Judge Dredd Movie

Sugarlumps

Beefy78 wrote: »

Just checking.... was Stallone in the film you watched?

Nope, Stallone's version was watchable.

Lelantos

Sugarlumps wrote: »

Absolute pile of excrement, I've seen better acting in porno's, one of the worst film I've ever watched. I wanted everyone to die. It looked ultra cheap and the story line was retarded.

You're actually being too kind to it. Although, I must admit, I haven't seen a jaw act that we'll since Kirk Douglas

Galvasean

Sugarlumps wrote: »

Nope, Stallone's version was watchable.

Dredd was my favourite film last year as well, went to see it twice. Loved every second of it.

Karl Urban told Comic Con yesterday that himself and Alex Garland are actively exploring sequel possibilities. Seems that he believes that chances of a sequel are quite good give just how well Dredd performed on DVD and Blu.

degrassinoel

I really enjoyed Dredd, far better than Stallone's version. The soundtrack is quality too.

Faith+1

Sugarlumps wrote: »

Nope, Stallone's version was watchable.

Now you're just trolling.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

Karl Urban told Comic Con yesterday that himself and Alex Garland are actively exploring sequel possibilities. Seems that he believes that chances of a sequel are quite good give just how well Dredd performed on DVD and Blu.

I really hope they are successful in delivering a sequel. Judge Dredd has decades of history behind the name; making it a very daunting source-material to approach and succeed in capturing & distilling its essence into a couple of hours of screen time. Dredd was filmed on a tight budget; yet it managed to capture the essence of 2000ADs Judge Dredd without sacrificing the the source material. To be able to do that takes talent, respect & an in-depth knowledge of the source material.

I also believe the source material is becoming increasingly relevant as a commentary on today's behaviour of governments around the world despite much of it being penned decades ago; so again I really hope to see a sequel.

Lamper.sffc

Karl Urban talks a bit about Dredd and potential for a sequel from the one minute mark

coolisin

Finally..................and I mean finally got around to watching this last night.
I bought the Blu-Ray to watch (after being unable to watch it in the cinema).

I was worried as all the recommendations on here sometimes do not bode well.
No loved it, 2000AD was one of the first comic books I had access to. My cousin collected them so I used get a chance to read them.

This was just great, violent and I thought Karl Urban's Dredd was spot on.

I loved the way the "Iam the law" line was delivered.
(Herself hated it, so it will be re watched by myself)

Thanks for the recommendations people!

Lamper.sffc

Karl Urban talks a little more about what he would like in another Dredd movie if it came about.

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/08/06/karl-urban-on-what-hed-like-in-a-dredd-sequel

Facebook campaign and link to 2000AD petition here

https://www.facebook.com/MakeADreddSequel?fref=ts

Warper

Saw this in the cinema last year and loved it. As a fan of the comic book as a child i found MegaCity 1 to be as dark and visceral as the comic. Loved the baddie MaMa and the drug Slow-mo provided some great scenes. Perfect length, cool baddie and plenty of action. Must admit though i watched it on Sky few weeks back and didnt enjoy it quite as much but that often happens when comparing cinema - small screen.

ScumLord

Warper wrote: »

Saw this in the cinema last year and loved it. As a fan of the comic book as a child i found MegaCity 1 to be as dark and visceral as the comic. Loved the baddie MaMa and the drug Slow-mo provided some great scenes. Perfect length, cool baddie and plenty of action. Must admit though i watched it on Sky few weeks back and didnt enjoy it quite as much but that often happens when comparing cinema - small screen.

I thought the city was a bit of a let down but I understand to make a proper futuristic looking city would have added huge expense to the project.

It simply doesn't look packed enough, Megacity 1 should have people living on top of people but the film didn't give me that impression. It didn't seem overpopulated, in parts it's very sparsely populated.

Beefy78

ScumLord wrote: »

I thought the city was a bit of a let down but I understand to make a proper futuristic looking city would have added huge expense to the project.

It simply doesn't look packed enough, Megacity 1 should have people living on top of people but the film didn't give me that impression. It didn't seem overpopulated, in parts it's very sparsely populated.

It also didn't look futuristic enough. Especially the vehicles. I appreciate it's post-apocalyptic however are we really to believe that all that survived were 800m people, cockroaches and mid-90s cars?

But that's just the logistics of making a sci-fi film like this on a budget.

ScumLord

Beefy78 wrote: »

It also didn't look futuristic enough. Especially the vehicles. I appreciate it's post-apocalyptic however are we really to believe that all that survived were 800m people, cockroaches and mid-90s cars?

And the combustion engine. That's going to be on it's last legs by the end of this decade.

norrie rugger

Could be using excrement/bacteria to make combustion fuel

Lelantos

norrie rugger wrote: »

Could be using excrement/bacteria to make combustion fuel

No, they use that instead of actors

ScumLord

norrie rugger wrote: »

Could be using excrement/bacteria to make combustion fuel

After seeing what electric engines can do I think the combustion engine has had it's day regardless of fuel sources.

MisterAnarchy

Watched this in 3D at home last night.
I found it fairly underwhelming as a film and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable.

It looked too clean as a film,almost artificial looking ,just didnt seem right.
The plot was too predictable with poor dialogue and the action scenes had no suspense.
Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.

Lamper.sffc

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Watched this in 3D at home last night.
I found it fairly underwhelming as a film and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable.

It looked too clean as a film,almost artificial looking ,just didnt seem right.
The plot was too predictable with poor dialogue and the action scenes had no suspense.
Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.

In what way?

endacl

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

In what way?

More buildings. That's all I can come up with...

salacious crumb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.

No :pac:

ScumLord

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Watched this in 3D at home last night.
I found it fairly underwhelming as a film and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable.

It looked too clean as a film,almost artificial looking ,just didnt seem right.
The plot was too predictable with poor dialogue and the action scenes had no suspense.
Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.

The Stallone film was all bells and whistles, it was a matter of taking some of the more popular characters and attaching them to an average action flick script and hoping for the money to roll in based on all the boxes they ticked.

Dredd 3D wasn't a great film but it was totally enjoyable in it's own right as a bog standard action film. It took it's own direction and focused on being an action film without cramming in a load of side characters to appease the dredd fans. There was plenty wrong with it but I think the film worked.

Goldstein

You people are crazy. Dredd was one of the best comic book/superhero movies I've ever seen - up there with Nolan's Batmans, Superman '78, the first Ironman & Unbreakable. It was as good as a perfect adaptation of the comics anyone of us will ever see on the big screen.

Duggy747

Everytime I see this thread with a new post a little bit inside me hopes it's one with a link confirming a sequel :pac:

salacious crumb

Goldstein wrote: »

You people are crazy. Dredd was one of the best comic book/superhero movies I've ever seen - up there with Nolan's Batmans, Superman '78, the first Ironman & Unbreakable. It was as good as a perfect adaptation of the comics anyone of us will ever see on the big screen.

Amen

beauf

The new Dredd is a decent movie, though it doesn't give the 2000ad vibe. Just feels like its set in present day tbh.

The old one tried much harder with the sets and design, but its more of comic feel, not gritty enough, and the acting wasn't great.

Dredd was never my fav character, which would have to be Rogue Trooper, and Slaine

Faith+1

beauf wrote: »

The new Dredd is a decent movie, though it doesn't give the 2000ad vibe. Just feels like its set in present day tbh.

The old one tried much harder with the sets and design, but its more of comic feel, not gritty enough, and the acting wasn't great.

Dredd was never my fav character, which would have to be Rogue Trooper, and Slaine

Personally I think the 2000ad vibe would be a little too dark for the mainstream audience.

ScumLord

Goldstein wrote: »

Dredd was one of the best comic book/superhero movies I've ever seen -

The problem with the Americanisation of Dredd is they keep trying to turn him into a hero. Dredd was a bollox last time I read it and I loved that about him.

krudler

beauf wrote: »

The new Dredd is a decent movie, though it doesn't give the 2000ad vibe. Just feels like its set in present day tbh.

The old one tried much harder with the sets and design, but its more of comic feel, not gritty enough, and the acting wasn't great.

Dredd was never my fav character, which would have to be Rogue Trooper, and Slaine

Budget differences were huge though, the Stallone Dredd had twice the budget the newer one did, and more again figuring inflation in since 1995. I did like the design of Mega City One in the 95 movie, even if it was just Blade Runner-lite.