# Total Recall (2012)



## Heebie (Jun 4, 2009)

*Arnold** Schwarzenegger's 1990 sci-fi thriller Total Recall is being remade, according to reports.* 
Trade newspaper The Hollywood Reporter said Kurt Wimmer, who penned the 1999 version of The Thomas Crown Affair, is currently working on a script. 
Film studio Columbia Pictures, which secured the film's rights in February, has said the remake will be a "contemporised adaptation". 
It has not been announced who is being considered for the lead role. 
The original film was based on the Philip K Dick story We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. 
It follows a man who is haunted by a recurring dream of travelling to Mars - where he has never been - and a woman he has never met. 
The ultra-violent film, from the creators of Alien, has since become a cult classic. 
Sharon Stone and Rachel Ticotin also starred in the movie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8080966.stm


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 4, 2009)

Hmmm I wonder if they make certain scenes more realistic. The parts that spoiled the film for me such as when Arnie is exposed to the martian atmosphere and his eyes bulge out. Just shock appeal,no basis on fact. I know its just a film but such inaccuracies  annoy me.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jun 4, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Hmmm I wonder if they make certain scenes more realistic. The parts that spoiled the film for me such as when Arnie is exposed to the martian atmosphere and his eyes bulge out. Just shock appeal,no basis on fact. I know its just a film but such inaccuracies  annoy me.



Very effective though.  That scene still makes me sick and uncomfortable.  And I watch a lot of crazy stuff!

And anyway...I don't think they were aiming for hard sci-fi, so just relaaax


----------



## ctg (Jun 4, 2009)

Have you seen the uncut version, where they show how an elevator can cut a man in half? If you have then I think that was more gruesome scene then the eye one. 

Any way, I don't understand why they need to remake this classic. Its still one of great scifi movies.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 4, 2009)

MontyCircus said:


> Very effective though.  That scene still makes me sick and uncomfortable.  And I watch a lot of crazy stuff!
> 
> And anyway...I don't think they were aiming for hard sci-fi, so just relaaax



Yes but Dick is a so called SF writer and I like my SF films to be scientifically valid. A long wait is envisioned.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jun 4, 2009)

ctg said:


> Have you seen the uncut version, where they show how an elevator can cut a man in half? If you have then I think that was more gruesome scene then the eye one.
> 
> Any way, I don't understand why they need to remake this classic. Its still one of great scifi movies.



Some of the, at the time, eye-popping visuals...now look pretty bad.  Still a lot of fun, but a lot better in my memory.

Elevator???  Ooooh now I've got to track that down!  Thanks for that!


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 4, 2009)

MontyCircus said:


> Elevator???  Ooooh now I've got to track that down!  Thanks for that!



Going off topic here but I saw a similar nasty little scene in Fringe the other day when a guy got sliced in two when he was stopped from crossing his time/space portal.


----------



## Heebie (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't see the need for it to be remade, but, if they have to, they have to PROMISE to keep the three-breasted woman!


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 4, 2009)

Heebie said:


> I don't see the need for it to be remade, but, if they have to, they have to PROMISE to keep the three-breasted woman!



You know I was thinking exactly the same thing. They can do what they like with the script tho


----------



## biodroid (Jun 5, 2009)

Is Kurt Wimmer a good choice? I think so if you take that he made Equilibrium which was great but then you think aaaaahhh maybe not because he messed up Ultra-Violet. Not sure what else he has done but they better make the remake better than the original to keep the fans interested.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 5, 2009)

I really don't understand this obsession that Hollywood seems to have with remakes at the moment. No all of these films are old enough or could be considered classic enough to warrant a remake. I don't mind some remakes, but there doesn't need to be so many surely? Where are the original stories? 

Could it be that they already own the rights and that makes it cheaper to make?


----------



## ctg (Jun 5, 2009)

Hollywood own the filming rights to these movies. They don't want to buy anything new or do anything new at the moment. They might even say that all the movies they've done are there and there's no need to make anything new.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jun 5, 2009)

I agree with ctg, can't see any good reason to re make this movie, it is a classic. I really enjoyed this movie, probably one of my faborite sci fi's along with Fifth Element.


----------



## Heebie (Jun 5, 2009)

biodroid said:


> he messed up Ultra-Violet.


 
I won't mention how I'm the only person in the universe who actually liked Ultraviolet


----------



## Dave (Jun 7, 2009)

It is one of my favourite films and I'm still debating what is real and what is not. They could possibly replace Arnie, but I don't think you could better Sharon Stone and Rachael Ticotin. We already discussed the 'eye popping' in the original film thread, and you might find it was not as far removed from 'reality' as you would expect, though certainly not correct. I don't see which bits need updating; in the last 17 years the subway security checks have now become standard practice at airports and railway stations.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jun 7, 2009)

Blasphemy.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 7, 2009)

Rodders said:


> I really don't understand this obsession that Hollywood seems to have with remakes at the moment. No all of these films are old enough or could be considered classic enough to warrant a remake. I don't mind some remakes, but there doesn't need to be so many surely? Where are the original stories?
> 
> Could it be that they already own the rights and that makes it cheaper to make?


 


ctg said:


> Hollywood own the filming rights to these movies. They don't want to buy anything new or do anything new at the moment. They might even say that all the movies they've done are there and there's no need to make anything new.


 
I'd say it has a lot to do with economics, yes; but even more for the contempt in which writers are (and always have been) held in Hollywood. With them owning the film rights... it goes beyond that, actually. They already have had the various pre-shooting script stages, so a lot of those are eliminated -- hence no outlay. (This isn't entirely true; these "new" scripts still go through a lot of changes before the final version, but the various "treatments" and the like may be eliminated, or the cost may be seriously reduced.)

They also have something which they know has already (usually) found a fairly solid audience, hence less risk (in their minds, at least). And, of course, most fans tend to reinforce that view, as they'll go to see the damn' thing, no matter how bad it is, just to compare and kvetch (if nothing else).

And last -- why on earth would any writer in Hollywood put their best efforts into something they are paid so little (in comparison to nearly any other position down to "Best Boy" on a film) for? Better to make a decent living wage rewriting someone else's stuff legally than to burn up all that energy writing something fresh and original, or even having to be fresh and original in bringing a literary property to the screen. I mean, writers are still treated like crap in that business, hence the strikes... which people complain about, yet writers' wages get less adjustment than perhaps any other position in this medium.

There are other reasons, but these are among the most prominent, from my understanding. The only way to get this cycle to end is to *stop going to remakes* (at very least, unless you hear the remake is at least as good as, if not better than, the original, from reviewers whose work you know you can generally trust)... and frankly, I don't see that happening. So we'll continue to get crap served to us because we continue to pay for the crap they serve up. You want better? Tell _them_ that, *with your dollars*.... support the best stuff, stay away from the poor remakes and endless sequels and other tripe, and the message will be heard; that rustle of nice bills makes a hell of a lot more impression than any number of complaints, no matter how widespread.


----------



## Dave (Jul 11, 2012)

I must preface the following with two admissions:

Firstly, the original 1990 Paul Verhoeven/Dan O’Bannon /Arnold Schwarzenegger version is one of my favourite films. I just watched it again last night; must have seen it more than any other film, and still can’t decide if it is a false memory or a real experience. 

Secondly, I have never read, _We Can Remember It For You Wholesale_; I don’t know how that is possible, since I’ve read loads of PKD, especially those collections of short stories you can borrow from the public library, but it just wasn’t ever in one of those collections. 

So, obviously the trailer for this new version interests me, even more so that it has been in development for so long – it was originally going to be directed by Jonathan Frakes. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/trailers

After watching the trailer, I don’t feel like I need to see the film. Douglas Quaid is now a factory worker, but other than that it seems that the plot follows the first film almost word for word – and I really literally mean, word for word, except that there is no MARS! No dreams of Mars. No holiday to Mars. No ancient civilisation on Mars, or exploited workers on Mars. Now it seems like another chase film. Kate Beckinsale is in it because every Len Wiseman film must have her, just like every Tim Burton film stars Johnny Depp. 

It even has the woman with three breasts only now she says the cab driver’s line to him instead. She was meant to be a Martian mutant; as a result of radiation due to the cheap domes Cohaagen forced his Martian workers to live under. So, the reason for her unique physiology is unclear to me. 

The original version is pretty gory with a body count of 77 and numerous losses of limbs. The original cut of the movie was given an X-rating by the MPAA for excessive violence. Some violence was trimmed and different camera angles were used in some of the more over the top scenes and the movie was then re-rated R. This version is going to be a child-friendly MPAA Rating: PG-13. 

Having said that, I undoubtedly will see it at some point.


----------



## steve12553 (Jul 14, 2012)

This would appear to be another case of "they got it right the first time but let's do it again anyway." Shades of *The Day the Earth Stood Still*. It is so very rare to get two goos movies out of one story. (*The Thing* and *The Thing from Another World* being the exception.) I watched only part of the remake of TDTESS and was convinced that there was notion there for me. The trailer for this one is just about convinced me here.


----------



## Dave (Jul 14, 2012)

I ranted on about the TDTESS remake here, but when I actually saw it I thought that the way they had modernised it from the 1950's to the noughties was quite reasonable. I'd still argue that it was not necessary to update it at all, but that's a separate argument.

My main problem with this is that it is only 22 years old. It isn't dated that much. I think the Jonathan Frakes film I mentioned earlier was actually going to be a sequel. This is just another remake.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 15, 2012)

It might be the most action filled PKD adaptation so far.   I couldnt believe how much action was in the trailer.  I never cared for the first film either so i dont expect anything.

I would like to see one good film made connected to PKD in the last decade and half so far it doesnt look good.


----------



## Dave (Jul 15, 2012)

I haven't seen *A Scanner Darkly *but I heard that was a faithful adaptation (although films always have to cut something out of a book by necessity). It was a animation though, so maybe you weren't counting that as a "real" film.


----------



## Metryq (Jul 15, 2012)

Dave said:


> I haven't seen *A Scanner Darkly *but I heard that was a faithful adaptation (although films always have to cut something out of a book by necessity). It was a animation though, so maybe you weren't counting that as a "real" film.



It was rotoscope, meaning all of it was live actors shot on real sets, then painstakingly converted in post.


----------



## clovis-man (Jul 16, 2012)

Dave said:


> Secondly, I have never read, _We Can Remember It For You Wholesale_; I don’t know how that is possible, since I’ve read loads of PKD, especially those collections of short stories you can borrow from the public library, but it just wasn’t ever in one of those collections.


 
You know, I have read *WCRIFYW*. But, oddly my recollection of the story is quite dim compared to the movie. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

In the new film it looks like they at least ce-cycled some storm troopers.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 17, 2012)

Dave said:


> I haven't seen *A Scanner Darkly *but I heard that was a faithful adaptation (although films always have to cut something out of a book by necessity). It was a animation though, so maybe you weren't counting that as a "real" film.



There has never been a faithful adaptation of PKD. Hollywood isnt interested in that.  He wrote social dramas about people mostly talking in weird futures. Scanner Darkly was close but the actors ruined it little for me. Tried to be too quirky because of the animation style.

Im not talking about good adaptation but good SF films on its that dont suck as bad as Nick Cage films, Paycheck or substance less films like Adjustment Bureau.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Jul 24, 2012)

Just watched the original with AHnold last night on cable. My gawd, that was a horrible film! LOL. No offense to those who like it. In retrospect I should have known there was going to be trouble when I saw Verhoeven's name on the project. Can't stand a single thing that guy has done!


----------



## wonkishere (Jul 24, 2012)

Dave said:


> I haven't seen *A Scanner Darkly *but I heard that was a faithful adaptation (although films always have to cut something out of a book by necessity). It was a animation though, so maybe you weren't counting that as a "real" film.



I loved *Through a Scanner Darkly* myself, but I thought the original movie you mentioned was um... absolutely horrible.  So we obviously have very different interests.  I don't think the plot of the movie was something that really needed to be followed faithfully.

I suppose the remake might be more interesting.


----------



## Starbeast (Aug 7, 2012)

*SPOILER ALERT*

Just saw it yesterday, not bad, lots of eye candy. 

I like the original more though, because it had actor Michael Ironside as a villain and a planet Mars connection. Plus it established doubts in your mind to what is real and what is a memory implant much better than the remake. There is a great moment in the original film where I began to question if the hero Quade (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) is just freaking out by his memory adventure, or he really did begin to remember what was erased from his mind.


----------



## Illusive (Aug 24, 2012)

Connavar said:


> There has never been a faithful adaptation of PKD. Hollywood isnt interested in that.  He wrote social dramas about people mostly talking in weird futures. Scanner Darkly was close but the actors ruined it little for me. Tried to be too quirky because of the animation style.
> 
> Im not talking about good adaptation but good SF films on its that dont suck as bad as Nick Cage films, Paycheck or substance less films like Adjustment Bureau.



I agree. *Total Recall* was a pretty terrible attempt (and a not-so-good film in general), but Hollywood tends to leave out the most important bits in everything they do with PKD. *Scanner Darkly* left out such things as the German-speaking hemisphere of his brain (and yeah, the casting was poor), *Minority Report* created entirely new characters and changed the plot, and thank god *Ridley Scott* decided to rename Blade Runner, because everything that made the novel great was removed.

Recently someone told me that *Ubik* is in the works. All I could think was, oh no...


----------



## Fried Egg (Aug 29, 2012)

Has anyone seen this movie and if so, what are there thoughts?

So far I've heard that it compares unfavourably to the original movie. 

But one critic complained that they never went to Mars as they did in the original movie but in the story this was based on ("We Can Remember it For You Wholesale"), they don't go to Mars either.

Is this adaptation more faithful to the story?


----------



## Dave (Aug 29, 2012)

I've merged your post with the existing film thread, if only because I think your questions have already been answered here.


----------



## Lenny (Sep 12, 2012)

I've just come back from seeing it, and I have to say that as much as I love the first version, I think this new one is better.

It's slightly more faithful to the short story, in that Quaid (what's with the name change, again?) doesn't leave the planet, but after having him walk into Rekall, it skews off in a similar fashion to the first - indeed, I'd say it takes more material from Verhoeven's film than Dick's short story.

The bulk of the film is entirely new, and the setting is almost entirely new. There are some very weird elements to it, which I suppose are there only to make the story realistic, but some of the SF is pretty neat. I also like the design - parts of it put me in the mind of *Blade Runner*, whilst other bits made me think of *Minority Report*. As far as drawing inspiration from other films goes, this new version of *Total Recall* has chosen three belters.

All in all, I enjoyed it. Sure, it doesn't mess with your head as much as the first did, and the story is more that of a modern film with the barest of bones from _We Can Remember It For You Wholesale_ (if you want to read it, Google it - I read it during Apple's press conference this evening, just before going to see the film), but it's a good film with some great SF elements.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Sep 21, 2012)

This is my take on both versions of the film:

I had first seen the original *Total Recall *so long ago that I had forgotten most of the plot, but in view of the fact that a remake has only just been released I thought it would be useful to refresh my memory of the original. Both films are described as being loosely based on Philip K. Dick's short story *We Can Remember It For You Wholesale*, but since I read that one (if indeed I did) so long ago that I have completely forgotten it, that hasn't affected my view of the film.

First, a brief and general plot summary of the 1990 version, avoiding major spoilers. The year is 2084 when Mars has been colonised and travel throughout the solar system is commonplace. On Earth, Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a bored construction worker forever dreaming of life on Mars. He decides to visit Rekall, a company selling "virtual holidays" through memory implants, and elects to play the part of a secret agent on a trip to Mars. However, in the process he discovers that something is badly wrong with his memories and he gradually comes to realise that his current identity is false and has been implanted in his mind. He comes under attack but receives aid from his earlier self, in the form of a recorded message explaining what is happening and encouraging him to go to Mars. Once on Mars he becomes involved in the battle between planetary governor Vilos Cohaagen (Ronny Cox) and a resistance group opposing his dictatorial rule, with many twists and turns in the plot before the finale.

This is a fast-paced and exciting film, with the plot twists coming so thick and fast that it becomes difficult to keep up and to be sure what is reality and what are implanted memories. I did have the suspicion that there may be some logical flaws in the plot, but there are so many layers of deceit that I frankly became rather lost in trying to work out who was supposed to know what at which point. On the downside it is filled with cartoonish, slapstick violence of the "hero fires a brief unaimed burst from his machine pistol and a whole row of bad guys falls over" variety: keeping track of the body count would be quite an exercise. The special effects team also had some fun with gross-out elements including the bulging faces of those dying in the near-vacuum of Mars and a head appearing from somebody's chest. On a point of detail, I note that it was apparently considered OK to have a mutant woman exposing her three breasts, even though they looked completely real, and even have a man fondling them - but to show _real_ breasts, oh no! The contortions of our bizarre approach to morality never fail to amaze and amuse. No doubt any alien observers of human mores could produce endless doctoral theses on our weird and hypocritical attitudes to such issues.

To sum up, it's not a bad film but it could have been much better with a more adult approach and the omission of much of the juvenile violence. The plot is certainly clever enough to justify more serious treatment, and I would have liked to see it made by the team who produced the excellent *Gattaca*. 
---------------------
Since I happened to be staying in a city recently I took the opportunity to see the 2012 version of *Total Recall* in a cinema rather than waiting for the DVD to be available. This enabled me to enjoy to the full one of the strengths of this film; the dramatic, multi-level, futuristic CGI city-scapes, which are among the best I can recall seeing. Sadly, Mars has disappeared from the plot, being replaced by a rather bizarre Earth which has almost entirely been rendered uninhabitable by chemical or biological warfare, with only (for some unexplained reason) parts of the UK and Australia still supporting human life. The relationship between them is reflected in their names: the United Federation of Britain, and the Colony (bet that goes down well in Australia!). 

Strangest of all, the two settlements, on opposite sides of the planet, are joined by “the Fall”, a gravity-powered transport system consisting of shaft bored straight through the centre of the Earth, down which a huge container, able to hold large numbers of people plus freight, drops before re-emerging on the other side of the globe – a system so fast and routine that workers commute daily from Australia to the UK. I have to say that this caused me some credibility problems. For a start there are the vast technical difficulties concerning boring and maintaining such a hole through the colossal heat and pressure existing at the Earth’s core. This is not just impossible now, we could not even see any way in which such a project might be tackled at any time in the future – it makes the task of achieving sub-light-speed interstellar travel look very simple (yet there is no mention in the film of any kind of space travel). Then there is the question of how the container could possibly reach the speeds required to make daily commuting feasible, unless the air in the tube was evacuated ahead of it – but in that case, people wouldn’t be able to survive on the outside of the container, as they do in the film. Oh well, lets move on to the story.

Once more we have Douglas Quaid (this time played by Colin Farrell) in much the same situation as in the original, with the plot following generally similar lines. There are even some direct references to the original film (yep, including the triple-breasted prostitute). Kate Beckinsale makes a suitably mean and nasty opponent, Jessica Biel an appealing good girl. Overall, the acting as well as the special effects is much better. But, but…some of the freshness and appeal of the original have been lost along the way. The overall feel of the new version is darker, more adult, less like a comic strip. Despite this, the plot seems more straightforward than the 1990 version, without so many layers of deception. It comes across as one relentless chase, with lots of the fights, crashes and explosions which contemporary fashion requires, and after a while becomes rather repetitive and tiring. 

I strongly suspect that the original version is going to retain its place in viewers’ affections for much longer than the new pretender.

(An extract from my SFF blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/)


----------



## Cyril (Oct 1, 2012)

I wasn't fan of the old version, I found it too madcap and kitsch with alot of weaknesses. I largely prefer this one despite this ridiculous elevator falling through earth mantle and core. And besides, this new Total Recall has a better use of the doubt about reality, a more subtle one. Rekall advertisings, truly excessive reactivity of security forces indicating a dream and the scenes where Quaid's wife seems to be a worried beloved one and not a secret agent.

Moreover, there's numerous great references to cinema (Blade Runner, Soylent green, Minority Report, Children of men and of course the first Total Recall) and video games (Deus Hex: Human revolution, Fallout 3).

I think the main weakness of this movie is its promotion : it was sold as a remake of Dick's short story and in fact, it's rather a remake of the first movie, with Mars-Earth conflict replaced by Britain-Australia litigation. But in fact, it's the same screenplay.


----------



## Dave (Oct 1, 2012)

Cyril said:


> I wasn't fan of the old version, I found it too madcap and kitsch with a lot of weaknesses.


 I must be strange as I still like it. I will see this, I just haven't got around to it. 





Cyril said:


> I largely prefer this one despite this ridiculous elevator falling through earth mantle and core.


 Well, that is also putting me off. 





Cyril said:


> And besides, this new Total Recall has a better use of the doubt about reality, a more subtle one.


 You are the first person to say that to me. I've seen the original so many times but I still cannot decide, so I find it hard to see how this could be better.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 2, 2012)

I'd like to see this, but I'll probably wait until it gets released on DVD.


----------



## Cyril (Oct 2, 2012)

Dave said:


> You are the first person to say that to me. I've seen the original so many times but I still cannot decide, so I find it hard to see how this could be better.


 
More precisely, I found clues indicating a dream more subtly inserted in the movie but less ambigous than the previous movie. With the first Total Recall, ambiguity is strong but there isn't really clues about one side or another, it's why I think ambiguity is still present at the end; in this new opus, I felt the director told us _it's a dream_ with little doubt about it.


----------



## Prophetsnake (Apr 16, 2013)

Just watched the 1990 version tonight for the second time in just a few months and my opinion is PKD would have loved it. The cheesy special effects, the cartoon quality it has. For me it captures the books better than any other adaptation of his work. 
I have seen the 2012 version and I thought it was fairly bleh. Vastly superior special effects and very pretty, but not nearly as funny as the original. I can't help but laugh anytime I think of the Johnnycab!


----------



## Alex Mason (May 22, 2013)

I wasn't really a fan of either one, but I love PKD's written works. No, I am not a book snob that never likes the movies, I just don't know why they don't drop all reference to the story and just make a movie. Movies can be based on loose concepts found in stories without having to call themselves out as adaptations. Look at "Limitless," it is based on a recent book, but could have easily been inspired by the old Asimov short story. Just drop the pretense of it being PKD and it would be an okay tentpole sci-fi movie.


----------



## SFF Chronicles News (Oct 20, 2013)

*27th May 2011 02:27 PM*

Darren Allan







 Some news on the Total Recall reboot. What’s that, you say, they’re doing a Total Recall reboot?

 Yes indeed, with Arnie being replaced by Colin Farrell, and now news has emerged of which actresses will play the leading ladies in the new flick.

Collider.com reports that Kate Beckinsale (of Underworld fame) will play the role of Lori, his wife, originally the part Sharon Stone took. Jessica Biel (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The A-Team) will play the other female lead, Melina.

 The plot is apparently going to be substantially different from the 1990 original and will be truer to the original Philip K Dick novelette “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale”. It won’t go anywhere near Mars, either.

 Other names on board include Bill Nighy and Bryan Cranston (the dad from Malcolm in the Middle who has done so much more since that, but he’ll always be Hal to us).

 Are you sick of all the reboots yet? We must admit, we’re still enjoying them – or at least some of them – although a breaking point will be reached, eventually. When film companies start doing reboots of reboots in the 2030s, possibly…


----------



## Dave (Jul 15, 2016)

Dave said:


> Having said that, I undoubtedly will see it at some point.


I finally watched this... and now I'll have to be lobotomized 

Sorry, I didn't think the story made much sense anymore -


Cyril said:


> this ridiculous elevator falling through earth mantle and core. .


Even if I could even get past that as being an item, there was the whole question of why? They said the United Federation of Britain was overpopulated, and yet they still needed to bring in an elevator of workers daily to do boring manual work, while they built robots as policemen.



Lenny said:


> It's slightly more faithful to the short story, in that Quaid (what's with the name change, again?) doesn't leave the planet, but after having him walk into Rekall, it skews off in a similar fashion to the first - indeed, I'd say it takes more material from Verhoeven's film than Dick's short story.


I can see why you would prefer that link to the short story, but here Rekall was some seedy back alley set up (despite the big adverts) and not a company in a possible conspiracy with the government. Also, removing the whole Mars thing is a big item for me. After all this time I can't decide in the original film whether the whole experience is still inside Arnie's head. That kitsch in the original tended to prove it was just a figment of his imagination. Here it is all clearly real. The film is more about whether memories maketh the man. A different take entirely, which is also a good thing.


----------

