>> ^spoco2:

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.


I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.

The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.

>> ^ulysses1904:

It always bugged me that his old lady disguise just coincidentally failed during the Mars check-in, which leads to the big confrontation scene. They could have spent 5 minutes more with the script coming up with a simple reason that caused it to malfunction, like exposure to an x-ray or dog dander or anything. Otherwise a good movie.


Rofl "dog dander"

Your video, Arnold Schwarzenegger's commentary of Total Recall is ace!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 56 Badge!

This video features Michael Ironside, the villain in Total Recall, and his recollection about that film, and other films

>> ^ulysses1904:

It always bugged me that his old lady disguise just coincidentally failed during the Mars check-in, which leads to the big confrontation scene. They could have spent 5 minutes more with the script coming up with a simple reason that caused it to malfunction, like exposure to an x-ray or dog dander or anything. Otherwise a good movie.


No one can anticipate the uncontrollable distortion of the face.

What I find funny is this. I was watching 'Total Recall' yesterday on Scifi. I noticed they took great pains to edit out the words "shit" and "ass" etc. from the dialog, and blur out Sharon Stone's partial nipple in the opening scene, but when Arnold uses a guy on the escalator as a human shield and he gets shot repeatedly causing big gaping bloody holes, that was shown in all it's glory no editing or blurring at all.

The message is quite clear. Cussing and sex is bad and unacceptable. But killing people and death is perfectly OK.

That said, I don't think this is so terrible it should be removed. Like Hybrid said, it's all over the news. And no one here is forcing you to click play.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Total Recall, divorce, Schwarzenegger' to 'Total Recall, divorce, Schwarzenegger, sharon stone, Mars, sci fi' - edited by deathcow

>> ^boblobblaw:

Please direct us to a few of those movies with quality fights scenes in your opnion. Thank you in advance...>> ^swedishfriend:
Funny, the fight scenes are some of the worst out there. reminds me of the super slow exaggerated stunt fighting from the 80's. I liked Serenity in spite of the fight scenes not because of them. There have been so many films with good fight scenes at any budget level that I am amazed how once in a while films still get made with such lame feeling action. Being flexible and acrobatic is not as important as having an intelligent use of the forces you throw around to at least look like you are putting some force into each hit VS I am touching you gently now and then you fly backwards as if a much greater force hit you. The dissonance between cause and effect is so great that it looses any impact.



Three off the top of my head:

Luke and Vader's fight at the end of Empire Strikes back, particularly the final scene on the gantry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-DeI3ohVbY
It's inelegant, rough and psychological; Vader is toying with Luke, who is clearly inferior, in an attempt to break his will. Way better than any of the fancy choreographed rubbish fights of the prequels.

Total Recall, the fight with Quaid and his mate from the quarry, along with his goons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtHhIePpZg
For an action movie it does well, not too cheesy (though they sorta come at him one at a time, I guess) and he just kills them quickly any way he can. It establishes that the character possibly has latent abilities he didn't know about, as even he is surprised/shocked.

And although I generally view Kung-Fu as largely aesthetic, at least the way films depict it, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon's style nicely blended in a mythical aspect to their abilities (gliding across roofs and treetops).
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxQ-2gR1DU

I agree with @swedishfriend, that even if it's all pure fantasy, if it doesn't *look* like someone actually delivered any force with their fancy legwork, then it doesn't hold water for me. It's fine to film it that way if they want to, but it's just that there have been other fantasy films that have depicted combat better. Kung-Fu seems to be a sort of crutch that Hollywood leans on for making their fight scenes look more genuine. But I just really wonder how well all that twisting of arms and balancing on toes would really stand up against a kick-boxer, or other more practical style.

Ohh, also the needless twirling of swords... How I grit my teeth when I see that.

Your video, Baby Impersonates Kuato from "Total Recall", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

I love Total Recall, got to be his best film. About half an hour of solid screaming I reckon.

I still am a sucker for Total Recall. I think that one wins with the most screams as well

I'll answer up here because I'm scared of the quote monster;

Pacing. The film is 148 minutes long. And it does move quickly. Too quickly. Pacing is very important in a film so it's a legitimate point to bring up. Nolan actually has a lot of pack in to this film but his exposition is crass. We absolutely fly through Cobb's backstory (Ariadne is only there to reveal this which is why she's another non-character) when a better director would reveal it slowly and with more effect. Particularly as it's the hoary old dead wife plot. I just think he wants to set it up super quick so he can get on with the action and then finally use it as his emotional capper. Also the egregious use of music on dialogue scenes suggests he doesn't really want us focusing on what's being said too much. Why not? Because the dialogue is crap and he just wants it all done and dusted so he can get to the inception action scenes.

I just mentioned the maze because Cobb makes a deal about this and then it has no further role in the film (I did enjoy Ariadne holding up her maze prop). But there are other things you could also point to. In the end it was glossed over. This was lazy and I don't like lazy writing where the ideas aren't joined up or followed through.

I don't have a huge issue with Mr Caine but again it smacks of laziness. Nolan worked with him on the Batman films (and there's Murphy as well) and using him again for a very small role doesn't make much sense to me. That's a moot point to be honest but it was one more thing I personally found irksome.

Re proffering students for dodgy illegal activity - I think that's clear. Does she not have parents and a family? Is he not concerned for her safety? After all people with guns ARE after Leo. The authorities ARE on his trail. I'm for suspending disbelief but this was obviously ridiculous. Which includes the lack of contextual setup regarding how the tech has come to be and it's place in the real world. That's why you should give a fuck. Even The Matrix addresses this and did it very well. The social and cultural impact alone would be interesting to hint at but again Nolan can't be arsed. Nolan only has one scene with the guys "who come to wake up". It's jarring and that's why I'm bothered about it.

It's full of these problems that pull you out of the film and this is because he's purely focused on the technical, procedural aspects of extraction/inception. I find that focus means everything else goes to hell. Most other sci-fi (and most of it average to bad) I've seen aren't this wonky. I CAN and happily do suspend disbelief. But this one kept poking me in the eye.

But the main reason I'm bothered about this film is it's feeling of utter shallowness. I can see people enjoying this as pure hokum, as a film about the procedural aspects of dream invasion.
But as a film with interesting themes, memorable characters or even or a single interesting bit of dialogue? Inception fails at all of these. It was a film about nothing.

>> ^spoco2:

Holy crap that's a lot of anger! A few points about your points:
I don't get your issues about pacing. Some films are slow moving, considered pieces, this isn't. That doesn't make it any worse or better than films of that ilk, just different.
Why do you really care about the maze she makes? What does it matter, really, ANY maze she designed you would have issues with, so why show it? It's not the point...
Why do you have issue with Michael Caine being in it? And why shouldn't he be offering up students? Does it need to be explained in some large exposition to you, he used to also have some dodgy life, he understands what it can be like, he thinks it's liberating for people... who cares? Why can't you fill in some holes yourself?
Also, who the F ck should care how or why this tech exists... that's not the point of good sci fi, the point is... what might happen if X existed, or Y happened... that's what sci fi is good at, you don't need to have yet more exposition to explain how or why this tech exists, it just does in this world... let's move on. Films are better if some things are left unexplained and left open to interpretation, if you feel the need for every little nuance to have its back story explained you're going to be only watching 4hour plus movies, or normal length ones where almost nothing interesting happens.
Myself and the fried I went to see the movie with had no issue following the plot either and were surprised that anyone really could be.
I get that you didn't like it, but some of your reasons for not seem strange and I'm sure could be levelled at movies that you like too.
And, hey, I like Total Recall, I really do, it too is a great bit of what is and isn't a dream. But hey, it has its issues too.
>> ^Deano:
Hello! Just back this minute from seeing the film. I have a few comments to make which may involve SPOILERS.
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Holy crap that's a lot of anger! A few points about your points:
* I don't get your issues about pacing. Some films are slow moving, considered pieces, this isn't. That doesn't make it any worse or better than films of that ilk, just different.
* Why do you really care about the maze she makes? What does it matter, really, ANY maze she designed you would have issues with, so why show it? It's not the point...
* Why do you have issue with Michael Caine being in it? And why shouldn't he be offering up students? Does it need to be explained in some large exposition to you, he used to also have some dodgy life, he understands what it can be like, he thinks it's liberating for people... who cares? Why can't you fill in some holes yourself?
* Also, who the F*ck should care how or why this tech exists... that's not the point of good sci fi, the point is... what might happen if X existed, or Y happened... that's what sci fi is good at, you don't need to have yet more exposition to explain how or why this tech exists, it just does in this world... let's move on. Films are better if some things are left unexplained and left open to interpretation, if you feel the need for every little nuance to have its back story explained you're going to be only watching 4hour plus movies, or normal length ones where almost nothing interesting happens.
* Myself and the fried I went to see the movie with had no issue following the plot either and were surprised that anyone really could be.

I get that you didn't like it, but some of your reasons for not seem strange and I'm sure could be levelled at movies that you like too.

And, hey, I like Total Recall, I really do, it too is a great bit of what is and isn't a dream. But hey, it has its issues too.

>> ^Deano:

Hello! Just back this minute from seeing the film. I have a few comments to make which may involve SPOILERS.
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Ah Moon, I love that. That's an example of the joy of keeping something simple and ending up with something far more complex. And marvelous acting of course. Just sticking Sam Rockwell in Inception would have improved it 100 times over.

>> ^dag:

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.
>> ^Deano:
Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.

>> ^Deano:

Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.