The Bourne Legacy: An unnecessary and COMPLETELY UNRELATED sequel to an irrelevant series. Jeremy Renner did his thing, and that was cool, but only as cool as two action scenes in a two-hour long movie can be. If you were happy with the original series, stay happy. Don't see this.
The Expendables 2: Of course this movie was a good-to-great time. Fixed all the problems of the first one, and also: Arnold with a large firearm. I was sold.
Lawless: Shia The Beef's involvement in this threw me at first, but considering the role he was playing, it fit SO WELL. This was a well put together gangster flick reminiscent of Boardwalk Empire, only featuring Tom Hardy as a tremendous badass. Is there any other version of Tom Hardy?
Paranorman: An effective combination of Shaun of the Dead and Coraline, making for an entertaining, if not extraordinarily dark kid's movie. Went to see it on Mandi's birthday and she enjoyed it. That's all that counts.
So now we are well into the Fall season, where the scrubs of the film world live. This is where either the would-be blockbusters were shuffled off to avoid coming up against The Dark Knight Rises or The Avengers, or the start of the Oscar Bait that will be released from now until Christmas. There won't be a successful movie box-office wise until The Hobbit comes out, which is cool for me. That means less busy theatres and more bad movies to berate/praise. We begin this season with Dredd.
Dredd is based on the main character of a British comic book series entitled 2000 A.D. In the comics, Judge Dredd is a top 'Judge', basically a cop, in a futuristic post-apocalyptic setting where the majority of the land on Earth is dead and the population resides in extremely large Mega-Cities. This synopsis carries into the film very well but misses the entire point of the comic. 2000 A.D. originated as a political satire and critique on the powers of government, with Dredd existing not just as a character, but as a personification of the militant arm of government control. The character was obedient, strict, and above all, ultraviolent in his means of carrying out 'sentencing'. His demeanor, the violence that ensues, even his attire all allude to Dredd being a very British tongue-in-cheek criticism of the stereotypical American action hero that western pop culture has embraced with open arms for decades prior to the comic's release. In general, the book speaks on the dangers of totalitarian control of a state by its government, and the lengths they are willing to go to maintain order as well as that control.
Needless to say, this was not in any way conveyed in Dredd the film. This film is as basic a sci-fi action flick as you can get, with not a lot of message thrown in other than 'drugs are bad' and 'getting shot a bunch is also bad'. There are lots of mediums in pop culture that can deliver messages such as the ones that 2000 A.D. was founded on, and I believe that it is an invaluable service done by the creators to put forth these principles, but sometimes you just want a straight-up action flick, no twists, no lessons. George Orwell can't write every book, and not every superhero flick can be Watchmen.
That being said, there's not following through with the original work's message, and THEN there's spitting in the face of it entirely. Enter the first film based on the comics, 1995's Judge Dredd. Remember that thing two seconds ago about Dredd representing the American action hero in a satirical light? Well, what better way to completely dismiss that notion than to have the character played by AN ACTUAL AMERICAN ACTION HERO. And not just any, but Sly Stallone, one of the most recognizable action stars in the last forever. And that's not all, folks. As trivial as it sounds, the fact that the film went against the comic further by having Dredd without his helmet through the majority of the movie was a big fuck-off deal. Dredd's face has never been seen in the comics. Ever. This lends to the idea that Dredd was less of a human character, and more of a personification of an idea or concept. But instead, we got Stallone, and we can't have Stallone without showing off his oh-so-pretty face. Ever see the Punisher movie with Dolph Lundgren with the complete lack of a skull shirt? It's like that but worse. From there, it pretty much turns from a comic book movie to a Stallone movie in the future. Cheezy one-liners, hapless sidekick in the form of punchable Rob Schneider, and just a clusterfuck of a plot. It's a gem, and you should watch it. Don't worry, I'll wait.
So Dredd came out last month, as one of the first genre movies to jump all over the 'nothing good's coming out this month' release schedule. As a whole, the film was, eh, alright. The plot wasn't exactly hard to follow. Let's go further than that, and say it was a complete ripoff of another action flick. I'm pretty sure the procedure used by the screenwriters of Dredd were as follows:
- Copy script and storyboards from The Raid: Redemption.
- Cut number of protaganists down to two; put goofy helmet on one.
- ???
- Profit.
The pretentious asshole in me really wants to despise this movie for this one reason, and if it were any other genre I probably would. But let's face it: action movie plots have been reduced, reused, and recycled to the point that I'm pretty sure screenwriters have a special blue box for action scripts that they just bring to the side of the road every week for Michael Bay or whoever to pick up and start pre-production, but with ROBOTS. I can't hate on Dredd for applying a simple plot that works to a futuristic action movie, mainly because if you try too hard to stuff too much in, you might as well re-release 1995's Judge Dredd in 3D.
The film looked great, as most sci-fi romps do nowadays. The setting expressed the world as a downtrodden place where technology didn't advance too much, but in many ways is superior to modern day. The grittiness of the environment suggested an almost film-noir feel a la Blade Runner or Total Recall. The big problem here is that it was barely used. While I don't want to spoil a whole lot, I'll say that the entirety of the film's story takes place in one building. One building in a city that is said to spread across the literal entirety of the United States. There is a great deal of potential wasted in the setting of the film, and that is a disappointment. There are also references made to the presence of a mutant sub-class of citizen throughout the film, but there is minimal exposure to that aspect as well. Really the only thing keeping this film from being set in present day are the existence of the Judges. Their organizational structure, powers, and equipment do not and could not exist in today's world, as they do reflect that degree of totalitarian control the comics reference and criticize. And that's great, but spend some time talking about that control. A post-viewing discussion amongst friends suggested that the best way for this setting and the characters in it to be presented is through a television show, given the time to develop all of the things that make this world special. And how awesome would CSI: Mega-City One be? With Dredd putting on his helmet as The Who starts up? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!
The acting in Dredd wasn't terrible, but there was a weakness present throughout the film that I couldn't get past. Simply put, I didn't care about anyone in this movie. At no point did I think, 'hey, I really hope he makes it to the end of this' or 'God, I hope that bitch dies hard'. I feel some sort of emotional response like that is necessary in a movie with a simplistic plot. You may not have that emotional reaction in Inception, but that's because you're trying to figure out what the hell is going on. You're too busy to give a fuck about Leo or kid-from-3rd-Rock. But if you're all 'I wonder what happens next' in your most sarcastic tone, at the very least you need to be invested in the trials the characters you're watching are being put through. Karl Urban as Dredd was a vast improvement on Stallone, mostly because he looked the part, scowling and monotone throughout the endeavour, and didn't take his helmet off once. Yay for small victories. I initially was driven to compare Dredd's character to Robocop or the Terminator in his appearance and relatability, getting back to the whole not giving a shit about the character but I was very wrong about that. Either one of those characters is WAY more relateable and likeable than Dredd. I thought about it again and realized that, like the character in the comics, Dredd reflected more the essence of this generation's action hero. The best example I can give is The Expendables. At no time throughout either movie did I really invest in anyone's well being. Not a tear would be shed if Statham or whoever took a bullet during those movies, I would just be surprised that he didn't make it to the end. Same goes for Dredd. It's his damn movie, he's probably going to see the whole thing through. I guess the most relatable character was Anderson, Dredd's newbie parter. I was VERY thankful at the lack of comic relief this character had assigned to her, again as opposed to the 1995 film. The downside here is that she is the only character with ANY depth to her, which feels like the audience has no option but to connect with her, which I didn't. The biggest disappointment for me was Lena Headey as Ma-Ma, the big bad of the film, just because I know she can do better. This is Cersei Lannister we're talking about (shame on you if you don't know who that is). The best bitchface in the world and here she is, doing her best Gus Frain impression (Breaking Bad reference!), deadpanning the entire role when she should be all-out crazy. She should be the best bad guy in everything, but she's mediocre in this.
Speaking of mediocre, that's all in all what this film was. But really, it depends on one's expectations on the film you're walking into, and that goes for every film. It's what almost ruined Dark Knight Rises for me, and that's a damn shame. You really can't go into this movie expecting a true retelling of the original content, or a groundbreakingly innovative genre-redefining film. I went into this movie expecting an ultraviolent shoot-em-up with a 'barely there' plot that was better than a film that came out 17 years prior. I got what I was looking for, for the most part. Just pay attention to when the movie comes out. If it comes out in the fall, and it's not a horror flick, odds are it's not gonna be on par with the awesomesauce that the summer prior had served up. Really, right now the best you can do is go pick up The Avengers on DVD and relive the magic.
Knight Owl
Speaking of mediocre, that's all in all what this film was. But really, it depends on one's expectations on the film you're walking into, and that goes for every film. It's what almost ruined Dark Knight Rises for me, and that's a damn shame. You really can't go into this movie expecting a true retelling of the original content, or a groundbreakingly innovative genre-redefining film. I went into this movie expecting an ultraviolent shoot-em-up with a 'barely there' plot that was better than a film that came out 17 years prior. I got what I was looking for, for the most part. Just pay attention to when the movie comes out. If it comes out in the fall, and it's not a horror flick, odds are it's not gonna be on par with the awesomesauce that the summer prior had served up. Really, right now the best you can do is go pick up The Avengers on DVD and relive the magic.
Knight Owl
