. This is a trend I see effecting remakes of other Paul Verhoeven films like the "Robocop" remake from 2014 and the possible "Starship Troopers" remake that's coming up.
Adding nothing but serious and somber moments doesn't make your film smarter or more dignified, it actually does the opposite. It makes you look desperate for critical love and kind of pretentious. It also takes meaning away from actual serious moments in the film. If Quaid in the remake is always a mopey, charisma-less void of a character, why should I care if something bad happens to him? How effective is a sad moment suppose to be when the character it's effecting is already a miserable bore. Watching a character like Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) from "Up" is more effective. We see Carl's life with his loving wife, and we see colorful and funny moments with these characters, which makes them more relatable and human. This is very important, because when the film does display tragedy and hardship it has more of an impact on the audience. Watching a man go from happily married to alone and depressed is devastating. These people in the "Total Recall" remake take the ridiculous premise so seriously that it actually makes it feel dumber (and not in a good way).
I think that's what I disliked the most about this film. It feels like the filmmakers think they are making a smarter and more respectable version of the original, but all their doing is making the original minus the fun and memorability. In fact, the goofy over-the-top nature of the original actually made it smarter, since it made it harder for Quaid to determine whether his adventure was real or just a memory implant. It gave the original a level of ambiguity. One final thing that this remake does that I see a lot of remakes do is make awkward call-backs to iconic moments from the original. In the remake they make call-backs by having a three-breasted woman, a mention of Mars, and a woman who looks like the disguise that Arnold's Quaid used in the original. This gives off a sense of inadequacy with the remake. It shows that the filmmakers feel like the remake can't stand on its own or be its own thing, so they put cheeky references for the fans of the original. They do this under the guise of paying respect to the original, but it often comes off as desperate for fan love at best and a nakedly commercial way to grantee a success by pandering to a certain audience with familiar iconography at worse. I'm looking at you "Star Trek: Into Darkness" (which was an alright film until it decided to be a lame remake of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" halfway through). Also, going back to "Total Recall (2012)", the three-breasted woman reference doesn't even make sense. There are no mutants in the remake, so where did this woman even come from?
These represent only a fraction of the problems I have with "Total Recall (2012)", but the problems I've discussed are common throughout many soulless remakes that are only made to make money off of brand recognition. These films bow to popular, or unpopular, trends and safe decisions in order to make as much money as possible, such as taking out all of the gore and giving the film a neutered PG-13 rating to bring in a wider age range of audiences than what you could bring in with an R rating. That last part is what made me especially mad with this and "Robocop (2014)". You took two films that are remembered for the gritty and gore-filled action scenes and you turned the remakes into a bland, bloodless C.G.I. action mess that isn't creative enough to make you action scenes iconic or gory enough to make them memorable. That's the biggest insult I can hurl at this and many other remakes of great films. You took something that we all remembered and loved, you made a new version without the things we remembered and loved, and you didn't replace those things we loved with anything interesting or new. You left us with a hollow and mediocre shell of a much better film.
