cgi back muscles
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:13 (twelve years ago) link
im thinking this one is gonna be low on laughs unlike verhoeven's versh
― Michael B Higgins (Michael B), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:18 (twelve years ago) link
If that hologram disguise or whatever that Farrell is using near the end of the trailer doesn't malfunction and start repeating "TWO WEEKS" then gtfo tbh.
― jpattzlovevampz 2 hours ago (Phil D.), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:18 (twelve years ago) link
xp - exactly what I'm sure my problem with it is going to be, the original was great because it was so damn funny, even in the minor scenes like the Johnny cab one
― Estimate the percent chance that a whale has ever been to the moon? (frogbs), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:19 (twelve years ago) link
― Michael B Higgins (Michael B), Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:18 AM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark
this wld be p unfortch
― dayo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:19 (twelve years ago) link
well it's in keeping with that "90s grittiness"
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:24 (twelve years ago) link
This is the main source of its seeming suckiness.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:27 (twelve years ago) link
i've nothing against po-faced sci-fi, as long as it's thoughtful. this just looks like it's going to be wall-to-wall roundhouse kicks, explosions, and implausible escapes from scenes of extreme peril. all with colin farrell's runty face to the fore.
― God arrives for the apocalypse, having been traveling at the speed of (ledge), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:36 (twelve years ago) link
it does look like it's going to be really impressive visually, which kinda redeemed Avatar
― Estimate the percent chance that a whale has ever been to the moon? (frogbs), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:39 (twelve years ago) link
colin farrell's face is not really impressive visually.
― God arrives for the apocalypse, having been traveling at the speed of (ledge), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:39 (twelve years ago) link
But in 3D his nose hairs will comfort your eyeballs.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:53 (twelve years ago) link
going through the trailer frame by frame, im thinking this might be the first fully realized cyberpunk movie since johnny mnemonic ghost in the shell. +1 stoked
― ☆, Friday, 13 April 2012 19:49 (twelve years ago) link
Before Verhoeven, there was . . David Cronenberg's "Total Recall."
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 May 2012 14:49 (twelve years ago) link
Oh man, that would have been incredible
― I cannot host as my wife hates Walker (latebloomer), Thursday, 3 May 2012 15:48 (twelve years ago) link
including an elaborate dream sequence where he morphed first into the sphinx and then into a kind of phosphorescent vagina
Oh, Cronenpaws...
― sktsh, Thursday, 3 May 2012 15:59 (twelve years ago) link
haha
― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 3 May 2012 16:00 (twelve years ago) link
why didn't they cast paz de la huerta as the 3-boobed lady
― skrill xx (cozen), Thursday, 19 July 2012 19:37 (eleven years ago) link
man fuck this
― goole, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 17:46 (eleven years ago) link
Friend of mine who saw it at a press screening: "Every bit the nonentity you're expecting."
― Simon H., Wednesday, 1 August 2012 17:55 (eleven years ago) link
http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-gifs-weeks.gif
― johnathan lee riche$ (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 18:13 (eleven years ago) link
original was bad enough
― giallo pudding pops (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 18:16 (eleven years ago) link
I enjoyed this.
― LISTEN TO THIS BRAD (Nicole), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 18:32 (eleven years ago) link
― skrill xx (cozen), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 23:10 (eleven years ago) link
retroactively claims to satire = ass-covering
― giallo pudding pops (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 23:12 (eleven years ago) link
retroactive even
said the same sort of "it was meant as a joke!" thing about Showgirls iirc
― giallo pudding pops (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 23:13 (eleven years ago) link
just imagining rutger hauer's 'i've seen things' speech from blade runner as delivered by arnold.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 23:22 (eleven years ago) link
i call this one toronto recall
― joaquin haus-partizan (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 August 2012 23:23 (eleven years ago) link
did u see it? any good?
― am0n, Monday, 6 August 2012 15:12 (eleven years ago) link
http://oi46.tinypic.com/21oa5xs.jpg
― am0n, Monday, 6 August 2012 15:13 (eleven years ago) link
burn
― goole, Monday, 6 August 2012 15:24 (eleven years ago) link
NOBODY'S GONNA HARSH-A MY STOKE
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 6 August 2012 15:32 (eleven years ago) link
I saw it on friday just 'cause. Not a total waste of time, the pacing is competent, good CGI cityscape design, and it is still a brilliant plot. But none if it is insane enough, and you've seen it all before.
I'm in the camp that has fond memories of the original even if it plays it a bit more safe than Fourth Man / Robocop / Starship Troopers. The first one is saturated with clues that the protagonist has suffered a cerebral hemorrhage he finds preferable to his real life; you don't leave the film going "The ending was completely implausible" because it's got characters inside the film ridiculing anyone who would ever find any of it plausible. Those issues are present in the new film, but it's less intrinsic and comes off in a more cliched 'but perhaps it is all a dream' kinda way
― Milton Parker, Monday, 6 August 2012 18:24 (eleven years ago) link
>But none if it is insane enough
ha ha _none of it_
or is it
― Milton Parker, Monday, 6 August 2012 18:25 (eleven years ago) link
I read the novelization before I saw the original Total Recall (somehow my library had it 5 months before the movie came out?) and therefore never actually noticed any type of "maybe it's all a dream" duality in the story because it's not really played up in the novelization from what I remember
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 18:50 (eleven years ago) link
...you read the Piers Anthony novelization first.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 August 2012 18:51 (eleven years ago) link
Surprised it wasn't a slew of bad puns about dongs.
Piers Anthony novelization of a PKD short story??
― smells like ok (soda) (dayo), Monday, 6 August 2012 18:53 (eleven years ago) link
The film was novelized by Piers Anthony.[29] The novel and film correspond fairly well, although Anthony was evidently working from an earlier script than the one used for the film, and was criticized for the ending of his book which removed the ambiguity whether the events of Total Recall are real or a dream.
and there you go
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 18:53 (eleven years ago) link
http://www.amazon.com/Total-Recall-Piers-Anthony/dp/0380708744
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 August 2012 18:54 (eleven years ago) link
Only 1 cent! Get it now!
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful4.0 out of 5 stars A Valuable read whether you liked the movie or not., January 22, 1999By Michael Dawson (Michigan) - See all my reviews(REAL NAME) This review is from: Total Recall (Paperback)This is an excellent book for those who saw the movie and thought "This idea had potential." The Piers Anthony version of this story is superior to both the movie and the screen play. This book gives insight into the mind of a alien race and what it might expect from a species that considers itself mature enough for space travel. Mr. Anthony puts a relatively new face on the oft used concept of colonialism extended to interplanetary colonization. We see that the downtrodden are not always forgotten. We are also given the opportunity to wrestle with the question, of what makes a person themselves; is it ones actions(past, present, or future) or is it ones thoughts and ideas (remembered and forgotten). While the "Total Recall" story is taken from a short story entitled, "We can remember it for you wholesale." Piers Anthony offers a fresh look at the timeless concepts.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 August 2012 18:55 (eleven years ago) link
lol thank you Wikipedia
the novelization came out in 1989, branded completely independently of the movie, and then the movie was released in 1990 and the book was rereleased as a movie tie-in
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 18:56 (eleven years ago) link
>therefore never actually noticed any type of "maybe it's all a dream" duality in the story because it's not really played up in the novelization from what I remember
so go ahead and spoil it for me, in the Anthony book... it is not a dream?
― Milton Parker, Monday, 6 August 2012 19:02 (eleven years ago) link
A Piers Anthony novel of a script based on a PKD story is nearly as funny as Fred Saberhagen and James V. Hart's Bram Stoker's Dracula, based on the screenplay by James V. Hart, based on the novel by Bram Stoker.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511aLNQRXRL._SS500_.jpg
― Marco YOLO (Phil D.), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:07 (eleven years ago) link
It is rather emphatically not a dream, there is zero ambiguity about this
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:12 (eleven years ago) link
and I think reading the book first grossly influenced how I interpreted the movie because it never actually occurred to me until this recent revive that there might have been ambiguity about whether it was real or not in the movie
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:13 (eleven years ago) link
^^^why the movie is shitty in a nutshell
― giallo pudding pops (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:13 (eleven years ago) link
do you recall how the woman with three tits was literarily depicted in the novelization?
― smells like ok (soda) (dayo), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:16 (eleven years ago) link
she was depicted as a woman with three tits
― keeping things contextual (DJP), Monday, 6 August 2012 19:17 (eleven years ago) link