Do You Remember The 21st Night Of September?

Well, it's been a while since I've done a movie review hasn't it? So, let's take a break from Smallville for the time being and look at one of the latest releases (at least here, anyway).

And at the same time, I'm going to do this as another Old Vs. New.

So, let's look at both adaptations of the Philip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”, Total Recall. 

But first, I apologize, I said I'd have another post out by the end of last week. I can definitely say I'll have another out this week though, being so early in the week and such.

Sometime into the future, Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger in the old, Colin Farrell in the new) visits a place called Rekall, a facility that implants memories and experiences to make it seem like you've visited somewhere exotic when you haven't even left the office. Quaid has been experiencing vivid dreams as of late and wants to have a memory implanted resembling those dreams. However, it turns out his current life is an implant of sorts and he's actually a secret agent working with a resistance group fighting the film's villain, Cohaagen (Ronny Cox in the old, Bryan Cranston in the new).

I haven't read the short story (I really need to at some point) so any analysis I make will be for the films and the films only.

I can see why Doug Walker's review in The Nostalgia Critic for the original wasn't an Old Vs. New. At the risk of playing my hand early, the 90's film is easily superior. That's not to say the new film is without merits, just... well, let's get into it.

I'm not going to break it down aspect by aspect and compare the two and award points, since as I said above, the first film is the clear winner but I will be pointing out what the second film does right or wrong compared to the first.

Let's start with the leading role. Now, when it comes to action films, I'm usually fond of the action hero who doesn't look like a tank, the guy who looks a little more... well, normal for lack of a better word. And not just look, but mannerisms and dialogue go a long way. And for the most part, Colin is pretty convincing as a reluctant (to a point) action hero, he hits the right notes.

But Arnold... come on, it's Arnold! This is the kind of thing he does best! It's almost like the role was tailor made for him.

Admittedly, I'm cutting it short by not going into detail about the other actors in both films, but the second film's ensemble suffers the same general problem as the movie, which I'll get into.

However, one of the second film's biggest wins comes with Bryan Cranston as the villain, Cohaagen. I find it hard to actually pick who played the villain better, both were great at playing slimy yet charming arseholes. And hey, Bryan Cranston deserves every piece of praise he gets, and the fact that's on a roll with movie roles lately is something I'm happy about.

The biggest problem with the second film is how damn serious it is. The humor is downplayed (and I can barely think of any of the jokes now, come to think of it) and everything looks so dull and lifeless. When we see where Quaid lives, there's very little colour and it's raining virtually all the time (seriously, Total Recall 2012, do you think you're actually a Blade Runner remake?).

Contrast that with the friendly nature of the first film. Quaid's place looks futuristic and inviting, his work environment looks normal, even the Rekall office looks like an actual establishment, resembling that of a dentist's office. In the 2012 version, it looks more like a brothel or opium den. Ugh, are you trying to depress us?

Jessica Biel plays her role as Milena super-seriously too, like she forgot she wasn't on the set of Blade: Trinity. Yes, Milena is serious in the original but she had emotion, she had passion. She wasn't like some jaded war veteran.

Also, small thing, but instead of traveling to Mars, we're on Earth, which has been divided into two sections: The United Federation Of Britain and The Colony. See, the thing with the Mars aspect, it provided a better reason to go to Rekall in the first place, since Quaid wanted memories implanted of Mars. He was filled with whimsicality at the idea. And the abnormal creatures featured on Mars were created with a labour of love (well, the make up and costumes and such obviously). It was a well developed world, and again, very colourful and vibrant.

What does the new version feature? Symbolism pertaining to spy culture (the secret agent dream instead of Mars, The Spy Who Loved Me is shown early on as a book Quaid reads. Cute. Real cute) and possibly allegories into the whole “We are the 99%” thing and I say “Cut the crap. Not every movie needs to have an agenda”.

Look, new version, why so serious? Where's your element of fun?

And where's the cool tech? Where are the cabs with the cool talking robots? Why are we stuck with phones embedded in people's hands (which must be awkward in everyday life. Seriously, how do you not accidentally activate that thing just clapping your hands)?

Before we get to my other big problem, I do want to comment that both films have an excellent soundtrack, so kudos. The action scenes are punctuated with invigorating music, that get you all pumped for the fight's climax.

But now the second big problem: in the original movie, the ending of the film left the whole thing ambigious as to whether or not the events were a dream or if they really happened. There was evidence for both, even Arnold and the director disagreed on which way it ended.

The new version does away with that by basically confirmed that no, it all happened. With maybe ONE piece of evidence to suggest it wasn't. I still say it's a dream, because everything works out for the good guys. Yes, the same thing happens in the original but you don't see the wider effects on Mars, so you don't know how things have played out. New version, no, it's like they needed to confirm that the day is saved.

So at the end of it all, the original wins out and has earned a 4/5 from me.

As for the new version, on its own merits, it's a 3/5.

Oh and one other thing: as much as I don't hate Kate Beckinsale, if you think she is worth more than Sharon Stone AND Michael Ironside, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. She's basically a generic action lady at this point isn't she? Can't she do anything else?