Showing posts with label Karl Urban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karl Urban. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)


Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Director: Taika Waititi

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffallo, Anthony Hopkins, Bennedict Cumberbatch

Within the Marvel movies, there are the huge hits that everyone loves like Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and The Avengers (2012) and then there are those films that people liked but don’t go bananas over, like the Thor movies. The first film was directed by Kenneth Branagh and I was really pumped for it because he’s known for doing Shakespeare adaptations and so I was like, cool, he’s going to bring that Shakespearian quality to the Thor universe, which he did. That first film was all serious and tragic in true Shakespearian fashion. It was followed by a less then spectacular sequel which really didn’t do much for me. Which is probably why the Thor franchise has never been the one to light the Box Office on fire, well, at least not as spectacularly as the rest of the Marvel Universe. Thor movies made money, but didn’t make as much as the rest. Which meant something had to be reworked, something had to be fixed, because people weren’t reacting as favorably to the Thor franchise as Disney hoped they would. So what’s a studio to do? Well, Disney did what they had to do, they tried something new for this third film to ensure its success. They made it funny. Did it work?


This time around Thor faces the takeover of Asgard by his evil sister Hella. Unfortunately, he accidentally ends up stranded on a distant planet where people are obsessed with Gladiator fights featuring The Incredible Hulk as the star of the show. Oh, and Thor’s also without his magical Hammer Mjolnir. Can he get back home to fix things in Asgard before his sister begins her reign of terror? Will he ever get Mjolnir back? And can he win in a fight against the Hulk?


With the success of films like Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and Deadpool (2016), suddenly offbeat movies that didn’t take themselves so seriously were the big money makers. And so, this new Thor movie is a thrill a minute, fast paced, joke fest. It’s lighthearted and crazy and I love it and so has the rest of the world; Thor Ragnarok has turned into one of the biggest money makers in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. A huge part of the successful formula for this enjoyable film is the guy behind the camera, Taika Waititi. Who the hell is Taika Waititi you might ask. Well, he might not be a household name yet, but Waititi has been making movies for a while now. In all honesty, he’s a rather gifted storyteller. If you want to see what he is capable of, I recommend you check out a movie he made called Boy (2010), a touching and beautiful film about a boy who misses his father. Waititi acts, writes and directs his own films, yes my friends, Waititi is a creative force to be reckoned with and I have a feeling we’ve yet to discover what he can really do. I mean, if this is him working with a studios ideas, imagine when he does a project thats purely his. I predict good things from Waititi. You might remember him best for his performance in a faux Documentary What We Do in The Shadows (2014), a super funny film that follows a group of vampires who are all house mates in a flat in London. Just hilarious, highly recommend checking that film out. After seeing Waititi’s repertoire, you’ll understand perfectly well why Thor: Ragnarok is so hilarious. So remember, if you enjoy the funny in Ragnarok, Waititi is the guy you have to thank.  


What Waititi does with some of his films is he turns things around, he puts a tired idea in a new unexpected situation. I mean, there’s no more tired genre than the vampire genre and Waititi made it work. He made us see vampires in a way we hadn’t seen them before. I mean, did you ever think you’d see vampires squabbling over who should do the dishes? “Fuck that! Vampires don’t do dishes!” Did you ever think you’d see Thor being traumatized after seeing Hulk naked? Well, in this movie he does, and that’s what I’m talking about, he puts the characters we know and love in funny, unthought of situations. Situations you’d never imagine seeing them in. Situations that most movies would avoid. Not only is the film funny, but it shatters the foundations of the Thor universe to their very core. Thor goes through a life changing journey, more so than any previous films. Ragnarok shakes things up good. Nothing is sacred. All while spewing one liners. You wont feel danger or peril, but you’ll have one hell of a good time. You’ll bust a gut with the banter between Thor and The Hulk.


Speaking of the films look, well, it’s very bright and colorful. It’s very much in tune with the look and feel of two very important comic book artists who helped shape the character of Thor in the 60’s. I speak of  Jacky Kirby and Walter Simonson. Kirby and Simonson did some of the more seminal runs on Thor, they helped shape and define what Thor eventually became, the way he would look. Waititi and crew paid homage to these classic artists by giving the film a very classic look with regards to set designs and the wardrobe of some of the characters. Thor himself has a more contemporary feel, getting away from the long hair, the capes and the hammer, making him less of a Viking. So the film is a bit of the old and the new.  Speaking of the old and the retro, If you love the 80’s then you’ll love the soundtrack which is pure 80’s synth stuff. It has a John Carpenter/Stranger Things vibe going for it. Thor: Ragnarok is a film that is showing us just how important it is to put the right person behind the camera, because without Waititi, this would be a very different film. This film shows movie studios can realize when something didnt work and that they shouldn’t be afraid to go in an entirely different direction to try something new and freshen things up. Who knows, it just might work. This is a lesson the DC Universe could learn from.

Rating: 4 out of 5


Monday, September 9, 2013

Riddick (2013)


Title: Riddick (2013)

Director: David Twohy

Cast: Vin Diesel, Jordi Molla, Katee Sackhoff, Matt Nable, Dave Bautista, Karl Urban

The Riddick franchise has been a very strange franchise in the sense that is goes up and down in tone, like the rising and falling of the tide. The first film, entitled Pitch Black (2000), was a simple monster flick about a group of people trying to get off a planet before these nasty carnivorous critters eat their asses. In comparison the second film, Chronicles of Riddick (2004), is epic in scale, with Riddick defying a group of dictators who call themselves ‘Necromongers’;  a race of beings that go around conquering planets and destroying those who don’t won’t join their crusade. I love both movies for different reasons; the first one successfully fuses the horror and sci-fi genres. It’s dark, it’s got awesome visuals and it’s entertaining; it kept things simple yet effective. The second film I like because it’s a more lavish production that expands on the universe that David Twohy created on the first film. Still, no matter how epic in scale Chronicles of Riddick was, the problem with this second film was that even though it was a more ambitious production, it didn’t make its money back at the box office and so, this is the reason why we had not seen a new Riddick film in such a long time. Studios won’t give you millions if your previous flick failed. But both Twohy and Vin Diesel don’t want to let Riddick die, and so they’ve decided to give the character another spin. Vin Diesel even went as far as putting up his own money to make this one happen, so that turns this one into a passion project for both Twohy and Vin Diesel. So finally, we get a third adventure in the Riddick franchise. Was it any good? Is it a worthy sequel?


This time around, same as in the first film, Riddick is trying to survive on a planet filled with deadly wildlife, a planet in which you can’t walk five steps without some fanged creature trying to kill you. But if you know Riddick, then you know that’s just the way he likes it. It seems the guy was meant to thrive in adversity. Like Mad Max or Conan, Riddick works best alone and under strenuous circumstances.  So it isn’t long before he learns to survive on this deadly planet just fine. But it seems this planet won’t leave Riddick alone, soon the weather starts to change and Riddick decides that this planet is no longer fit for him to survive in, so he does something unexpected, he calls a bunch of Bounty Hunters to come and “get him”. In reality, Riddick’s just luring them in so he can take their space ship and get off this dangerous planet he currently resides. But the bounty hunters seem to think they actually got a chance of capturing the famous escaped convict. All they care about is capturing Riddick, chopping off his head and getting double their pay. Question is: do these guys have a chance in hell? Don’t they know their messing with one of the baddest mothers in the universe?


So yeah, that synopsis you’ve just read is in a nutshell what this movie is all about. It’s not a very complex film which is where it differentiates itself from the previous one; Chronicles of Riddick is Shakespearian by comparison, while this third film is like going back to basics. Its closer in tone and feel to Pitch Black (2000), the first film, which means that yeah, we’re back in monster flick territory again. Not a bad thing if you ask me, the problem is that people are going to be expecting a film that would bring a conclusion to the second film and Riddick is the furthest thing from that. You know how the second film ends with Riddick sitting on a throne, essentially becoming some sort of King to the Necromongers? The film ends like Conan the Destroyer (1984) saying “but that’s another story” and so of course we’re all expecting a big conclusion to that story line with this new film, we all want to see what Riddick would be like as a ruler, will he change things? Would greed devour his soul? Would he be a good king? Riddick the Conqueror, that’s what I wanted to see! And well, this new movie kind of explains what happens when Riddick becomes king, but in a few seconds, which isn’t fair. It brushes through his whole king phase in five seconds, as if it didn’t matter all that much, as if it was some footnote in Riddick’s history. I mean really, we only get a glimpse of his days as a king; I wanted the full story! 


But that’s not what you’ll get, so scratch that idea from your noggin. What you will get is Riddick surviving on a bad ass planet fighting off monsters and greedy bounty hunters. You’ll take that and you’ll like it! I see what Twohy and Vin Diesel are doing. They’ve brought down production costs so that this third film will turn in a profit; in this way assuring that they can make a fourth film, basically, they are attempting to save the franchise, which in my opinion is a franchise ripe with stories to tell. So here’s how it went down: Chronicles of Riddick (2004) costs 105 million dollars, unfortunately it was a box office bomb and didn’t make its money back. This of course spelled tragedy for both Vin Diesel and Twohy, their beloved franchise was apparently dead on its tracks! But wait, suddenly Vin Diesel’s Fast and the Furious franchise is making kajillions! The actor has reached an all time high; each of the Fast and the Furious films making more money than the last! So now the studio can risk making a third Riddick movie, considering how popular Vin Diesel is these days. But of course, the studio will only make a calculated risk, so they make a smaller film, a more personal story on a much smaller budget. This is the reason why Riddick cost “only” 38 million, because they want to make their money back. A lot is riding on this film, they want it to be successful so they can make another, so the franchise can live on. So my friends, this is the reason why this story is smaller in scale; still, I have to admit I liked this more personal take on the character.


Unfortunately, the film will feel like filler to fans of the Riddick films, like it’s not an important story in the life of Riddick, in all honesty, it feels like just another day in the life of this character; surviving and wiping out his enemy from the shadows. What I did like about it though is that we get to spend some time with Riddick; we get to know him a bit better, the loner, the survivalist, the bad ass mother. Those scenes with Riddick surviving in the alien planet reminded me a whole lot of those first scenes in Conan the Barbarian (1982), in which Conan is out in the world for the first time, fighting off wild dogs and scavenging the world for food and women. Other scenes reminded me of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), especially those scenes in which Riddick gets himself a dog like companion, just like Max did in The Road Warrior. So you’ll get a lot of scenes of Riddick against the planet, all on his own. It’s the second half of the film that turns into a wild goose chase, with the Bounty Hunters running after Riddick. And if that doesn’t keep your butt on the seat, then you’ll certainly have fun with the deadly creatures that inhabit this dangerous planet, which were pretty cool creations. Monster fans should be happy with this one. And if that isn't enough, fan boys should love the fact that the beautiful Katee Sackhoff is on this one! There's something about that lady! Wowzers! 


So, taking in consideration that this is a smaller film, and not the one we were expecting, I still think this is a solid slice of sci-fi. Visually speaking, the film doesn’t look less expensive, which is an asset. I mean, usually a smaller budget means cramped sets and a cheaper looking film, but this is not the case with Riddick, the film still looks majestic and awesome, so my hats down to David Twohy for achieving a good looking picture with considerably less amounts of money. As I type this, Riddick stands number one at the box office, this is its first week out in the world, let’s hope that like its main character, the film manages to survive in the big bad Box Office. If it makes it's moolah back we can expect a bigger adventure come next film. So in many ways, it's up to the fans of this franchise to save this one. You hear me fanboys of the world? The future of the Riddick franchise lies in your capable hands! So go see this one! Now!

Rating: 4 out of 5   


Friday, May 17, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)



Title: Star Trek Into Darkness

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Peter Weller, Benedict Cumberbach

Review:

I’m not a Trekkie in the pure sense of the word, because I don’t know every single episode from every single series that ever came out and there have been a few series. I did see every episode of Star Trek the Next Generation which for non Trek connoisseurs is the series in which Patrick Stewart played Captain Jean Luc Picard. Now that one I enjoyed all the way through! I’ve also seen every Trek film ever made and have enjoyed them for different reasons. For example, I love the old ones starring William Shatner because of the chemistry between the characters, the interactions between them and the banter they play off each other, this by the way is an element that the new films are delivering as well. The new actors channel their older counter parts rather effectively in my book; which of course makes the whole film that much more enjoyable, cause a huge part of what audiences like in these Star Trek films is seeing Kirk and Spock quibbling about “gut reactions” and whether something is logical or not. I think audiences agree with me on this respect, the audience I watched Star Trek Into Darkness with giggled at the comedic elements in the dialog, especially when they brought in those old phrases like “Dammit Jim! I’m a doctor not a miracle worker!”. There’s lots of nudges here and there that Trekkies will eat up, it’s a film that’s mindful of its core audience while at the same time attempting to appeal to a broader audiences in order to break with old stigmas.

J.J. Abrams bringing Star Trek Into Coolness

This time around, there’s a mysterious terrorist inflicting fear upon the population of earth, by blowing up landmark buildings. The terrorists real purpose is to kill the leaders  of the federation! When the terrorist successfully kills some of them, Kirk and his crew have to head to the Klingon home planet in order to find the one responsible and make him pay. Along the way, relationships will be tested, friendships will clash, and the enterprise will test its limits! Can Kirk and crew bring this megalomaniacal madman to justice?


In this film connoisseur’s eyes the Star Trek films have always been cool, I have always loved them; but I know this is not the way everybody sees them. To the rest of the world Star Trek is synonymous with the freak and geek crowd, you know, those guys that dress like Klingon’s in comic book conventions and have discussions on Star Trek lore speaking in the Klingon language. What J. J. Abrams wants to do with this new series of films is change all that, he wants to make Trek sexy, make it cool. Not an easy task when we consider that Star Trek has never cared to be sexy. They’ve never been about beautiful looking people. In fact, in the first series of films we followed a crew that was populated by fat, old, bald people. Not so with these new films where the crew of The Enterprise is young, beautiful and sexy. Hell, on these new films Kirk’s always getting some action, he is portrayed as a womanizer! There's a scene in which a character needlessly strips to her under wear which many people seem to think went "too far", a comment which I find absolutely stupid, hollywood has never been shy about showing skin, especially when it will get more butts in theater sits. The scene is surely gratituous, I agree, but no big deal. Certainly not something to make a big deal about. Pretty ladies in underwear aside, I think all these changes serve to make the film more entertaining. J.J. Abrams wants you to be amazed by a Star Trek film, he wants people to go see Star Trek Into Darkness more than once! Well, if you ask me he has successfully achieved his goals, I know I’ll be seeing it again. This is the biggest Star Trek film ever, what’s not to celebrate? I mean, this here Star Trek film is a summer blockbuster of gargantuan proportions!  I was wowed. First up, the visual effects are sheer perfection, you should be impressed. I mean you will see gigantic spaceships traveling through the universe, alien planets and civilizations, a futuristic version of earth, these vistas offer us bucket loads of escapism. If you want to escape to another world, here’s the movie for you to do it with. 


I wasn’t aware that in some ways this film was going to be a pseudo-remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982) a film that is heralded by legions of Star Trek fans across the world as the best Star Trek film of the first series. That film is a flat out revenge film, and Kahn, as played by Ricardo Montalban is without a doubt the best of all Star Trek villains. Not a single actor has been able to reach Kahn’s memorable villain status. Considering that Wrath of Kahn is one of the best Trek stories ever told, what did J. J. Abrams and his crew do? They basically remade Wrath of Kahn. I wasn’t aware of that going into the theater, but damn, with a few alterations here and there, the second half of this movie is basically a remake. But, to be honest, it’s a damn good one and it doesn’t play out the same exact way that it did in Wrath of Kahn. The film also borrows heavily from episodes of the television show. Still, even when we take these things into consideration, the film manages to offer us many innovative ideas, one after the other. There’s this awesome chase sequence that takes place as two ships are traveling at warp speed that was so awesome! So be ready for a film that has similarities with other stories of Trek lore while at the same time blowing your brain to smithereens with cool new ideas. Even the aliens who have minor scenes look freaking cool!

The infamous (yet delectable) stripping scene

Thematically speaking this film is all about terrorists attacks and what makes them happen. Why does a terrorist decide to attack a country and kill innoncents? What fuels that hatred? Is their anger somehow jusitified? The film addresses the terrorist attacks that took place during 9/11 and it also plays with the notion that these terrorist attacks might have been self inflicted in order to provoke a war. It also speaks about how the government trains individuals to become stone cold killers, and then, when these trained killers have to return home, they are unable to continue functioning properly in society because they are used to carnage and death. Soldiers just can’t go back to buying cereal at the supermarket and mowing the lawn, kind of like what we saw in First Blood (1982). They also talk about weapons of mass destruction, a fear that has recently shown its ugly head again in society and as a result, these fears are now reflected and discussed in films as well; so we get contemporary themes on this film. Above all, what I enjoyed the most about Into Darkness was how fun it was, it’s never boring, not for a second. So far, this is the most exciting movie of the Summer 2013 season, it’s even more exciting than Iron Man 3 (2013), which kind of lacked in action a bit. If it’s not the entertaining banter between the crew (how charismatic and funny are these guys?) then it’s the amazing action pieces. Bottom line is this is one big, fun ride! Now, we all know that J.J. Abrams is the director behind the next Star Wars film (Episode VII) and all I could think of was what J.J. Abrams will do with the Star Wars universe; I say strap your selves tight, if Star Trek Into Darkness is any indication of what J. J. Abrahams can do with a science fiction property, then were in for an exciting ride through hyper space!

Rating: 5 out of 5   

       

Friday, January 25, 2013

Original vs. Remake Comparison: Judge Dredd (1995) vs. Dredd (2012)



Judge Dredd is one of those properties that has huge potential for becoming the Next Big Franchise, but for some reason, Hollywood has never really figured out how to start it up properly. There’s been two films based on Judge Dredd, the first one was Danny Cannon’s Judge Dredd (1995) and the second, Dredd (2012). Both films were not as successful as expected by their producers, yet I have enjoyed both cinematic incarnations of the character, both for different reasons. Still, one could safely say that American audiences have not truly warmed up to Judge Dredd yet; both films were failed attempts at jump starting a franchise. One of the best examples of a failed franchise that Hollywood just won’t give up on are the Punisher films, which Hollywood has attempted to start off three times with no success; and two of these adaptations were produced during the current boom of comic book movies, so why the failure? If you ask me, I’d say that no matter how how much franchise potential a property might have, when a film like Green Lantern (2011) fails it proves only one thing: you still need a good movie to kick things off. Without that good first film, your franchise is going nowhere; which is why Danny Cannon’s Judge Dredd is such a conundrum for me. Cannon’s Judge Dredd is not a bad film in my book; actually, if you ask me, it’s quite the contrary, it should have started a whole franchise of Judge Dredd films! Still, back in 1995 audiences in the United States didn’t think a Judge Dredd movie was such a good idea, even with Sylvester Stallone attached as the main star of the film. Why did this first attempt to bring Judge Dredd to the silver screen fail?


In retrospect, Danny Cannon’s 1995 film wasn’t a total bomb. While it is true that the film failed to make its budget back in the United States where it only made 34 million; it did make more cash abroad, recuperating its 70 million dollar budget and making a grand total of 113 million worldwide. So things weren’t all that bad for this Stallone vehicle, it just didn’t make as much money as expected in the United States. But still, one has to wonder, why didn’t it perform? Well, it could have something to do with Judge Dredd not being as well known a character as other popular comic book properties. The roots of Judge Dredd go back to the U.K. where it first appeared in the illustrious science fiction comic book magazine 2000 A.D., way back in 1977. Now in the U.K. Judge Dredd is a well known comic book character, for example, it was considered one of the top ten comic book characters ever created by Empire Magazine. But the truth is that the grand majority of Americans don’t know what the hell 2000 A.D.  is and with the exception of those hard core comic book geeks like myself, Judge Dredd simply hasn’t reached that level of recognition that other comic book characters have. So we could attribute the low box office intake to the fact that in the U.S., Judge Dredd is not that well known a character.

Judge Dredd has had a long and fruitful comic book life

But was Danny Cannon’s film really all that bad? Was it really all that unfaithful to the comics? Well, if you ask Judge Dredd creator John Wagner he’ll tell you that Cannon’s film “had nothing to do with Judge Dredd”. I can see where he is coming from, but I don’t necessarily agree. I’ve been reading the first issues of the old 1970’s Dredd comic books (and having a blast with them I might add!) and I have to say that Danny Cannon’s film is actually very close to what Wagner and Ezquerra originally created with their comics. There’s Mega City One, which by the way looks absolutely stunning in Cannon’s film. There’s a grand set design here, the city looks massive and convoluted the way Mega City should be, filled with crooks and chaos. Judge Dredd himself looks amazingly close to how he looks in the comics; the wardrobe by the way was designed by famed fashion mogul Gianni Versace!  The suit might not look functional, but hell, it’s the Dredd from the comic books, there’s no denying that! The look for the new film looses the giant golden eagle shoulder pads for a more toned down and functional shoulder padding, but I have to admit, I like the look on Cannon’s film better, it just looks more like the Dredd from the comic books. You can tell there was a desire to be faithful to the iconic Judge Dredd suit, it only he’d worn it more through the film.


They got the guns right, they got Dredd’s motorcycle just as huge as in the comics and with built in machine guns! I tell ya, in look and overall feel, Danny Cannon’s film succeeds in transferring the comic book character and the world of Mega City One to the silver screen in a more successful and faithful manner than director Pete Travis’s Dredd (2012), which by comparison brings us a very scaled down version of Mega City One. This due to the fact that the makers of Dredd had a smaller budget than Cannon and Stallones film. The makers of Judge Dredd had a cool 70 million dollars to play with, some sites even say the budget was closer to 90 million, while the makers of Dredd had only 50 million. But apparently 70 million dollars could get you a heck of a lot back in ‘95 and as a result, Cannon’s film looks expensive, it’s one of those movies where you can see the millions up on the screen. It has big effects, big stars, and an imposing musical score arranged by Alan Silvestri. So if you ask this film connoisseur, I say Cannon’s film is better in these respects. It’s bigger, badder, louder. Unfortunately, the films levels of violence garnered it an ‘R’ rating and so, I think this too might have hurt its intake at the box office. Its target audience couldn’t go and see the film because it was restricted.


Thematically speaking, the film plays with a lot of important (if somewhat redundant) issues. First off, we have a corrupt judicial system, corrupt cops and a corrupt government. Their main purpose in life is to build an army so they can overtake the city. Same as real life politicians, the corrupt government of Mega City One uses criminals to purposely inflict fear in the hearts and minds of the people so they’ll have an excuse to build a clone army. By the way, the theme of corruption amongst the police force is touched upon yet again in Dredd. Cannon’s film centers around a story line from the old comic books called “The Return of Rico”, where ‘Rico’ - Judge Dredd’s evil brother- returns from exile to exact some revenge on those who sent him to prison. Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors and one who is criminally underrated in Hollywood, plays the over the top Rico, a great asset to this film. And speaking of Judge Dredd’s cast, we also get the awesome Max Von Sydow playing Judge Dredd’s father figure Judge Fargo. Sometimes the performances are tuned up a bit too much, Stallone himself said that the tone they went for was too ‘Hamlet’ when they should have kept it fun and gone more Hamlet and Eggs. I get what he’s saying, but I actually think it’s not all that serious, there’s a fine balancing act between serious sci-fi and goofy comic book movie on this one, what with Rob Schneider hopping along for the ride, a joke a second is always assured. True, I’m not the first to admit that Schneider doesn’t always hit the mark, but in my opinion he isn’t all that annoying, he’s just the a-typical comic relief character. If you want to blame someone for including Schneider here, blame Stallone, he’s the one that asked for him! Originally Stallone wanted Joe Pesci, but Pesci declined so they went with Schneider. 

  
I’ve read many die hard Judge Dredd fans (the purists) complain that they didn’t like the fact that Stallone takes off the helmet and the uniform for most of the film, and I have to say I agree, taking the iconic Judge Dredd suit and helmet off for 90% of the film was not a good idea. In the Judge Dredd comics, we never get to see Dredd’s face, ever! It’s this big mystery that bathes the character with an enigmatic  aura that works like magic. But in the films defense, we have to understand that Stallone was the big draw here and the producers didn’t want to hide their bankable film stars face in a helmet for the whole film, so in a way, it’s understandable that they did this. But I, along with many Dredd fans would have preferred to see more of Dredd looking like a Judge, not like Stallone. Wardrobe issues aside, Stallone did a good job in bringing the character to life, he plays him cold and robotic, the way Dredd should be. He shouts things like “I am the law!” and calls people “citizens and perps”. He sentences people on the spot, I mean, for all intents and purposes, this is Dredd come to life. I say you and I are lucky that this film turned out as cool as it id, during this production Stallone and Cannon didn’t see eye to eye in a great many things, yes my friends, this was a troubled production, things didn’t run smoothly between actor and director. So much so that Cannon vowed never again to work with big movie stars like Stallone.  Still, I say that the end result is a fun movie, with great action, a good story, a good cast and great visual effects, Mega City One looks like something out of The Fifth Element (1997) mixed with Blade Runner (1982). An escapist film with great production values, I say give this one a second chance!


In comparison, Pete Travis’s Dredd is the complete opposite of Cannon’s film. It’s a smaller scale story, less epic, more personal. We get to follow Dredd and a rookie try and stop ‘Ma-Ma’, a big time drug dealer who resides on the 200th floor of Peach Tree building complex. It isn’t going to be an easy task, especially when Ma-Ma locks down the whole building! By keeping Dredd confined to one location, the filmmakers keep costs down by not having to show the futuristic exteriors of Mega City One, while at the same time giving us more time to focus on Dredd himself, which is something that sets this film apart, we are with Dredd for most of the films duration.


Gotta tell ya, if I’m given the choice to choose between both of these films, I’d choose Cannon’s film simply because its way more fun. Dredd is such a serious affair, so dreadful, it needed something to liven it up, it needed more sci-fi to it, more action, like the comics. As it is, we simply get Dredd going from floor to floor shooting people in slow motion, which in my opinion felt a little redundant after a while. I did like the slow motion effect of Slo-Mo. Basically, once you take it everything around you slows down to a crawl. Because of this, blood, shards of broken glass, bullets and tearing flesh, can all be appreciated in slow motion. Cool visuals in deed.


On this one, Dredd looks awesome as well. Yeah they lost  the giant golden eagle shoulder pads, but it’s not a big loss, they went for a more realistic approach. Dredd almost looks like a real cop, closer to something we might see on the streets someday. But again, if asked to choose, I’d take the look from Cannon’s film better, simply because it’s more comic bookish, it’s the Dredd of the comics, not a toned down version that wants to be more realistic. This is something that filmmakers need to remember, when we go see a comic book film, we’re not looking for realism, we’re looking for escapism, we’re looking to see something we haven’t seen. Characters who do things we can’t do. And in my opinion, this is what brings Dredd down a bit, its desire to be more serious and realistic. In a Dredd film, I want the futuristic motorcycle, the flying cars, the killer robots, the cool weapons, the sci-fi, Dredd needed more sci-fi to it. But I get it, the budget was smaller, this wasn’t as big a production as Stallone’s film was, this is a smaller scale production, so I accepted it for what it is. And truth be told, I enjoyed Dredd.  I read an article where Alex Garland speaks about this decidedly smaller scale film, and in it he explains that they went with this because they were testing out the waters to see if people would approve of this new film. Had this one worked, had it made some dough, we would have seen two more films, bigger in scale with the possible introduction of infamous Judge Death! But alas…this was not to be.


Unfortunately, Dredd bombed at the box office, even more so than Cannon’s film. Dredd cost 50 million, but only made 32; it didn’t even make its money back! That is the mark of death for any franchise. But again, you need a good entertaining first film to grab audiences and this one was so small scale that it failed to impress. Though well made, it simply wasn’t epic enough. Dredd feels like a whimper next to the big and loud Stallone film. But I’m not going down as saying Dredd is a bad film, I just think it wasn’t all it could have been.  Sad story in my book, I wanted to see more of Judge Dredd! But fear not, thanks to the efforts of Judge Dredd creators John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra, Judge Dredd is becoming better known across the United States and the world. The old comics are getting reprinted and collected in these giant volumes that compile all of those old Judge Dredd comics that appeared in 2000 A.D., highly recommend searching those out! It’s very entertaining to see how this character has evolved through it’s comic book history. Judge Dredd has gone through various  comic book companies, writers and artists. For example, DC comics has printed a couple of Judge Dredd series, and so has IDW Publishing, which by the way is currently printing a series as I type this. Hopefully Dredd (2012) will find its audience on dvd and awareness of the character will grow over the years. Until then, we got volumes of comic book history and these two films to quench our thirsts for all things Dredd. Here’s hoping that a couple of years down the line, Hollywood decides to give Judge Dredd another chance at franchise glory. Until then, according to municipal code 213: good hearted attempts at jump starting a franchise and Code 310: films that don’t deserve the bad rap they get and Code 201 of the Cinematic Crimes Journal, I the Film Connoisseur find both of these films NOT guilty! Go watch them and have a good time!

Rating Judge Dredd (1995): 4 ½

Rating Dredd (2012): 4

A fan made poster that Danny Cannon made when he was a teenager, before he even dreamed of directing Judge Dredd (1995). He submitted it to a contest for 2000 A.D. and won! 

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Dredd 3D (2012)



Title: Dredd 3-D (2012)

Director: Pete Travis

Writer: Alex Garland

Cast: Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey

Review:

Why does a film like Dredd 3-D fail so harshly at the box office? It has all the necessary ingredients for a good sci-fi/action film; in my book it should have been a moderately successful film, to have it fail so disastrously kind of boggles my film connoisseur mind. The film has good production values, it looks great, Judge Dredd looks and behaves like he should, there’s tons of violence, gore, visual eye candy, the computer generated effects are well achieved...I mean, yeah, it needed to be a bit more ‘spectacular’ I guess we could say, but in the end, even if it isn’t as loud and bombastic as Stallone’s Judge Dredd (1995), I don’t think it should have failed the way it did. Reportedly it’s only made 10 million dollars on a 50 million dollar budget!? Why didn’t this new Dredd movie take off?


Same as Judge Dredd (1995), Dredd 3-D starts out by giving us a quick intro about who Dredd is, and why these judges exist via a quick voiceover. They explain all about the escalating crime scene which has skyrocketed out of control. Chaos and anarchy rule the streets; the judges are a police force with special weapons and armor sent out to eradicate crime; something that they are currently having a difficult time doing. Mega City One is filled with violence and death; it’s like the eternal ghetto. The queen of this ghetto is a drug lord known as Ma-Ma, and Ma-Ma sells this drug called Slo-Mo, which when you take it, makes you see everything shiny and colorful and slows things down to the point where you feel as if you were watching life in slow motion, hence the name. Of course, this drug has to be eradicated and Dredd knows where Ma-Ma lives. It’s up to him and a his newly assigned telepathic rookie to find Ma-Ma and destroy her drug dealing empire.


Does Dredd 3D’s failure at the box office mean that the ‘R’ rated action film is now dead? I really don’t think so. We have seen various ‘R’ rated action films flourish in theaters, a recent example of this would be The Expendables franchise, it’s going strong on it’s second film, and it’s got tons of action and gore. So, I ask again, why did Dredd 3D fail? All I can say is that as the tried and true (and sometimes unpredictable) waters of mass consumption have proven, it is a very rare occasion when the public will go see a film about a character they don’t know much about. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not tuned into Judge Dredd’s comic book origins. To top things off, Judge Dredd starring Sylvester Stallone also failed at the box office. To be honest, I didn’t feel like that film deserved to fail as badly as it did either. What can I say, sometimes the masses just don’t like a character and they never give it a chance to lift off the ground no matter how many times Hollywood tries; just look at The Punisher character. They have tried with three different films already; all three films failed to impress at the box office. So maybe audiences just don’t like the idea of Dredd, though I don't see why they wouldn't. I mean Judge Dredd isn't all that different from Robocop (1987), a huge box office success that spawned two sequels, a television show, comic books, an animated show, action figures for children and is currently getting the reboot treatment. So I don't know what gives with this film. 


In comparison to Sylvester Stallone’s film, this one is smaller in scale, I mean it’s not a low budget flick, but to give you an idea, Stallone’s film had 70 million dollar budget while Dredd 3D had 50. And apparently 70 million in ’94 could buy you a really expensive looking film because in my book Judge Dredd is a massive, sci-fi action epic, I loved that about it, you could see those millions up on the screen, this was when films really looked expensive as opposed to nowadays where everything just looks computer generated. While Judge Dredd concerns itself with Mega City One being taken over by a power hungry mad man, Dredd 3D is simply about Dredd showing a rookie cop what it means to be a Judge. Together they enter Ma-Ma’s domain to try and stop Slo-Mo production. Unfortunately, Ma-Ma resides on the 200th floor of the Peach Trees apartment complex. The film doesn’t go much further then Dredd going up the tower, facing Ma-Ma’s weapons and henchmen. The film does borrow this ‘going up a tower to meet a drug dealer at the top’ premise from The Raid:  Redemption (2011), there’s no denying that, but where The Raid made things interesting by giving us a heavy dose of martial arts fighting, Dredd 3D fails in making each floor of the building more interesting. The film can be described as one long shoot out, with lots of bullets whizzing by, and piercing flesh, people hiding in corners…it gets a bit redundant. This simplistic approach towards the film was kind of a let down for me considering that Alex Garland, a writer I commonly rely on for good story and character development wrote the script. It seems like Garland deliberately kept the scope of the story small for budget reasons. 


And here’s where I go into the films one negative point: the film needed a bit more showmanship to it. It needed to be more spectacular. Shoot outs will never replace the adrenaline rush of a well orchestrated action sequence. The film opens up with a cool motorcycle chase sequence, reminiscent of the opening sequences for Robocop, but after that there’s not a whole lot of action in my book. The film does give us an over abundance of bullets and blood and that was cool, but it needed a hell of a lot more action because for a movie about cops in a chaotic crime ridden city from the future, this one felt a bit restrained in this department. What it did have a lot of was style, the camera angles were awesome, and the way the effects of Slo-Mo were achieved was visually interesting, especially in 3-D. So this is where the movie excels. Another high point was Karl Urban as Dredd, he doesn’t talk much, his basically a walking tank, if you mess with him you are dead, which is really the way Dredd should be, so the portrayal of the character they got just right. And for you puritans out there, Urban never takes the helmet off, something Stallone was guilty off and heavily criticized for. In the end, even with its hiccups, this was not a bad film, it should have made its money back, sadly, Dredd 3D is currently dying a quick death at the box office. I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those movies that audiences will discover once it hits home video. 

Rating: 4 out of 5   


LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails