Total Recall

Not rated yet!
Director
Len Wiseman
Runtime
2 h 01 min
Release Date
2 August 2012
Genres
Action, Science Fiction, Adventure, Thriller
Overview
Welcome to Rekall, the company that can turn your dreams into real memories. For a factory worker named Douglas Quaid, even though he's got a beautiful wife who he loves, the mind-trip sounds like the perfect vacation from his frustrating life - real memories of life as a super-spy might be just what he needs. But when the procedure goes horribly wrong, Quaid becomes a hunted man. Finding himself on the run from the police - controlled by Chancellor Cohaagen, the leader of the free world - Quaid teams up with a rebel fighter to find the head of the underground resistance and stop Cohaagen. The line between fantasy and reality gets blurred and the fate of his world hangs in the balance as Quaid discovers his true identity, his true love, and his true fate.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
PJ Media Staff7
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Yes, the Three-Breasted Woman Will Make Her Triumphant Return in Total Recall Remake
    Lifestyle There were many questions about the Total Recall remake that fans were anxious to have answered.1. Will Colin Farrell speak with an Austrian accent?2. Kate Beckinsale vs. Sharon Stone: Who would you rather wake up next to?3. Will the three-breasted prostitute from the original version make an appearance in the remake?Thankfully, Farrell decided against using an Austrian accent. As for question #2, are you nuts? Does it really matter?And yes, the reboot of the iconic 1990 actioneer will feature perhaps the most interesting character from the original; a mutant with three breasts who comes on to Arnold Schwarzenegger at a sleazy bar on Mars. At the recently completed Comic-Con in San Diego, actress Kaitlyn Leeb caused a sensation when she walked around the convention sporting her barely concealed triple mammaries.“You’re gonna wish you had three hands,” Leeb’s character purrs to Colin Farrell’s Quaid/Hauser in the Total Recall trailer as she opens her shirt. The same character (played by Lycia Naff) caused a sensation in the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but thanks to a Comic Con appearance and the internet, Leeb has gone global.Leeb is back home in Toronto after a stint in Calgary where she’s working on season six of CBC’s family drama Heartland, playing veterinary assistant Cassandra.She made an appearance at Comic Con in San Diego with Total Recall castmates Farrell, Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel last weekend, stealing their thunder with a skimpy costume that revealed the realistic-looking prosthetic trio.“Total Three-Call,” trumpeted London tabloid the Sun, while photos from the event flooded the web and were published around the world.“It’s a tough industry and I’ve worked very hard for it,” said Leeb, who was also an amateur figure skater before starting to work as an actress. “It feels amazing that you’re recognized. It’s surreal, the past couple of days. It’s all new and exciting.”But while “it’s cool to be in this situation,” Leeb stresses she can’t take all the credit. “All three of them are not mine,” she said.I predict that “You’re gonna wish you had three hands" will become as famous a film quote as Roy Schieder's warning to Quint after the shark nearly took his hand off in Jaws, "You're gonna need a bigger boat."Director Len Wiseman has an impressive track record, having directed Beckinsale in the first two Underworld flicks (he produced the final two installments), while also helming the fourth film in the Die Hard franchise, Live Free and Die Hard. All were blockbusters and there's no reason to believe that TR will be any different.Colin Farrell might not have Arnold's muscles, but he appears athletic enough to carry off the role of Douglas Quade. Both Beckinsale, who plays Quade's wife Lori, and Jessica Biel, who plays the sultry resistance leader Melina, are the action heroines of their generation -- strong, beautiful women who don't mind getting their hands dirty. The last trailer for the film reveals a much different landscape than the sterile atmosphere in the original:The biggest problem the film will have is common to all remakes; everyone knows the ending. The big surprises in the original won't be a surprise to those who have seen the 1990 version, but because of the near cult status of the Schwarzenegger version, fans will no doubt accept that fact and enjoy the ride regardless.As summer escapism, it doesn't appear to get much better.Total Recall opens nationwide on August 3. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/7/25/yes-the-three-breasted-woman-will-make-her-triumphant-return-in-total-recall/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Does Total Recall Violate the Unwritten Remake Rule?
    Lifestyle "When a good movie happens, which it might, on a roll of the dice, once in five years, it's like this total aberration, a freak of nature like the Grand Canyon, they're ashamed of it. They can't wait to remake it in another ten years and f*** it up the way it's supposed to be."That joke, from Lanford Wilson's play Burn This, sometimes seems like a literal truth, as when 2002's excellent Spider-Man was remade in mediocre fashion in 2012. But most filmmakers I know acknowledge an unwritten Remake Rule, though perhaps it's breached as often as observed.If the unwritten rule could be written, it would go something like this:  A film may be remade when it represents a great idea that wasn't fully realized the first time OR when its realization has become so dated as to have lost its appeal to a modern audience. Classics, no matter what the temptation, should not be remade. If you're so shallow you can't project yourself back in time to enjoy Casablanca or Gone With the Wind or All About Eve as is, just stay home and watch Jersey Shore because it turns out you're an idiot. The classic rule can occasionally be negated by dated special effects, but it usually doesn't work out. The 1933 King Kong does look a little stagy and dinky now, but it's still a better movie than any version that followed.All this comes to mind because I saw Total Recall the other day — I wanted to see Bourne but Recall fit perfectly between two meetings. In my opinion, despite what some critics say, this picture was a perfect candidate for remake. The 1990 version has an excellent script but is weighed down by Arnold Schwarzenegger — whom I like but who is asked here to play an ordinary guy, which is absurd. The muscles, enormous head and funny accent make the whole picture seem sort of outsized and cheesy. What could have been a brilliant Blade Runner-style classic if it had starred Harrison Ford becomes instead a good-but-dated actioner. A perfect candidate for remake. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/8/16/does-total-recall-violate-the-unwritten-remake-rule/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Battleship: From Here to Banality
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Hollywood's idea of Navy-themed movies in the 1950s? Run Silent, Run Deep and The Caine Mutiny. (And Operation: Petticoat, which at least Cary Grant and Tony Curtis going for it.)Hollywood's idea of a Navy-themed movie today? Battleship: The Motion Picture, which merges the board game that everyone had as a kid with a CGI-overloaded Transformers-esque sci-fi movie. Co-starring Liam Neeson, the glory days of Shindler's List receding even further into the past.High-concept? You're not just soaking in it, you're underwater -- which the film may or not be itself, when it opens next summer:Ace of Spades adds:I know it's an old joke that Hollywood is officially out of ideas but seriously, Hollywood is officially out of ideas.I mean -- Footloose.They "remade," supposedly, The Killer Elite, but it really looks like they just bought the name and wrote a completely different (standard action dopiness) script.And for those of you who can't get enough of boardgame-based movies and bizarre remake choices, you'll be happy to know that the cheesy and crappy but sort of good Clue movie is, yes, being remade too.Also coming soon? Total Recall, starring Kate Beckinsale. I'm not sure if she's playing Arnold Schwarzenegger or not, though. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/7/28/battleship-from-here-to-banality/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • New Robocop to Resume Original's Satire
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Hey, kids! Here comes another franchise reboot no one wanted. Robocop returns in 2014 taking new form played by The Killing’s Joel Kinnaman.The new take looks to resume the original’s political satire by leveraging concern over domestic spying and the use of drone technology by law enforcement. In retrospect, the original film deserves a lot of credit for anticipating the modern convergence of military technology and domestic law enforcement. The Verge reports:"We are more and more in a country where Robocop is relevant. You will see robots in wars," said Jose Padilha, the film's director. "The first film saw it way back then. Now we have more knowledge and we know it's coming true. First we are going to use machines abroad, then we are going to use machines at home."Despite retaining many of the themes established in the 1987 film, the reboot will depart from the original on many key plot points. IGN shares the details:In this RoboCop, police officer Alex Murphy (Kinnaman) isn't killed by a ruthless outlaw and his henchmen, In fact, he's not killed at all. He's gravely injured by a car bomb that leaves him massively burned all over his body. In order to "save " him -- and give OmniCorp their cyborg lawman they've been desiring -- Omni scientist Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman) essentially amputates Alex's body from the neck down and rebuilds him as, yes, RoboCop. (They keep Alex's right hand as a humanizing element for when RoboCop shakes hands with people.)There were several scenes with OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Keaton), a believer in his products and what they can do for the world who makes his decisions not so much out of being a villain as because he's decided it's simply the best option available for his business and what he thinks it can provide. Keaton described Sellars as an antagonist rather than as a villain.Readers may recall that Omni Consumer Products senior president Dick Jones, played with relish by the irrepressible Ronnie Cox, was the ultimate villain in the original. As he and director Paul Verhoeven also did in Total Recall, Cox created one of the greatest caricatures of corporate villainy put to film. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/7/26/new-robocop-to-resume-originals-satire/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 Best Films of the 1990s
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'The Lion King (Trailer)', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10. The Lion King (1994).The importance of The Little Mermaid (1989) and Beauty and the Beast (1991) in reviving Broadway musical-style animation shouldn’t be underestimated, and Pixar’s entry into filmmaking with Toy Story (1995) was revolutionary, but it’s the African saga based on Hamlet that gave animated storytelling a depth, seriousness and resonance it hadn’t had since Pinocchio. Now that we’re used to seeing one or two great animated films a year, it’s hard to remember how special it was for a movie to carry so much appeal to both adults and kids. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/6/27/the-10-best-films-of-the-1990s/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Red Placebo: Confessions of a Former Conspiracy Dabbler
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle The Matrix may have inspired an entire generation of conspiracists. We sometimes forget the impact of a particular moment in our popular culture. The success of The Matrix was that no one saw it coming. Though the concept of virtual reality and computer simulations had long been weaved throughout science fiction, the Wachowski brothers' uniquely plausible presentation captured the mainstream imagination.The allure of the red pill, of knowing a terrible truth and boasting an esoteric righteousness from the knowing, haunted many moviegoers long after the credits rolled. The film’s imagery and lexicon went on to permeate the various truther movements which gained popularity in the following decade.Often portrayed as heroic, innocent, kooky, or haphazardly correct, conspiracists are actually dangerous. After all, what we accept to be accurate knowledge informs both our actions and our emotional responses. By refusing to accept plain facts and insisting upon indulging unsubstantiated fantasy, conspiracists in effect become willful psychotics, consciously rejecting reality.Let us consider a few examples of how conspiracists stumble through our popular culture.In Roland Emmerich’s disaster porn 2012, Woody Harrelson’s pirate radio conpiracist Charlie Frost proves himself prophetic. Operating out of a cluttered trailer in Yellowstone National Park, Frost accurately predicts the end of the world better than the combined scientific-industrial complex of the G20 nations. Presented as unkempt, disorganized, and somewhat repulsive, Frost nonetheless enjoys validation as his wacky theory tying solar activity to the Mayan calendar manifests in global tectonic catastrophe.In John Carpenter’s 1988 cult classic They Live, professional wrestler turned actor “Rowdy” Roddy Piper plays a drifter who comes across a pair of sunglasses which enables him to discern subliminal messages on billboards, signs, television screens, and magazines. The spectacles even let him see the many hideous aliens in his midst who have disguised themselves as humans. The film shares the tone of the earlier television miniseries V, which portrayed a fascist invasion of reptilian aliens who at first appear to be friendly and human-like. In both stories, the notion of the rebellious few who see the truth while others comply like mindless sheep -- "sheeple" in truther lingo -- becomes well established.That notion plays out in real life through the proselytization of David Icke, who on the conspiracist spectrum serves as mainline heroin compared to Alex Jones’ gateway trutherism. Icke claims that world affairs proceed under the malevolent control of a race of hybrids created by combining humans with alien reptilian DNA. Icke and his followers offer “proof” in the form of video stills of high-profile politicians and media personalities whose eyes briefly appear to be reptilian slits when the interlacing of two frames creates video artifacts. It would be laughable if not for the fact that people actually believe it. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/6/6/the-red-placebo-confessions-of-a-former-conspiracy-dabbler/ previous Page 1 of 5 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Greed Is Good: The Villainy of the On-Screen Capitalist
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Star Trek's "capitalist" Ferengi, how Hollywood views business.Having written for some weeks now on the villainous archetypes found in our entertainment culture and how they both express and influence our philosophy, I now come to a personal favorite: the cliché of the corporate villain. The greedy, unscrupulous capitalist stands so well established that the introduction of a successful businessperson in our stories elicits animus just short of audible hissing. As with the black-hatted, silent film villain twirling his mustache, or the masked burglar wearing white and black stripes while holding a bag bearing a dollar sign, we know immediately upon beholding a well-dressed corporate executive that he is not to be trusted.Much as The Princess Bride’s Vizzini abused the word “inconceivable,” far too many of our storytellers wield “capitalism” haphazardly. It does not mean what they think it means.To explore this point further, let us first consider a few of the myriad examples of how capitalists in general and corporations in particular are portrayed on screen. No such listing would be complete or even adequate without mention of Wall Street’s Gordon Gekko, orator of the infamous “greed is good” speech. Gekko flaunted his villainy as a badge of honor. His sole and unapologetic purpose was to make money, with the secondary but no less coveted objective of making more than anyone else. He didn’t care how he did it either. If blowing out a company and laying off hundreds or thousands of workers would turn a more certain profit than keeping its doors open, he pulled the trigger without a second thought.Lex Luthor, arch-nemesis of Superman, evolved into a corporate villain over the franchise’s many years and several iterations. Luthor began life in fiction as a mad scientist, an embodiment of fears surrounding the nuclear age and discovery run rampant. In Richard Donner’s 1978 film, Gene Hackman portrayed Luthor as a scientific genius who proudly applied his talent to crime. The decade of Ronald Reagan saw Luthor reimagined as the chief executive officer of LexCorp. He was provided with more realistic motivations, coveting the Man of Steel’s power while fostering a xenophobic fervor to protect humanity from an alien. Luthor was even elected to become president of the United States in the comics, expanding his villainy to include the corporatism later reviled by both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.Then came Star Trek’s Ferengi, a troll-like species of “Yankee traders” introduced in The Next Generation and more fully explored in Deep Space Nine. There may be no more egregious example of a “capitalist” strawman in all of entertainment history. The Ferengi were obnoxiously unreputable, cheating in their dealings with such regularity that their political leader saw the discovery of a wormhole leading to the another part of the galaxy as an incomparable opportunity to get one over on new life and new civilizations. Quark, a Ferengi bartender and regular on Deep Space Nine, proselytized exploitation and demeaned those around him who fairly traded value for value – or worse, expressed generosity. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': '', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/5/30/greed-is-good-the-villainy-of-the-on-screen-capitalist/ previous Page 1 of 4 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk1
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • New Total Recall a Rare Worthy Remake
    Movies DVD Release Date: December 18, 2012Theatrical Release Date: August 3, 2012Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, some sexual content, brief nudity, and strong language)Genre: Sci-Fi ThrillerRun Time: 118 minDirector: Len WisemanCast: Colin Farrell, Jessica Biel, Kate Beckinsale, Bryan Cranston, Bokeem Woodbine, Bill Nighy Whenever a remake comes along the reflexive thought is usually, “Does this really need to be made?” And when the original is a consciously campy, 1990, Arnold Schwarzenegger over-the-top cult classic so bizarre it never spawned a sequel, the question is particularly warranted.  So why make a new Total Recall? For director Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard), the answer seems pretty simple: to make a better version of it. It’s also a rather different version. While both share similarities in basic premise, initial setup, and a few memorable lines, from there the two essentially part ways. Most notably the planet Mars is completely absent from this new one, as is the grotesque mutant villian Kuato. Those major changes speak to the conscious tonal shift as well; this is a darker, more serious, and even more dystopic look at the future. If anything, the new Total Recall takes its inspirations from other popular films, playing more like The Bourne Identity in a Blade Runner world. This film boasts many of the narrative and stylistic strengths of those movies, though it’s not quite as smart or philosophical as either. But it’s not dumb, and likely more ambitious than you might expect. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); It’s the end of the 21st century in a post-apocalyptic world. The planet has been lethally contaminated by global chemical warfare. Two life-sustaining regions remain on opposites sides of the earth: The United Federation of Britain in the northwestern hemisphere, and The Colony (i.e. Australia) in the east to the south. A transit tunnel known as “The Fall” connects the two regions through the planet’s core, its high-speed shuttle traveling the distance in seventeen short minutes. The culture is techonologically advanced, as you’d expect, but also highly industrialized. It’s equal parts slick and gritty, depending on which part of either metropolis you find yourself in. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell, Horrible Bosses) is just another assembly-line grunt from The Colony, happily married but haunted by a recurring dream he can’t shake. When he pays a visit to Rekall – a place that offers the illusion of an exciting life by planting false memories into the mind – the recurring dream is not only triggered but revealed to be true: Quaid is a highly-trained secret agent whose memory had been replaced. With only his fighting instincts but no memories recovered, Quaid finds himself on the run from the law, as well as from his “wife” (Kate Beckinsale, Whiteout), a secret government agent who wants to capture Quaid before he rediscovers the details and secrets of his true identity. For all the plot intricacies and inherent mind games played on both Quaid and the audience, Total Recall is a pretty straightforward thriller. It exists primarily to stage one exciting chase sequence after another, with a mix of on-the-run, high-speed action and numerous face-offs that involve intense gunplay and brutal, bone-breaking hand-to-hand combat. Thankfully, it’s not just run-of-the-mill stuff. Fight sequences are intricately choreographed, action scenes spectacularly conceived and staged, with the level of scale often being broad and elaborate. Perhaps most impressively, Wiseman assembles it all with clarity. Quickly-paced but not frenetically edited, with clearly framed shots over shaky hand-held close-ups, the movie allows us to actually see and enjoy the action rather than confusing us with a muddled mess that borders on headache inducing. Wiseman’s vision of the future is visual eye candy for special effects geeks, from detailed cityscapes and slums to the sleek and menacing robot police force. That we get to take it in, appreciate it, and even revel in it along the way makes this non-stop thrill-ride a very entertaining one. It’s all anchored by a great cast that, to the actor, plays the material straight. Even when the script offers up intentionally contrived one-liners, the actors refuse to plant tongue in cheek. Their performances are still very character-rich but never overplayed with juicy genre schtick. Ferrell makes for a compelling and complex action star, Jessica Biel (Valentine's Day) is his impressive equal in all respects, and Emmy winner Bryan Cranston (Larry Crowne) is a menacing foe (no surprise to fans of TV's Breaking Bad), even if he does nibble the scenery a bit more than the rest. Beckinsale is a formidable action star in her own right... and much more believable than any of Angelina Jolie’s numerously stiff attempts at the genre. Stylistically, Total Recall strikes a deft balance; dark but not depressing, gritty but not grimy, and sometimes slick without sacrificing its sense of authenticity or dramatic tension. It does push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating, however, from brief nudity (a quick nod to the infamous three-breasted woman from the original) to a fair amount of language and some cringe-worthy violence. But on the plus side, this reboot is a solid and extremely well-crafted sci-fi feast that succeeds by remaining focused on its characters and story rather than being distracted by its admittedly-cool visionary world. It’s unlikely to win over people who don’t appreciate the genre, but those who’ve been hopeful since seeing the previews won’t be disappointed. CAUTIONS: googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); Drugs/Alcohol Content:  Alcohol is consumed at a bar; no intoxication. Language/Profanity:  The S-word is used with regularity throughout the film.  Four uses of the A-word.  Two instances of crude slang for male genetalia.  One F-word.  Four uses of the Lord’s name in vain.  Sexual Content/Nudity: Brief nudity of a three-breasted woman.  A husband and wife kiss passionately while in bed, dressed in their underwear.  Scantily clad pole dancers seen in silhouette. Violence: Frequent violence throughout involving intense gunplay and brutal fistfights.  Bones are violently broken a few times (though nothing visually gory).  Three stabbings.  Innocent bystanders are mowed down by collateral gunfire in a few scenes.  Other people are shot violently and killed.  A hand is cut open to extract an implanted technology.  A head is cut open after a car crash (bloody, but not gruesome).  Two different people are shot to death in the head at point-blank range.  Two other people shot through the hands. Publication date: August 3, 2012 ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith1
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Review: "Total Recall"
    A thudding remake directed by hack Len Wiseman, “Total Recall” doesn’t come close to the original. My review is up.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In1
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Total Recall
    DramaSci-Fi/FantasyAction/AdventureMystery/Suspense We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.Movie ReviewDouglas Quaid keeps having this crazy dream … By day, he works on an assembly line making security synths—high-tech police robots—for the United Federation of Britain. And when his shift ends, he boards a trainlike tube known as the Fall that bores through the earth's core to the only other place on the planet still habitable after most of the world has been destroyed by chemical warfare late in the 21st century. It's a significantly shabbier, shadier "workers' paradise" called the Colony. (It's located on the continent formerly known as Australia.) Quaid longs for something more out of life, something meaningful. And in his dream, something more definitely seems to be happening. In it, he keeps waking up, bloodied, in a hospital, and is immediately pursued by the very synths he makes during his waking hours. He's met by a mysterious woman who's desperately trying to help him escape. She gets out. He's captured. He promises he'll find her. After waking one night, he talks with his beautiful wife, Lori—herself an agent of the UFB security force—about having had the dream once again. Maybe you feel trapped in our relationship, she suggests. Quaid's not convinced (nor is he willing to tell her about the other woman.) Anxious to find some mental relief, Quaid visits an infamous establishment known as Rekall. It's a place, rumor has it, where dreams come true. Specifically, Rekall is in the business of granting fantasies: whatever you want, whatever you can dream of. Rekall's neurological alchemists put clients to sleep, pump chemicals into their brains, and give them the virtual reality experience of a lifetime, one they'll always remember. There's only one catch: The client can't have actually had those experiences before, or it will "blow out" his mind. You know where this is going, don't you? And it's not just because the whole thing's already been splashed across the screen back in 1990 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was just a movie star. Quaid quickly chooses a secret-agent dream narrative, and a man named Marek scans his memories for any evidence of such experiences. He's just about to put Quaid under when two things happen: Marek announces that Quaid has already been a secret agent, and UFB forces storm Rekall with guns a-blazing. Time for an important political newsflash: An increasingly intense conflict has been escalating between the UFB's leader, Chancellor Cohaagen, and a resistance faction led by a shadowy figure named Matthias, who believes the tyrannized workers of the Colony are treated as second-class citizens at best and slaves at worst. So when Quaid kills all those UFB guys who suddenly show up—tapping into skills he didn't know he had—he not only doesn't know which side of the war he's on, but he doesn't even know which side of reality he's on. Has he already gone under, living out his fantasy? It's a question exacerbated by the fact that his wife tries to kill him when he shows up at home. Lori tells him he's not who he thinks he is, but that he's actually an agent of the resistance who was captured six weeks before, and whose memories were erased and reprogrammed with the only identity Quaid can remember. Except for that pesky dream, that is … a dream that proves to be the key to reconnecting with his real identity, his significant role in the resistance and, of course, the woman there who loves him, a woman named Melina.Positive ElementsFinding meaning in your life, be it an exciting secret agent's life, or "merely" a more sedentary, workingman's life, is a big theme here. Quaid, of course, pursues the former. But it's not just stimulation he's after. Plot twists reveal that he's also very concerned with justice and a righteous cause. And when he zeros in on that cause, he's committed to laying everything on the line, even his life, to make things turn out OK in the end.Spiritual ContentIt's not traditionally spiritual, but within the framework of this sci-fi actioner, it's important to note Quaid's conversation with Marek at Rekall about people's perceptions of reality. Marek believes that what happens chemically in the brain to produce memories and emotions is equally valid regardless of whether it's a synthesized, chemical experience or whether it actually happened. "What is life but our brains' chemical perception of it?" he asks. Quaid disagrees with that assessment, insisting that what's really happening really matters. In a somewhat parallel conversation shared by Quaid and Matthias, the leader of the underground resistance insists that all that matters is the present, while Quaid argues that the past has shaped every person's identity and thus significantly influences how they perceive and act in the present. Several large Buddha statues line the walls of a room at Rekall.Sexual ContentQuaid meanders through a red-light district on his way to Rekall. He (and we) see scantily clad women writhing sensually in strip club windows. And in a lewd nod to the earlier version of the story, a prostitute approaches Quaid and asks what he's looking for, then opens her coat to reveal (to him and to us) her bare chest, which has three breasts. "You're going to wish you had three hands," she tells him. Quaid and his wife embrace, and she caresses his bare chest, alluding to further intimacy later. (She's wearing a tank top and panties.) Several mild to middling verbal references are made to their sex life and Quaid's relationship with Melina, whom we see him passionately kiss. A worker at Rekall scanning Quaid's memories stumbles across sexual images of him and Lori (which we don't see), prompting the comment, "You do have a wife who appreciates you."Violent ContentTotal Recall's body count is high, and violence is nearly continuous once the plot kicks into high gear. While intense, it's mostly bloodless. Quaid, who's later joined by Melina, spends almost the entire film on the run from Lori and her pack of UFB officers (some human, some robotic synths). Within the context of that pursuit, the violence generally falls into two categories: pummeling hand-to-hand combat and fierce firefights. UFB officers are killed two, three, six or eight at a time (both human and synth) by the flying bullets. And many of the melee sequences focus directly on Lori and Quaid. She chokes him, slams him into walls and furniture, and repeatedly seems on the verge of beating him to a pulp, unleashing volley upon volley of savage rage with the ferocity of a possessed leopardess. It's easily one of the most physically violent portrayals of hand-to-hand brutality I've ever seen a woman participate in onscreen. Lori and Melina eventually go at it with similarly vicious bloodlust. Several battles involve huge falls and jarring impacts with various objects on the way down. A long maglev car chase involves a serious amount of vehicular recklessness and carnage. Quaid purposely slices his hand open (offscreen) to remove a phone that's imbedded there. He and Melina are both shot in the hand. Several people are stabled or sliced at close range with knives. Quaid is forced into a situation where he must choose between shooting someone who was once a friend and shooting Melina. Massive explosions result in casualties. Lori rashly and repeatedly fires into crowds as she pursues Quaid. [Spoiler Warning] Chancellor Cohaagen, we learn, has systematically sought to destabilize the political situation between the UFB and the Colony by staging murderous terrorist attacks that he blames on the resistance. His purpose? To create the pretext for invading the Colony and wiping out its populace (an action he eventually, but unsuccessfully, initiates). We're told those attacks have claimed hundreds of lives. Crude or Profane LanguageAbout 35 s-words. One clear f-word and perhaps another spoken under someone's breath. God's name is taken in vain a dozen times (including six pairings with "d‑‑n"). Jesus' name is abused five or six times too. "A‑‑" or "a‑‑hole," along with "h‑‑‑" get considerable workouts here. Other vulgarities, used once or twice each, include "b‑‑ch" and "d‑‑k."Drug and Alcohol ContentQuaid and Harry (a co-worker) have beers at a bar. At the end of the scene, Harry's speech is slightly slurred, and he jokes about being drunk and needing to go home to throw up. A Rekall technician inserts an intravenous needle into Quaid's arm, and we see vials of blue chemicals that he's supposed to be injected with.Other Negative ElementsConclusionRemakes and reboots are all the rage these days, from Footloose to Karate Kid, from Arthur to The A-Team to The Amazing Spider-Man … with dozens of other faves from yesteryear in the pipeline right now. Still, it can be tricky business remaking a campy "classic" that featured the original action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger as Quaid and was helmed with characteristic swagger by director Paul Verhoeven, who currently has two other films (RoboCop and Starship Troopers) that new directors are now reloading. It's no surprise, then, that director Len Wiseman and star Colin Farrell approached this remake with a bit of trepidation. At a press conference, Farrell felt the need to defend the his movie's creation, telling reporters, "Films to some of us feel sacrosanct, and the idea of remaking something seems like an insult to the original when in fact it's not." He added, "While honoring the same conventions and concepts and narrative plot points as the original story, this seemed to stand on its own." Similarly, Wiseman said he couldn't even begin to try to fill Schwarzenegger's outsized shoes: "I had absolutely no intention of replacing Arnold. I really wanted someone [the audience] could relate to. I wanted someone who is more of an everyman." The result is a film that dials down Schwarzenegger's signature camp and arguably dials up the Jason Bourne-style intelligence quotient a notch or two. What happens to the content? It's restrained just enough to earn a PG-13 instead of the original's R. But don't be fooled by the less restrictive rating. We're still shown the infamous three-breasted prostitute; hand-to-hand brutality and wholesale killing is constant; and the profanity count includes 35 or so s-words, among other language concerns.Pro-social ContentObjectionable ContentSummary AdvisoryPlot SummaryChristian BeliefsOther Belief SystemsAuthority RolesProfanity/ViolenceKissing/Sex/HomosexualityDiscussion TopicsAdditional Comments/NotesEpisode Reviews]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Debbie Schlussel1
The New York Post



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Wknd Box Office: Total Recall, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days, Ruby Sparks
    Blog Posts Movie Reviews Ruby Sparks“: This is sort of a hipster/slacker, self-absorbed version of “The Twilight Zone.” I found it charming and entertaining to a point, even if I do not care for the whole hipster ethos. It’s written by and stars Zoe Kazan, granddaughter of famed Hollywood director, Elia Kazan. It also stars her real-life boyfriend, Paul Dano. Dano plays a former child prodigy author, who is still living off of his hit “Catcher in the Rye”-esque novel, written about a decade or more ago, when he was in his late teens. Now a hipster slacker living in a fancy, modern Los Angeles-area condo, he continues to feel like a loser because he cannot write anything else and cannot live up to that first novel. But soon he begins writing about a woman he’s dreamed of, Ruby Sparks (Kazan). And he becomes obsessed with her, typing day and night on his typewriter (he does not use a computer). Before long, she suddenly comes to life in his apartment and they are lovers, just as in his book. While Dano is shocked, his brother (Chris Messina) is even more surprised. They take Ruby to meet their preppy-turned-hippie mother (Annette Benning) and her second husband (Antonio Banderas). Dano learns he can make Ruby do whatever he wishes, if he only types it that way. But manipulating people you love to do as you wish has its price. TWO-AND-A-HALF REAGANS ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Return of Kings Staff1
Return of Kings



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Modern Movies Suck: A Tale Of The Two Total Recalls
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Jared is a middle-aged guy full of old-man wisdom. He's best described as a gentlemen scholar and a man among men. You can read his writing at his site: Legends of Men
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff1
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • From Groundhog Day to Gilmore Girls
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    groundhog

    [1]5,120 words

    Groundhog Day [2] (1993); 101 minutes. Director: Harold Ramis; Writers: Danny Rubin (screenplay), Harold Ramis (screenplay); Stars: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, Chris Elliott, Stephen Tobolowsky

    Gilmore Girls [3] (2000–2007) Created by Amy Sherman. Stars: Lauren Graham, Alexis Bledel, Edward Herrmann, Melissa McCarthy.

    “She began to sing about trying over and over again until you succeeded. Ignatius quivered as the philosophy of the lyrics became clear. He studied her grip on the trapeze in the hope that the camera would record her fatal plunge to the sawdust far below. On the second chorus the entire ensemble joined in the song, smiling and singing lustily about ultimate success while they swung, dangled, flipped, and soared.

    “’Oh, good heavens!’ Ignatius shouted, unable to contain himself any longer. Popcorn spilled down his shirt and gathered in the folds of his trousers. ‘What degenerate produced this abortion?’

    “‘Shut up,’ someone said behind him.

    “‘Just look at those smiling morons! If only all of those wires would snap!'” Ignatius rattled the few kernels of popcorn in his last bag. ‘Thank God that scene is over.'”

    — John Kennedy Toole, A Confederacy of Dunces

    In recent months I’ve been finding more and more evidence in film and TV of an archetypal pattern in which our protagonist endures an indefinite repetition of events until he manages to escape by offloading his karma onto another and rising to a new, higher level.[1]

    So it might seem natural to think I had seen, and possibly been inspired by, the Bill Murray/Harold Ramis comedy Groundhog Day. Truth be told, not really. I like a lot of Bill Murray’s stuff, but in general I have a mulish resistance to seeing “what everybody is seeing,” and especially if there’s some kind of “uplifting life lesson” involved and/or “indie cred,” as in too many of Murray’s more recent, “Academy-worthy” works.[2]

    However, since you Constant Readers have come to rely on this writer as an honest broker and committed profession — and it being the 20th anniversary, after all [4] — I recently girded my loins to sit down and by God, watch this thing.[3] These thoughts are my results.

    For the same reasons above, it’s probably not necessary to give a detailed account of the plot (if necessary, you can find a synopsis all over the internet, such as here [5]) but for convenience you can think of it as having a classic, Syd Field three act structure[4] with two plot points; it’s even used in online courses:

    Define the three acts according to the two main plot points.

    At first his normal life where he is a weatherman, the second act would be once the days start repeating themselves and he feels like a lost soul and even killed himself a number of times, the third act would be once he starts doing something good with his gift when he tries to redeem himself and becomes basically a good citizen instead of the selfish and arrogant weathermen he was at first[5]

    And, of course, a character arc

    Describe the hero’s transformation (called the character arc)

    At the beginning he was a total jerk self-absorbed and arrogant weatherman, then with the day started repeating themselves and slowly he started to lose it, after a while he began to realize that maybe there was something positive he could do with all this time and started improving himself which at first was for personal gain (like when he used it to get with Nancy and the dozens of times he tried to get with Rita) but after a while he realize that becoming a better person was the best way he could deal with what was happening to him, and so he did become a model citizen saved a number of lives. At the end of the movie Phil Connors was completely different to when he started being now kind, unselfish and generous . . .

    Or, for a more detailed analysis:

    “Will Phil become a good person, get Rita, and get out of Groundhog Day?”

    Answer: Yes.

    Inciting incident: Phil and Rita go to Punxsutawney for Groundhog Day.

    First beat: Phil wakes up stuck in Groundhog Day, is freaked out.

    Second beat: (end of 1st act, point of no return) Phil wakes up in Groundhog Day again, realizes he is really stuck. He begins his journey by taking advantage of the situation.

    Third beat: Phil, having grasped the ego-centric power of being stuck in the same day, begins to pursue Rita to no avail.

    Fourth beat: (midpoint) Phil, stuck and miserable, tries to end his life and can’t.

    Fifth beat: (highpoint) Phil, humbled, finally becomes friends with Rita. She urges him to self improve.

    Sixth beat: (end of 2nd act, emotional low point) In the process of self-improvement,
    Phil realizes that the old bum dies at the same time, no matter what Phil does to prevent it. As the bum dies in his arms yet again, Phil looks up to the heavens.
    Seventh beat: (resolution beat) Phil has become great, and his greatness inspires Rita to bid on him at the Bachelor’s auction.[6]

    Obviously, the notion of indefinitely repeating the same day is the innovation here, and what fits it into my area of interest:

    “[F]ormer Monty Python member Terry Jones also included Groundhog Day in his top 10. “What’s so remarkable about it,” Jones observes over a pint in a north London pub, “is that normally when you’re writing a screenplay you try to avoid repetition. And that’s the whole thing here, it’s built on repetition.”[7]

    But Phil does not pass the buck; rather, he manages to overcome karma, or fate, by “changing himself.”[8]

    It’s all expressed in the trajectory of his relationship with Rita. He wants her, he tries to seduce her—first with meanness, then by fraud, then with recitations of French poetry and engineered perfect moments. It is only when he gives up, when he accepts the blessing of her company, free from desire—at which point she, too, magically becomes a far more interesting character—that she is delivered into his arms.[9]

    “Magically”? This is man in the street magic, Disney magic. The ‘magic’ that Evola spoke of — and he was aware of the unfortunate connotations of the English word — was the serious, difficult, even dangerous science of the mages, or in other words, spiritual initiation.[10] And in line with the Disneyesque “boy gets girl” angle, our script analyst above adds this devastating sting to the end of the character arc:

    . . . although you could argue that he became everything Rita said she wanted her ideal men to be, thus staying a selfish individual only looking to please Rita and didn’t do all those things out of pure kindness and generosity.

    Is Phil’s “transformation” anything other than what the manosphere would call “Game”? Act Two certainly looks like Phil is developing his game, and when that fails, does he “become unselfish” or merely develop a more subtle game?[11]

    Perhaps that is, actually, a strength of the film; with all the talk about Game over the past few years, Phil’s character is a bit more ambiguous than is realized by the hordes of “spiritual enthusiasts” who have claimed the movie for their own.

    However, the simpler interpretation — Phil decides to be good — seems more in keeping with the simple gimmick of the repeating day. I confess that one of my qualms was that the movie would, in fact, repeat the same day, with Murray simply reacting differently, but the filmmakers have, admittedly, come up with many subtle and amusing ways to suggest the passage of time without hitting you over the head with it.

    Still, how plausible is the whole idea? Anyone who takes seriously the ideas of the alt-Right should find this more than a little dubious. After all, no less a pop culture authority than TVTropes evinces it as an example of:

    Rousseau Was Right [6]: The film’s message: There is love, kindness and decency in everyone; you just need time to bring it out.

    Just time? Isn’t this just a variation the liberal shibboleth “we just need more education”? As Charles Walter Aubrey recently wrote

    This all stems from the Socratic idea that people only hurt one another through ignorance. Therefore if only everyone were educated and enlightened then we can achieve a multiracial utopia where everyone is equal and peaceful because everyone understands one another. Of course, it’s a childish idea that Nietzsche utterly destroyed in Beyond Good and Evil.

    There are people out there whose will to power involves harming others for its own sake, and liberals don’t seem to understand this. They believe that people have a default position of “good” and that “evil” only happens when they steer away from this default position (education, as they see it, seeks to preserve the “good” in people, not to make people better, smarter, or stronger).[12]

    Is it really plausible that Phil would learn to be “good” at least as conventionally defined by the movie or by Rita? Let’s look at some variations on Groundhog Day’s three acts that come to mind see if they seem more likely.

    California Doubling [7]

    “The movie was shot in Woodstock, Illinois.” – TVTropes.com

    One immediately suggested itself when Ramis, on the commentary track, noted that the film was not shot in Punxsutawney, PA but in Woodstock, IL. The need to find a “more filmable” substitute for a run-down hick town, and the name “Woodstock” immediately called to mind The Gilmore Girls and my own meditations on what I’ve called “liberal psychogeography”: despite their “big city”, cosmopolitan airs, liberals, when they have the money and choice, prefer to live in small, even rural towns — once they’ve been cleansed of those actual unfortunate rural townsfolk (they don’t have to worry about the darkies, since they’re kept out by the same price of admission mechanism, which is “fair” because based on meritocracy; no need for embarrassing signs and bylaws, and the ones who do “make it” can be kept around to “show how diverse we are here”).[13] Such towns, ranging from Martha’s Vineyard to The Hamptons to even small “college towns” like Ann Arbor or Madison, or remote outposts like Billings, MT, are the real life equivalents of movie stand-ins like Woodstock, IL.[14]

    Thus did my mind turn to The Gilmore Girls as a more subtle version of Phil’s Dilemma.[15]

    The GG show pitch or set up[16] can be succinctly captured in the title of the first in a series of GG-inspired “TV novels : Like Mother, Like Daughter [8], which already hints at the repetition theme. Rather than one protagonist repeating, or trying not to repeat, the same day for an indeterminate lifetime while manipulating others, we see each generation of the Gilmores[17] seeking to manipulate the next into repeating their own life.[18]

    The backstory is that at 16, the rebellious Lorelai Gilmore becomes pregnant with the boy next door.[19] Perversely, her parents are delighted, since they view Christopher as an ideal match, but Lorelai ups the ante by running away to the impossibly quaint and conveniently nearby small town of Stars Hollow, raising the child herself in a potting shed out back of the bed and breakfast where she works first as a maid, then manager, and ultimately owns. As the series opens, Rory is now herself sixteen,[20] and to finance private school, Lorelai makes a deal with her estranged parents: in exchange for paying Rory’s tuition, they will both appear each Friday night for dinner. The series follows Rory from entering Chilton Academy to graduating from Yale, as parents and grandparents attempt to help (or “control”) both children.

    We can begin to see the parallels here with Groundhog Day, especially when we realize that rather than playing out the same day over and over, it is Lorelai who, rather than changing over the last 16 years, has stayed the same, and is now trying to superimpose her life on the now 16-year-old Rory, under the guise of “don’t listen to your controlling grandparents,” while her own parents, especially the grandfather (the ur-WASP Edward Herrmann), see a chance to change Rory’s life on their own terms and make her develop as Lorelai should have, into another WASP matron.[21]

    Thus, we have a smug, egotistical, verbally quick and witty person[22] who is thrown out of their usual routine and lands in a bed and breakfast in a charmingly eccentric small town, where they relive their life through another, while trying to “improve” not themselves but the other by more or less subtle manipulation. It’s Groundhog Day without the redemptory third act.

    Since Lorelai’s smug hip Leftist character is written from the perspective of smug, hip Leftists, thus petted and pampered,[23] we have a chance to watch the second act of Groundhog Day from Phil’s perspective: mocking the eccentric but dumb townspeople and doing everything to avoid making a commitment to others (except, Lorelai would point out in her pointing out way, her wonderful daughter, but of course she is her anyway).

    Phil: “They’re hicks!”

    The main character, Phil Connors, despises everyone around him. They are all his intellectual inferiors. So naturally, his version of Hell is to be stuck in a town with a bunch of dumb hicks. But Phil is not evil, so his Hell turns out to be a kind of Purgatory, from which he can only be released by shedding his selfishness and committing to acts of love.

    Phil . . . learns to appreciate the crowd, the community, the dumb hicks and their values. He decides to improve himself by reading poetry and by learning to ice-sculpt and make music. But most of all by shedding his ironic detachment from the world.[24]

    This, of course, is what Lorelai — and Rory — never do — shed their selfishness and ironic detachment, and certainly learn to appreciate the hicks and their values.[25] That, apparently, would be to give in to “the parents” — the elder Gilmores, or the Establishment in general — and join their world of coming out parties and D.A.R. teas; just as Phil has to become Rita’s Mr. Right. By the series finale, Rory has dumped another guy after he, Good Phil-like, proposes, while Lorelai seems to be starting up, for the third time or so, with Luke, whom she left at the altar a few seasons back, to marry Rory’s father 16 years too late, then dump him . . .

    Speaking of Luke: if it seems odd to think of a female Phil, most of Phil’s more masculine characteristics have been offloaded to Luke, who’s sort of a ruggedly handsome Bill Murray; unshaven, sloppily dressed, misanthropic. His scraggly beard, backwards ball cap and open plaid shirt suggest nothing as fashionable as grunge but rather the classic Bill Murray dirtbags from earlier Murray/Ramis collaborations such as Stripes, Meatballs, and above all, Carl the Groundskeeper from Caddyshack (who fights his own repetitive war with a rodent).[26]

    Lorelai, on the other hand, has Rita’s list of Perfect Man requirements, at least implicitly, and presumably more PC, but not being, like Rita, “raised a Catholic” she never lets that stop her from bedding down with someone new.[27] Anyone hooking up with Lorelai would be well advised to follow Phil’s advice and “rent first.”[28]

    Luke also facilitates one characteristic the Gilmore Girls share with Bad Phil: sitting around diners stuffing themselves with childish comfort food (smoking would be un-PC, though). Like Phil, neither one changes, so weight gain is not a problem. And speaking of diner owner Luke, director Ramis in the commentary track makes much of the diner waitress being played by one of his favorite comediennes, Robin Duke. Our Luke dispenses the junk food while ragging them for it, the odd combination — why is he serving it if he thinks it’s bad for her? — bringing together Duke’s waitress and Rita’s censorial voice, underlining his oddly feminine role to Lorelai’s Phil.[29]

    As for the other locals, the Girls, like Phil, have acquired encyclopedic knowledge of the townspeople and their colorful foibles, but, as I pointed out my earlier essay, they exist entirely as figures of fun and mockery (in which Luke, though a townsman himself, joins in, thus underlining the doubling of Phil) for “brilliant” Lorelai and Rory, rather than, as with Phil, growing from “hicks” to “people to help.” And since, as we said above, the show, unlike the movie, is conceived from her point of view, they are beloved by the naïve townsfolk, (well, maybe not Luke so much) and even subject to periodic festivals, just like Good Phil at the final dance.[30]

    Rather than diss Groundhog Day, I should salute it for providing a contrast that opens up a new perspective on Gilmore Girls. Lorelai has stumbled into the same, or similar, time warp as Phil, but persists in her egotistic exploitation of others — just nicer than Phil does, since his misanthropy is offloaded onto Luke — passing the buck, I knew I’d find it somehow!

    Real-Lorelai seems just as clueless about her role; in “the last Lorelai Gilmore interview,” we are told

    I felt every year, even under Amy’s leadership, that the show evolved. For the last episode, we tried to match the final shot with the first scene from the pilot, so we went back and watched the pilot — which I haven’t seen for so long. And the show is really different from that pilot, which was more dramatic at the time than your typical WB show. And I think it evolved and got more comedic over the years; every year was an evolution.[31]

    Really, evolved? They why on Earth try to match the last shot . . .

    [9]

    . . . with the final shot of the pilot episode; especially since no one knew the show was being cancelled yet?

    [10]

    In Stars Hollow [11], like Woodstock, it’s always Groundhog Day.[32]

    Notes

    1. See, for example, my three part series on Mad Men and Advise and Consent starting here [12], as well as forthcoming essays on A Dandy in Aspic and the Coleman Francis trilogy [13].

    2. Off the top of my head: such as Lost in Translation (saw first 10 minutes on cable), The Life Aquatic (bought the Criterion release, watched it, then sold it), Rushmore (watched it on cable 10 years later), etc. Conversely, the same quirk no doubt also accounts for my interest in films – lousy or just ignored — like the ones cited in the previous note.

    3. I felt rather like Walker Percy when forced to finally read A Confederacy of Dunces: “There was no getting out of it; only one hope remained—that I could read a few pages and that they would be bad enough for me, in good conscience, to read no farther. Usually I can do just that. Indeed the first paragraph often suffices. My only fear was that this one might not be bad enough, or might be just good enough, so that I would have to keep reading. In this case I read on. And on. First with the sinking feeling that it was not bad enough to quit, then with a prickle of interest, then a growing excitement, and finally an incredulity: surely it was not possible that it was so good.” — Preface in John Kennedy Toole, A Confederacy of Dunces (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1980).

    4. Although some guy named “Lon” argues for a 5 part model [14], based on Kubler-Ross’s stages of dying.

    5. Creative Writing 101 http://bbacreativewriting.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/groundhog-day/ [15]

    6. The Hidden Structure of Movies, Rules #4 and #5, here [16].

    7. “Groundhog Day: the perfect comedy, forever” by Ryan Gilbey; The Guardian, Thursday 7 February 2013, here [17].

    8. This is the reverse of what seem to happen online, in accord with “The G [18]reater [18]I [18]nternet [18]F [18]uckwad [18]T [18]heory [18]. First given a name [19] by the boys at Penny Arcade [20], it is a theory that seeks to illuminate why so many people seem to degenerate into antisocial Jerkasses [21] online, when they might only be mildly unpleasant or even polite in-person. The equation is “Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad [21]” … normal people become more aggressive when they think their behavior carries no real-world social consequences.”

    9. “Reliving Groundhog Day” by James Parker, The Atlantic, February 20, 2013, here [4].

    10. See his An Introduction to Magic. Reviewing the English translation of Volume I in New Dawn, Jay Kinney first notes that “Magic (or Magick, as it is sometimes spelled, in order to distinguish it from stage magic) is a word fraught with dubious connotations. It summons up images of robed figures, surrounded by clouds of incense, standing within magical circles, and conjuring demons to do their bidding” and then succinctly describes Evola’s concept of Magic as “there is a capacity inherent in Man to raise consciousness above the call of the body and the distractions of the mind; a capacity that can lead to an immortal awareness. The means to this awareness is through a rigorous discipline wherein the transitory ego is shed, and the individual consciousness is wedded to the Eternal. In so doing, one passes beyond the conventional notions of Good and Evil, to a place where, in Gustav Meyrink’s words, only “truth” and “falsehood” exist. To know this is not a matter of intellectual knowledge, but of spiritual experience, i.e. of gnosis.” See “Magic and Awakening [22].”

    11. Phil first succeeds when gaming Nancy, then fails with Rita. The situation reminds me of Overdrawn at the Memory Bank [23], a wonderfully dreadful sci/fi tele-movie co-produced by US and Canadian public television. Imagine Total Recall crossed with Tron and done on a Wang computer. Anyway, Raul Julia (who must have thought he was signing on for some Masterpiece Theatre production) finds his mind sucked into a computer network, so, since he can now imagine his own reality, he decides to amuse himself by cyber-seducing one of his co-workers. His outside monitor, who rejoices in the name of Apollonia James and somewhat resembles Andie MacDowell, is disgusted by his “playing with himself” and inserts herself into the simulation, bearing stone tablets with rules of proper cyber-conduct, lest he be terminated; needless to say, they eventually hook up and escape from their dystopian world. Raul’s control over the crap-cyberized world corresponds to Phil’s predicament, frustrating them but also giving both godlike powers which they initially misuse, although in Phil’s case it’s the co-worker who lays down the law. Oddly, a reviewer at IMDB insists that “There was a time when I watched this film over and over because I was so addicted to it,” while another insists that “Red Zone Cuba [wasn’t] as hollow and boring as this.”

    On the other hand, TVTropes.com insists that Phil’s transformation is, in fact, an example of the “Crowning Moment of Heartwarming [24]“ trope: “And the best part of this? He wasn’t even really “arranging” it, and certainly not in any attempt to take advantage of Rita. The dance and all that follows is his “reward” for being able to earn genuine admiration and love from both Rita and the citizens of Punxsutawney under no selfish pretenses.” We’ll soon suggest reason to question how pure Phil’s motives could be at that point.

    12. “The Egalitarian Oversight” here [25].

    13. See Paul Kersey’s “Because Life is So Brief and Time is a Thief When You’re Undecided: The Racial History of Gary, Indiana and the Need for Restrictive Covenant [26]s [26].” We can see the inverse process in the descent of Detroit from “The Paris of the Midwest” (Wall St. Journal) to national punchline; see Kersey’s Kindle book Escape from Detroit: The Collapse of America’s Black Metropolis [27].

    14. See “The Gilmore Girls Occupy Wall St.” here [28] and republished in The Homo and the Negro.

    15. Although, to be fair, it’s easy to be ‘subtle’ when you’re doing a TV show that could last, say, seven seasons rather than a 100 minute movie.

    16. If you don’t know the series, or haven’t read my article previously referenced, you can get up to speed on Wikipedia here [29] or on any of dozens of websites. Coffee at Luke’s: An Unauthorized Gilmore Girls Gabfest [30] by Jennifer Crusie and Leah Wilson provides a mixed bag of essays in the “Philosophy and” mode; for serious academic headaches, consider Gilmore Girls and the Politics of Identity: Essays on Family and Feminism in the Television Series by Ritch Calvin (2008); Screwball Television: Critical Perspectives on Gilmore Girls by David Scott Diffrient and David Lavery (2010); or most recently and most perhaps deadly, Gilmore Girls – Sieben Jahre in Stars Hollow: Der inoffizielle Guide zur Serie by Peter Osteried (2013).

    17. Lorelei named her daughter, known to most as Rory, after herself; an egotistical act that, typically, she cloaks as a half-assed “feminist” gesture. Later, we learn that she herself was named after her paternal grandmother, who also married her own cousin, which discovery is played as an “icky old rich White people thing” while actually, of course, again demonstrating the deep strain of egotism in the family line as well as the almost Gothic repetition motif.

    18. The mother/daughter of Absolutely Fabulous, despite occasional flashbacks to Edina’s youth, are the opposite; daughter is completely different and openly hostile to mother’s lifestyle. Watching “Modern Mother and Daughter”, the French & Saunders skit that birthed Ab/FAB, it’s easy to see now-a-comic-superstar Melissa McCarthy and whatever-happened-to Lauren Graham in the roles. Other than Ab/Fab once or twice appearing in the trademark pop cultural references on GG, I don’t know of any influence.

    19. Dr. Hannibal Lecter: “No. We begin by coveting what we see every day… You know how quickly the boys found you. All those tedious, sticky fumblings in the back seats of cars, while you could only dream of getting out. Getting anywhere, getting all the way to …” Stars Hollow, CT? The relevance of Lecter will become clearer as we move on.

    20. The age difference of Lorelai and Rory is the same as Claggart and Billy Budd, another fun New England couple.

    21. The superimposition of the two lives only becomes blatant in a late episode where Rory’s father’s new wife gives birth, and Lorelai – of course – spends the episode daydreaming about the events around Rory’s birth.

    22. Bill Murray of course is the master of this kind of pre-emptive verbal assault hiding as humor. According to Wikipedia [31], “The New York Times noted that the character talks fast and uses words to keep her “loneliness at bay” which, while opinion, seems to be a relatively insightful view of her … On the characteristic of talking fast, Sherman-Palladino noted: “Just by listening to Lorelai’s vocal patterns, it says volumes about this woman: First of all, that she’s bright enough to put that many words together that quickly… and it says a lot about her emotionally, that she’s got a deflection shield that’s sort of the way she gets through the world.” Lorelai’s ego-driven verbosity recalls James Joyce, at least as interpreted by Colin Wilson, who concludes that Ulysses “remains the kind of book that must be read while one is young and impressionable, and willing to take Stephen Joyce-Dedalus at his own valuation as a rebel who was determined to fly close to the sun. Once we begin to see him form the Wyndham Lewis point of view — as a rather tiresome young man clamoring for attention — it is difficult to read the book without impatience.” The Books in My Life, Hampton Roads, 1998, p139.

    23. We welcome Rory’s acerbic Jewish school rival, Paris Geller, who is acutely conscious that no matter how smart she is, everyone will always do whatever Rory wants, because “you look like birds dress you in the morning.”

    24. Comments at http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/07/groundhog-day-perfect-comedy-for-ever [17].

    25. Again, there’s a lot of Lecter (or in this movie, “Lecktor”) in Lorelai: “I’m glad you came. My callers are mostly clinical psychologists from some cornfield university. Second-raters, the lot.”

    26. According to The Onion’s AV Club [32], “Scott Patterson was just awful to deal with on-set, I’ve heard, much like Chevy Chase.”

    27. Lorelai even managed to dump the future Don Draper himself, Jon Hamm; he talked too much about his Porsche.

    28. There’s almost a running gag of people buying or renovating a house for Lorelai, including Luke and her mother, only to get the shaft when Lorelai’s adorable little mind changes. It’s another manifestation of the “you look like birds dress you in the morning” syndrome.

    29. “For Luke Danes, food identifies the duality of his character. This is a man who runs a greasy diner . . . and yet is himself a health nut. . . . These contradictions symbolize the duality between what Luke projects on the outside — a gruff .belligerent, and uncharitable personality — and what he truly is on the inside — a sensitive softy who, despite his vocal protests, is always there when people need him.” Coffee at Lukes p123. Luke thus incarnates both Phils simultaneously, in keeping with the theme of superimposed rather than sequential time.

    30. Typically, despite thus adding to their number, the Gilmore Girls regularly mock the various local customs and traditions, just as Phil becomes more and more openly hostile to Groundhog Day. Either of these rants would easily be delivered by Lorelai or Luke:

    Phil: “This is pitiful. A thousand people freezing their butts off waiting to worship a rat. (raising his voice) What a hype. Groundhog Day used to mean something in this town. They used to pull the hog out, and they used to eat it. (turns to the crowd) You’re hypocrites, all of you!”

    A few loops later . . .

    Phil: “Once again the eyes of the nation have turned here to this . . . (silly voice) tiny village in Western Pennsylvania, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . (serious) There is no way . . . that this winter . . . is ever going to end, as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any other way out. He’s gotta be stopped. (beat) And I have to stop him.”

    31. “Gilmore Girls Forum” here [33].

    32. Having already cited Portlandia in my previous essay as an updated Stars Hollow, it’s interesting to note that the show that started singing about “The dream of the ’90s is alive in Portland [34]” opened its second season with took note of the “hipster luddite” trend with “The dream of the 1890s is alive in Portland [35],” thus becoming even more like Stars Hollow, or Woodstock, Il, continuing the theme of everything new is old again. Meanwhile, Stars Hollow itself goes on and on: “If you’ve had a Stars Hollow-shaped hole in your soul ever since Amy Sherman-Palladino abandoned “Gilmore Girls,” . . . “Bunheads” will fill that vacancy. If “Bunheads” were any more like early seasons of “Gilmore Girls,” the CW could probably file suit. The tone, the music, the giddy repartee, the pop-culture shout-outs, the jingly-jangly almost magical realism of it all has been perfectly maintained and transplanted from Stars Hollow to a sleepy coastal town in California . . . “Bunheads” centers on Michelle (Sutton Foster), who is basically Lorelai Gilmore minus 15 pounds . . .  Mom is Fanny Flowers (Kelly Bishop, essentially reprising her role as Emily Gilmore). “Stars Hollow Gets an Ocean-Front Makeover and Wears It Well” By Dustin Rowles, here [36].

    ...
    (Review Source)

Jay Dyer1
Esoteric Hollywood



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Avengers: Age of Ultron –...
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    By: Jay Dyer Joss Whedon’s follow-up to The Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, is setting new box office records for Marvel, and has roughly the same degree of critical response...

    ...
    (Review Source)

Vox Day1
Castalia House



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Gamma reviews
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    This is not a Gamma review:
    Gamma Reviews: Advanced Review Copies

    Advanced Review Copies, or ARCs, are the books that the publishers print out early with ordering information including print run size & co-op information instead of a back cover blurb. These are given out to bookstore buyers, professional reviewers, (and, in the case of Baen, lucky people at the Baen Roadshow.)
    Now THIS is a Gamma review:
    What I thought of the new Ghostbusters: I liked it, and would happily rewatch it. It’s definitely the second-best Ghostbusters movie, and much closer to the original in terms of enjoyment than the willfully forgotten Ghostbusters 2. There are legitimate criticisms to make of it: the plot is rote to the point of being slapdash, the action scenes are merely adequate, and Paul Feig is no Ivan Reitman, in terms of creating comedic ambiance. But the film got the two big things right: It has a crackerjack cast that’s great individually and together, and it has all the one-liners you can eat. And now that the origin story of these particular Ghostbusters is out of the way, I’m ready for the sequel.

    But what about the Ghostbusters being all women?!??!?? Yes they were, and it was good. If you can’t enjoy Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones snarking it up while zapping ghosts with proton streams, one, the problem is you, not them, and two, no really, what the fuck is wrong with you. The actors and the characters had chemistry with one another and I would have happily watched these Ghostbusters eat lunch, just to listen to them zap on one another. And in particular I want to be McKinnon’s Holtzmann when I grow up; Holtzmann is brilliant and spectrum-y and yet pretty much social anxiety-free and I honestly can’t see any sort of super-nerd not wanting to cosplay the shit out of her forever and ever, amen.

    BUT THEY’VE RUINED MY CHILDHOOD BY BEING WOMEN, wails a certain, entitled subset of male nerd on the Internet. Well, good, you pathetic little shitballs. If your entire childhood can be irrevocably destroyed by four women with proton packs, your childhood clearly sucked and it needs to go up in hearty, crackling flames. Now you are free, boys, free! Enjoy the now. Honestly, I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that one of the weakest parts of this film is its villain, who (very minor spoiler) is literally a basement-dwelling man-boy just itchin’ to make the world pay for not making him its king, as he is so clearly meant to be. These feculent lads are annoying enough in the real world. It’s difficult to make them any more interesting on screen.

    But this is just the latest chapter of man-boys whining about women in science fiction culture: Oh noes! Mad Max has womens in it! Yes, and Fury Road was stunning, arguably the best film of its franchise and of 2015, and was improbably but fittingly nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Oh noes! Star Wars has womens in it! Yes, and The Force Awakens was pretty damn good, the best Star Wars film since Empire, was the highest grossing film of 2015 and of all time in the domestic box office (not accounting for inflation. Accounting for inflation, it’s #11. #1 counting inflation? That super-manly epic, Gone With the Wind).

    And now, Oh noes! Ghostbusters has womens in it! Yes, and it’s been well-reviewed and at $46 million, is the highest grossing opening for its director or any of its stars and perfectly in line with studio estimates for the weekend. Notably, all the surviving principals of the original film make cameos, suggesting they are fine with passing the torch (Harold Ramis is honored in the film too, which is a lovely touch), and Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd are producers of the film. If your childhood has been ruined, boys, then your alleged heroes happily did some of the kicking.

    I’m an 80s kid; my youth is not forever stained by a Ghostbusters remake, any more than it was stained by remakes of Robocop or Point Break or Poltergeist or Endless Love or The Karate Kid or Clash of the Titans or Footloose or Total Recall and on and on. I think most of these remakes were unnecessary, and I don’t think most of them were particularly good, or as good as their originals, and I question why film companies bother, aside from the “all the originals were made before the global movie market matured and there’s money on the table that can be exploited with these existing brands,” which is, of course, its own excuse.

    But after a certain and hopefully relatively early point in your life, you realize remakes are just a thing the film industry does — the first Frankenstein film listed on imdb was made in 1910, and the most recent, 2015, and Universal (maker of the classic 1931 version) is planning yet another reboot in 2018 or 2019 — and maybe you get over yourself and your opinion that your childhood is culturally inviolate, especially from the entities that actually, you know, own the properties you’ve invested so much of your psyche into. It’s fine to roll your eyes when someone announces yet another remake, tweet “UGH WHYYYYYY” and then go about your life. But it causes you genuine emotional upheaval, maybe a reconfigure of your life is not out of the question.

    (Not, mind you, that I think these shitboys are genuinely that invested in Ghostbusters, per se; they’re invested in manprivilege and, as noted above, would have wailed their anguished testeria onto Reddit and 4chan regardless of which cultural property had women “suddenly” show up in it. This is particularly ironic with anything regarding science fiction, which arguably got its successful start in Western culture through the graces of Mary Shelley. Women have always been in it, dudes. Deal.)

    The happy news in this case is that, whether or not this Ghostbusters reboot was necessary, it’s pretty good, and fun to watch. That’s the best argument for it. I’m looking forward to more.

    So brave. But having finished demolishing his own reputation as a movie reviewer in the interest of virtue-signaling his feminist superiority to "manboys" and "shitboys", whatever they are, McRapey also had to be the first to comment on his own post on his shrinking little blog.
    John Scalzi says:
    JULY 17, 2016 AT 12:15 PM
    To get ahead of any potential “but there are women saying their childhood was ruined too!” nonsense: Maybe there were? But if there were, and they weren’t gamergate-like sockpuppet accounts, a) I didn’t see much of them, b) they were swamped by the wailing boys, c) the advice to them is the same as to the whining dudes: Remakes happen, maybe get over it.

    To get ahead of “it’s sexist to bag on the men here,” argument, leaving the whole larger argument about power stuctures and sexism and all the stuff you recognize play into sexism when you think about sexism on a level higher than “this is a playing card I can slap down in this game called Rhetoric,” you can imagine me in that Wonka meme pose, saying “Tell me again as a man how I can’t criticize men, that’s adorable.”

    Finally, to get ahead of any “beta cuck” stupidity, I’m not the one who just spent half a year wailing about the ruin of my childhood, boys. I do find there’s an correlation between the sort of dude who questions my masculinity and the sort of dude who whines excessively about how mean the world is to him, waaaaaaaaaaaah. And this is me in the Wonka pose again.

    All of which is to say, Mallet is out for general whiny male bullshit. Behave, children.
    Spacebunny cracks me up. Her entire response: "Isn't he married? Why is he trying so hard?" Sadly, despite his brave and heroic efforts, Scalzi got it wrong in the end. You see, the official feminist line is that Grrlbusters is not only better than the original, but seeing it is important.
    The nerdy guy doesn’t get the girl. That was a standard trope in the 80s, and the Ghostbusters of 1984 was no exception. The lack of consent factor that makes all of the Zhoul-possessed Sigourney Weaver scenes difficult to watch is not an issue here, because there is no romance in the new Ghostbusters, creepily possessed or otherwise. Yes, Erin (Kristin Wiig) awkwardly hits on Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) but it’s generally met with disapproval from her fellow Ghostbusters (if not laughter) and Kevin seeming to be oblivious to it. And even better than the nerdy guy being the hero is the fact that the nerdy guy is the villain and the nerdy girls save the world. Boom.

    An appreciation for their receptionist by the Ghostbusters. I loved Janine as a kid. As a child, I thought that Janine pining quietly for Egon was romantic. Now it pisses me off. That and the fact that nobody paid any attention to her, generally speaking, because she was competent and therefore invisible. As doofy and dumb as Kevin is, and even though Erin hits on him, the team still values him and learns to work with him because they genuinely care about him. That’s not subtext. That’s actual text.

    Using the “ghost” as an allegorical commentary. One of the themes in this movie is the importance of being believed. Yes, in this movie, it’s about being believed about ghosts. Erin talks about how she saw a ghost when she was 8, every night for a year. Her parents didn’t believe her, and she went into therapy. Abby (Melissa McCarthy) was the only one who believed her, which was one of the reasons they became friends. It’s not that much of a stretch to think about all the things that women are also often not believed about, as children or as adults. And that part of the movie, thankfully, and pointedly, doesn’t devolve into comedy. It lets the moment of remembered trauma be serious.

    Real friendship between the Ghostbusters. The other moment of seriousness that is allowed to be serious is at the very end, when Jillian (Kate McKinnon) stands up to give the gals a toast. Up to this point, the majority of Kate McKinnon’s screentime has been devoted to sight gags and making straight girls question their sexuality, both of which she excels at.
    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that sequel, Johnny. I expect it will be out around the same time that Paramount releases the Old Man's War movie.  But at least we'll have that television show based on Redshirts to look forward to.

    Labels: ,

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff1
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • In Defense Of A 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark' Reboot
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Deadline.com reports that Disney has begun the process of reviving the Indiana Jones franchise and it’s considering casting Chris Pratt to play the role Harrison Ford made famous in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”—one of the few flawless movies ever made. If you’re not sure who Pratt is, you’ll soon see him in the “Jurassic Park” reboot and then in a remake of “The Magnificent Seven” (the original was a reimagining of Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai”) where he’ll costar with Denzel Washington, who’s coming off a remake of “The Equalizer.” Because why waste a good story. My impulse, whenever I hear one of my cinematic heroes is being “reimagined,” is to reimagine the producers as Nazis engulfed in excruciating face-melting biblical fire. My social media feeds was in visceral harmony with this position. Some things simply can’t be rebooted. But then I remembered that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was not actually a sacred item passed to humankind on Mount Sinai and Steven Spielberg was not a god. River Phoenix did a fine job playing Indy—why couldn’t someone else do it? I also recalled that Indiana Jones was basically a reboot of 1930 serials that George Lucas loved as a child. And then I realized being annoyed by reboots was just perfunctory. I love reboots. The first, and most obvious, reason is that it doesn’t really matter if the reboot stinks. I’m not sure there was a more exhilarating moment in my preteen life than the day I first saw the trailer for “The Empire Strikes Back.” Not even “The Phantom Menace” could stain that memory. I recently watched the first three Indiana Jones movies with my kids and, for me, it was as if “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” never happened. When we finally got around to the fourth movie, they didn’t perceive much of a difference in quality or entertainment value. And maybe there isn’t much. Actually, there’s probably a strong argument to be made that “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was a more entertaining film than the “Temple of Doom.” Anyway, for a generation of young people, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is “Star Wars” (or as close as they’re going to get to it in the days of multiple blockbusters), which means Chris Pratt is Harrison Ford. Second: reboots, remakes, sequels, and reimagined franchises are not only often technically superior to the originals, but they tend to bring a level of storytelling sophistication that outdoes them. It can be overdone, no doubt. Watching the impenetrable “Prometheus,” a quasi-prequel reboot that exists in the same mess of a universe as the Alien films, felt like auditing a class on quantum physics. But Daniel Craig’s James Bond saved the franchise from the too comedic or too formulaic or too infantile and replaced it with a hard-edge that contemporary audiences can enjoy. “Skyfall” (featuring a glimpse into the origin story, no less) does not make “Goldfinger” any less enjoyable to watch. Then again, always remember that losing sense of humor sometimes mean missing the point, entirely. I’m looking at you, “Robocop” and “Total Recall.” The best balance was probably offered by J.J. Abrams, whose recent Star Trek films restarted familiar storylines in fresh ways without losing the essence of the original. Abrams has promised that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” will not only honor the characters of the original but avoid relying too heavily on CGI in favor of locations to create aesthetic continuity, as well. I’ve been waiting since 1984 to know what happens to these people. And Star Wars will also produce one-offs about Boba Fett and a young Han Solo…. so, please, reboot at will. And they are. The slate of forthcoming remakes and reboots is pretty amazing. Here are some just a few from a quick scan of the Internet: “The Fantastic Four” (the first trailer looks tedious) “Mad Max: Fury Road” “Blade Runner” sequel (rumored with Harrison Ford) “The Crow” “Point Break” “Highlander” “Naked Gun” “Ghostbusters” “Independence Day” “Westworld” Another “Terminator” film A “Goonies” remake Many of these will not work. A good story gives a franchise the malleability and possibilities to be interesting and worthwhile. “Terminator” seems like one such franchise, though it often fails, as does “Highlander” and “Westworld” (an HBO series coming soon) because the central premises offers so many promising roads to go down. On the other hand, “Ghostbusters,” which will be rebooted with all female leads, was idiotic. Funny, because of the pitch-perfect performances from Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, and the rest of the impressive cast. This matters. It’s the difference between “Caddyshack” and “Caddyshack II.” So it’s not a sexist, I hope, to point out that Melissa McCarthy is not Bill Murray. Because Matthew Perry is not Jack Klugman and he’s certainly not Walter Matthau. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the “Odd Couple” reboot (the new TV show based on the old TV Show that was based on the movie*) is likely to be nearly as catastrophic as remakes of the “The In-Laws,” “The Out-of-Towners” or “Arthur”—all superfluous because they were great solely because of the actors involved. It’s hopeless to reclaim a role invented by someone like Peter Falk or Alan Arkin, as Arkin could probably tell you when he tried to play Peter Sellers in a Pink Panther reboot in 1968. Unfortunately, no one had the decency to inform Steve Martin. Twice. On the other hand, Dirk Benedict isn’t exactly integral in propelling the “Battlestar Galactica” storyline. And the primary plot of that 1978 series, as it turned out, was ripe for development, and the reboot became one of the most intriguing television shows ever. Perhaps one day the same will be said about TV reboots like “12 Monkeys” or “Fargo,” which is already on its way  (and it’s coming back this year). It’s true that viewers are often turned off by reboots because we tend to romanticize and overrate the movies and actors of our youth. Every generation believes that their music and films and books are the most powerful and important ever. But I have little problem arguing that Tom Hardy is as talented an actor as Mel Gibson ever was. And hell yes, I want to rebooted Superman to square off against sullen Batman. Because Christopher Reeve was unconvincing and Tim Burton’s Batman was sort of silly. I want to know what happened to Rick Deckard. And I want to see where Indiana Jones goes next. Because it’s better than the alternative. *Which is a remake of the play. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Nolte2
Daily Wire / Breitbart



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 'Skyscraper' Review: Pretty Good, but Dwayne Johnson Deserves Better
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The perfectly fine Skyscraper is another reminder Dwayne Johnson has exactly zero classics to his name.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 'Pet Sematary' (2019) Review: Empty Calories Filled with Jump Scares
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    There's fleeting suspense, bumps in the night. What's missing, though, is any sense of an emotional undercurrent, the thing that gave the original a legitimate sense of dread and heartbreak.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Daily Stormer Staff1
Daily Stormer



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Trailer for New Terminator Film Panned as Feminist Trash by People on the Internet
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Jewish feminism has officially destroyed the Terminator movie franchise.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer1
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • ‘Blade Runner 2049’: A Mexican in Los Angeles
    (”Total Recall” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    Blade Runner 2049 is a remarkably faithful sequel/tribute to the old noir...

    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail