Stadium_Hot Reviews

Total Recall (I) (2012)

Who takes classic Art, burns it and puts it into a pretty golden urn? Oh, this guy did...

[1/10 · 26 September 2014]

*although there is no point of an alert because all the incredible parts of the original are pretty much left out of this version*

I wish to start by saying I am APPALLED this film has a score as high as a 6.3/10 (at the time of this review). No doubt the Millennials rating this piece are new fledglings in flight towards the blights of unadulterated changeling trite.

My 2 cents on why these modern Directors 'remake' absolute classics: Modern times are indeed infested with spoilt brats. Said spoilt brats need and demand the here--the now--the fabulous. Everything has to be impressive. I could delve deeper into the atrocities of modern Technology making us dumber, alas that narrative is for a rainy day. In summary; society (youth especially) has become simple, they do not like (or simply cannot comprehend the possibility of) the arts having meaning - or in this case: storyline. These creatures do not have the intelligence to appreciate subtlety in Art. They want graphics, special effects, impressive technology and the dream of a technological future, well that is all this film offers.

Firstly, Arnie was an absolute legend. Love him or hate him, he was a total original. He was a monster of the cheese-plagued action movie star role. Colin Farrel, hum, I scrape my brain here for just one role where he has shown even a glimmer of talent or originality. OK, not much of my brain left - 'desperation' began scooping my mind with a melon-baller until I became as dull as this crippling defecate. Lines such as; 'get yo a** to mars', 'considaah that the divorce', 'see u at the party Riktaaah' and my favourite 'Benny, Screeeeew Yoooooou' are all left out of the remake. Does Colin have the charm to come up with new ones? Nope. I permit you to borrow my melon-baller, too.

Let's now move onto the plot. 'Plot?', you say, in a bewildered voice. Yes, they changed the entire plot for this remake. Why? I'm not even sure, it doesn't suit ADHD Millennials, does it? Am I missing something on their nurture make-up? Because the original is actually way more 'impressive'. Not to mention the original was rated at a censor of 18, the remake a censor of 12, kind of somewhat proving my point this is designed more for modern children. Moving on -- they do not go to Mars, meaning there are no Mutants, no travel in Space, no Kuato telling Quaid to 'start the reactor' to 'give those people air'. Instead, the World consists of 2 civilizations known as 'The United Federation of Britain' and 'The Colony' and he has to take some stupid journey. Good idea for an entirely different film? A possibility. A TR remake? Boooooooooring.

Quaid's wife (played by Kate Beckinsale) has a real predominant role. While Beckinsale is the only glimmer of hope in this flick (seeing her shooting a machine gun was indeed one of the few treats), she is no Sharon Stone. I see no logical reason to make her the star (other than Wiseman wishes to still, ahem, get some you know what). Ronny Cox as Cohaagen in the original was an absolute dream and he had a bigger and a commanding role. Cohaagen in the remake is almost pathetic, although played by the wondrous Bryan Cranston (who is a genius in 'Breaking Bad'), he gets a nothing role here. Melina is portrayed by Jessica Biel, another that begs you for even quasi-endowment in the acting arts. There is no space for Richter, Benny, the mask lady going through the, ahem, 'inter-galactic checkpoint', there is no Johnny Cab - which alas means there is no genius scene where he says 'I'm not familiar with that address' in regards to Arnie saying 's***, s***' when he sees the 'bad guys'.

I understand changing something original to suit your own interpretation, but if you change it, make it good. Scratch that, make it outstanding. Give people a reason to watch it, because it is too late for me to get my 2 hours back.

I guess the more I lambaste this Film in the form of an Ogre's excrement, the more I appreciate how genius the original is, so that is one of the very few positives.

Bad Points: Aforementioned atrocities. Too many to list.

Good Points: Kate Beckinsale with a machine gun. The fight scene at Rekall where Quaid takes on 10 guys is impressive. Also, the film is so treacherous it makes you love the original more, does that count?

How long do I think this preposterous remake will be remembered for? 'Twooooo Weeeeeeeeks'

Donnie Darko (2001)

Donnie Darko: fodder for the artistically blind...

[1/10 · 16 January 2007]

Donnie Darko aka the plight of humanity expressed and transposed through tip-top, dysfunctional, tripe pseudo-art. The mean looking, everyday angst-ridden, emotional Mall dwelling kid does well here, staring at the screen, smirking all film like you're the father he hates and wishes to plot eradication towards. If this is good acting, then sure, take any semi-coherent, yet handsome teen off the street and fire them up, they are READY TO GO! Essentially, the film is perfect for the 'alternate' cliques of people who dislike the norm, dislike societal structure, are appalled by the standard of everyday tastes on display for them. This is fair to take this stance, but, the irony is, this film is merely a sugar-coated black-spot on modern Art. Posing as something acquired to this clique's general 'norm', thinking it is an excuse to be happy that something 'creative' has reared finally to end the scruple and bring forth the mental endearment. I'm sorry folks, I just don't buy it. It lacks charm. It lacks gripping drama. Depth. Meaning. Humour (well it was humorous to me and my perplexed mind). This disdainfully repulsive creation had me cringing in the Cinema, while all around, seemed to be enthralled by the apparent 'spell-binding' blandness of this superficial sham, while I was only fully exasperated by how offensively bad it truly was. I don't blame the 'alternate masses' for being desperate for something of this kind of repertoire, but, you don't jump into bed with the first person you meet.

At least when left bewildered by a Rothko painting, you are just that, for differing reasons. Which has you scratching your head and 'wondering' in positive ways. This film had me bewildered for all the wrong reasons.

I dislike spoilers, so I won't include one, no matter how inadequate the film is, but the ending just epitomizes the whole film, what he turns out to 'be', uniquely stupid. Bravo.

Seriously, what was 'unique' about this film? Because the plot was dull, possibly the dullest part of the film. So yes, this film descends into new levels of self mental-depravity toned by it's atrocious plot, dull acting, lack of ideas, lack of basis and downright lack of general creativity. The only possible atonement being, that I get to rip holes in it for the rest of my life. Though, nothing can atone for the scar left in my mind forever.

Oh, what a surprise, Richard Kelly also wrote something as repugnant as 'Domino', also. Expect more future pieces of 'Art' that will trick their way into your unequivocally obtuse junk stand.

54 (1998)

Poor Film

[4/10 · 14 January 2007]

54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.

I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.

Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather.