Dredd - Grade, Review, Discuss, Spoilers
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
Have you watched Game of Thrones?
Wow, that film tanks unexpectedly bad. I actually thought it would fail, seeing that films like Total Recall and Conan failed, but not that bad. But at least it doesn't have that big a budget.
And at least it was R-rated.
If he'd tried to use the gun he'd have blown himself to pieces...which means he'd have blown Anderson to pieces as well!
Shame this isn't doing better. Shame that 18 cert films keep failing somewhat, it just increases the pressure on studios to keep churning out 12A sanitised things like The Hunger Games.
That said, the thing to remember about Dredd is that it wasn't expensive to make, so factoring in rest of the world and DVD sales it might do enough to justify a sequel...I hope so, in fact I really ought to try and see it again, I did enjoy it and I will be getting the DVD.
Drug my girlfriend to this last night (in 2D), and we both thought it was very good! I can't say much that hasn't been said already. Urban was great! The villain was good. Hell, I even thought the guy they drug around with them was cool, though I half expected him to turn out to be the Rob Schneider, wacky comic relief we come to expect from action films.
It sucks that the film isn't doing too well! There was a lot of passion put into this, and it is always a shame when that kind of dedication to a film isn't rewarded!
It sucks that the film isn't doing too well! There was a lot of passion put into this, and it is always a shame when that kind of dedication to a film isn't rewarded!
Gutted to hear this isn't doing better. I really hope it picks up off word of mouth.
Are the 3D screenings being pushed as hard at the expense of the 2D ones in the States as they are in the UK? I can see that playing a part in the films downfall, the 3D is nice but add so much to the film I could see people being willing to pay that extra amount for them without a pre existing love for the character. Hell, I think more 2D showings would have helped the UK boxoffice, the core audience for The Sweeny would have been a similar 70's kids on a nostalgia kick crowd and that apparently took 50% more on its opening weekend (despite supposedly being poo).
The films were in development at the same time so the resemblance seems to be a coincidence. Though Tharg makes a little joke about it in the latest Prog by having a competition for Raid DVD's ("The film everyone's talking about... in Dredd reviews").
The films were in development at the same time so the resemblance seems to be a coincidence. Though Tharg makes a little joke about it in the latest Prog by having a competition for Raid DVD's ("The film everyone's talking about... in Dredd reviews").
I have not noticed much in the way of marketing for this movie in America. John Carter, by contrast, had buses, billboards, TV ads - a botch, sure, but money was being spent. How can anyone go to see it if they haven't heard of it?
Plus, post-Labor Day is not the time to release a summer movie. We're going into fall Oscar-bait season and people who want action flicks may have stopped paying attention.
We all know about it, but ComicCon/fan awareness is very different from reaching the average moviegoer who has never heard of Dredd. But considering that Dredd is an amalgam of pop culture tropes, "unfamiliarity" should not be an issue.
The fact that the movie is low budget implies it also has a low marketing budget, since that's tied to expecations of a movie's profit-making potential. The bigger budget movies get the bigger marketing budgets. That Stallone travesy had twice the production budget if the new movie, and that was in 1995 dollars!
Summer action movies have become a winner-take-all business, with a few winners sweeping up (Hunger Games, The Avengers, The Dark Knight) and everything else floundering. Any movie that isn't reasonably big budget doesn't stand a chance.
Plus, post-Labor Day is not the time to release a summer movie. We're going into fall Oscar-bait season and people who want action flicks may have stopped paying attention.
We all know about it, but ComicCon/fan awareness is very different from reaching the average moviegoer who has never heard of Dredd. But considering that Dredd is an amalgam of pop culture tropes, "unfamiliarity" should not be an issue.
The fact that the movie is low budget implies it also has a low marketing budget, since that's tied to expecations of a movie's profit-making potential. The bigger budget movies get the bigger marketing budgets. That Stallone travesy had twice the production budget if the new movie, and that was in 1995 dollars!
Summer action movies have become a winner-take-all business, with a few winners sweeping up (Hunger Games, The Avengers, The Dark Knight) and everything else floundering. Any movie that isn't reasonably big budget doesn't stand a chance.
This was a solid movie, though the claustrophobic setting and lack of scope is definitely a bad mark.
Has anyone seen The Raid: Redemption? It is literally the exact same movie. Small team of cops enters a slum building run by a drug lord who lives on the top floor. Once inside, they're trapped and can't escape and must fight their way to the top to find the drug lord. Also they're betrayed by crooked cops.
Has anyone seen The Raid: Redemption? It is literally the exact same movie. Small team of cops enters a slum building run by a drug lord who lives on the top floor. Once inside, they're trapped and can't escape and must fight their way to the top to find the drug lord. Also they're betrayed by crooked cops.
^Gotta disagree. The setting was awesome. It perfectly demonstrated a vertical slum of unimaginable proportions. Peach Trees WAS a whole city. Miles of narrow concrete hallways where one could get shot at any time just by someone poking around a corner and taking a potshot. It's contrasted by the atrium, an vast open space bigger than ANYTHING in ANY building actually built to date. It effectively portrayed the scale of the setting within the time allotted.
Many movies show mile-tall buildings as background. This is one of a handful that shows how insane of a scope just one building with 70,000+ occupants is.
Many movies show mile-tall buildings as background. This is one of a handful that shows how insane of a scope just one building with 70,000+ occupants is.
As for her gun, my first impression was she didn't dare fight him for it in the elevator due to the fail safe charge in the grip taking her head off with his hand. That said, I was certain she was going to psi burst his intentions and wheelkick his ass, but I guess she can't be perfect.
As for 2D showings, I had to drive 30 minutes to find a theatre that wasn't showing it in 3D, and it only had 2 shows a day in 2D, but six in 3D. Me and six guys were the only ones in that showing. WTF? I don't care how good you think your 3D is, why shoot yourself in the foot by advertising both 2 and 3D and then making it such a pain in the ass to see the 2D?
I get you think the higher ticket price will draw in more money from fewer people, but guess what, it doesn't and it didn't. When I used to work at the theatre, people that came to see one movie, but missed it and went to another that was playing or who just showed up to see something during the matinee very rarely opted to go the 3D version of anything on the fly. And most people, when given the choice, opted for the 2D version, when they came with the intention of seeing the film, anyway.
Price for 3D = half again as much as the 2D price, which is already exorbitant.
3D glasses = SUCK. Usually a dirty, germy mess.
3D itself = way overrated and gives everyone in my family either eye-strain, headaches or nausea. (I admit some of the scenes in this flick would have been interesting to see 3D, and not everyone gets physical discomfort from 3D)
(Tangential, but IMAX is friggin DOUBLE regular ticket price, which I learned the hard way when I went to see Raiders recently. It does look and sound awesome, though.)
I really hope this gets sequels, and I intend to see it again, but I'll live with my copy on DVD, if I have to.
As for 2D showings, I had to drive 30 minutes to find a theatre that wasn't showing it in 3D, and it only had 2 shows a day in 2D, but six in 3D. Me and six guys were the only ones in that showing. WTF? I don't care how good you think your 3D is, why shoot yourself in the foot by advertising both 2 and 3D and then making it such a pain in the ass to see the 2D?
I get you think the higher ticket price will draw in more money from fewer people, but guess what, it doesn't and it didn't. When I used to work at the theatre, people that came to see one movie, but missed it and went to another that was playing or who just showed up to see something during the matinee very rarely opted to go the 3D version of anything on the fly. And most people, when given the choice, opted for the 2D version, when they came with the intention of seeing the film, anyway.
Price for 3D = half again as much as the 2D price, which is already exorbitant.
3D glasses = SUCK. Usually a dirty, germy mess.
3D itself = way overrated and gives everyone in my family either eye-strain, headaches or nausea. (I admit some of the scenes in this flick would have been interesting to see 3D, and not everyone gets physical discomfort from 3D)
(Tangential, but IMAX is friggin DOUBLE regular ticket price, which I learned the hard way when I went to see Raiders recently. It does look and sound awesome, though.)
I really hope this gets sequels, and I intend to see it again, but I'll live with my copy on DVD, if I have to.
I think putting 3D in the title does the film a disservice, turning Dredd into a gimmick. But the movie would've worked even without 3D, which is usually a waste in general. I don't know about anyone else, but it's rare that I'm actually "wowed" by it, whether in the theater or at home. If anything, I tend to forget it's even on.
Unfortunately the 3D was a prerequisite to secure the funding needed, which might further explain why they're really pushing the 3D so much at the expense of 2D. Bit of a double edged sword sadly.
Have to add though, I detest 3D and yet I thought this was one of the better 3D films I've seen.
Have to add though, I detest 3D and yet I thought this was one of the better 3D films I've seen.
^I saw it in 2D for the simple reason that the cinema we opted for only had that version on. I can imagine that its visuals would be even better in 3D and when I go again, I'll try to find a 3D screening.
Well, considering the film was retitled to be Dredd 3D, I'd say yes.
The Agony Booth did a good synopsis and review of the Stallone version of Judge Dredd, and a retrospective of the comic book, which I heard a lot about as a kid (I was a huge Anthrax fan), but had never read. He pointed out that America already had their own version of Judge Dredd by 1995 - it was called Robocop! Which makes sense. After walking out of Dredd, I told my girlfriend it reminded me of Robocop.
The only flaw of Stallone's Dredd is Roy Scheider, err, Rob Schneider.
I found this to be pretty average viewing, so I was surprised when I saw all the high scores and praise. Maybe it's because I'm not into the comics, I don't know. I have to admit though that I'm waming up to this movie a little as it settles in. It felt a lot like Die Hard. I saw a Saturday matinée in 2D and there were about a dozen people in the theatre. I figured it might not do well, but 6.3 million and being beaten out by Resident Evil in its second week is worse than I expected.
Here are some positives...
- Karl Urban is definately not who I would have expected as the rough and tough Judge Dredd, but I found myself buying into his portrayal as the movie progressed. The voice and stiff frown seemed a little forced, but his whole badass cop rountine was pretty well done.
- I like that Dredd had his helmet on the whole time. I read that the character does this and that we rarely see him with his helmet off and even then, don't get a good look at his face. A big name would have wanted face time, so kudos to Urban for being willing and able to immerse himself into the character. I heard that Schwarzenegger dropped out of the 1995 movie because of the helmet issue.
- I don't know anything about Judge Anderson's comic book counterpart, but based on what little I've seen in a Google search, it looks like we've got another "Jessica Alba as Sue Storm" scenario with Olivia Thirlby. I'm a fan of hers though and I liked her in the part. It was great seeing her in a big budget scifi movie. It also looks like her comic book character is quite sexualized with revealing uniforms and titilating poses & still shots. I guess they found a way to work some of that that into the movie with the psychic visions. Unfortunately, I didn't know it was her during the first nude shot.
- Lena Heady was great and appropriately grungy and offputting.
- The city looked great with its mix of FX and real environments. I wish I could compare this to the 1995 movie, but I don't remember enough about it to do so.
Here are some positives...
- Karl Urban is definately not who I would have expected as the rough and tough Judge Dredd, but I found myself buying into his portrayal as the movie progressed. The voice and stiff frown seemed a little forced, but his whole badass cop rountine was pretty well done.
- I like that Dredd had his helmet on the whole time. I read that the character does this and that we rarely see him with his helmet off and even then, don't get a good look at his face. A big name would have wanted face time, so kudos to Urban for being willing and able to immerse himself into the character. I heard that Schwarzenegger dropped out of the 1995 movie because of the helmet issue.
- I don't know anything about Judge Anderson's comic book counterpart, but based on what little I've seen in a Google search, it looks like we've got another "Jessica Alba as Sue Storm" scenario with Olivia Thirlby. I'm a fan of hers though and I liked her in the part. It was great seeing her in a big budget scifi movie. It also looks like her comic book character is quite sexualized with revealing uniforms and titilating poses & still shots. I guess they found a way to work some of that that into the movie with the psychic visions. Unfortunately, I didn't know it was her during the first nude shot.
- Lena Heady was great and appropriately grungy and offputting.
- The city looked great with its mix of FX and real environments. I wish I could compare this to the 1995 movie, but I don't remember enough about it to do so.
Don't think that's true, because the story of the 1995 film was that he gets imprisoned. Unless the helmet is glued to his head, he would have taken it off no matter what actor played him.
Similar threads
- Poll
