Dredd 3D (Pete Travis)

[Stay Puft]

DREDD 3D
Director: Pete Travis

IMDb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/)

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XQX.nPkvQqIc3KyMM5A76w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD 05MzM7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/251/2012/08/02/FIN06-Dredd-1Sht-ab3-jpg_154331.jpg

[Stay Puft]

Well, this is better than the Stallone film! [insert sound of crickets]

The strength of this new version is its direct, no nonsense approach to the character. No backstory, no character exposition, Urban never takes off the helmet... Dredd is simply The Law in bipedal, gun wielding form. Of course, we still get an audience surrogate in Anderson, and this element of the film is fairly weak. Anderson is supposed to be a mutant, but the world building in the film is fairly anemic so there's never a sense of her place. We get one scene of poor exposition where a character is like, oh yeah, I heard about your kind. The scene where she uses her powers on this character is lame. We barely learn anything about Mega City One or the world outside of it, which I suppose is part of its economic approach, but to me simply feels threadbare. Which isn't to say that there isn't any good world building in the film (I like the role the Judge's primary weapon plays in the story, and how Anderson's field test - losing her primary weapon is an automatic fail - figures into that), only that these moments are few and far between.

The biggest problem, however, is the pacing. This film is ridiculously limp. There are individual moments that are pretty good, some fun dialogue, some good action... but then there is just as much awful kitsch (the slo-mo drug), clumsy exposition and directorial choices (unnecessary flashbacks), bad special effects and just generally poor action. A mixed bag, where the plot never really builds to anything or even really starts building. For an action film it feels surprisingly inert, the climax coming and going like any other scene in the film, plodding along until it finds the exit, managing to hit a few good notes along the way as if by accident.

The comparisons to The Raid are inevitable, not simply in conception but also because Dredd 3D is this year's opening night Madness film, and The Raid was last year's opening night Madness film, so the echo is eerie. Dredd 3D loses in the comparison by a significant margin. Both films have problems with pacing above all else, but where The Raid struggles to maintain its intensity for its runtime, Dredd 3D struggles to even build any momentum. Whatever works in the film works on its own, disconnected from the big picture.

[Stay Puft]

Oh, and I should probably point out since I was asked on another forum (though maybe this is already obvious to everyone) that Dredd 3D and the Stallone film still have one thing in common, and that's that they both play by the rules of action cinema. Dredd 3D gets closer to being a good adaptation without necessarily getting closer to the source material, if that makes sense. At the end of the day the film is still concerned with being an "action movie" and fits itself neatly into those genre conventions. I could see Dredd fans looking at both films and saying it's six and one half dozen.

[Watashi]

Yep. Hard to believe that the critics are lapping this up (currently 100% with 30+ reviews).

I just didn't find the character of Dredd that interesting. It seemed that the director completely glazed over the satire of the character and just made him be this Western gung-ho badass.

[number8]

Nay for me, too. There were a couple of times they tried to play Dredd's personality for humor (yelling at a bum to get lost), but it seems they eventually chickened out on portraying the Judges as anything but good guys. Weirdly enough, the Stallone movie had more of those moments, like when he blew up some guy's car for parking wrong.

[megladon8]

Nay for me, too. There were a couple of times they tried to play Dredd's personality for humor (yelling at a bum to get lost), but it seems they eventually chickened out on portraying the Judges as anything but good guys. Weirdly enough, the Stallone movie had more of those moments, like when he blew up some guy's car for parking wrong.


I don't understand this. Did the last third of the movie not show that the judges are just as human and corrupt as everyone else?

Good movie, BTW. Honestly a little surprised by the poor reaction on MC (but I've long given up trying to understand this place :) ).

[number8]

I meant there's no acknowledgement that the whole Judges system itself is really awful. What you're referring to are just corrupt Judges bribed by the mob, which is a cliched convention like in any other cop movie. Which is what this is: a run of the mill, competent but not that exciting cop movie. It doesn't take advantage of the great premise, which is that democracy is illegal in Mega-City One.

I revisited the Stallone movie recently and was surprised that that element was very much in that movie (albeit terribly executed) by nature of it being a bigger movie and exploring the Judges system.

Like Wats said, in this movie they completely had the satire went over their heads and just made Dredd a futuristic Dirty Harry.

[megladon8]

I still thought it worked, and it may be run-of-the-mill, but it was so well executed, with such style and energy, I was really taken with it.

Urban was great. Every time I saw him my cheeks hurt from his grimace.

Edit: Definitely a "style over substance" movie, and it worked. We had a great time.

[Stay Puft]

I revisited the Stallone movie recently and was surprised that that element was very much in that movie (albeit terribly executed) by nature of it being a bigger movie and exploring the Judges system.

Oh, man. I haven't seen it in years and my memory is just that it's terrible and campy and Hollywood and Armand Assante... that it does actually bear a closer resemblance to the source makes me fucking laugh (and dislike this new version even more, what the fuck Alex Garland).

[megladon8]

Resembling the source material =/= better.

[number8]

Oh, man. I haven't seen it in years and my memory is just that it's terrible and campy and Hollywood and Armand Assante... that it does actually bear a closer resemblance to the source makes me fucking laugh (and dislike this new version even more, what the fuck Alex Garland).

It's an integral part of the plot, actually. The whole movie is about the Judges in-fighting, with a fascist Judge trying to take over from a more lenient Judge, and Dredd's unwavering belief that "the law is never wrong" tested when he himself is wrongly sentenced. It's a political story told through a Sylvester Stallone/Rob Schneider buddy movie. It's awful.

[number8]

Resembling the source material =/= better.

Are you talking about objectively, or as an exercise in adaptation? It's entirely possible that a Batman movie where instead of being murdered, the Waynes are cursed by a wizard to become a talking baseball bat that inspired Bruce to be a better person can be a much more entertaining movie than Batman Begins, but I wouldn't be too quick to call it the better Batman movie.

[number8]

For me, adaptation is an art in itself. You should know what to keep and what to cut, and you should never be beholden to the details or even scenes, but you need to be able to capture the spirit of the material, to know what the character is and present that to a wider audience.

To turn what is historically best known as a satirical look at a police state and make a generic cop movie out of it, entertaining as it may be, seems like a pretty ass-backwards endeavor and a failure of an adaptation. That's like making a visually stunning, well-acted Fahrenheit 451 adaptation about how fucking useless books are.

[megladon8]

Are you talking about objectively, or as an exercise in adaptation? It's entirely possible that a Batman movie where instead of being murdered, the Waynes are cursed by a wizard to become a talking baseball bat that inspired Bruce to be a better person can be a much more entertaining movie than Batman Begins, but I wouldn't be too quick to call it the better Batman movie.


It could very well be the better movie if the story is told in a better fashion (dialogue, cinematography, editing, direction, acting, etc.).

It's just a personal pet peeve of mine when "it's not like the source material" is used as an automatic detractor regardless of the quality of the film.

You and Stay Puft in the posts above seem to hint at the idea that because the Stallone film contained more of the political satire from the comic, that automatically gives it an edge over this one.

I. Could. Not. Care. Less. How accurately a film inspired by some source material (whatever it is) recreates what was in the source material.

If I wanted Judge Dredd stories directly transposed from the comics, I would just read the comics. I don't think "it's not like the comics" is really a valid criticism (not to mention how this character and universe is not nearly as immortally ingrained in pop culture as, say, Batman or Superman).

I often find some of the most exciting stories with characters I love are ones that are totally off the beaten path, with writers/artists trying to throw a curveball and do something different and unexpected. For instance, I thought Grant Morrison's "The Return of Bruce Wayne" arc (with different incarnations of Batman through different periods and lore) to be a really cool idea, and much fresher than a lot of the "my parents are dead, time to fight crime" stories that get told over and over and over again.

Dredd presented a high-concept idea with a British '90s indie film sensibility, and I thought it worked wonderfully. The sheer energy on display was just grand. I can forgive the simplicity of its plot when it was that much fun to watch, with so much creative imagery and such an impressively charismatic performance from Urban.

That it wasn't a transposition of the comics didn't even enter my mind. They did their own thing and it worked really well.

[number8]

Uh, no, we didn't say that. The Stallone movie is objectively terrible in almost every respect. Which is why we think it's funny how it's more competent at an adaptation of the comic than the one that has better acting and better action scenes. It's a conversation topic.

You're lumping us in with the people who disliked Batman Begins because Thomas Wayne didn't have a mustache, and that's unfair.

[Watashi]

I've never read a single Judge Dredd comic in my life. The movie took itself way too seriously. If I take the movie how it is, there's not much beyond the surface. It doesn't stretch beyond a typical buddy cop movie. It's slick and polished, but so what?

[Stay Puft]

You and Stay Puft in the posts above seem to hint at the idea that because the Stallone film contained more of the political satire from the comic, that automatically gives it an edge over this one.

It makes me like Dredd 3D a little less, yeah, as it brings to light just how poor or uninspired of an adaptation this thing is (or maybe that's too harsh, maybe just in how much of a missed opportunity this thing is; they failed to offer a corrective to the Stallone film, which is how they were talking the film up when I saw it at TIFF).

It does not make me like the Stallone film more or think it a better movie, which I made clear in my earlier posts. Regardless of being an adaptation, Judge Dredd is a terrible goddamn movie and Dredd 3D is a watchable if run-of-the-mill action movie.

My original point was that they're both action movies first and stumble as comic adaptations, but Dredd 3D is easily the more competent movie.

[megladon8]

I've never read a single Judge Dredd comic in my life. The movie took itself way too seriously. If I take the movie how it is, there's not much beyond the surface. It doesn't stretch beyond a typical buddy cop movie. It's slick and polished, but so what?


Eh, a recycled, by-the-numbers idea can be incredibly exciting and satisfying when executed with care, flare and energy.

It didn't breathe new life into the genre or anything, but I found much of it quite inspired stylistically.

[Sxottlan]

Yikes! Only $2.2M for this on Friday. On a budget of $50M. :sad:

I'll have to make a point of seeing this by Thursday because its theater count could go way down by next Friday.

Actually nothing is opening with any huge lead this weekend.

[TGM]

The theaters in my town are only showing like 3 shows of this per day in 3D, and only a single showing for non-3D, at a time when just about nobody would be able to see it. So yeah, at least in my town, this thing was doomed from the get-go.

[Morris Schæffer]

This crashed and burned at the box office with 6.3 million. Overseas grosses will have to compensate.

[number8]

I started writing a long-ass article about the Judge Dredd comics and realized that it's just way too long, so I've split it up into two parts.

Here's the first part, comparing the two films.

http://www.artboiled.com/2012/inspiring-dredd-part-one-new-film-is-stripped-of-its-eccentricity-and-satire/

The second part is going to be mostly focused on the comics and the politics of it. I'll finish it up tomorrow.

[Rowland]

I started writing a long-ass article about the Judge Dredd comics and realized that it's just way too long, so I've split it up into two parts.

Here's the first part, comparing the two films.

http://www.artboiled.com/2012/inspiring-dredd-part-one-new-film-is-stripped-of-its-eccentricity-and-satire/

The second part is going to be mostly focused on the comics and the politics of it. I'll finish it up tomorrow.Just revisited Judge Dredd for the first time since its VHS release, and hot damn is it lousy. The first act shows some glimmers of satirical promise, as you rightly point out in your piece, but the drop-off is pretty massive, culminating in a deeply embarrassing final act.

[TGM]

I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. My review. (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2012/09/dredd.html)

[Morris Schæffer]

Part one was a good read 8! Thanks

[megladon8]

http://imageshack.us/a/img32/3083/judgegrumpy.jpg

[Ivan Drago]

There is only one word to describe this movie, and it is 'awesome'.

[max314]

Dredd moves with all the pace and purpose of its eponymous protagonist whilst managing to imbue itself with a surge of humanity that, rather suitably, never seeps over into sentimentalism.

★★★★★

[TGM]

This was even better the second time around. Damn shame it bombed as hard as it did.

[TGM]

So I saw this for the third time last night, this time in 3D. It says A LOT that I was actually willing to see a movie in 3D (I am ADAMANTLY against 3D movies), but the film is just so GORGEOUS that I was willing to give it a shot. But, eh, the 3D was unimpressive, so I'm back to avoiding 3D films, but still, didn't take away my enjoyment of the movie. Dredd has become my favorite movie this year by a long shot.

[Winston*]

This movie wasn't much fun.

Ground's POV of a woman's face hitting it has got to be one of the stupidest shots I've seen in a while.

[max314]

This movie wasn't much fun.

Ground's POV of a woman's face hitting it has got to be one of the stupidest shots I've seen in a while.

Disagree with the spoiler point, Winston. The whole point of that shot was...

...to show how it would feel to very slowly have your face merge with concrete at terminal velocity.

Plus, it's a great callback to earlier in the movie when Judge Anderson shuddered whilst visualising the then unshown impact.

[Winston*]

Disagree with the spoiler point, Winston. The whole point of that shot was...

...to show how it would feel to very slowly have your face merge with concrete at terminal velocity.
It doesn't effectively convey that feeling (how could it?), and I'm not really sure what's admirable about the attempt to do so.

[max314]

Wasn't that the whole point of the drug? To slow down time?

The filmmakers made an attempt to show the perverse flipside of the drug, using it for extreme pain as opposed to extreme pleasure.

I thought the whole thing was rather brilliant.

[number8]

Yeah, I thought that shot was pretty dumb too. I got really bored while she was falling waiting for the impact. The slow motion shots in general don't add very much to anything other than to create cool-looking 3D shots.

[max314]

The slow motion shots in general don't add very much to anything other than to create cool-looking 3D shots.

I disagree.

Dredd is a film that literally pulses with narrative drive; but the slow motion beats provide these beautiful, poetic, almost meditative cul-de-sacs that almost make you understand the release the drug provides in this harsh, unforgiving world we're looking into.

The deranged reversal of those effects then provides a stark counterpoint to that relief, magnifying the horrors of the real world as opposed to suppressing them.

I'll say it again: it's really rather brilliant.

[megladon8]

I'm stuck in the middle of this debate.

I could not ever argue this movie had some deep, resonant brilliance (in its use of slow motion or otherwise).

8's right in that the slo-mo mechanic was used to create cool shots and provide stylistic scenarios for shoot-outs. And it worked.

It was a cool, fun movie. I dug the hell out of it.

[TGM]

The slow motion shots in general don't add very much to anything other than to create cool-looking 3D shots.

Except that that wasn't the case. The 3D was generally unimpressive, particularly during the slow-motion sequences, which was what I was most looking forward to seeing when I saw it in 3D, only for them to disappoint in that regard.

In fact, the only time the 3D impressed me at all were a few instances where a character was just standing still, such as when Anderson was outside and the ash was raining down behind her in the background, or Dredd turns to the camera as the fire rages on behind him, etc.

As for the slow-mo shots, my opinions pretty much mirror Max's exactly, and I even brought up those same points in my review. It's one of the biggest reasons I loved this movie so much.

[Fezzik]

My biggest issue with the slo-mo was that..

it was supposed to make your brain feel like time was passing at 1% (it was 1% right? Maybe it was 10%) the normal rate.

Wouldn't that mean that the person would be splattered on the ground below LONG before their brain knew it? What was the point of that?

As an example, if it took 20 seconds to fall and hit the ground, the brain would only process the first .2 seconds (or 2 seconds) of that fall before the person was actually dead, so if anything, giving them the drug probably saved them some suffering, not prolonged it.


If I'm reading that wrong, please let me know.

Overall, I thought the movie was good. Very stylized and well-told. I couldn't give it a higher rating, though, because over-the-top violence has never been my thing and it feels like the filmmakers invented the slo-mo conceit to give them an excuse to show the gore in more detail than needed.

[max314]

Fezzik, I think the point of the drug was that it made your brain process reality at 100 times its normal speed, thus the user perceives reality as moving at 1% its normal speed.

It's a state of hyper-awareness as opposed to just a temporary sensation.

Regarding attitudes towards the use of slow motion in Dredd, I think the reason why people have become so jaded with the technique is the post-Matrix abuse it's suffered, culminating in the "visionary" films of Zack Snyder that should make any thinking audience member roll their eyes far back into their heads before guiltily enjoying his vacuous, overindulgent shlock the way an obese person digs into their third Big Mac for lunch.

That said, the technique itself is not inherently vulgar. It's a storytelling tool, like zoom lenses or colour film — two other techniques that have seen their fair share of abuse in their time. So if the use of the technique is correctly motivated, as I believe it is in Dredd and absolutely isn't in Zack Snyder's films, then there ain't a damn thing wrong with that in my mind. Especially when it's as artfully done as this.

PS
TGM, I just checked out your blog and it turns out that there's a paragraph in there that's damn near identical to what I've been saying about the slo-mo :cool:

[eternity]

Okay.

[Dukefrukem]

This was bad. Pacing is just terrible. It never seems to keep pace with what the story is trying to project on the audience. It's essentially a sloppy version of the Raid.

[Grouchy]

I gave it a "Yay" because it was a fun time watching a pure actioner. I tend to completely agree with 8's article, though, that they completely chickened out of the satiric aspects of the character... and that Robocop is the movie John Wagner's creation deserved all along.

[megladon8]

Still love this one after several views.

Can't help noticing that Urban botches the American accent on the very first line of narration when the movie opens - "Americer is an irradiated wasteland."

Adding the "er" sound to a word that ends with a vowel before saying a word that begins with a vowel is a distinctly un-American trait (mostly Colonial British).

[EyesWideOpen]

This was surprisingly good. I enjoyed it more then the similar The Raid.

[The Bad Guy]

This was surprisingly good. I enjoyed it more then the similar The Raid.

I prefer The Raid, but they're both a lot of fun.

[Scar]

Had fun with this one.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, watched this a couple of weeks ago, and after a somewhat shaky start, it slowly grew on me, and by the end I reveled in its world-building and propulsive energy.

It love its '90s movie-inspired claustrophobia being executed with upgraded effects. Early on when we see the different layers of the Peach Trees community functioning normally and then suddenly dispersing in panic when the first body falls in the sort of massively-staged thing that would have been done on huge, expensive sets on soundstages, but Dredd, while still keeping that spirit in its scope, just builds it partially that way and allow digital mattes to blend in the rest almost seamlessly.

Having re-watched The Raid last night with a bunch of friends confirms that its a stronger, tighter film, but Dredd is still a perfectly entertaining, simple little futuristic popcorn flick that I'd be willing to re-watch just as often.

***

[Ivan Drago]

It says A LOT that I was actually willing to see a movie in 3D (I am ADAMANTLY against 3D movies), but the film is just so GORGEOUS that I was willing to give it a shot.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought the film looked good. I couldn't believe it when I saw Anthony Dod Mantle's name in the credits as the DP.

The more I think about this movie, the more I like it.

[number8]

I wish Danny Boyle directed it.

[Spun Lepton]

Aside from one minor moment that irked me a bit ("Wait."), I enjoyed this quite a bit.

[MadMan]

I liked this film. Its a solid, simplistic action movie that's well made and is entertaining, which sometimes is all you really need. Also I would love it if they made a sequel.

[MadMan]

I started writing a long-ass article about the Judge Dredd comics and realized that it's just way too long, so I've split it up into two parts.

Here's the first part, comparing the two films.

http://www.artboiled.com/2012/inspiring-dredd-part-one-new-film-is-stripped-of-its-eccentricity-and-satire/

The second part is going to be mostly focused on the comics and the politics of it. I'll finish it up tomorrow.I just read the first part. Got a link to the second part? Great piece, even though I liked Dredd way more than the Stallone version, of course. And I will admit that I have not read any of the comics.

[number8]

I was gonna time it with the DVD release and dropped the ball. I'll finish it at some point. :cry:

[megladon8]

I still really like this one. Some of the most fun I had with a movie from 2012.

[MadMan]

I was gonna time it with the DVD release and dropped the ball. I'll finish it at some point. :cry:You should, man. I'll read it! :cool:

[number8]

http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013-01-21.jpg

http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/hope-alls-yall-picked-up-dredd-on-bluray

[Skitch]

I forgot to rate this, apparently. Anyway, I enjoyed it. Would love to see a Dredd movie in this style where it isn't confined to a building. Understand why in this film, but would like to see these filmmakers without budgetary constraints.

[Dukefrukem]

So Judge Dredd was on showtime last night and I was blown away, at how good it looked. Was it remastered recently? It Didn't look like a movie from 1995 at all.

Anyway, just a quick shout out to Judge Dredd. I enjoyed it way more than this movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

So Judge Dredd was on showtime last night and I was blown away, at how good it looked. Was it remastered recently? It Didn't look like a movie from 1995 at all.

Anyway, just a quick shout out to Judge Dredd. I enjoyed it way more than this movie.

There was a blu-ray that got good reviews. The score by Alan Silvestri kicks ass.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This film lacks any hint of humanity, with all the main characters tiresome steely-eyed plot robots with faces stuck on "grimace." But the flick carries an appreciable retro action film charm with its grotesque violence, fascist wish-fulfillment, and - thank God - brevity. I'm on the fence with this one.

[megladon8]

This film lacks any hint of humanity, with all the main characters tiresome steely-eyed plot robots with faces stuck on "grimace." But the flick carries an appreciable retro action film charm with its grotesque violence, fascist wish-fulfillment, and - thank God - brevity. I'm on the fence with this one.


I know, it was freaking great right?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I know, it was freaking great right?

It also punted on the idea of psychic mind-battles, which should've come back in a big way in the finale.

[max314]

This film lacks any hint of humanity, with all the main characters tiresome steely-eyed plot robots with faces stuck on "grimace."

The whole point of the film is to portray a world that is so unrelentingly brutal that a narcotic such as Slo-Mo is the only source of respite to its citizenry.

That said, the film is infused with a dark and dry sense of humour, and satisfying character relationships that never cross the line into sentimentality. The filmmakers have tightly controlled the tone of the film whilst never letting it settle into a sense of monotony.

It really is a perfectly pitched piece of action entertainment.


It also punted on the idea of psychic mind-battles, which should've come back in a big way in the finale.

I don't know about "mind-battles" per se – Anderson's skill shows it would be a pretty one-sided battle for anyone foolish and/or desperate enough to challenge her to a duel – but Anderson's mind reading abilities do play a pivotal role at multiple points in the movie, including during the finalé.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The whole point of the film is to portray a world that is so unrelentingly brutal that a narcotic such as Slo-Mo is the only source of respite to its citizenry.

Is it? Who do we see use slow-mo beyond two people, one of whom is the lead antagonist? The majority of the citizenry are simply living regular lives and occasionally locking their doors. There's little evidence that slow-mo is an epidemic beyond the movie insisting that it is.

The point seems more to produce another post-apoc frontier setting as a means of deploying the cathartic satisfaction of harsh justice. Future Death Wish, or Robocop without as much self-awareness.


The filmmakers have tightly controlled the tone of the film

Agreed.


whilst never letting it settle into a sense of monotony.

Disagreed. One example: Dredd gets shot in dramatic fashion late in the picture. This could provide an opportunity for - at the least - some revised method of beating the villains at the end. Forget any sort of emotional or psychological adjustment. That's not the way Dredd is. But how about tactical? Bullet flew through his chest. Severe. Great way to amp the stakes. What does he do now? How does he adapt? Well, he doesn't. He applies magic gel and auto-stitches, and he's back to acting exactly the same.


I don't know about "mind-battles" per se – Anderson's skill shows it would be a pretty one-sided battle for anyone foolish and/or desperate enough to challenge her to a duel – but Anderson's mind reading abilities do play a pivotal role at multiple points in the movie, including during the finalé.

Sure, her mind-reading factors in, but the battle between her and Harris's character is a standout bit of psychedelia, and it would've been much more interesting, during the climax, to see her go up against someone who could fight back.

[max314]

There's little evidence that slow-mo is an epidemic beyond the movie insisting that it is.

True. But I don't think it's necessary to see swathes of people taking the substance for us to be convinced of its popularity.


Future Death Wish, or Robocop without as much self-awareness.

Oh, I think it's plenty self-aware.


Bullet flew through his chest. Severe. Great way to amp the stakes. What does he do now? How does he adapt? Well, he doesn't. He applies magic gel and auto-stitches, and he's back to acting exactly the same.

If "exactly the same" means "badass", then yes.

But this doesn't equate to monotony. There is humour, there is tenderness, there is depth, and there is an implied world beyond the one we see – but none of it serves to compromise the primary tone of this violent fever dream of a film that allows us to share with Dredd what is "behind the control".


...it would've been much more interesting, during the climax, to see her go up against someone who could fight back.

And who could fight back? Another psychic, perhaps? That'd be cool.

But Anderson's uniqueness as a psychic is reiterated many times throughout the film. I don't think there are many of them around.

[megladon8]

Watched this again the other night.

Anyone else find this movie looks and feels like something made in 1995?

[D_Davis]

Watched this again the other night.

Anyone else find this movie looks and feels like something made in 1995?

Yep - mentioned that in my brief thoughts. Total throw back, and I loved how barebones the set-up is. Pretty great little movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

Bought the 3d blu-ray today for cheap. Look forward to it.

[Morris Schæffer]

The Stallone version is funner than this new one. I found this one a bit of a grind to sit though as it's rather monotonous and devoid of tension, despite a premise which seems to suggest, uh, well, I suppose a tense situation. It's a solid example of low-budget filmmaking done right I feel, but there wasn't much there beyond splat splat splat.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVnLwDgJzUA

[Irish]

Karl Urban claims that Alex Garland ("Ex Machina," "Annihilation") actually directed "Dredd."

Which.. wait, what?!

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exc-karl-urban-says-alex-garland-directed-dredd-updates-on-reprising-role-329

http://thequietus.com/articles/24227-dredd-judge-dredd-karl-urban-alex-garland

[Dukefrukem]

I dont understand. Why is that a secret?

[TGM]

That... actually makes a whole lot more sense.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh ok. It's basically saying that Urban turned to Garland for direction instead of Travis. Which is kind of neat since now we can say that Garland, wrote, produced, directed and edited this film.

[Irish]

I watched this again and, wow, it was a lot better than I had remembered.

I wish they had done more with the villain. Hendley's character is so stock that she doesn't have options. If Maw had displayed humanity as a counter to Dredd's brutality, it would have lent the whole movie some much needed depth. Instead, it's colorfully shot with good production values and gives the audience nothing more to think about over "Boom...splat," and a plotline that's straight out of a 20 year old videogames and cut rate action pictures.

Great looking, though, all the way through and it's probably the closest thing to real cyberpunk outside the original "Terminator."