BEFORE: In another bit of unplanned synchronicity, I'm watching this film just after the remake version is hitting theaters. But I've never seen the original - I think I was quite busy in 1990, it was the year after I got out of college, and I was working quite a bit. Plus I think at the time I considered myself above seeing a Schwarzenegger movie, and that's another sort of movie sin - pride. I still have a few more movie sins to atone for, but I feel like I'm closing in on redemption.
Linking from "Red Planet", Benjamin Bratt was also in "Catwoman" with Sharon Stone. But perhaps it's best that we all forget about that.
THE PLOT: When a man goes for virtual vacation memories of the planet Mars, an unexpected and harrowing series of events forces him to go to the planet for real, or does he?
AFTER: I was just talking about "The Wizard of Oz" yesterday, and how open to interpretation it is. Did Dorothy really travel by twister to Oz, or was it all just a dream? The film works either way. Something sort of similar happens in this film. "Brazil", "12 Monkeys", "Memento" - some of my favorite films leave the door open just a bit, so if you're part of the audience that wants to read it the other way, you're welcome to do so.
Is our main character having a dream, or going insane, or experiencing a different reality? What is reality, anyway? I'll be delving more into that topic later on this week, so this is a good kick-off for a chain that will be asking some interesting questions. But let's get into tonight's film.
All we know for sure is that everything changes once Arnold's character visits the Rekall headquarters, to have a memory implanted of a vacation on Mars. Now, what's the point of a vacation if you don't actually go to the place, and taste the local cuisine? But I digress. In this film Mars seems like a nice place to visit virtually, but you wouldn't want to actually go there.
But when the imagineers try to implant the memories of a nice vacation, they realize that he's already working with mind implants (or, is he?) and this leads him to discover that he's not who he thinks he is, and his life is just an implant (or, is it?) and suddenly he's heading for Mars for real, on a secret mission (or, is he?).
I'm not sure which is more implausible - that his real persona would so closely resemble the fantasy implant he requested, or that a character played by Schwarzenegger, who we've seen play a warrior/agent so many times, would be a lowly construction worker. It's a toss-up. Perhaps something did go wrong with the implant, and our hero took an action that prevented him from waking up, which means he's still in the chair, and nothing is real.
I realize this is a sci-fi classic, and I'm glad I watched it, but it's definitely showing signs of age. The special effects may have been groundbreaking at the time, but they look really low-rent compared to what studios can do now ("Avatar", "Lord of the Rings"). But without this film, there might not have been "The Matrix", the two films do share some things in common. Assuming that is, that you see the last 3/4 of the film as a dream implant.
NITPICK POINT: Good to know that in the future, people still use jackhammers, escalators, and good old regular light switches. The film shows us some futuristic technology (robot cabs), and some that's now current (full-body scanning at airports) but it's just not good enough. Really, bullets and not lasers? Come on.
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (last seen in "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"), Rachel Ticotin (last seen in "Man on Fire"), Ronny Cox (last seen in "Forces of Nature"), Michael Ironside (last seen in "The Next Karate Kid"), Marshall Bell (last seen in "Nancy Drew"), with a vocal cameo from Robert Picardo.
RATING: 5 out of 10 ID cards
I had the same sort of reaction to "Alien," which is currently enjoying a "jillion times a week" rotation on cable.
ReplyDeleteI was willing to accept almost every element of this movie's vision of the future.
I was OK with the idea of interstellar truckers.
I was OK with the idea of an alien whose life cycle appears to be proof-positive of the existence of God and that He absolutely hates us. That is to say: it's the result of a screenwriter who wants to cause as much trouble as possible for his characters, and not the result of millions of years of evolution.
I was OK with the idea of a computer with a million lights and pushbuttons, and a lone CRT that displays about 24 columns of upper-case-only text.
Self-aware android that's so lifelike that it can live and work alongside humans for months or years without anyone suspecting? Sure, serve it right up.
But then, there was a scene in which the male crew were getting their porn via conventional printed magazine format. And here, I finally said "Bull."
Oh, right...the actual movie. It's been a while since I've seen it. I did appreciate the fundamental ambiguity of the story. People often speak of how Pixar movies manage to seamlessly weave together story elements that keep both kids and their parents equally entertained. Same deal here. It's a movie that can entertain both the summer audience that wants 'splosions and bullets and a certain number of naked breasts (even an odd number). But another kind of viewer won't take it at face value, and will see it as a rather cool mind****.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, it's more sophisticated than an M. Night Shamadingdong switcheroo. There's no smug ending where the director says "HA! I just FOOLED you!" It's like "Blade Runner," in which the director probably had a clear idea of what really happened but only cares that you had a good time and are satisfied with whatever conclusion you happened to draw.
You're right about the effects. This movie is a peek into what "The Terminator" would have been like if a director other than James Cameron had directed it. The effects are only about 65% where they need to be, and the cinematography is mostly "Expensive made-for-TV movie" grade. There's this school of lighting in which NOTHING can be underlit. "We paid over $120 to have that back wall of the set built out," the producer seems to say. "Goddamn it...the audience is gonna SEE it just as clearly as any of the stars of the movie."
I've always thought this was brilliant film, and I am astounded to hear that you hadn't seen it before.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I can prove definatively that this is just a mindfuck, an old Arnie is stuck lomotomized in that chair, and none of his adventure had really happened (with in the story that is).
I read the book, but with the exception of the technology central to the story, the two stories really have nothing in common. The book has no action in it what so ever.
One problem with this film (and Terminator) is that they were both supposed to be about very average looking guys who were "extrondianry" in some way. One the directors found out they could get Schcwarzenegger, they jumped on the chance, but also changed the whole feel of the films, making the claims of being a super-agent (or terminator) less implausible.
For that reason, I am quite curious to see what they have done with the new version of this film, but I think I missed my change to see it in the theaters.
I have no qualms with the special effects, as this was at the end of 80s, before the computer effects revolution.
If you realy have qualms with the special effects, you probably should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UHD5GJF04LD1/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00070FX5U&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=2625373011&store=movies-tv