This OP is a shambles. Let's critically analyze what's wrong with it:
Since people jumped on my comment in the Ghostbusters thread I wanted to explain the comment.
An ill judged start, the premise of the thread is an explanation of a comment as a rebuttal to a series of other comments in a separate thread entirely. None of these things are ever quoted or linked. One paragraph in, the thread has failed to convey any ideas or adequately explain itself. The connection to the Total Recall remake which the thread title alludes to isn't made apparent.
The new version has much better action then the old version, straight up
This is where the thread ultimately falls apart. The premise of the thread is now apparent, but it makes little sense. Threads are conversations. Strax has an opinion about Total Recall, but it's never elaborated on. The action is stated to be good, but no mention is made of what's good about it. Is it the editing? The camera work? Stunts? Special effects? We just don't know. It's impossible to engage with this kind of opinion. When this is all you have to work with, the best you can manage is a facile agreement or disagreement, as we've already seen. Is that what it is? Are we just supposed to leave a thumbs up or thumbs down, and maybe a subscribe? Are we being used as the test audience for a new Youtube channel? Does the author think all communication works like social media?
and of course it's not funny because it doesn't try to be funny.
The thread continues to deteriorate, as we've now devolved to simple observations. This isn't even an opinion anymore. It's just a statement of fact, and as such, you can't engage with it at all. Yes, movies that aren't comedies are indeed not comedies. No, actually non-comedy films are some of my favorite comedies, because I'm powerfully insane and it makes me laugh when people are harmed, either physically or emotionally. Neither of these responses would make any sense, because there is no sense. Sense has fully evacuated the thread now, and is heading for parts unknown.
Good looking sets, art and design
Once again, opinions are presented without comment. Things just look "good". Are the visual elements good because they're realistic, surrealistic, cohesive, chaotic, colorful, moody, what? How does this support the other elements of the film? Help me out here.
- the lens flares tho. Fuck lens flares.
Why?
Why does that merit a mention? It just makes it sound like Strax doesn't really care. This sentence lowers the quality of an already poor quality post just by existing.
There was no need for this movie
A glowing endorsement, truly.
but let's not kid ourselves, the action in the 1990 version was on Three Stooges level at points,
In what way? At what points? What about the rest of the film?
Just in general or Arnold in particular? And how was it terrible? There's more than one kind of terrible acting. And was everyone's acting terrible in the exact same way, suggesting that perhaps it was the director that was at fault?
and the production design is lacking.
How?
I'm not saying the remake is a good movie I'm just saying it's better then the OG version.
This is an entirely vacuous way to contrast two films. One isn't good, the other one is worse. There's value in analyzing how and why, but the analysis itself remains absent.
Think about it for a sec, when you break it down all it does well is the weirdness.
Some examples would be nice.
Every time people write or talk about the movie it's always about the strange stuff or the concept.
Sweeping generalization. Penalty.
I've never heard people talk about the acting, editing or the cinematography, it's always just the 3 breasts, Quato and the drop of sweat.
Anecdotal evidence. Penalty.
Arnold is goofy as hell and if you gave any decent actor this much leeway in his performance he could perform on the same level as Arnold with ease.
This is the only part of the post I liked. A genuine criticism. Arnold's acting is described as bad. Then further elaboration is given how it's bad. It's not a particularly deep criticism, but if the rest of the post had this much thought put into it, I would have appreciated it much more. Proper articulation is what makes ideas and opinions interesting.
Not that Colin Farrell was amazing in the remake but at no point in his career could Arnold give that performance
Again, what was good about Colin Farrell's not amazing performance?
Paul Verhoeven is really good at themes and story but his movies age horribly.
Some examples of those themes would be nice. What's good about Paul Verhoeven's stories? Dialogue? Characters? Cohesive plots? How do the movies age horribly? Outdated special effects? Too zeitgeisty?
Ok, not all his movies age horribly.
You drive a hard bargain. I was going to give this thread an F because of the rambling disjointed paragraphs, general lack of substance, and several penalties, but Sharon Stone and the one part where effort was made have swayed me.
Final grade:
D-
