Judge Dredd Movie

salacious crumb

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

He was pretty much a bollox in the new movie too. I thought Urban nailed him.

beauf

True Urban did a good job. In fairness to the new on the acting is good, for a movie with so little plot. Dunno about Stallone Dredd being Blade Runner ish. Dredd in 2000ad has a lots of chunky simple designs, depending on the artist. The design of the lawgiver for example. That design aesthetic is carried over to the Stallone movie. Where as BR is much more more realistic. Design wise its all based in reality, with the exception of the spinner and those floating ads. I'd say the new movie is closer to design to BR, but BR is a whole different level of realism. Urban seems to be able to do anything.

salacious crumb

beauf wrote: »

True Urban did a good job. In fairness to the new on the acting is good, for a movie with so little plot. Dunno about Stallone Dredd being Blade Runner ish. Dredd in 2000ad has a lots of chunky simple designs, depending on the artist. The design of the lawgiver for example. That design aesthetic is carried over to the Stallone movie. Where as BR is much more more realistic. Design wise its all based in reality, with the exception of the spinner and those floating ads. I'd say the new movie is closer to design to BR, but BR is a whole different level of realism. Urban seems to be able to do anything.

BR basically reinvented the whole SF genre, and yes Urban does seem to be able to do anything.

I remember a mate of mine complaining when the movie was released that he was just doing a Clint Eastwood impression, to which I pointed out that Dredd lives in Rowdy Yates Conapts, so to me Dredd is essentially a sci fi Dirty Harry.

beauf

Reinvented how?

We had Outland and Alien before Blade Runner. So we had gritty and realistic and lived in before BR. Probably others aswell.

What other movies are there that you can see a direct BR influence in them? I've never really thought about it before. I think it kinda stands apart from other movies.

beauf

Completely off topic, but didn't realise RS had done The Duellists. Saw that a while back.

Ended up reading this
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/15-10/ff_bladerunner_full?currentPage=all

stevenmu

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable.

I'm not sure about this, but I thought that most of the film was in 2D and only the slow-mo scenes were meant to be in 3D?

endacl

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

How do you Americanize an American character?

endacl

endacl wrote: »

How do you Americanize an American character?

Dredd may be an American but he's very much a British character. If you read the older Dredd comics they are heavily influenced by what was occurring in Britain at the time.

endacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Dredd may be an American but he's very much a British character. If you read the older Dredd comics they are heavily influenced by what was occurring in Britain at the time.

Read them since the early 80's. The characterizations were always tropic. Mega City 1 was always depicted an exaggerated US metropolis. Very 'American', if in an understandably comicbooky way. Compare and contrast with the stock characterizations in the first visits to Brit-Cit.

beauf

Mega City one is Eastern Seaboard US. But I don't think thats what you meant.

I assume you meant Hollywood Hero not Americanisation .

MisterAnarchy

stevenmu wrote: »

I'm not sure about this, but I thought that most of the film was in 2D and only the slow-mo scenes were meant to be in 3D?

Yes ,that would seem to be the case from my viewing of it.
Only the slow mo scenes seemed to be in 3D .

I was fairly disappointed as I had read reviews raving about the 3D but it was a big letdown.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Yes ,that would seem to be the case from my viewing of it.
Only the slow mo scenes seemed to be in 3D .

I was fairly disappointed as I had read reviews raving about the 3D but it was a big letdown.

The entire film as in 3D it's just that it's more pronounced during the slo-mo scenes.

coolisin

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.

You watched it in 3d at home? Surely outside factors would disrupt a 3d experience. Haven't bothered with the home 3d yet. As I'd fear there would be too many variables to make it work properly. ( I dunno just wondering you've jumped into it and purchasesd and used it before!)

I did think the slo mo scenes looked great in 2D. I'd imagine the rest in 3D would make no difference.

Maybe the gun battle while blowing up the entire floor would look great also. But that's about it.

Beefy78

This is what I don't get about the criticism of 3D (of which I've had plenty)... people complain that it's a gimmick and then complain if there's not enough gimmicky scenes in a 3D film.

If 3D was going to work (which it looks like it once again has not) it wasn't going to be through encouraging films to throw lots of **** at the screen it would be through encouraging film makers to use it to enhance the narrative and add depth to the picture. Both of which Dredd achieves which is why, IMO, it's one of the very few films to use the format well.

Lamper.sffc

For me while I do feel the money would have been better used elsewhere, the 3d was well done overall.

The slow-mo bit where they throw the guys off the top floor gave me vertigo when one of them was pushed off first and you see it through his eyes. The slow-mo scenes in general where either great fun or beautifully put together.

3d is a gimmick but could have been used by filmmakers in a way that at least made it interesting to the viewer over the years. Dredd did this for the most part.

That said. If we do get a sequel, I hope the 3D is dropped. I cant see a need for it anyway.

Bipolar Joe

As someone who can't watch 3D movies, it can be really obvious when a shot is in there to showcase the 3D element. One that springs to mind is a shot in Pacific Rim, when

Idris Elba wipes blood from his nose

. I didn't see the film in 3D, but I'm pretty confident, given the shallow DOF and what not, that it was pretty much meant to be seen in 3D.

Saying all this, whether or not a movie is in 3D doesn't bother me too much, so long as there's the option to see it 2D, which there always has been I think. I can't see it lasting too long.

MisterAnarchy

coolisin wrote: »

You watched it in 3d at home? Surely outside factors would disrupt a 3d experience. Haven't bothered with the home 3d yet. As I'd fear there would be too many variables to make it work properly. ( I dunno just wondering you've jumped into it and purchasesd and used it before!)

I did think the slo mo scenes looked great in 2D. I'd imagine the rest in 3D would make no difference.

Maybe the gun battle while blowing up the entire floor would look great also. But that's about it.

Yes I watched it at home on a 50" High end Plasma .

3D at home hasnt really impressed me ,it wasn't a primary reason for me buying the set .
You need to sit close to the set and watch in darkness but even doing that the 3D was disappointing.
I dont mean gimicky stuff constantly flying out of the set ,I mean depth of the picture .
The picture quality was excellent ,unlike the 2D bluray transfer which has received huge criticism .

I found this review online and I think it sums up my views on the film perfectly,primarily the lack of plot ,tension ,and a decent villain.

I have been a 2000ad fan since prog 1 ( or prog 2 if we're discussing Judge Dredd)and I had a lot of expectations riding on this latest on screen incarnation. Danny Cannons first celluloid effort struck a few positive chords with good realisation of costume, props, vehicles and environments but had a weak story (with far too many knowing nods to comic fans featuring a glut of references to Dredd-lore such as Rico, long walks , cursed Earth, angel gang, Fergie, block wars. ABC robots?? etc...)And Dredd commited the ultimate sin and abandoned his helmet - cue a collective groan from fanboys everywhere.

So when I read that the new film version was 18 certificate, was tough, violent and uncompromising and took Dredd to the streets I was hugely optimistic.

It is with some regret that I have to say this is not the reboot the character needed and my fear is that this movie does not deserve a sequel and with an aging fanbase the character may well not deserve another reboot- this may be the end of Dredd on film and in my opinion it is a sad exit.

So what is wrong with the movie?
Firstly ( a few sweeping outdoor shots and a brief voiceover aside) this may as well have been set in 1987. It is in no way, shape or form futuristic. I'm all for some gritty realism but this is supposed to be science fiction after all. Where are the robots or the flying cars? Dredd is the lawman of the future but in this movie it looks like Mega City One is a shanty town and he's policing a run down block of flats in a uniform that hasn't been washed in months. I don't want shiny Gaultier shoulder pads and brocade but I think there is a happy medium between high camp and having Dredd resemble a vagrant hells angel.
Secondly the plot is simplistic to a fault. Did somebody mention the Raid?
Judge Anderson is wasted as a character- "Oooh, I can't wear my helmet because it interferes with my psychic powers" (and my rock chick hairstyle)
The villain is a non-entity with no on-screen menace and her minions are just endless cannon fodder for Dredd in a series of repetetive and tension-free shootouts.
What did I like about this movie?
I think the character was close to the mark- one dimensional, taciturn, ruthless and helmeted throughout.
It's just a crying shame he was dumped in a tower block with no story, no villain, no drama and no threat and left to carry the movie alone.
I hope Dredd gets another cinematic outing and I hope any future director manages to find some balance between Danny Cannons watery, glossy drivel and Travis' dour, low tech drudge.

Beefy78

Had they had the budget I'm sure Mega City One would have looked more like Mega City One. It didn't look right but that was clearly a budgetary necessity rather than a stylistic choice.

salacious crumb

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

As someone who can't watch 3D movies.

How come?

Bipolar Joe

salacious crumb wrote: »

How come?

I get real bad headaches. At first I thought nothing of it (At Avatar), then the next one I went to see I had to walk out and go home again. The third time I looked online to see if this was a thing that happened, some peoples brains (Like mine) are too damn stupid to understand and process the 3D and it puts strain on it .

salacious crumb

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I get real bad headaches. At first I thought nothing of it (At Avatar), then the next one I went to see I had to walk out and go home again. The third time I looked online to see if this was a thing that happened, some peoples brains (Like mine) are too damn stupid to understand and process the 3D and it puts strain on it .

Sh*t buzz.
Or maybe not actually, as I really don't care too much for 3D movies :pac:

Except for Life of Pi.

TwoShedsJackson

salacious crumb wrote: »

How come?

I'm in the same boat, as I posted earlier on this thread - 10-12% of the population have brains that don't process the stereoscopic effect properly, or at all. If I watch a 3D bluray all I see is the 2D film, except now I have a pair of daft glasses on that give me a headache after five minutes.

Outkast_IRE

salacious crumb wrote: »

Sh*t buzz.
Or maybe not actually, as I really don't care too much for 3D movies :pac:

Except for Life of Pi.

Life of Pi, Avatar and some of the Pixar animations are the only movies I would consider worthwhile 3d so far.

Lamper.sffc

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Life of Pi, Avatar and some of the Pixar animations are the only movies I would consider worthwhile 3d so far.

And Dredd

Yawns

Go watch Jurassic Park in 3D. Thank me later.

Marty McFly

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I get real bad headaches. At first I thought nothing of it (At Avatar), then the next one I went to see I had to walk out and go home again. The third time I looked online to see if this was a thing that happened, some peoples brains (Like mine) are too damn stupid to understand and process the 3D and it puts strain on it .

I'm the same but it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I just avoid 3D in anyway because I think it just a plain and simple gimmick. Even the 3D scenes in Dredd annoyed me with the slow mo was just pure pointless imo it added nothing to the film in fact it took away from it. Ok big scene coming up let slow everything down and drag it out and loose all suspense.

salacious crumb

Marty McFly wrote: »

I'm the same but it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I just avoid 3D in anyway because I think it just a plain and simple gimmick. Even the 3D scenes in Dredd annoyed me with the slow mo was just pure pointless imo it added nothing to the film in fact it took away from it. Ok big scene coming up let slow everything down and drag it out and loose all suspense.

What? The whole point of the slo mo scenes was to show the effect the slo mo drug had on the user...

Outkast_IRE

Yawns wrote: »

Go watch Jurassic Park in 3D. Thank me later.

Meant to be out this weekend, local cinema not showing it anyway.

Marty McFly

salacious crumb wrote: »

What? The whole point of the slo mo scenes was to show the effect the slo mo drug had on the user...

No way sherlock :P, but the whole slow mo drug felt like it was shoe horned in to have an excuse to cram as much crap 3D slow mos into the film.

It could easily have been some other drug or any drug without having the need for pointless slow mo 3D scenes.

Beefy78

But it wasn't pointless. You've explained exactly what the point was in your post.

Yes it could have been another drug but they made a drug up which enabled them to take the 3D format and use it to provide a unique visual which enhanced the experience for the viewer.