What film did you watch last night?

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,700
Location
"Sunny" Plymouth
FlIght. Not really my sort of film, but the usual solid performance by Washington made it very watchable.

7/10

Skyfall. Felt quite slow for a Bond movie, actions scenes were great but the gaps between them were very slow, almost like watching a novel (the phrase makes sense in my head but looks rubbish once typed!)

7/10 Better than QoS but not quite CR, probably watch it again at some point.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Dredd

I really enjoyed it's dark moody adult setting, I wish more films were a 18 certificate.

Better than the original.

8/10

Battleship. Blow stuff up popcorn movie, most bizarre game tie in I've ever seen. useless story buy I got to see nice cgi and stuff exploding.

6/10 worth killing a couple hours of an afternoon.

Dredd. Awesome. Brilliant visuals, good performances, story was a bit "meh" (but I think this was countered with the throw away "drug bust" comment at the end, this wasn't supposed to be some 'last stand, all or nothing, do or die' situation, it was just another day on the job). Obviously being a film that is so good means it won't even break even and the dross above with need dump trucks to carry the cash to the bank. :(

8/10

I really don't get the love for Dredd, I thought it was woeful. I enjoyed the first film in a silly action kind of way, the first wasn't a "good" film, but very watchable, and it I assume is less true to the comic, but I couldn't give a monkeys about that.

The story was much better, you had character progression, or really characters full stop. There was nothing to Dredd in this film, in the original film there was harsh Dredd, bad ass Dredd, and a Dredd who showed softer/nicer moments, while still being a badass and doing what needed doing.

In this he both barely said anything, did nothing to be likeable or unlikeable throughout the film, was stupid, there was just nothing there.

If you read the comics I'm going to guess that like most comics, books, stories there are "episodes" where there is no character growth, and ones where he shows different sides to himself, when you make a film, a one off you need a story that shows something that makes you want Dredd or another guy to win or lose basically.

There was nothing in the story that made him a good or a bad guy, or anything we should care about. For me the story boiled down to "rooting for the cops because the cop chick was hotter", is about as shallow as a film can get.

Basically we had crap bad guys that weren't even a slight threat, how many times did they take out entire groups without even being fired at. Then the minigun attack which was boring basically, as at the end they can all plainly see Dredd and no one fires because... oh wait every single one of them had another weapon on them but decided not to fire when he stood right out in the open. Then basically nothing till later on when he gets shot, there is throughout the film basically no sense of danger except in the scene he actually gets shot. There wasn't really a single scene where two sides fire at each other, return fire, etc, etc. The action, for an action film, was incredibly limited, basic, predictable and not intense at all.

The most interesting part of the film was googling after to try and work out if the psychic used a body double or not :p

Yes the original film was daft, but there was a proper story, it was a story that showed different sides of Dredd, had interesting enemy's and crucially established an enemy who was bad ass, showed how he became bad ass, had some drawn out fights that weren't over in three seconds a piece with no real sense of danger at all. The english chick, we got told, she was a hooker who had her face slashed, then like she runs an empire instantly. Yeah, one crazy woman who gets a her face slashed and revenge kills one guy doesn't instantly become a battle hardened criminal and take over an entire empire and attempt to take over a city... maybe she does but you need some more story to show/establish this.

I had no sense she really was a bad ass, she didn't look like a bad ass, there was no story establishing her as a badass, and everyone who worked for her was completely retarded.

I can't stand this one sided action over in three seconds, no danger stuff, its boring as hell. As this film gave in to no story in favour of action the action was terrible.

Where's your "he's being shot at so jumps over the balcony and lands 5 floors down on the other side to get away stuff... where is the surrounded and fights there way out bits, the anything except for finding a group of guys who don't know how to shoot and taking them all out in 4 seconds bits?

I'll also point out that the Judge's can plainly see where crime is worst and where they can do best, and they say the mega structure was the worst place in the City, yet they have ignored it.....

Story(lack of) and crap action aside, direction/art wise, I found the overly violent slow mo's, nothing more than cringe worthy, it felt more like a gimmick to cover the complete lack of any real story/action by throwing in some daft CGI and and slow motion crap, added nothing at all to the film, without the slow mo the really incredibly boring action scenes would have over in 3 seconds, rather than 20 seconds of pointless slow-mo.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Posts
6,167
Location
Near Windy City, USA
Just got back from seeing Django Unchained on the big screen. I really enjoyed it and loved Christoph Walz (again) playing one of the lead roles in a Tarantino movie.
Very similar to Inglorious, violent, crude, funny and well directed.
8/10 :)
 
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
The story was much better, you had character progression, or really characters full stop. There was nothing to Dredd in this film, in the original film there was harsh Dredd, bad ass Dredd, and a Dredd who showed softer/nicer moments, while still being a badass and doing what needed doing.

In this he both barely said anything, did nothing to be likeable or unlikeable throughout the film, was stupid, there was just nothing there.

We're going to disagree on this.
The point behind Dredd is what the Psychic said when asked who was standing with the chief judge. She said a man, a man of the law, but there was something else, som ething, and then she was cut off.
That was dredd, he is the law, he is duty, there is no grey, there is no black and white. It took 30 years of comic character development to get any movement out of the guy, and then he still remained rock soild, thats the point to the character, he isn't likable, he is just JUST.

The first film was just some random hollywood policeman in the future. If they get to continue making Dredd movies you will see more of the city, more of the background and more of Dredd.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
We're going to disagree on this.
The point behind Dredd is what the Psychic said when asked who was standing with the chief judge. She said a man, a man of the law, but there was something else, som ething, and then she was cut off.
That was dredd, he is the law, he is duty, there is no grey, there is no black and white. It took 30 years of comic character development to get any movement out of the guy, and then he still remained rock soild, thats the point to the character, he isn't likable, he is just JUST.

The first film was just some random hollywood policeman in the future. If they get to continue making Dredd movies you will see more of the city, more of the background and more of Dredd.

^^ put it better than I could. The earlier movie was a 'cop of the future' thing, this film was much closer to the actual character.


Yes I can see he might have been closer to the ACTUAL Dredd.... but that doesn't make it a good film or a good character...in this film his character was boring, the action was boring, the fights were basically boring and thats it.

As I said, the first film wasn't necessarily "Dredd" and was just a cop, but he was a likeable cop, a cop you wanted to win, and an actual, you know, plot. There were fights where you felt like he was actually in danger of being killed, there were fights that went on for more than 30 seconds, there was an enemy you could believe was bad ass and it was explained how he got to be who/where/why he was.

First film, friendship, betrayal, vengeance, hatred, bit of love, bit of comic relief, bit of growth, some actual action.

Second film, building, split second of boobs, end.

His lack of having a personality didn't mean they had to stop everyone else in the film having one, nor make EVERY single henchmen completely useless and pointless, nor make the action one sided simple rubbish at every single stage. Again I haven't read the comics, maybe their is character growth and its subtle, maybe there isn't, when you have a very plain main character which has happened in other books/films, you tend to make up for this by having varied interesting partners or enemys, you compensate elsewhere, I can't say if the comic does do that. If the comic is no characters, no back storys beyond the insanely basic, and no good action I have no idea why anyone likes it. I could live with his character, and appreciate the style of having a character like that, if they made the rest of the film good, but they didn't, the rest of the film was crap.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2009
Posts
11,174
The first film was just some random hollywood policeman in the future. If they get to continue making Dredd movies you will see more of the city, more of the background and more of Dredd.

Not sure that is going to happen, seeing that the film made a loss. It makes me sad that Dredd is more than likely not going to get any follow ups, yet the Resident Evil and Underworld franchises churn out sequels like there is no tomorrow. :(
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,700
Location
"Sunny" Plymouth
Yes I can see he might have been closer to the ACTUAL Dredd.... but that doesn't make it a good film or a good character...in this film his character was boring, the action was boring, the fights were basically boring and thats it.

As I said, the first film wasn't necessarily "Dredd" and was just a cop, but he was a likeable cop, a cop you wanted to win, and an actual, you know, plot. There were fights where you felt like he was actually in danger of being killed, there were fights that went on for more than 30 seconds, there was an enemy you could believe was bad ass and it was explained how he got to be who/where/why he was.

First film, friendship, betrayal, vengeance, hatred, bit of love, bit of comic relief, bit of growth, some actual action.

Second film, building, split second of boobs, end.

His lack of having a personality didn't mean they had to stop everyone else in the film having one, nor make EVERY single henchmen completely useless and pointless, nor make the action one sided simple rubbish at every single stage. Again I haven't read the comics, maybe their is character growth and its subtle, maybe there isn't, when you have a very plain main character which has happened in other books/films, you tend to make up for this by having varied interesting partners or enemys, you compensate elsewhere, I can't say if the comic does do that. If the comic is no characters, no back storys beyond the insanely basic, and no good action I have no idea why anyone likes it. I could live with his character, and appreciate the style of having a character like that, if they made the rest of the film good, but they didn't, the rest of the film was crap.

Just stop it, you aren't allowed to not like the films I enjoy :p
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jul 2012
Posts
15,897
Location
London
Drunkenmaster, I agree that the film could've been a lot better, but it was one for the fans of the comic who know exactly who and what Dredd is.
The original wasn't, nor was Stallone's portrayal of Dredd anywhere close.

Dredd is an inflexible fascist who lives to serve the law. He doesn't kiss the girl at the end ;) If you'd read the comics, you'd get it :)
This film is just portraying a day in the life, not the usual 'must save the city/world' type of affair.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2004
Posts
28,624
Location
Leafy outskirts of London
Take Me Home Tonight

Fairly cliched party-esque film set in the 80s, written by people who wrote for That 70s Show, and featuring Topher Grace.

As cliched as it was, it was still enjoyable, with a decent amount of laughs and a good soundtrack.

6/10
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
101,332
Location
South Coast
Life Of Pi - 8.5/10
I really enjoyed the story telling of this, it's not just that though, in order for me to stay interested the narrator/main character has to be interesting, have the kind of voice that keeps you watching. The visuals were stunning as well.

The Collection - 5/10
Quite a bit of gore and bone crunching but other than that these films tend to copy more from the likes of SAW than do their own thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom