The Expendables 2 (2012) review

In 2010, Sylvester Stallone gathered up some of Hollywood’s biggest action stars, old and new, for the ultimate action team-up, something that until that time seemed impossible, especially during the days when stars like Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were at the top of their game. The end result was The Expendables and while it may not have fared well with critics, audiences loved it enough as it was a huge financial success. Really, in regards to the first film’s more negative reception, it’s just one of those movies where you don’t go in expecting Oscar material and the film delivered on what it was supposed to be; good old fashioned action, something that is lacking in a lot of big budget movies these days. You also have to give Stallone a lot of credit as even with all of these big action stars, he managed to give each member a solid part and aside from a few exceptions, no one stole the spotlight from anyone else. Sure, it’s not perfect, but it’s not supposed to be. It’s a loving homage to the action films of old and it did its job very well.

So now we have a sequel. This time, Stallone isn’t behind the camera directing like he did in the first movie. Now, the reigns are handed over to Simon West, who previously helmed films like Con Air and The Mechanic. As with any sequel, the stakes are higher and more of Hollywood’s action legends are joining in for the fun. When you get down to it, you should go into this movie the same way you should’ve done with the first film. This isn’t going to win any major award like an Oscar, but that’s not what this movie is all about. It’s a fun, exhilarating, and overall quite epic action flick and it’s also very much aware of how stupid and silly it is. Also, this is actually even better than the first film in a few areas, from the main villain to some of the fight scenes. If you’re looking for a great time at the movies or if you’re someone who loves the old-school action films of the 80’s, then you’re going to love this film.

The Expendables 2 continues the adventures of a mercenary group known as The Expendables, consisting of leader Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), knife specialist Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial artist Yin Yang (Jet Li), volatile sniper Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), weapons specialist Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), and demolitions expert Toll Road (Randy Couture). Ross is approached by one of the team’s former employers, CIA agent Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), to take on a job as payback for the last time Church hired the team. What looks to be an easy job soon goes awry when the team runs into Jean Vilain (Jean Claude Van Damme), another mercenary leader who murders one of their members right in front of them. Seeking revenge for their slain comrade, the Expendables head off to fight Vilain and his men before they intend to sell valuable plutonium which can very much mean trouble for the world.

If you go into this movie and you’re not having a good time watching it, then you are very much missing the whole point of this film. This is pure unadulterated 80’s style action to the extreme. Yes, this film isn’t perfect. The characters constantly spew out one-liners, both good and bad. Some of the more serious moments of the film are unintentionally funny, and there are times where the film defies the laws of physics. But if you decide not to go by the book and ignore the film’s flaws, this is just one fun movie. The one major difference when comparing this film to its predecessor is that it is mostly nonstop action and few scenes when the movie takes a breather. But again, that’s no problem when you have some of the best shot action sequences in recent years, particularly during the film’s opening sequence and finale. Like before, every major star gets solid screen time and everyone is clearly having fun here.

For the most part, this is actually a much better movie than the original. Don’t get me wrong, the first Expendables movie was also a really fun and entertaining movie, but this sequel improves on it in a few areas. The editing is a bit smoother especially during the fight scenes, the lighting is much better compared to the first film where it got too dark in a few areas, and probably most importantly with the main villain himself. Jean Claude Van Damme is excellent as the villain and proves to be quite an adversary for the team right from his first appearance on screen. His scenes with Stallone are among the many highlights of the film and the final fight between them is one for the ages. The two main villains in the first movie (the general and the ex-CIA agent played by Eric Roberts) were solid villains too, but Van Damme is more entertaining to watch.

As for the all-star cast, you know what you’re going to get. Sure, maybe some of the acting is rather bad, but it’s clear all of the guys are having fun doing this. There are two standouts in this cast, the first being Van Damme as the villain and the other is Liam Hemsworth as a new member of the team, former Afghanistan veteran Billy the Kid. At first glance, you probably think that he’s not capable of being on a team with guys like Stallone and Statham but when you get down to it, he’s actually the best actor in this whole movie. It’s more along the lines of whether or not this guy is too good of an actor to be in a movie like this. His story arc is also well-done and you can see how fighting in the war has really affected him. It’s just like in the first movie with Mickey Rourke’s tale of how one person he could’ve saved changed his life forever. It’s also great to see Arnold Schwarzenegger back in action, even if he’s rather rusty (we’ll let it pass because he’s been out of it for a while) and Chuck Norris’ role in the film is both hilarious and awesome, with a great line of dialogue spoofing all of those jokes about how Norris is apparently a super-being. Sadly, Jet Li is underutilized here as he only appears in the opening sequence and then leaves the movie altogether after that scene.

Is this movie stupid? Yes, it very much is. Is it a fun movie? Oh hell yeah! This is exactly the movie that you think it’s going to be. It’s one of the most entertaining movies of the year and it doesn’t have to be the most well-written or well-acted movie to do so. It’s just a fun time to be had at the movies. It’s also a big improvement over its predecessor mostly due in part to its lead villain and a few technical aspects such as editing and cinematography. Does an ‘Expendables 3’ sound like a good idea? Sure, I’d be interested in it. They already have Nicolas Cage signed on and are considering bringing in Harrison Ford and Wesley Snipes (maybe Liam Neeson perhaps?). Stallone may be an old action star, but he isn’t going down that easily and this movie is the epitome of great action flicks. Both old-school and newcomer action fans are sure to love this movie.

Rating: 4.5/5

Box Office Results: 8/17/12-8/19/12

'The Expendables 2' led a rather slow box office weekend, taking in 28.8 million. It may not have matched the 34.8 million earned by the first Expendables movie in its first weekend, but it did perform better than the three other major releases this week, 'Paranorman', 'Sparkle', and 'The Odd Life of Timothy Green' (a Wed. release). Paranorman finished third behind holdover 'The Bourne Legacy', 'Sparkle' came in fifth behind other holdover 'The Campaign', and 'Timothy Green' finished 7th behind 'Dark Knight Rises'.

1. The Expendables 2: $28.8 Million

2. The Bourne Legacy: $17 Million

3. Paranorman: $14 Million

4. The Campaign: $13.4 Million

5. Sparkle: $12 Million

6. The Dark Knight Rises: $11.1 Million

7. The Odd Life of Timothy Green: $10.9 Million

8. Hope Springs: $9.1 Million

9. Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days: $3.6 Million

10. Total Recall: $3.5 Million

Marvel's 'Phase 2': Part 2: Other Projects

(This is Part 2 of a look into Marvel's upcoming plans to expand their Cinematic Universe. If you haven't read Part 1 yet, I suggest you read that first. Also, like before, this is just based on what has been given so far.)



We've taken care of the next few films for Marvel's lead members of The Avengers, so the question now is what else does Marvel have planned up their sleeves? After all, now that Marvel has confirmed that 'Avengers 2' is in the works and that Joss Whedon will return to write and direct the film, fans are certainly anticipating to see what new characters will be introduced into this cinematic universe that Marvel has created. The following entry will mainly revolve around the two films that Marvel has confirmed recently to be in the works. However, there are certainly many more characters who might join the team for the sequel. Who could those heroes be? Let's not waste any more time and get the ball rolling...



At this year's San Diego Comic Con, Marvel revealed some of their plans for upcoming movies now that Avengers has come and gone with a bang (over 1 billion, to be exact). First, they showed off footage from 'Iron Man 3' and then they revealed the titles for the then-unnamed sequels to Thor and Captain America with 'The Dark World' and 'The Winter Soldier', respectively. But those weren't the only films that Marvel showed off at the event as they also revealed two other movies that were confirmed to be in production. One of these films was a solo film that had already been in the works for a long time while the other film will be about a superhero team that most people might not even know about.





The solo project was 'Ant-Man', a project that has been in development since about 2007. The film will be directed by Edgar Wright and the script will be written by both Wright and his partner Joe Cornish. According to Wright, this new film will include some humorous moments, but it will not be a comedy or a spoof, something Wright has been generally known for having directed 'Shaun of the Dead', 'Hot Fuzz', and 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'. This new movie will feature two incarnations of the character. The first will be the original 'Ant-Man' Henry Pym, who will be Ant-Man during the 1960's. The present version of Ant-Man will be the character Scott Lang, who will take up the mantle of Pym as Ant-Man. Wright has had to alter his script a couple of times in order to fit the chronology of Marvel's universe. Wright has directed test footage at this point and reports say that he will be directing the post-credits scene for 'Iron Man 3' which will feature Ant-Man. At this point, there is no confirmed release date for Edgar Wright's 'Ant-Man'.



The other film that Marvel announced, though, has a confirmed date of August 1, 2014. The characters in question are members of another Marvel superhero team, the Guardians of the Galaxy. This team of intergalactic superheroes first got its start in 1969, but the new film will be based around the 2008 version of the team. It has also been reported that this film will serve as the introduction for the character of Thanos, AKA the big-grinning purple alien from the end credits of 'The Avengers'. So far, there's been no confirmation as to the director of this project but it is likely Marvel will hire someone soon.





Like with the other big name Marvel films that are coming out in the future, we have yet to see any footage from either of these two movies to have any opinion on how they will turn out. In terms of Ant-Man, I'm certainly behind having a director like Edgar Wright helm the project. Wright has certainly proven that he's a talented director and as shown by his filmography he can do some really creative things behind the camera. But the Guardians movie is a different story. I'll be honest, when this project was first confirmed, I had no idea who the **** these guys where and I'm certain a lot of you don't know either. That's not a good sign for a new film when not a lot of people probably don't know a single thing about the characters in it. Plus, is this really the best place to introduce Thanos? I'd much rather wait until 'Avengers 2' if you ask me.



But enough of those two films. There's still the issue of what other characters Marvel might introduce into the team... Well, not being a huge comic book reader, I can't really give my opinion on what characters could join the team. That's more suited for people who have read the comics. All in all, I'm just a guy who's pumped to see what's next for our heroes and I'm eagerly awaiting 'Iron Man 3', 'Thor: The Dark World', 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and of course, 'Avengers 2'. Sure, I'll even include 'Ant-Man' at this point. Joss Whedon certainly proved that he could deliver an awesome superhero movie with the first Avengers, so I have full faith in him that he can deliver again with the sequel. So that's about all I have to say about this. This has been a look at what Marvel has planned for their Universe now that they have successfully made it all come together. Thanks for reading.

The Bourne Legacy (2012) review





From 2002 to 2007, audiences were treated to a realistic and compelling spy series known as the 'Bourne' trilogy which starred Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, an ex-CIA assassin who loses his memory after a failed mission and soon goes on the run from the CIA while trying to find out who he really is. While 2007's 'The Bourne Ultimatum' was planned as the finale to the series, being the last of the novels the films were based on written by Robert Ludlum, a fourth film soon came into play. This time, Damon does not return and neither does the director of the last two Bourne films, Paul Greengrass. Instead, 'The Bourne Legacy' (which doesn't even follow the plot of the book of the same name written by Eric Van Lustbader) is a whole different story that takes place around the time of the events of Ultimatum. In the lead role is Jeremy Renner, fresh off the success of Marvel's The Avengers. Behind the camera is a man who has been a big part of the series, Tony Gilroy, who wrote the screenplay for all of the Damon films as well as this new film.

Sadly though, this new Bourne film doesn't quite match up to Damon's trilogy. Sure, Renner is brilliant in the lead role and he is very much capable of taking over for Damon in case he decides not to return to this franchise, which is probably very likely. However, this new Bourne film isn't as compelling as the previous trilogy and, compared to those films, is rather light on action and more focused on dialogue. Granted, the dialogue is still very well written, but that really isn't what people think of when it comes to this franchise. All in all, 'Bourne Legacy' is still a very entertaining movie mainly in part due to Renner's performance. However, this could very much be a case of a sequel that probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.

The film opens up right in the midst of the events in 'Bourne Ultimatum' as Jason Bourne exposes the CIA's 'Operation Blackbriar' which puts key members of the CIA in hot water with the FBI. As this is going on, retired USAF colonel Eric Byer (Edward Norton) decides to eliminate all of the members of another CIA program, Operation Outcome. While the other members of Outcome are immediately killed off, one agent named Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) survives this assassination attempt. Like the other agents of Outcome, he is provided with a set of pills that enhance his physical and mental abilities, but when the CIA tries to kill him, he begins to run out of this medicine. Enlisting the help of Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who was his doctor while he was still a part of the CIA, Cross travels the world looking for the pills that will help him maintain his strength while also evading the CIA's forces.

From what the trailers suggest, 'The Bourne Legacy' is very much connected to the events of 'The Bourne Ultimatum' as Aaron Cross looks to 'finish what he [Jason Bourne] started'. That actually isn't the case with this movie, as it is more about Cross looking for the medication that helps him stay physically and mentally stable. When you get down to it, he's not even fighting the CIA but like Bourne, he is on the run from them. Sure, some of the events from Ultimatum are shown and the characters frequently mention Bourne's name throughout, but this is mainly during the beginning of the movie. Also, many of the actors from the previous trilogy, including Joan Allen, Albert Finney, Scott Glenn, and David Strathairn are only in it for a few minutes. This is the very definition of a spin-off film and considering the way this film was promoted, the writers could've done much more to integrate this story into the tale of Jason Bourne, even if Damon's not in the actual film himself.

The other big problem with the film is that it is rather light on action. You can sort of attest this to the fact that Gilroy isn't really known for directing action films, but most of this movie just consists of people talking and for a movie that is over two hours, it goes on for a bit too much. That being said, when the action does occur, the movie is very entertaining and Gilroy does eliminate the 'shaky-cam' problem that plagued the two Greengrass films. However, the writing for this film isn't really as solid as it was for the trilogy, primarily because Renner's character is a little flat. What made Jason Bourne such a great character was that like him, we too had no idea who he was and that's what made the other movies so compelling as we learned his backstory alongside him. Here, not so much...

That's not Renner's fault, as he does do a fantastic job in the role. He proves that he has enough charisma to lead a film by himself (this being his first mainstream leading role in a movie) and also that he could take over for Damon. Rachel Weisz is also great as the female lead and she and Renner work very well together. As for the other big star in this film, Edward Norton is sadly underused. All he is given to do is to look at computer monitors and bark orders at his workers. Obviously, Norton does a good job with what he's given, but there's not much for him to do here. Really, what the film needed was a confrontation between Renner and Norton's characters. There is one scene in this movie where Renner and Norton are shown talking, which implies that the two have a history but the film doesn't delve into this.

All in all, The Bourne Legacy is a little disappointing because it doesn't quite match the standard set by Damon's trilogy of films. True, Renner does a fine job but the film doesn't really connect much to the previous trilogy and is very light on action compared to what came before it. I have high hopes that this series can continue and possibly one day see Damon returning to reprise his role as Jason Bourne alongside Jeremy Renner but now I clearly see why Damon didn't return for this movie in the first place. It sort of feels like this was another one of those unnecessary sequels that are just made so that studios could profit from a popular series. It's a shame if that truly is why this movie was made, because it could've been so much better. Still, for what it is, it's still quality entertainment.

Rating: 3.5/5

Box Office Results: 8/10/12-8/12/12

(Due to Computer Issues, I was unable to do the last two Box Office Result posts. However, they would have just been the same end result. The Dark Knight Rises took the top spot for the next two weeks after its first weekend, beating 'Step Up: Revolution', 'The Watch', the 'Total Recall' remake', and 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid III')

After three weeks at number one, 'The Dark Knight Rises' finally fell this week to none other than 'Hawkeye' from The Avengers, Jeremy Renner. His latest film, The Bourne Legacy, opened at number one with 40.3 million, which was pretty good for the latest film in a series that before starred Matt Damon in the lead role. It did not match the 69.3 opening weekend that 'The Bourne Ultimatum' had in 2007, its first weekend also in the month of August. Meanwhile, the comedy 'The Campaign' finished in second with 27.4 Million.

1. The Bourne Legacy: $40.3 Million

2. The Campaign: $27.4 Million

3. The Dark Knight Rises: $19.5 Million

4. Hope Springs: $15.6 Million

5. Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days: $8.2 Million

6. Total Recall: $8.1 Million

7. Ice Age: Continental Drift: $6.8 Million

8. Ted: $3.3 Million

9. Step Up Revolution: $2.6 Million

10. The Watch: $2.2 Million

Short Review: The Campaign

When it comes to writing reviews, sometimes you just can't think of material for each new review so this is the first of a series of short reviews that I might do from time to time in case I can't make up a review for a new movie. Enjoy!

The latest film from Jay Roach, who also brought us the 'Austin Powers' and 'Meet the Parents' series as well as 2010's 'Dinner for Schmucks', The Campaign is certainly one funny comedy. Both Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis are hilarious and the two work off each other extremely well. The one that steals the show, however, is Dylan McDermott as Galifianakis' shady campaign manager. There are certainly some big laughs in this movie, and even someone like me who doesn't know much about politics got most of the jokes. Also, for a comedy that in the end may just be another one of those dumb comedies, it did expose some of the problems that go on in politics, like how sometimes the wrong people are elected because they're backed by rich people. Overall, I can't say it's the funniest movie of the year, but it definitely had some big laughs. This really pleases me because 2011 was a really horrible year for comedy movies. The only real good comedy I remember seeing from last year was 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' and that didn't even crack my Top 10. On the other hand, 3 comedies ('Zookeeper', 'The Dilemma', and 'Jack and Jill') made my worst of list. This year has been much better as we had not only this movie, but 'Ted' as well. Another reason why this year has been such a better year for movies.

Rating: 4/5

Marvel's 'Phase II': PART 1 (The 'Big Guns')

(Keep in mind that this entry is based on what has been given to us so far in regards to these upcoming movies, as we are still many months (or even a few years) from the dates that they will be released to theaters)

It has now been more than three months since 'The Avengers' hit the big screen. As you might have guessed (after all, with a total gross of more than 1 billion, you must have seen it), it was a superhero film that clearly lived up to the hype that was around ever since the original Iron Man film back in 2008 and truly took comic book movies to the next level. Now that Marvel has hit the jackpot with 'Avengers', the question now is how will Marvel move on with this universe that they have created now that they have succeeded with their original plan. Well, that's what we're looking at today, their 'Phase 2'. Of course, Marvel is now hard at work on sequels for Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America but what other characters from the long line of Marvel's heroes will join the Avengers in the obvious sequel that will come out sooner or later for a company that is now owned by Disney? Well, let's start off with the 'Big 3' of the Avengers...





First up on the schedule for Marvel is Iron Man 3. It's safe to say that the Iron Man franchise has become the crown jewel of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not only was it the film that jumpstarted the whole universe in the first place, but the two Iron Man movies are the highest-grossing 'Pre-Avenger' films out of the five movies that came before the ultimate team-up. This new Iron Man movie will also see a change in direction. Because he is working on a film based around Disneyland, Jon Favreau will not be helming this new film and is instead replaced by Shane Black. Some of you may not know who this guy is, but he does have a solid line of work to his name, most notably the first two 'Lethal Weapon' movies. He also directed the 2005 critical hit 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' which starred Tony Stark himself, Robert Downey Jr.



From what has reported so far, this film will be based on the 'Extremis' storyline from the Iron Man comics, a storyline that actually has been an integral part of the previous two Iron Man movies. The origin for Stark as Iron Man seen during this storyline was used in the first film and the plotline of Tony trying to find a cure for the palladium poisoning he was experiencing in Iron Man 2 gave way to his new armor, which resembled armor from that storyline. The film will also be partially filmed in China, where it will be co-financed and distributed there by DMG Entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle will reprise their roles as Pepper Potts and James Rhodes, respectively, and new members of the cast include Ben Kingsley as 'The Mandarin', Guy Pearce as scientist Aldrich Killian and Rebecca Hall as Dr. Maya Hansen. Iron Man 3 will hit theaters on May 3, 2013, continuing the tradition of having Marvel release a film on the first week of May every year since Spider-Man 3 in 2007.



Next up for Marvel will be the sequel to 'Thor', 'Thor: The Dark World'. Surprisingly, Thor 2 will not be released in summer but instead during November, the 8th of November to be exact. It is a date that you would probably never expect to see a superhero film be released, especially in today's era of blockbusters. This is most likely because 'Thor 2' had a rather troubled pre-production which forced it to be moved from its original July 26th release date. Before Alan Taylor, who has directed episodes of 'Sopranos', 'Man Men', 'Boardwalk Empire', and 'Game of Thrones', was announced as director, there were two other directors that were first hired for the job. The first director Marvel considered was Brian Kirk who, like Taylor, had directed episodes of Game of Thrones. Kirk soon left due to 'contractual problems' and was replaced by Patty Jenkins, director of the film 'Monster'. Jenkins would ultimately leave the project due to 'creative differences' and Taylor was hired instead to take the place of the original film's director, Kenneth Branagh.



While the original Thor was restricted only to Thor's homeworld of Asgard, the icy world of Jotunheim, and our own planet Earth, Thor 2 will, according to producer Kevin Feige, "take Thor literally to other worlds" so it seems likely that this sequel will explore more into the nine realms of the cosmos. Most of the actors from the first movie are slated to return, with the exception of Joshua Dallas (Fandral) who has commitments to ABC's 'Once Upon a Time'. In his place will be Zachary Levi, who was considered for the role originally for the first film, but couldn't take the role due to obligations towards his show 'Chuck'. Christopher Eccleston has been cast as Malekith the Accursed, the ruler of the race known as the Dark Elves from the realm of Svartalfheim.





Closing out the 'Big' 3' superheroes of The Avengers will be Captain America, whose next movie, 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier', will see a release in 2014. Like 'Thor 2', the date is rather unique for a superhero movie, as it is set to be released on April 4th, 2014. The reason why it is not taking the spot during the first week of May is because that is the set date for 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'. Like with the new sequels to Iron Man and Thor, this new Captain America will also see a change in directors. This time, there are two men helming the film, Anthony and Joe Russo, most notable for being Executive Producers on the cult hit show 'Community' on NBC. From the title, it seems clear that the writers will bring back the character of James 'Bucky' Barnes, who was supposedly killed off in 'The First Avenger' as in the comics, he becomes The Winter Soldier, an enemy of Captain America.







So that's what happening for Marvel down the line when it comes to the established major superheroes of 'The Avengers'. But wait, what about the Hulk? Along with Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, The Hulk was the only other member of the team who had a movie of his own before 'Avengers' and Mark Ruffalo was universally praised for his performance as Bruce Banner so it seems obvious for a new Hulk film starring Ruffalo to happen, right? Well sadly at this point, no official 'Hulk' film has been confirmed. Just a piece of advice, Marvel; when you do make the movie, don't recast Ruffalo. That's the whole reason why he was in 'The Avengers' in the first place because he replaced Edward Norton. It is most likely that we won't be seeing another Hulk film until 2015.



As for the other three sequels for Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America, it will be a while before we see footage for these movies so we can only wait and see how they will turn out. With Iron Man 3, I haven't seen anything from director Shane Black but the fact that he has worked with Robert Downey Jr before is assuring. I'm a little more worried about 'Thor 2' mainly due to the many changes of directors but now that is no longer an issue, it seems like smooth sailing from here on out. Plus, having a director who has previously helmed 'Game of Thrones' is a pretty good replacement for Kenneth Branagh. As long as Taylor maintains the same level of class that Branagh brought to the first film, we should be good. Finally, with Captain America, Joss Whedon did a great job at handling how Steve Rogers adjusted to living in the modern world and we can only wait and see what happens to him next. Only time will tell...

Total Recall (2012) review





Joining the long line of remakes that seem to come out at least once every year now is Total Recall. 22 years after the original 'Recall', starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and directed by Paul Verhoeven, hit theaters in 1990, this new version based on the Philip K. Dick short story 'We Can Remember it for You Wholesale' stars Colin Farrell in Arnold's role and is directed by Underworld's Len Wiseman. So how does this version compare to the original, a film that is widely regarded as one of Schwarzengger's best films. Well, in terms of the writing, visuals, and tone, this remake does do enough to have a reason to exist. But when you get down to it, there were just some things that the original film did much better, and this one is clearly more focused on action then story. While the remake may improve on the original in terms of action and visuals, the original just worked much better as an overall film.

This version of Total Recall takes place in a future where the Earth has been devastated by war and now consists of two main superpowers, the United Federation of Britain and the Colony, who are locked in a battle in order to unify the world. In the midst of this is Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell), a factory worker who yearns for something more in his life. Looking to change that, he visits Rekall, a company that implants memories into their clients to help them live the lives they want to have. However, something goes wrong and all of a sudden Quaid is on the run from the Federation and even his own wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale), learning that the life he thought he knew is all a lie and that he is really a secret agent named Hauser working against the Federation. Joined by the mysterious Melina (Jessica Biel), a woman who had been in the recent dreams that have plagued him every night, 'Doug' looks to find out who he really is while fighting the UFB's forces under the leadership of Prime Minister Vilos Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston).

The key differences between this version of Total Recall compared to the original film lie in its plot and overall tone. Unlike the Schwarzenegger version, this version does not have the main character going to Mars and instead takes place in a future dystopian Earth. Being the remake, this film does look great visually, but it seems like the creators borrowed a lot from Star Wars as well. We have synthetic police officers who make up the Federation's forces that resemble clone troopers from the prequel films and the whole main conflict between the Federation and the Colony is nearly identical to the war between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire. The other major difference when it comes to this new film is that it is more serious than the original film, which was much more cheesier. Obviously, because Schwarzenegger was the star then, that makes sense for how that movie played out because that is what Arnold is known for. Here, Wiseman goes for a more serious take on this story.

That may be good enough for this remake to be, if anything, different from what was done before, but that doesn't mean that it's handled that well. The film is just a bit too serious and lacks humor. Really when you get down to it, this story was done better when Schwarzenegger and Verhoeven did it back in 1990. Sure, that film was full of corny moments, but that's part of what made it great in the first place. It would've helped if the writers had added a little more humor into the screenplay here. Instead, what this film does instead is focus more on action and unfortunately, that also brings up a problem. Once Doug starts going on the run from the law, pretty much 90% of the film is action and there are only a few short instances where the film takes a break from the action to develop the plot. Now I'm not saying that the action is bad because it actually is quite good, especially considering that this film is rated PG-13 and is considerably less violent than the original R-rated film. It's pretty much the equivalent of what we're used to now; action films that are full of special effects.

As for the cast, I can't really say anything bad about their performances, as they all did a good job. Obviously if we're going to compare Colin Farrell to Schwarzenegger, Arnold was more memorable in the role. But when it comes to the more serious take on this story, Farrell is better suited for the role. Both Beckinsale and Biel are very good as the female leads, Beckinsale being very entertaining in her first major role as a villain and Biel, while in a more traditional leading role, is still really good. As the villain, Bryan Cranston (who has made quite a year so far with minor roles in a lot of movies) isn't in the movie much but Cranston alone does makes something out of it because he's a great actor. However, the filmmakers could've used him just a little bit more.

So when you get down to it, this new version of Total Recall isn't really that bad as we thought it would've been, but as you might have guessed, the original did the better job at telling this story. True, as cheesy as it was, the original with Arnold was just better as a film in general. While this new film does take a more serious route in telling the story, it does lack the humor that made the original so great. I'm not saying that the filmmakers should've gone the same comedic routes as the original, but for a movie that is more focused on action than story, it needed more humor. That being said, the cast is still good and obviously the action and visual effects are excellent. It's an entertaining movie but it could clearly be better, especially considering what came before it.

Rating: 3.5/5