Man I don't know about this one. The first movie was no Shakespeare I know, but it was good and had a good story even if the acting was really cheesy which it was, but I remember seeing this in theater when I was ten years old with my Dad. I guess if they keep the movie fun and it is still a roller coaster ride and they don't try to make it too serious it could be cool, but I just don't know who else could play Arnold's character.

I too don't know what to think about this, I mean the first one was not all that bad other than some of the fx work that was done in it but it was a good story and I enjoyed it, on the other hand an updated version could be cool if a lot of care is put into it...From what I Recall (no pun intended) it did not require a shakespearian actor to fill the shoes of the main character so why not get Vin Diesel maybe the Rock, just a thought...They will need someone who can get phisical and throw down and those two know how to do that...Anyways, crossing fingers...

I thought they did a good job with the original. Today's special affects aren't always that great. CGI can look cartoonish, making it equal to the old claymation special affects. The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind. I almost laughed out loud at the "scary" cartoon wolves.

The original was really fun and it's still watchable.  We'll be able to tell how serious it will be by the lead actor... Will it be Dwayne Johnson or Matt Damon? Vin Diesel or Christian Bale? Brad Pitt... Shia LeBouf... Adam Sandler...?

I thought this was one of Arnie's best.  No where near terminator, but really good.  At the time the special effects were great, I'm sure now they could really make it look sweet, by if that's the only improvement I too ask WHY?

Of course it's to make money and probably to introduce this new genration to the story.  I suppose I'd go see it.  For some strange reason I never bought the first one.

REMAKES REMAKES WHAT THE HICK IS GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD.  I usually keep my mouth shut about remakes. What the hell was wrong with the first Total Recall movie that some people sitting down on their asses could think they could do better. Yes, special effects will be better but not the story.  Like come on and think about new movies with new ideas and leave the classic movies alone or they might end up remaking the same movie three time like the Body Snatchers.  The first movie is still better.

What remake has a better than the orginal? I did like the remake better for Dawn of the Dead.

Ben-Hur was a remake and that won 11 academy awards.

*sigh*

The original short story makes it clear what the double-cross was all about. The movie left it up to the person to decide if it was a dystopia (ie, Arnie's character just lived a Rekall adventure and wakes up in the chair after the movie is over), or a true hero flick.

A sequel will ruin that. A relaunch may also ruin that.

Uhhh, no. Don't think so. As Kwsupes said, Total Recall wasn't some serious piece, but it was a fun, gorey, well made movie, that certainly doesn't need the "remake" treatment! I mean, all they'll do is amp up the FX and THAT will make it "better" in some execs eyes. Puh-leeeze. Some remakes do well. Most don't.

Kruge99, as for Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the 1955 version was originally a "B" movie, but gained status as a cult classic and a Sci-Fi classic as time went on. But, the 1978 remake is considered the better movie by most people, including me, who is a DIE HARD anti-remake advocate! That remake actually took the original story, kept the same premise, BUT made an even creepier and scarier film, and had an atmosphere that is all around much more spine tingling!

I enjoyed the original. It's a fun watch still to this day and the effects are part of that reason. I don't need spectacular cgi to make it any more better.

I wonder though if the remake will include the triple-nipple lady. It blew my young mind when I saw that at the tender age of 9.