Total Recall (2012)

I went to watch Total Recall (the remake) about two weeks ago, expecting to be disappointed. From the trailers it looks like they were trying to make serious something that was simple fun with lighthearted inception-esque ideas; a Schwarzenegger movie.

After watching, I was pleasantly surprised in a few areas though overall I still prefer the 1990 version. Lets start from the beginning.

<Spoilers!>

The story is about Douglas Quaid who, aside from being married to the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, lives a fairly boring life as a factory worker in the lower class Colony (which the movie makers think is what Australia will become). Being disturbed by dream of an adventure with this other girl he supposedly doesn't meet, he feels discontent with his current life and, at the advice of a factory co-worker (but against the advice of everyone else) he pays a visit to Rekall, a memory implant company that provides its clients with experiences that would normally be impossible. And you can read the rest of the plot on wikipedia as I'm not going to waste the time to rewrite it.

The core part of the story is basically the same as Total Recall with only two minor changes: the story doesn't involve mutated Martians, and the government regime is the bad guy instead of some evil mining corporation. This immediately raises two execution problems with this remake.

Firstly, what I remembered the most about the original film was the Martian characters. Due to the excavation work being done in Mars, people, who were human at first, had to migrate to the red planet to do the mining. Due to radiation these workers have mutated in ways reminiscent of post-WWII Japan. And who could forget the three-breasted lady, and I think that was the first time I was saw to the naked female form on screen. Awkward.

Where was I going with this? Right. So in the remake there is no martian colony, thus everyone is boring old human, whether they resided in the UFB (high class Britain) or in the Colony. One thing that really bothered me is that the people from the Colony appeared to go to work at the factories which resided in the UFB, where synthetic forces (robocops) were manufactured for I guess the protection of the UFB-ites. Why aren't these factories located in the Colonies? It is neither cost effective to send your factory workers to and from the other side of the world, nor wise given that there is a 'resistance' brewing trouble with Colony origins. Why not make them build the robots in the Colony, have them shipped using that elevator, and THEN activate them in the UFB side! And given the advanced future the rest of the film portrays I am surprised they were still using humans to help build robots. -.-'

The second change which really undermined my actual enjoyment of this remake was the switch from evil corporation to political agenda as the antagonist. I don't mind politics in movies as long as it's cleverly setup and not slapped in your face, which this movie does very poorly. I think even from the prologue I could already tell there is going to be a lot of focus on this whole anti-authoritarian theme. In fact, it's so emphasised throughout the film I swear they were going to abandon Douglas' personal journey and focus more on a commentary on classism between the two factions. But no, the head of the Resistance shows up for literally one minute of screen time, and gets killed. I guess the producers felt it wasn't important to flesh out the philosophy behind the Resistence and its relationship with the current regime. Either ways lets move on.

Surprisingly the good aspects of the movie were mainly tributes they paid to the old version. This includes the three-breasted prostitute, the fat lady in yellow going through security and the psychological stand-off of "whether this world is real or just the dream you ordered" in the second arc. I think the little twist with the fat lady in yellow was my highlight of the whole film but I am easily impressed by tiny moments of ingenuity :)

The other good aspect of the movie which was not inherited from the old version really is the visual design of the Colony. Ignoring the practicality of the design, it really captured the idea of concrete jungles in many populous cities of Asia and updated it with other issues such as climate change, income inequality, and the Asian import/asylum problems Australia is currently facing.

I also like how much more involved Beckinsale got with her character as Douglas' fake wife than in the original (I think was played by Sharon Stone). Of all the characters I think she was the most developed despite being a fairly one-note killing machine. Through subtleties we learn about her loyalty to the UFB, and her determination even if it means to disobey her direct superiors. I also liked that she wasn't dating her boss (which I did think was an unnecessary revelation in the old film), and showed real emotions during the confrontations. Yes there were lots of highly choreographed action but it's the pauses where you really can tell Kate's putting her all into it.

The relationship between Arnold Schwartzenegger and Sharon Stone in the original was a bit distracting because you can tell that they were being so nice to each other it was too artificial for a real relationship. In the remake you really do feel like they've been going through hardships together for a while. And when she turns against Douglas, even though I knew it was coming, was a more believable twist simply because I was bought with them being a troubled couple.

Now when comparing Arnold with Colin Farrell, I will say this: Colin acted the character much better, but I like Arnold more. I think this comes down to how hard they both were trying within the film. Colin you could tell knew the script well and understood what he was supposed to emote and to what degree. So whenever you see him trying to convey mixed feelings such as awkwardness, disillusionment and uncertainty, it looks fairly genuine.

Arnold you can tell from the start to finish he's trying to act fairly simple emotions like "angry", "happy", "on steroids". But what I love is his enthusiasm and how hard he tries. It's over the top, but not on purpose. It's funny, but also fun. It can be distracting at times, but it doesn't ruin the film. I'm pretty sure some scenes there were animatronics used with Arnold's face because he couldn't create the expression himself, but that's okay, it was a 1990 production which was awesome back in the day, and would still be now if it was done by Arnie!

The one issue I did have with both films was the 'real' love interest. They were just so uninteresting next to the main character and the fake wife. Now I'm not talking about whether they portrayed a forgotten lover well, I mean just in the context and scope of the overall film. In the original version Melina plays a slightly more significant role, and fights side by side with Douglas all the way through the movie, with strong indication that they really were together before his memories altered. Melina in the new version is too 'girlfriend'.

I think at some point in their first encounter during their talk in the apartment I was hearing in my head "Hey, I just met you and this is crazy, but we used to be together. Really.". She looked more like a girlfriend from high school than a serious lover. So I wasn't as invested in her character in the remake. Also, she ends up being the cliche damsel in distress towards the end, and at this point I was replying some messages on my phone by this point (it was on silent).

One last thing. Both films try to keep you guessing all the way through the film whether the entire ordeal of Douglas was real, or just what he ordered at Recall. With all things added up I would argue that the original film did a better job. The reason is that the ending was more cliche in the original. It is something a simple working class person could conceive as the perfect ending, and with the fade to white it is heavily implied that this was really all just a dream. In the remake, there's just too many times 'reality' kicked in, and it was much more heavily implied that it was not a dream. Yes the director's take in both cases is that neither of them were a dream, but I think despite the smarter dialogue in the remake, the original outwitted me with that fade out to white at the end.

While I liked the original better, I do have to give an extra point to the remake because they chose Australia as the chinatown-like Colony. That setup actually has a stronger socio-political commentary of the real world than the rest of the film. And being Asian Australia myself, it just made me giggle for a brief moment. :)

Overall Rating: 7/10.

Recommendation: watch the original first, then visit Australia.


A few more nitpicks if you haven't read enough:

• When Douglas first went to Recall and after the practitioner accuses him as a spy, some police force bursts in immediately. How did they know he was there and respond so quickly? Just a few minutes later when he was back 'home' with his fake wife she also calls for help but reinforcements don't arrive for like 5 minutes so she's forced to fight and chase him alone. How did the police force respond so quickly to him trying the future's equivalent of a massage, and why? When he goes home his fake wife is like looking at the news having no clue either until he mentions he was the one who went to Recall.
• They never addressed/resolved Hammond's relationship with Douglas. If you don't remember he is that mysterious guy who helps Douglas out at the beginning of the film and also pretends to be a police force member to help him escape but ends up dying. Was he a friend? A covert resistance supporter? RIP some guy we never knew and therefore could never really care about.
• The handphone inside the skin of your hand is dumb. I'm referring to the phone Douglas discovers in his hand while he's being chased by the UFB police. When he gets rid of it by literally pulling it out you can tell there are lots of hard, inflexible components and exposed wires in the phone that would make it hard to grip your hand, not to mention doing factory labour. There is no explanation of how he didn't notice it being there for 6 weeks (that's the duration of his supposed fake life that he's unknowingly carried the phone around). Weird.
• The Fall (the transport between UFB and The Colony) is even dumberer. The straight line distance between UK and Australia is approximately 11,000km and in the movie the total travel time claimed is 17 minutes. My cousin who studies Physics is still working on the implications in terms of things like momentum, stress and heat (or maybe she's moved on), but I'll try to do just the acceleration bit. This could be a full "What If" article on xkcd but I think Randall is busy enough at the moment.
  
  The fastest way of travelling between two points in a straight line is to accelerate as hard as you can until midpoint, and decelerate equivalently fast so you can arrive at your destination without smashing into an oblivion. 17 minutes to cover 11,000km implies you need to spend 8.5 minutes to travel 5,500km at a constant acceleration. Given that distance = initial velocity*time + 0.5*a*time^2, where initial velocity = 0, then acceleration = 5500000m*2/(510s*510s) = 42m/s/s, which is 4.3G, barely within typical human tolerance, something NASCAR drivers might experience for a few seconds when doing sharp turns during a time trial. It's a very difficult ride for those ill-equipped and untrained, and that for 17 minutes!? And during the climax people could run around the platforms despite the constant gravitational force!?!? I think Goku and Vegeta might cry foul play.
• Lets assume in the movie world everyone can survive and run around The Fall like it was a kid's roller coaster ride at the Royal Adelaide Show. The timed explosives Douglas plants before the Fall begins its journey clearly is timed for 15 minutes, but the Fall itself takes at least 17 minutes, not accounting for the extra minute it takes to settle, secure and unlocking the doors. Why didn't the bombs go off during the trip? Granted it would be near the end but the bombs don't go off till like 3 minutes after arrival, and lets not get into the semantics of time dilation. Maybe the bombs were made in Britain...I mean UFB, which brings me to my last nitpick (though this really isn't a nitpick..)
• The Synthetic Forces are useless...they are supposedly the perfect marriage of AI computers and human robotics, and yet they have the same marksman skills as those soldiers who tried to gun down Arnold in Commando. You could argue that since Douglas helped put these things together he knows their weaknesses, but honestly given their efficacy I think the government should just invest in genetically cloning Hawkeye from The Avengers. This movie would be over in like a minute after the synthetic force precisely guns down Douglas during the first chase scene.

Yes the movie is sci-fi, so I guess anything goes really. But when they worked so hard to make the future portrayed look plausible it's painful to deal with these details.

Retrospective on Nolan's Batman trilogy

Now that the hype is over. I feel like it is a good time to take a look back at Nolan's take on the Batman legend.

<Spoiler Alert!>

The first film, Batman Begins, was decent. At the time it came out I was not really expecting much from the superhero genre having seen some pretty big disappointments such as Catwoman, Elektra, Ang Lee's Hulk and The League. The only exception at that time was probably the Spiderman series.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for me was how serious I actually took the film while watching it. Having only been exposed to Schumacher's Batman films at the time I nearly didn't go watch it because I thought it would be the same thing.

After seeing it I was pleasantly surprised how plausible and relateable the world of the film is. I really appreciated the effort they went through to demonstrate the lengths Bruce Wayne went through to make every action scene and effect practical and yet seemingly supernatural to his foes. Ra's Al Ghul by Liam Neeson was very compelling as you could see that the league of shadows was not only a cult, but a serious foe within the batman's psyche. He is on that thin line between being a crime fighter, a vigilante and even a terrorist; these roles differ only on principle.

Overall there were no weak lines, no physical humor, it was a solid plot with mature characters and easily earned my suspense of disbelief. I won't nitpick this movie, this time!

I know everyone else has already said it, but The Dark Knight really was a major step up in the game for this trilogy, and is my favorite of the three. I loved Heath Ledger's Joker, I was really affected by the commentary about fallibility of the human morality and ethics, I loved the dialogue. However I do have a major problem with a few things within the film. They were not distracting when I first watched them but now that I look back they are contributors to my less-than-satisfied reaction to The Dark Knight Rises.

The first problem is the underdeveloped criminals in this story. The first movie had some solid criminals they were interesting to listen to, especially when Bruce first confronts Carmine Falcone or Rachel's encounter with The Scarecrow. In this storyline the criminals actually play a much larger role as we continue to explore Gotham and the trio's (Batman, Gordon, Dent) fight against organised crime in the city. Sadly they have much less dialogue, and do not develop at all. Unlike all the other characters which are really well defined and positioned, I did not find myself caring at all what happens to any of the criminals, even as the Joker manipulates them. They seem to just be getting in the way of the final duel between Joker and Batman.

The second problem is the traps The Joker sets up throughout the movie. I loved how far he pushed everyone in creating these impossible ethical decisions, but now that I think about it, it seems impossible he could accomplish so much with only a handful of crazies helping him. How on Earth did he plant that much explosives into a busy hospital without any of the doctors, nurses, patients or janitors noticing!? How on earth did The Joker know the exact addresses Dent and Rachel were after they were kidnapped? Did he know in advance that they would be escorted by one of the traitors in the police department? Why were there so many school buses lined up together and just so happens there was a gap big enough for his bus to fit in? For someone who doesn't believe in plans he sure had some really complicated ones which required almost everything to go according to his schedule!

Lastly, I did have a problem with the ending, but for a slightly different reason to popular opinion. A lot of people and critics have complained why didn't Gordon and Batman just blame the Joker for killing all the people that Dent killed after he broke down. This idea would fail because Dent didn't kill Ramirez (one of the police officers that betrayed them) after flipping heads in his killing spree. Having a living witness means that if they blamed the joker for all those killings Ramirez would know it was actually Dent, and eventually she might have spilled the beans to someone and everything would be undone, which happened anyway but 7 years is a long time to stay silent on something so big!

Having said this, blaming Batman as done in the movie would have the same problem! Why didn't she come out to say that it was actually Dent who did those killings? Then the Dent Act would never be created, Batman would probably be taken in higher regard by Gotham City since he's the only one that is incorruptible throughout the two stories, which would mean the third movie has a much much greater impact from the viewpoint of the citizens of Gotham.

This brings us to grand finale, The Dark Knight Rises. I did not like this film very much. Apart from being a step down in the complexity, maturity and impact from the second movie, I just couldn't suspend my disbelief.

Granted the plot twist at the end was a 'pleasant' surprise, there were about a dozen things with the plot I did not accept even while I sat in the cinema chair munching popcorns (if I'm ever eating during a film it means I've lost interest). And yes, I will list them out right now:

1.  Why are there no guards at the so called hell pit? I mean, even if they can't climb out that pit, their friends/comrades or just some 'goods samaritan' bypasser could just throw down the rope at any time to give them a boost!
2. The first few times Bruce tried to climb out of the pit, how did he survive all those fall snaps which should have displaced vertebraes on his spine paralysed him forever? Gravity, mass, velocity, SNAP. The physics and anatomy doesn't make sense.
3. How did Bruce get from a prison somewhere in Middle East back to Gotham City in reasonable time? We have to rule out that he travelled as Bruce Wayne the billionaire since it would giveaway he is Batman. So lets assume he managed to stowaway on various transports (including a plane) and arrive back in Gotham city. The least time it would take is half a day. I think in the movie he had less than that. 
4. How did Bruce get back into a supposedly disconnected city, with only one remaining bridge which is blocked off by police and terrorist on both sides? Did he run across the ice where everyone else failed, and somehow no one saw him ice sprinting?
5. How did Bruce find Selina Kyle when he got back into Gotham in the third act? He didn't have her phone number, her gps location, and none of his Bat suit gadgets or Alfred/Lucius' help. Was there like a part of the city he knew she would walk by during the day? How did he know she was still in the city after she handed him over to Bane? Logically since she wanted Bane to spare her life, so she should have escaped the city by now right? Maybe Bruce saw the good in her and knew she would stay, but still doesn't explain how he found her.
6. How did Bruce paint that bat signal on the suspension bridge wall? Did nobody see a guy climbing the walls or smell some gasoline dripping directly above head? Also if the bomb only had hours left why would Bruce waste so much time on drawing his batman symbol at the risk of the whole town going boom? Even if it only took him half an hour it would've made the operation at the end so much less rushed, but I guess then it wouldn't be epic.
7. Where does Bane's supply of painkiller gas come from? We never see him carry spare cylinders? Doesn't he need to refill at some point? Judging by the way he breathes and talks (not to mention fights) sounds like he would empty out the doses on his mask every few hour. Maybe he had a minion who carried it around for him and replaced it off screen.
8. When Blake tried to deliver a group of children across the bridge and the police stopped them by firing warning shots, how did none of those bullets ricochet onto Blake or the kids who are only a few feet behind? I mean you see the sparks from the bullets which indicates that they were reflected. Given the direction the police were firing the shots, Blake's legs should've been riddled with bullets like a pin cushion.
9. "I was born in the dark" as said by Bane. That pit Bane was born in…is not dark at all. In fact it has more daylight than most minimum prisons and correctional facilties…yeah I guess it was just figure of speech but seriously...that prison wasn't that horrible by hollywood movie standards!
10. Why does the fusion bomb have a countdown clock? Lets first assume that they knew exactly how long before the fusion bomb would go off, and also that they had the technical skills to install the timer onto the bomb. What was the point of having a countdown clock if you were going to blow the bomb anyway, and you HIDE THE BOMB INSIDE A MOBILE TRUCK where the only people who would ever see it was the people trying to disable it (namely, Batman and team)? I mean, if everything went according to plan, the bomb would just go off inside the truck when it was time and Gotham would become a giant crater with no survivors. Who would ever see the countdown clock unless they expected their plan to be interrupted or fail?
11. When did Bruce eject from the autopilot-enabled Bat (the flying version of batmobile)? Okay, so we all know Bruce survived because he fixed the autopilot. But we see that him in the cockpit ready to embrace his end with the fusion bomb over the ocean. I guess you could say that the cockpit shot was misdirection, but I am really curious roughly where did he actually get off to be far away enough from the blast zone but also somewhere without any eye witnesses that "batman survived"? Oh wells this isn't as big a question as the other 9 since it's plausible; I'm just curious!

Having complained so much about the plot of TDKR, I didn't think it was awful. It had some good elements, especially Catwoman and Robin. 

Anna Hathaway is definitely one of the more fun catwomans I've seen on screen. I think she had more character development within this movie than Batman did over the entire trilogy! Her rapid switching between personas was a very refreshing experience and I think she should've been given a larger role in this film. 

I actually didn't like Bane. Again, it's not the acting, as Tom Hardy did a decent job, but mostly is how the character talks and behaves. His dialogue is hard to comprehend due to his mask, and his motivation is also really confusing. I don't know if it's faithful to the original comic book character but his preaching was really obnoxious and spurious. If your release the criminals of course the city would descend into chaos, you don't need to prove it, that's why they were locked up in the first place! You have no idea how satisfied I was when Catwoman shot him where Bruce would have refused to even at the cost of his own life and the whole town. 

Actually, if Catwoman did choose to follow Batman's "never kill" rule, this movie would've ended really badly right? Batman would've died, the fusion bomb would've gone off killing all of Gotham, so I don't think it added up very well when you objectively think about the what if scenarios.

I don't need to talk about the other characters too much. Alfred and Lucius combine to be Bruce's voice of reason but also act as his quartermaster, planning the logistics and designing the tools behind his missions, but I feel that they were played really simply. They have their stands and did not really change or evolve throughout the trilogy. 

Actually the most boring main character to me was Rachel Dawes. She didn't seem real, and didn't even play like a real love interest for Bruce. I thought she was basically a female version of Alfred, and I know this sounds weird, but they never made it to bed!  While watching the third movie, when out of nowhere Bruce sleeps with Miranda Tate, basically a nobody, I was just thinking "What the hell! Two movies of opportunity with his childhood friend and love interest who ends up dying, and it's this random chick he ends up sleeping with!?" This was like the only time I actually cared about the Rachel character, other times I just can't stand how "role model" she is. Please bring back Mary Jane! 

In my opinion I don't think these are true superhero films. They are better thought of as character studies of the extreme ideologies within our societies, candy wrapped in recognisable figures we want to see more of. The interactions and commentaries are more valuable than the actual plot itself, and honestly by the end of the movie you feel like there are no heroes, which I guess was the director's intention to some level.

Also the entire trilogy tries to convey is that "Batman can be anyone, and anyone can be Batman" fails since Bruce only did it successfully with the help of an incorrupt police, a loyal butler, Q, a role model childhood friend/love interest, and billions, billions of dollars. Also, in The Dark Knight he tells copycat vigilantes not to follow in his example. Weird.

I think Marvel's The Avengers wins against Nolan's batman trilogy when judging based on the category of 'superhero', simply because it isn't ambitious to pushing the limits of the comic book movie, but rather focus on delivering what comic book geeks want. 

But, having looked at everything overall, Nolan's Batman movies do put me in a good mood at the end of the day, especially the first two films. They have rewatch value, it gets me thinking a lot, but man if only the third was as good as the second! 

Spoiler Alert!

I enjoy movies. But more over I enjoy nitpicking at movie; studying the plot, characters, dialogue, cinematography and anything else about it in detail. All my friends know that I love discussing the film in great details after walking out of the cinema, and sometimes I feel for the poor souls who had to be driven home by me, forced to listen to an extra 10-20 minutes of rambling on about things they probably didn't even notice while watching.

I also realize that majority of the movie going audience associate the word "nitpicking" with negative criticism, well this is half true. Most films, maybe all films, are not perfect, and it is much easier to see blemishes in a production simply because we often have our own interpretation of "ideal" as the benchmark. So yes, nitpicking at bad parts of movies is much easier and far more common.

However, there are cases where the beauty, ingenuity and entertainment value of a film is embedded in the details. For example, Idiocracy is a film that I truly love and have watched at least a dozen times, and each time I would discover something new either through the scenes or the micro-concepts within the plausable near-future dystopia portrayed by the film. Take this screenshot for instant:

It only appears for a few seconds in the film, but every single panel contained a separate joke which was hilarious, probably even better than most well constructed Internet memes I've seen floating around these couple of years. Okay these jokes don't make sense unless you know the premise of the film, but trust me check this film out and you'll probably have a load of fun with each repeat viewing!

I think the film production crew is treating their audience with respect when they pay attention to details, earning every laugh, every tear, every thought-provoking moment, every awe and every second of our attention by constantly throwing great dialogue, smart references, suitable music and eye candies while combining it with a convincing characters, strong plot and flawless execution. And being able to discovering these tiny reasons to love (or hate) each movie is what draws me to them.

I have seen quite a number of films in the past as well, but for this blog I'll focus on what's current. Maybe if there's nothing that interests me at the moment I'll do a stroll down memory lane. And if you're one of the lucky few that found my blog before I've even written the first review (which will be a retrospective of Nolan's Batman trilogy), here is the warning: all my reviews will contain spoilers. So if you're just looking for a ballpark estimate on whether a film is worth your wallet, go check rotten tomatoes or metacritic. My views will probably not be a good indication of whether a film was good overall since I look at the details, and not to mention the review would give away (in most cases) the story and any surprises along the way.

But the most important thing to me when talking about movies is engagement. If you think there's something I missed, feel free to start a discussion via comments and if I'm not too busy I'll read, join in the conversation and even append good parts of the discussions to my main review. But as usual please be friendly, rational, courteous and gentle with each other!

I'll try to find time to get the Batman review done by the weekend so I can catch up with the other films I watched so far this year. In the meantime, go check out the remake of Total Recall. It's not great but if you saw the original one with Arnold Schwarzenegger you might appreciate this film a bit more (or a bit less)!

Joey out.

P.S. Just kidding nitpicking the bad things about a film is more fun :P