Print Page | Close Window

Member Discussion of TOOT-ALL RECALL

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO. FORUMS & POLLS on 2012 RAZZIE® Choices...
Forum Name: TOTAL RECOIL
Forum Discription: Yet Another No-One-Wuz-Asking-for-It Remake...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5927
Printed Date: November 22 2014 at 1:14am


Topic: Member Discussion of TOOT-ALL RECALL
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Member Discussion of TOOT-ALL RECALL
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 8:06am
FOR THOSE WHO RECALL IT, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/ -
BUT with HOLLYWOOD's CURRENT AVERSION to ALL THINGS ORIGINAL, HERE's THAT REMAKE NO ONE WAS ASKING FOR! 

IT STARS 2004 WORST ACTOR NOMINEE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346491/awards - ® NOMINEE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0762107/awards -  and PEARL HARBOR SURVIVOR (and FELLOW/FEMALE RAZZIE® NOMINEE) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000295/awards - . IT HAS FIVE NAMES on ITS SCREENPLAY, and HAS APPARENTLY BEEN SITTING on a SHELF in a VAULT SOMEWHERE for SEVERAL MONTHS. 

ALL of THIS, COMBINED with THIS FILM's http://www.razzies.com/forum/rt-reviews-on-total-refalca_topic5926.html - - TOTAL RECALL (aka THE TOTALLY UN-NECESSARY REMAKE) IS LIKELY to BE "ONE of OURS"... 

BUT WE'RE GATHERED HERE to HEAR YOUR TAKE on THIS, SO...  

HAVE AT IT! 


P.S. IF YOU WANNA CHECK OUT OUR FOTO FUNNY on THIS ONE, HERE's the http://www.razzies.com/forum/foto-funny-for-total-recoil_topic5923.html - for THAT... 




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 8:47am
I'm curious about this. Could Kate Beckinsale be considered Worst Actress for the film, even though she's really playing the villain?
 
She was already in Contraband and Underworld 4 as the main co-star/main star, so why not?


-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 9:50am
Apparantly, her role in this is bigger than Sharon Stone's in the original. Probably because she's married to the director. So a Worst Actress nod for Beckinsale isn't out of the picture.
 
Also, has anyone ever watched the original with the commentary on? It's hilarious! Arnold really enjoys watching his movies and it shows.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 12:34pm
The other day I went to see THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (no, it shouldn't be nominated for any Razzies). Anyway, they showed the trailer for this, and I wanted to pay full attention to see if there were any noticeable improvements from the first version. I couldn't because I was totally shocked by the fact that they revealed most of the plot twists! It was like they expect people to remember the first one. If so, why did they remake it?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 12:55pm
Why did they remake it -- To make more money!

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 2:21pm
http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120801/REVIEWS/120739999 -


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 4:09pm
TO MAKE MONEY, OF COURSE!!!
 
Oiram: There's plenty of other contenders for Worst Actress, but Kate Beckinsale might still have a shot with the combination of Contraband, Underworld: Awakening and Total Remak-I mean Recall.  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Why did they remake it -- To make more money!


-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 4:22pm
Hey! That's MY joke!!  

Originally posted by jesse685

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Why did they remake it -- To make more money!
OF COURSE!!!
 
oiram: There's plenty of other contenders for Worst Actress, but Kate Beckinsale might have a shot with Contraband, Underworld Awakening and Total Rema-I mean Recall.
 



-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 5:41pm
oiram: Sorry, just wanted to see your reaction. Now, back on topic. I bet Farrell and the rest of the cast and crew are laughing their way to the bank.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 6:46pm
I'm still looking forward to the film even with the negative reviews. I saw the original around last month for the first time and enjoyed it immensely. It seems this one is much more serious, which should be enough for a different experience.


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 7:23pm
Well, I'd go and see Wimpy Kid 3 (if it wasn't for the September release here in Australia, goddammit!) rather than Total Rema-I mean Recall.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 02 2012 at 7:49pm
Sorry, but I've already heard that joke a bunch of times. And not just on this Forum.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: My favorite headline/joke this morning was in The Orange County Register: WHO ORDERED THE TOTAL REHASH?!?

By the way, I read that this version doesn't take place on Mars, and yet, they still show the girl with 3 breasts.  

Originally posted by oiram

Originally posted by jesse685

oiram: There's plenty of other contenders for Worst Actress, but Kate Beckinsale might have a shot with Contraband, Underworld Awakening and Total Rema-I mean Recall.
 
Hey! That's my joke.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 03 2012 at 10:27am
[TUBE]GJSanoecgXE[/TUBE]

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 03 2012 at 10:30am
R.T. (around 30%): "While it boasts some impressive action sequences, it lacks the intricate plotting, wry humor, and fleshed out characters that made the original a sci-fi classic".

http://www.examiner.com/article/movie-review-total-recall - Jeff Beck gave it a 2/4.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 03 2012 at 4:18pm
[TUBE]SumrVb0ga8k[/TUBE] 

[TUBE]ISR-9uBQ7QA[/TUBE] 

[TUBE]3LIZvZcCbu8[/TUBE]


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 03 2012 at 6:46pm
Vits, the trailer showed the three boobed lady. When a trailer shows something, it's fair game, and doesn't need a "spoiler whiteout."  

As for why she's still here, it was one of the iconic scenes from the first one. In the commentary track I mentioned a few posts above, that's all Ah-nuld seems to talk about when Paul Verhoeven isn't saying "izznit?". The fact that they had to put the three boobed lady shows how serious they were about adapting the original story. I wouldn't mention this except that they said they wanted this to be more faithful.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 06 2012 at 6:22pm
http://movieswithmitch.squarespace.com/reviews/2012/8/6/total-recall-2012-review.html -


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 07 2012 at 6:15pm
[TUBE]9N7xoDosKqU[/TUBE]

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 18 2012 at 6:46pm
I went to the movies and saw this. I wasn't planning to, but I went with my grandpa and my 10-year-old cousin, so there weren't many options).

For years I've asked (and gotten no answer) if the Worst Remake/Sequel award is for (A) The worst movies which happen to be remakes or sequels or (B) The remakes or sequels that are bad compared to the originals. This time it doesn't matter, because this movie is both. So I think it should definitely be nominated for that award. But nothing else.


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Why would you assume our Worst Prequel/Remake/Rip-Off/Sequel category has to be for only one type of bad movie and not include the other?? Maybe that's why you've not received an answer -- to my thinking, either/both types of lazy movie-making should be dis-honored here. 

Also, if you say TOTAL RECALL qualifies for consideration as both/either kind of bad movie, why would you suggest that it be nominated in only this one category? Please feel free to explain your thinking either below this text or in a new posting...


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 19 2012 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

Why would you assume our Worst Prequel/Remake/Rip-Off/Sequel category has to be for only one type of bad movie and not include the other?? Maybe that's why you've not received an answer -- to my thinking, either/both types of lazy movie-making should be dis-honored here.
Sometimes, a movie is bad overall but it improves something the original had. So I just wanted to know the purpose of the award. But your statement was your answer.
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

Also, if you say TOTAL RECALL qualifies for consideration as both/either kind of bad movie, why would you suggest that it be nominated in only this one category? Please feel free to explain your thinking either below this text or in a new posting...
If I judge it as a stand alone movie, it's passable. If I compare it to the original, I'd say it ruins some of its most important aspects. So overall, I found it to be on the same level as the original: bad but not the worst. Now that I think about it, maybe it should be up for Worst Screenplay too.

I recommend movies I gave 0 and 1 stars for Worst Picture, and movies I gave 0, 1 and 2 stars for categories like Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Excuse for a [Genre] Movie, etc. It makes more sense mathematically, because those categories are for more specific movies, which narrows down the possibilities.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: August 22 2012 at 11:43pm
I can't believe Richard Roeper AND Roger Ebert gave this mess of a remake a fresh review. Looking at Roeper's Rotten Tomatoe resumee, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/richard-roeper/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/richard-roeper/ , on his display site alone he gave a fresh review to 11 (!) rotten movies! Tastes can be different, but as he's a Top Critic I would expect him to be a little more inline, if movies are so obvioulsy rotten. Just an observation of mine, even if the agreement meter is in the 70ies for both of them.
If you look at Peter Travers site for example,  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/peter-travers/ - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/peter-travers/ , he is way more inline with the general concensus of a movie lately.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: August 23 2012 at 7:19am
While I mostly respect those critics, they do go easy on movies from time to time. You can tell because their arguements are less about explaining the flaws and more about convincing us why the flaws exist. In this case, I'd say they follow a rule some critics use: when judging a remake, they judge it on it's own (pretending they don't know what's going to happen), and then add or substract points depending on what it does to improve or not the original film.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: mbh
Date Posted: August 23 2012 at 9:25am
And sometimes too hard. Seriously, Ebert giving a rotten review to Robot & Frank, which as of right now has a 90% fresh and 89% audience approval, and giving a fresh one to Total Recall with 32% rotten critic and audience reviews is Wacko.
In his review for Robot&Frank he is kind of convincing us of flaws, while calling Total Recall "well crafted" and almost excusing the flaws.

Originally posted by Vits

While I mostly respect those critics, they do go easy on movies from time to time. You can tell because their arguements are less about explaining the flaws and more about convincing us why the flaws exist.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 22 2012 at 1:41pm
Skip to 03:19.

[TUBE]tDoj_-4ax3s[/TUBE]

Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 7:39pm
Even more than Red Dawn, I dislike the idea of remaking Total Recall, because the original was a good, fun movie.  That said, I imagine that the reason for remaking Total Recall was because of (1) the money and (2) because they can make the three-boobed woman look more realistic.  I mean, there's the three-boobed woman at the end of the credits in Good Luck Chuck (no, that movie is not at all worth watching just to see what I'm talking about) that looked realistic, so why not remake Total Recall so that character looks all the more better. . . .
 
I'm joking about reason #2, of course.  Actually, I'm shaking my head wondering if that could have actually entered the calculus of justifying this movie. . . .
 
And as far as reason #1 goes, that's turned out to be a joke, also.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=totalrecall2012.htm - According to Box Office Mojo, it pulled in a worldwide box office of $198 million, and it cost $125 million to make .  If the rule of thumb that a movie needs to bring in double what it costs in order to turn a profit still holds true, Total Recall 2012 will be lucky to break even after all the various revenue streams have been tapped.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 11 2014 at 7:04pm
Time to review one of the most pointless remakes ever. The original Total Recall isn't even 25 years old.

The best performance comes from, surprisingly enough, Kate Beckinsale. She's a beautiful woman, but she's never been much of an actress. However, she's great as a villainess. Not as good as Sharon Stone in the original, but with a movie this bland, you gotta take all the positives you can get. Also good is Bryan Cranston as the Ronny Cox role. He's not as good as Cox, but again, you gotta take all the positives you can get.

Colin Farrell and Jessica Biel are bland as the leads. Ah-nuld isn't much of an actor but, when given a role that plays to his strength like in the original Total Recall, he's very entertaining. Farrell and Biel aren't entertaining, they're boring. The action scenes in this film are very boring. Len Wiseman's career has been very spotty. Live Free Or Die Hard was good, but the Underworld movies were crap. After watching this movie, it's clear that Live Free Or Die Hard is the anomaly here.

Easily the worst thing about the film is the script. It's moronic and boring. The worst thing about it is how it is how serious it is. One of the things that made the original Total Recall and Paul Verhoeven's other movies great was their sense of humor. In its quest to be as serious as it could, it also tried to be realistic by removing the mutants. However, removing the mutants causes several glaring plot holes. For example, in the original Quato had psychic powers, which is why they had to erase Hauser's memory. In this one, Quato has no psychic powers, which makes erasing Hauser's mind make no Goddamn sense. In addition, the three-boobed hooker has no reason to exist. It was only done in a craven attempt to try and get fans of the original to watch this crappy new version.

One of the more irritating things about the movie was all the interviews were the stars talked down to the original. Paul Verhoeven was angered by this. Thankfully, Verhoeven had the http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/paul-verhoeven-says-it-was-fun-watching-the-total-recall-reboot-fail-20130424 - last laugh : this Total Recall got out-grossed by the original... in 1990 dollars!

My grade: C-


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 12 2014 at 8:16am
What do you think should be the minimum?
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

The original Total Recall isn't even 25 years old.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 12 2014 at 3:36pm
Ideally, long enough so that average audience members won't have memories of seeing it in theaters.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window