Remakes. Is there
anything else that can inspire such passionate ire and annoyance in film fans? They represent the potential dismay of a classic being butchered,
when all the while there is a yearning for something original that could’ve benefitted
from this money and distribution. But
why does this attitude only seem accentuated in relation to film? Theatre has a long history of staging various
versions of classics. Music has always embraced cover versions, and don't forget the importance of "standards" in jazz or how many versions of some classical
pieces have been recorded. Why is art in these mediums not
perceived as having a “definitive version” in the same way film does? Yes theatrical productions are usually
temporal but music is recorded and thus permanent. Which leads to another debate…
adaptations of books.
Some adaptations of books are seen as sacred, but surely
there should be no issue with attempting another reinterpretation. Why is it ok to constantly recreate and reimagine
Shakespeare and his ilk, but multiple attempts at something more modern get frowned upon? After all no-one sets out to make a worse
film than what has come before. However
the biggest question amidst all this must surely be, why remake something that’s
already considered great, when the time, effort and money could go into making
something fantastic out of something that previously didn’t work? From a business perspective the answer is of
course money associated with something already perceived positively, but I struggle to imagine there’s much creative satisfaction from
doing this.
All of this is entirely relevant to the new Total Recall, which when announced was seen as a remake no-one wanted. The original 1990 Paul Verhoeven film is perceived
as something of classic of that era - it’s not a perfect film by any means, but is
both of sufficient quality and in possession of that something special that makes any effort to try and improve on it somewhat futile. But lest we forget this was
based on a Philip K. Dick short story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, so
the argument of trying to make a better adaptation of the source should still
stand. Except here it doesn’t really – the original
Total Recall was a loose adaptation of this story, taking the original concept
and spinning it into a different direction. Whilst this new version is actually a reinterpretation of the original film, with further deviations from the path.
Entirely set on Earth at the end of the twenty-first
century, it takes the familiar story of bored nightmare-suffering labourer Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell),
who visits a company called Rekall in order to implant fantastical new memories in his head about being a spy. Except things take a turn for the confusing as he struggles with his
identity, and his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) turns out not to be who he
thought she was. The core of the story is the
same but the biggest difference is no-one goes to Mars here, or even has
visions or thoughts of going there. There is the intriguing conceit of a gravity elevator linking the Colony
in Australia to the United Federation of Britain which travels through the core
of the Earth – at least in lieu of Mars we get something a little different and
very sci-fi-ish in concept.
Being Earth bound the story ends up seeming a little less exciting
because it’s presenting a new dystopian vision of the future without the exotic curiosity
that comes from alien landscapes. The
story is essentially one long bog-standard chase sequence, punctuated by big overblown CGI set
pieces. At times this gets a little
tiresome but it moves along at a fast enough pace to keep attention from
wandering too far. The shady political plans
of Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) try to add a bit more depth but they are
skated over a bit too quickly. Cranston
is reliable as ever and since he started earning serious credibility from
Breaking Bad, it’s always satisfying to see him pop up in films.
Farrell is sufficient in the role of Quaid; or rather this version of Quaid. He’s played similar roles before and he always kind of fits them in a
somewhat non-descript but semi-watchable way. That is to say he never wows and he never really offends. When making the inevitable comparison it’s clear
he lacks the big personality that Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to the original, which
was a key aspect that made that film work so well. Beckinsale is enjoyable to watch and actually
plays a bigger role than expected. Jessica Biel also plays a key character but she doesn’t really stand out
here.
Total Recall 2012 is competently made but it seems intent on
just being a chase movie about a man running to/from his past, ending up feeling like
a lighter version of the original. This
also applies to this version of Quaid who is written in a pretty stock way, but
this suits Farrell’s brand of “average action hero”. I liked the aesthetics of the Colony with its
similarities to Blade Runner, but here is a film overwhelmed with the burden of CGI which reduces the enjoyment of a number of action scenes. Does it compare to the original Total Recall? No. The
two feel like very different films that happen to have similar stories. The lack of Mars isn’t really a weakness as
it’s positively replaced by something hitherto unseen on screen, but this was an
element that didn’t need replacing. Total Recall proved an entertaining watch and
I did enjoy it, but it’s difficult to enthuse about something when it feels
like a weaker imitation of what’s come before without adding anything new. As remakes go this one was unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment