I love a great cover song. That moment when you hear an acoustic guitar or a piano pluck out a series of chords, and slowly realize how familiar those chords are? I love that feeling. It’s like trying to decide whether what you’re seeing is real or a dream, and it can make for unexpected moments of joy when the right singer finds the right song.

Unfortunately, there’s also a moment every now and then, when a tone-deaf karaoke star butchers a classic…

In the future, Earth is widely uninhabitable after the fallout of World War III. The only areas left that can sustain life, is the powerful United Federation of Britain and The Colony (Australia). Many workers who live in The Colony make their livings fueling the economic strength of the UFB, travelling back and forth between the two places by way of a gigantic subway system through the centre of The Earth called “The Fall”.

Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) is an assembly line worker who wants something more in his life. He has a recurring dream that involves another woman and a scene of peril, but he doesn’t know what to make of it. His wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) suggests that his subconscious is just projecting things he wants but can’t have. Left curious by the nature of his dreams, he goes to a place called Rekall – a business that offers to implant memories of all the exciting things you wish you did.

It’s here that things go awry, as they discover that Quaid’s memories have already been tampered with.

Turns out that recurring dream is a memory. Quaid is in fact a man named Doug Hauser, and he fights for the resistance working to free the UFB’s grip on The Colony. Further complication – Lori is a soldier too, but she fights on the other side. Oh, and that girl Doug kept dreaming of? She exists – she’s named Melina (Jessica Biel) and she tracks Doug down when he gets into a pinch.

The questions we’re left with is to figure out what’s real and what’s a dream, deciding what side everybody is truly fighting for, and if Doug can trust his own tampered brain enough to come out on top of any of it.

As someone who loves a good cover song, I’ve always believed that there is ample opportunity to retell a familiar tale. Besides being able to take advantage of new tricks, fresh faces, and apply a new slant to the established ideas, it’s also fascinating to see how two different storytellers tell the same tale. Sometimes it can lead to films like THE DEPARTED or A STAR IS BORN…other times it can lead to TOTAL RECALL. The film takes the audacious step to completely omit Mars from the plot, and in keeping the political unrest on our planet it makes it slightly more tangible. But that’s the end of the film’s audacity – after that it becomes something wildly uninteresting.

That’s not to say that TOTAL RECALL is uninteresting compared to the 1990 version, just that it is flat-out uninteresting. The world it creates teases with a wondrous concept in “The Fall”, but never seals the deal after that tease. We never get into the politics of The UFB or The Colony, or why one power holds might over the other. It only murmurs about oppression and economic strife when it should be a declaration. In addition, we spend very little time sorting out the subconscious of  Doug Quaid. You know that feeling you get once in a while…where you’re uncertain whether you’re asleep or awake? That feeling is the backbone of much of this source-story’s opening two acts. However, that evocative feeling is never really explored…leaving us with only one scene that teases its promise.

In lieu of those broad ideas, we’re subjected to an action film with very pedestrian action. Much of the thrills come from two things: sequences of hand-to-hand combat and sequences involving jumping from spot to spot. Not every action film needs to re-invent the wheel, so these are good ideas for starters. Unfortunately though, they play out without any peril or stakes, very little gravity, and not enough room to breathe. Where every sequence has the potential to become a great set piece, and make the most use of the three reasonably athletic leads, they instead keep things far too claustrophobic and frantic to ever provide any actual thrills.

One thing I did like about the film was the decision to have Lori lead the squadrons trying to corral him once he goes rogue. Besides the fact that Beckinsale has developed the physical presence to pull such roles off, it also opens the door to a fun marital divide between she and Farrell as the plot plays out. Unfortunately, this too doesn’t work fully for two different reasons. For starters, we don’t spend enough time with Doug and Lori to get a feel for their established domestic dynamic. What’s worse, is that even when the two are put on opposite ends of the fight, the moments where they match up against each other are claustrophobic and pedestrian.

TOTAL RECALL was a noble try at repackaging an old idea. It came with so much potential, and could have made a name for itself by taking something campy and giving its subtext some weight. Instead this remake is entirely toothless, which wastes all the philosophy the source material had to draw from.

Matineescore: ★ 1/2 out of ★ ★ ★ ★
What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on TOTAL RECALL.

21 Replies to “TOTAL RECALL”

  1. Yeah… I didn’t have much hope in the way for this one. Especially when you’ve got Len “The Poor Man’s Even Poorer Alternative to Michael Bay When Paul W.S. Anderson Isn’t Available” Wiseman at the helm. I know it’s a bit wordy but I’m still pushing for that to bit Len Wiseman’s moniker.

    1. Holy Hell!! Univarn Lives!!

      I didn’t come in with any specific hopes for the film, or have any predisposition based on directors – I just wanted enjoyable pulp. Unfortunately, RECALL couldn’t give that.

  2. I really dislike this film. I don’t expect Len Wiseman to make a great film or even a good one, but I was expecting something a little more coherent and he couldn’t even do that. The only way he could transition a character from Point A to Point B is to have explosions. I was really bored watching this.

    1. Funny, I can’t speak too much on the film’s coherence, since I had the original story to lean on any time the narrative got muddy. Had I forgotten about it, I would have been screwed though. In many ways, this film is akin to SNOW WHITE & THE HUNTSMAN for how far it missed the mark for me.

  3. i agree. beckinsale did a good job here with the most interesting character in the movie. but it wasn’t enough to save the myriad of issues in the movie. but i did like the idea of staying on earth. but farrell’s character was loosely written and not nearly as compelling as the original character. and farrell is a better actor, so he could have done more with it

    1. Good point – I’ll never understand why the story got a film as great as Farrell and then didn’t give him anything that would challenge his chops. Heck, the guy has already proved he can bring the goods when playing off nothing more than a telephone…surely there’s something in the Phillip Dick narrative that could have brought out the best in Farrell.

      Oh well.

  4. Hmmm. You’ve pretty-much, single-handedly stopped me from watching it. Sounds like they hoped to – as they usually do – set-up a franchise with talk of other bigger things which are not even witnessed – the colony, etc. Am I wrong?

    1. No, there was nothing in the film that left me thinking “sequel”, so at the very least it didn’t fall prey to that new trend. It happily stays to the task at hand.

      However, while sticking to the task at hand, it doesn’t bring anything special either with acting or with set.

      Skip it mate – there are far better things out there.

  5. I had a problem with a lot of the science stuff (and the fact that when they do the global scroll, you see a BIG lighted area along the northeast coast of the US and Canada and smaller lit areas through southeast Asia and Oceania). This felt more like a hash of a bunch of Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov stories than a remake.

    1. Hey Alan – thanks for dropping by!

      It is strange that they underplay a lot of the science, isn’t it? Even the moment that we discover someone has already implanted memories into Quaid’s brain is underplayed…so too is that Mexican standoff with Harry and Melina, and how it is that he knows Melina is telling the truth. Go figure.

  6. A tone-deaf karaoke star butchering a classic is an apt analogy. Perfectly put.

    This does wind up being a paint by number CGI actioner by the end.

    Very disappointing. Pale imitation of the original

    1. The film *did* leave me curious about two things:

      1 – If someone didn’t see the original, would they like this version more than people like us who have that film in the back of our brains?

      2 – If someone didn’t see the original, would they be able to follow the whole story, since I thought some points were glossed over…and that I could only fill in the blanks given what I already knew.

    2. There’s no doubt that people who hadn’t seen the original would enjoy it more than those who had. Mainly because they’d be free of the constant negative comparisons.

      I think they’d still be able to follow it, too.

      Regardless, even with those two factors, I dont think they’d think it was any good still. LOL

      1. I don’t know, I didn’t find it to be any sort of ‘watered-down-version’, just a different version that I didn’t like as much. Plus I think there are a lot of people who didn’t see the original – or don’t remember it well – that come away from this dissatisfied too because, as you say, it’s just…not. very. good.

        Caught a screening of the original one at The Lightbox here in town last night. It’s still a hoot, but I wager if you showed *that* to a newbie, they wouldn’t see what all the fuss was about either.

  7. Has anyone read the book? Is it on Mars or not? I’m kind of curious to read Dick’s novel now.

    I thought that there were concepts in here that I really liked and I liked the tips of the hat to the original. Didn’t think it was great, but I had a good time at the theater with the gadgets and locales. Plus everyone looks good and that helps. 🙂

    1. If memory serves, Kurt gave you your answer, that the book is on Mars. I mentioned this on the podcast – the biggest takeaway from this film for me, is being left with the feeling that I really want to read Phillip Dick’s stories now.

      You raise good points – the film has a few handsome moments, and buried in there is some interesting philosophy. I didn’t hate it, so I can’t skewere anyone who liked it…I just wanted a little more clarity for my money.

  8. AHAHAHAHAH! While I still may get sucked into seeing this with my dad, your review reads just as I would have expected. A friend of mine actually tried to convince me that it was pretty good this weekend, but when I found out she’d never seen the original, I had to dismiss the judgment as invalid.

    Hilarious. 🙂

    1. See, but you’ll notice that nowhere in my piece did I get into the argument as to whether or not the original is “better”. For me it’s a moot point – whether I’d seen Veerhoven’s or not, I’d still be standing here calling this messy.

      Hopefully you didn’t have too rough a time with your dad – or were able to talk him into a different film!

Comments are closed.