Monday, February 4, 2013

Dredd



Directed by Pete Travis. Written by John Wagner, Carlos Ezquerra, Alex Garland. Starring Karl Urban (Judge Dredd), Olivia Thirlby (Anderson), Lena Headey (Ma-Ma).

Bottom line: Really pretty but really disappointing if you expect anything other than veritable visual masturbation. If you want a Dredd-like experience, see the original (at least it has a sense of humor about itself).
1.5/4

The hour and thirty-five minute movie opens with a view of the 31st century dystopia that is Earth. Megacity stretches from Boston to D.C. Massive, two hundred story apartment blocks tower into the sky in an attempt to accommodate over-population. Violence and poverty run rampant. What is the first and last defense for society? Judges: the police, judge and executioner in one. Sound pretty groovy, right? If only the execution was little more than half decent.

This new remake of the ’95 Stallion flick Judge Dredd is much like the remake of Total Recall; it is edgier, sleeker and modern…and bad. It surprised me how much it reminded me of my experience watching Total Recall. When I watched that, I went back and re-watched the original just to make sure I wasn’t crazy in saying that it didn’t do Schwarzenegger justice (a sentiment the original confirmed).

In much the same way, I went ahead and watched the original. In this case, I had never actually seen Judge Dredd. What I saw was a picture perfect example of the mid-90’s: bright colors over big costumes, spandex, a goofy side-kick (Rob Schneider), super-beefy hero and villain and corny one liners.

I don’t want to base my review on a comparison between the original and the remake because, after all, they are independent movies. I did want to how the original stood up against my objections to the remake. That is, maybe I was disagreeing with a fundamental part of the Judge Dredd comic. For example, what if I didn’t like his helmet? The helmet, for the most part, comes with the territory of the character so it would have less of an impact on the film. Now, let’s say, the remake has some gratuitous sex that the original lacks, I would hold this film accountable for this individual poor choice.

Another reason why I wanted to see the original was to compare the plots of the two and think about the changes. In the original, Dredd is the best “street judge” in the city. He is a living legend until he is arrested for murder. Plot twist (and an almost twenty year old spoiler alert) he was actually part of a secret cloning project and his evil clone committed the murder to frame him.

The remake unfolds as follows. Dredd is told to take a rookie judge, Anderson (Thirlby), out for an assessment to see if she has what it takes to be a judge. What they expect to be a routine triple homicide/drug-bust turns out to be an all-out war with the city’s largest drug-gang.

The drug in question is a new one called Slo-Mo. It makes the user “experience reality at 1/1000% of normal speed”. What does this make me think of? Weed. We aren’t as concerned with the concept of cloning as we are with drugs nowadays. The interesting (and frustrating) part is the movie’s stance. This is a new drug. It is so new, Megacity’s best Judge, Dredd, hasn’t even heard of it. Nothing about it has been tested but it is assumed to be bad. This is all fine and dandy. Take an anti-Mary J stance.
Now, throughout the movie, we sit through a number of really sparkly, really pretty slow-motion sequences. (I could only imagine how cool they look in 3D)

Hold the phone. I thought this drug was bad. I thought this drug was so bad, its use warrants a five-year, solitary confinement prison sentence. All these drug users are doing is sitting on the couch (or in their sober-friend’s car) and getting high. There isn’t any second hand smoke. They only side effect, is a burning of the inner lips. By all accounts, drinking alcohol sounds more destructive! On top of that, why is the drug so pretty!? These junkies (though, honestly, no one is aware of the how addictive this drug is) think the visuals are pretty. I think the visuals are pretty. So what’s the deal with this ‘only when it is convenient’ relationship with slo-mo? Let’s talk about the Judges next.

We never hear much about Dredd. We never even see his face. We hear him speak like Bale-Batman but don’t know much about him. We don’t hear much about the rookie cop either. I dig it. This is one of the things that I liked about this movie. Let me just accept a character as a fact and move on with the story. He is an infamous Judge? Fine. Good. Where is he going today? She is a rookie and a powerful psychic? Fine. Cool. Where is she going today? Even the villain’s back story is pleasantly concise. The film has my time and attention for max, two hours and it wants to spend a quarter of it just setting the stage? Ain’t nobody got time for that!

Anderson is a woman who wants to be a judge to help society. There is crime and unemployment and she wants to clean up the streets for the good of everyone. In the future, there are mutants with psychic powers. Unlike the rest of them, who are deformed and weak psychics, she is beautiful and powerful and based on her rational she has pure intent. She is childlike and the more rational counter to Dredd’s coldly justice dealing character. She is also unfortunately unsurprisingly sexualized.

At one point, a criminal asks,” What am I thinking of now?” Cut to a “violent sexual liaison between the two of us,” she replies, “in a pointless attempt to shock me”. He then says, “No. That wasn’t to shock you. If I wanted to shock you, I’d think of this”. We see her look of shock before she punches him but we don’t get to see what he was thinking.

What could the movie do? If it simply removed the images of her being raped, and kept the dialog we would’ve still been prompted to imagine it. At the same time, if they are trying to be so gritty, why not show us what actually shocked her. After all, we’ve already seen people getting skinned alive. This way the movie would’ve been consistently dark. It is just like the drug thing; it is convenient to spice things up with a little sex so the shot is included. Even though none of this is surprising, as I mentioned above, it’s still disappointing. The original, I might add, didn’t have any sex or nudity. I believe the worst it got was with a chick-fight at the end.

Maybe I am asking too much of a high budget, blockbuster sci-fi movie. Even though there is a wealth of material in the comic’s almost thirty-plus year existence. Even if they wanted to do an anti-drug film, that’s alright with me as long as there is something thought provoking. We are left with a lackluster action movie. Is it enough to watch it just for the sake of the action? There are better ways to spend an hour and a half, and better movies to see.

No comments:

Post a Comment