Does anyone else remember this movie being released this past fall? I, sort of, do. Kind of like a fading dream, I'm sure I passed by posters and billboards, even saw the occasional trailer, but really never held onto the images. Never-the-less, there have been tons of praise for this film treating it a bit like a "sleeper" action film - an underrated gem that just got swept under the box-office rug upon its release in September of 2012. Well, I decided to give it a go as its DVD release was this week. Consensus? Not really worth the time.
Don't get me wrong here. I love my action, shoot-em-up movies. However, this film just felt flat for me. Does everyone remember the Stallone adaptation from the 90's? While not an amazing film, it did the one thing that this film failed at. It allowed the seemingly unstoppable hero to fall from grace. Stallone's Dredd, who openly says "I AM THE LAW!" (a quote reused in this 2012 version), is framed for a crime he didn't commit and is labeled as a criminal to be sent to prison with those he's already sent away. All this happens while he watches his former police unit fall apart as it's lead by the man responsible to framing him. Maybe people look at this film now as being a little campy - having Rob Schneider as the comic relief doesn't help much either - but it has a way more dynamic hero than the recent version.
What's wrong with the 2012 version you ask? Quite simply, this Dredd is just far more boring to watch. He's a tough-as-nails cop - or judges as they're referred to - who is locked down in a giant ass sky-scrapper that is controlled by a bunch of ruthless gangs lead by Ma-Ma, the gang leader. I made a post a while back about an Indonesian martial-arts film called Raid: The Redemption. The premise is somewhat similar to that. Dredd, along with his rookie counterpart (a cute girl who doesn't wear a helmet - how convenient to show off her face - because it interferes with her gift of telepathic abilities) scales the building to stop Ma-Ma who has the two Judges trapped there. Basically, Dredd can never be stopped. He can never be broken. The man just keeps marching along. While it's entertaining to see him kick ass and take names, there comes a point where you just stop caring. You know he's going to be fine. He never falls from grace and there's never a point where we get to root for him as he climbs back to his feet. So why keep watching?
What the film does is it tries to win its audience over with it style points. The movie revolves around this new illegal drug called Slow-Mo - a drug that allows its user the experience of having time massively slowed down to a fraction of its normal speed. There are many moments the film goes into a slow motion sequence where everything looks spectacular - something I'm sure would have paid off if I saw it in 3D - but ultimately this technique is wasted. It's all style with no substance. First, we're never shown how this drug is corrupting society. It's a drug so it's bad. Gives the bad guys money. Got it. What else? Next, you have a drug that slows down time for the user. Couldn't it be reasoned that it might make people into more effective fighters? Being able to better anticipate their opponents moves, maybe dodge bullets - wouldn't they be able to see all that shit coming a mile a way? I wish they incorporated that idea into the plot. Then we have our unstoppable hero in a giant building complex surrounded by gun-wielding junkies with super-human agility. Maybe it even gets to the point that Dredd himself has to ingest some Slow-Mo to gain the upper-hand. Ugh... So much wasted. Once again, it's style over substance. It's nothing to praise unless you're stoned... then it might actually look pretty cool. I, sadly, was too sober to get any enjoyment from this.
There are some talks about a sequel if home entertainment sales prove there's a demand and audience out there. I'm not necessary against it, but I'm not chomping at the bit either. An interview with Karl Urban (Dredd) talks about a more complex look at our hero in the event of a sequel being made. Even the possibility he takes his helmet off - oh, yeah.. we don't see Dredd's face once during the movie. Kind of confused why you pay for a pseudo A-lister (Bones from Star Trek) if you aren't going give him the chance to show his face, and, well... act! But, hey, maybe the sequel would be where it's all at. I believe a great story can be found anywhere and this sure is a character and world that has potential. Let's say their first attempt does not inspire a great deal of confidence that the sequel would be any better.
I had heard of the plot to this movie with the slo-mo drug and naturally assumed they'd use that to create some cool slow motion fights. They seriously didn't? What the hell was the point?
ReplyDeleteThe film was big on the gore. So, the closest thing that ever came close to that was having one scene where Dredd busts into a room where addicts are toking and shoots them all up. You got a bunch of slow motion shots of bullets ripping through flesh and mowing them all down. But to my point earlier, there was waaay more potential for this than what they offered.
ReplyDelete