Total Reality is not entirely bad. The idea was intriguing, the opening sequence was great, Missa Koprova is beautiful and appealing and David Bradley is a commanding physical actor and his acting is reasonable. Apart from these Total Reality is pretty poor and doesn't have things to recommend beyond what was mentioned above. The special effects do look as though they were rushed through, the way the film is shot is choppy and the setting suffers from a lack of authenticity and too many scenes where it is over-lit. The score is generic and overbearing, while the dialogue is cheesy and repetitive and the story obvious- to the point of guessing what's going to happen next and being correct every time- and mind-numbingly dull. The action shows Bradley trying very hard with what he has(the movie shows little of his physical acting) but one is always wishing that he had more inspired and lively choreography to work with. The characters and their situations are one cliché after another with nothing done to make them particularly memorable or interesting, while the direction is pedestrian and the rest of the acting shows the actors unable(or is it not willing?) to do anything with the writing or characters. In conclusion, there is far worse out there but Total Reality on the whole was pretty poor with a few redeeming merits. 4/10 Bethany Cox
16 Reviews
"Everywhere you go, things blow up"
The_Phantom_Projectionist13 August 2015
In one of his last movies released as of this writing, lesser-known action hero David Bradley teamed with sci-fi aficionado Philip Roth to create an ultimately disappointing time travel adventure. TOTAL REALITY is highlighted by occasional flair in the effects and drama departments, but this far from compensates for its bland characters and mediocre action content.
The story: A soldier from the future (Bradley) leads a team of convicts in a suicide mission to 1998 to stop a deadly separatist (Thomas Kretschmann) from changing history.
The movie begins and ends with a bang, showcasing some exciting CG-driven space scenes with graphics that are pretty impressive for a low-budget film from the mid-90s. However, this seems to demonstrate where the majority of the budget has gone: while the contemporary-set scenes do well, the sets for spaceship interiors and the like are far from convincing. I also don't buy the placement of the dramatic scenes: there are a couple of genuinely well-acted exchanges late in the movie, but they arrive too late to generate much interest in the largely mundane personas, and would have been better placed earlier in the production. David Bradley gives one of the better performances of his career and Thomas Kretschmann is the closest thing the film has to genuine dramatic clout, but for the most part, they are not doing or saying much of genuine interest.
Action-wise, shootouts are the name of the game, but to be honest, there definitely aren't enough adrenaline scenes for a movie like this. David the martial artist gets one fight scene, but otherwise, he and the remaining cast engage in a handful of slow-motioned unexciting gunfights wherein taking cover is completely optional. There really is not much in the way of excitement with this one.
Almost twenty years after the release of TOTAL REALITY, I'm still disappointed that David Bradley's film career ended, but if this is what directly precluded it, I cannot blame whoever made the final decision. No one ought use this film to introduce themselves to either the actor or the director, and would do well to avoid it in general.
The story: A soldier from the future (Bradley) leads a team of convicts in a suicide mission to 1998 to stop a deadly separatist (Thomas Kretschmann) from changing history.
The movie begins and ends with a bang, showcasing some exciting CG-driven space scenes with graphics that are pretty impressive for a low-budget film from the mid-90s. However, this seems to demonstrate where the majority of the budget has gone: while the contemporary-set scenes do well, the sets for spaceship interiors and the like are far from convincing. I also don't buy the placement of the dramatic scenes: there are a couple of genuinely well-acted exchanges late in the movie, but they arrive too late to generate much interest in the largely mundane personas, and would have been better placed earlier in the production. David Bradley gives one of the better performances of his career and Thomas Kretschmann is the closest thing the film has to genuine dramatic clout, but for the most part, they are not doing or saying much of genuine interest.
Action-wise, shootouts are the name of the game, but to be honest, there definitely aren't enough adrenaline scenes for a movie like this. David the martial artist gets one fight scene, but otherwise, he and the remaining cast engage in a handful of slow-motioned unexciting gunfights wherein taking cover is completely optional. There really is not much in the way of excitement with this one.
Almost twenty years after the release of TOTAL REALITY, I'm still disappointed that David Bradley's film career ended, but if this is what directly precluded it, I cannot blame whoever made the final decision. No one ought use this film to introduce themselves to either the actor or the director, and would do well to avoid it in general.
A very poor film
mtenga21 June 2002
This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.
From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.
I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!
From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.
I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!
Strange Time-Travel Melange
Chris_Hirschhaeuser21 April 2001
Well, I have just seen the movie on TV and I was a little bit curious to read what other has written about it.
First of all, Total Reality is of course no good movie.
It has stupid dialogues, some really dumb figures (e.g. the feds), awful sci-fi interior design, the story has holes you can send one of the spaceships through it, the photography is boring and some details are annoying (e.g. the future handguns are simple 20th century weapons like Calico or FAMAS)
But, on the other hand: the space CGI are nice animated, it has no romantic happy end, Misa Koprova is indeed very beautiful (Sic Coyote is right!), the plot has some really interesting parts (the idea of a proto-fascist book becomes the bringer of world/solar war).
The reason, why I have watched the movie was Thomas Kretschmann, a not so famous german actors as the antagonist. His character (and his buddy) is the point I don`t understand. Why is he shown as the bad guy, although he wanted to save the future from the war?
An interesting B-movie. Sometimes nice, sometimes stupid. If you are bored at 1am you can watch it. Or you can go to sleep. ;-)
First of all, Total Reality is of course no good movie.
It has stupid dialogues, some really dumb figures (e.g. the feds), awful sci-fi interior design, the story has holes you can send one of the spaceships through it, the photography is boring and some details are annoying (e.g. the future handguns are simple 20th century weapons like Calico or FAMAS)
But, on the other hand: the space CGI are nice animated, it has no romantic happy end, Misa Koprova is indeed very beautiful (Sic Coyote is right!), the plot has some really interesting parts (the idea of a proto-fascist book becomes the bringer of world/solar war).
The reason, why I have watched the movie was Thomas Kretschmann, a not so famous german actors as the antagonist. His character (and his buddy) is the point I don`t understand. Why is he shown as the bad guy, although he wanted to save the future from the war?
An interesting B-movie. Sometimes nice, sometimes stupid. If you are bored at 1am you can watch it. Or you can go to sleep. ;-)
Without a doubt, worst movie ever
Moses-720 May 2000
This is a strong recommendation to anyone who reads this review who has never seen the film Total Reality, don't waste your time and money renting this poor excuse for a film. This is, without peer, the single worst movie that I have ever seen in my life. I had nightmares of this movie ever since I saw it. The acting was terrible, and any amateur film maker could make a more decent film. The film blatently rips off far superior sci-fi films, such as TimeCop or Total Recall (where the title seems to have been derived from). I'm sorry, but I just think that there is more entertainment value in watching the side of a cardboard box for two hours. If you already have seen this movie, I feel sorry for you for going through what I did.
So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here?
junk-monkey25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There is no reason to watch this film.
Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.
"Repeat?"
"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie."
"The whole movie?"
"Yes, the whole movie."
Etc.
In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.
As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.
I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.
The opening credits were nice.
Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.
"Repeat?"
"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie."
"The whole movie?"
"Yes, the whole movie."
Etc.
In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.
As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.
I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.
The opening credits were nice.
Calmly believe all the negative comments...
fernyperez6 July 2008
As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in "American Ninja 3". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, "tries" some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the "director" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it.
only if you can't really sleep...
badbadtz1 March 2004
don't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!
There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!
There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!
Lame - can't think of a more fitting word
nimiyy26 August 2006
I rented this movie for about $1.50 - the most complete waste of money (and time) I have ever spent. It's LAME! I couldn't believe how they could come up with something like this.
The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother?
The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.
Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower.
The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother?
The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.
Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower.
No way near as bad as the main page review makes out
Sic Coyote20 December 2000
It's another one of those low budget sci-fi films that go straight to video with David Bradley in. It's not that bad, really, sure it's a pretty standard plot, sure the effects don't look like they are real, but it's still a pretty much allright piece of entertainment. Also one thing about this movie, that Misa Koprova is beautiful! She should have had much more of a role in this, but then again that would have taken away screen time from David Bradley (star of Cyborg Cop) I bought this because he was in it, going into watching it having seen the 2 Cyborg cop films previously. How can he run straight down a straight corridor with a machine gun firing straight at him and not get hit? Because he's David Bradley! Why does he smash through a glass window when a pane that had already been smashed is right next to it, because he's David Bradley. Unfortunately he doesn't get to do much physical fighting but he still gets to do a bit(D-Von get the tables!). Anyway getting back to the point, if you like low budget DTV sci-fi affairs you'll probably be satisfied, it's on about the same level(and storyline) as Time Runner. Some parts of the film I think could have been shortened, there could have been more physical action, there could have been more shown of Misa Koprova :) and it could have done with a better ending with a twist perhaps, but other than that it's an okay piece of DTV entertainment.
Total Reality = Quality "B" Movie.
thanna-16 October 2006
My comments are a bit more realistic than others. I've been a movie buff for decades, and to this day a high dollar movie is not a movie without the hard work performed by those who create quality B-Movies. B-Movies have always been the heart of the industry since the beginning of movies. There was a time when 25 cents got you the news, a cartoon, a "B" movie, and the feature film. Even after the news and cartoon became a thing of the past, a "B" movie opened a feature film until pricing started to increase past $2.00. Nobody starts on top, they always start in "B" movies, soaps, even porn before major productions come their way.
Personally I thought TOTAL REALITY was an excellent sci-fi "B" Movie, and well worth the price of a tape or DVD. Those that say otherwise either can't afford the tape, or just expect way to much from a movie. Remember... technology increases daily! A 1997 mid budget movie won't have the same output as a multimillion dollar feature film, but it does offer good entertainment and escape from reality...
Thomas
Personally I thought TOTAL REALITY was an excellent sci-fi "B" Movie, and well worth the price of a tape or DVD. Those that say otherwise either can't afford the tape, or just expect way to much from a movie. Remember... technology increases daily! A 1997 mid budget movie won't have the same output as a multimillion dollar feature film, but it does offer good entertainment and escape from reality...
Thomas
Time Travelers...
fmarkland3226 February 2008
David Bradley stars as Lt. Rand, a future soldier facing a death sentence is given a chance for freedom if he leads a group of commandos back to 1998 to prevent a group of rebel fighters from preventing the totalitarian government from ever happening. Bradley also has 40 hours to succeed or his device in his neck will explode, along the way Bradley questions his mission. David Bradley I always thought of as an awful actor, his works in American Ninja 3 and American Ninja 4 made Michael Dudikoff seem like a Shakespearan actor. However in one of his last films before his retirement (?) from films, he delivered one of his best performance to date in what is one of his very best. The movie's main flaw is simply that it tries to do too much, in that things are implied so much we often don't understand where the plot is coming from. The main story is handled fairly well but the subplots are often dropped or just barely skimmed over. Total Reality really does imply a lot more than it tells and it has some scenes off quiet effectiveness. The movie doesn't start off all that well, as it starts out just to run down time but in reality it's what sets up the motivation of Bradley's character and the movie despite ripping off Escape From New York, The Terminator, The Dirty Dozen and even Trancers the film still combines the elements well enough and comes up with its share of good ideas to make it work for Science Fiction fans. There are of course plot holes but what I found quite captivating about Total Reality, is how David Bradley's character questions his mission and indeed isn't all that inspired in his quest to save his government. In fact when he explains "When we die, they'll send someone to replace us." which gets a sad reply, Bradley's quip "Don't look at me, I just work here" is well handled. Indeed it's bizarre but it's David Bradley that makes the movie work the way it does. With someone like Olivier Gruner, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as interesting. It's somewhat sad Bradley went into obscurity because he really became not too shabby of an actor, at least on the basis of this performance. The ending is also unexpected and intriguing which earns the movie it's high marks and in the end Phillip J. Roth crafts his best work to date, which is no doubt due to David Bradley. Something I never ever thought i'd ever write ever.
* *1/2 out of 4-(Pretty Good)
* *1/2 out of 4-(Pretty Good)
A reasonable plot with a clumsy script.
antiussentiment21 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I really like the idea that book based cult could lead to a dystopian world. The story rolls along at a good pace, a sci-fi dirty dozen, here to do the governments dirty work. Though it feels like one bunch of bad dudes have got one bunch of good guys hunting down another bunch of good guys.
The dialogue is bland, though not too spoon fed. Many of the sets illustrate the low budget of the piece. But I did like the space craft.
This is a B grader made for a bored audience. Passable, but that is all.
The dialogue is bland, though not too spoon fed. Many of the sets illustrate the low budget of the piece. But I did like the space craft.
This is a B grader made for a bored audience. Passable, but that is all.
Hilarious!!!
tonymcfadden3 April 2001
Loved this b-grade movie...
I never laughed so hard at a time travel sci-fi flick...from the moment the bald-headed baddie hopped in the back of a Ford pick-up and yelled "Hey, it's a Turk!" and his lead henchman sneered at him and said "Truck. It's a *truck*."
Funny stuff all the way through what would otherwise be a standard fare time travel flick.
I never laughed so hard at a time travel sci-fi flick...from the moment the bald-headed baddie hopped in the back of a Ford pick-up and yelled "Hey, it's a Turk!" and his lead henchman sneered at him and said "Truck. It's a *truck*."
Funny stuff all the way through what would otherwise be a standard fare time travel flick.
This be some righteous B-Movie crap-nip!
Weirdling_Wolf13 February 2023
If the idea of a low budget, highly derivative PM Entertainment-esque Sci-actioner starring, David Bradley and, Kelly Osbourne lookie Likie, Misa Kaprova sounds remotely appealing, then actually watching 'Total Reality' is the very least of your problems!!! Four death row sentenced rebel fighters alakazam 200 years back to 90s Portland in order to frag future-altering rapscallion, Thomas Kretschmann with explosive gizmos implanted in their necks!!!?? The purloined, piffle-plastered plot is a no-brainer in a very literal sense, if Phillip Roth's 'Total Reality' were a type of confectionary, and cliché, sprinkles, it would, perhaps, be nigh on indigestible to many, BUT, should any share my masochistic, marmite movie-loving obsession, there is some righteous B-Movie crap-nip herein! While hunky hero, David Bradley 'aint ever gonna win any acting dynamo of the year awards, spunky sidekick, Ely Pouset,has enough voltage for the both of 'em!!!! Come on now???!!! Any time-terminating, evil empire thwarting, cheese-a-tronic shoot 'em up featuring the embolism-inducing utterance of 'everywhere you go things blow up!!!??? Can't be ALL bad, can it???
A Movie which is an education.
etien5523 April 2000
Film-makers and movie-goers should see this film. It high-lights major problems with this genre. If we start with the use of studios and the penchant for special effects. This means that the sets are always, dark, and more than often that they are in derelict buildings. The models used are constructed by similar thinking people. The film itself is constructed on stereotypical binaries. The German accented villain - is unfortunate, it is built on I think a less than subliminated version of the Second World War. Brunettes, blondes, Germans, Jews, dirty faced children, clean children, war, peace, black, white. They are cliches.The dialogue could have been written on a beer mat. The acting was deplorable. Wooden. Why do people waste money on such a production? Yet there are so many like this.Given the same material and same budget I could have made a much better movie. I think Philip Roth should hang his head in shame. But as I said before. Watch it and study the formulaic, the stereotypes, the cliches --indeed this film should be put on the viewing list of film courses. A must to see.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
