Dredd-ful?

[DrQ]

It could have been a classy, poignant and fun 12-cert film without being "aimed at" 12 year olds.


...?

Didn't they try that the last time...

Yeah... does that mean they shouldn't try again?

[DrQ]

I thought the satirical point of the film was that the satire of 30 yrs ago in a predictive sense was now real....

Yes, that was kind of interesting (in the half of the film I saw)... but Dredd-of-the-comics is still substantially in the future, is it not? The alien-ness, saturated with satirical metaphor, is what generally appealed to me with Dredd.

Violence, gore, etc, aside... I just think (as I did since the Stallone effort) a Dredd film could be so much complex and cerebral! Yes, it's always going to be, at its core, an action film, but I think it could have been a multi-layered, fantastical, satirical action film, about justice, society and the evolution of urban life...

And by the way, since I personally work with 12-year-olds, some of whom are highly intelligent, I see no reason why "appealing to 12-year-olds" (as well as 40-year olds... etc) is necessarily a bad thing. If one has an important message to get across (which was possible with a Dredd film)... intelligent mass appeal can be a good thing!

[darnmarr]

I honestly think it's actually more cerebral than you're giving it credit for being: give it another chance, try watching it all the way through, either alone or with someone who's into the type of film it is.

[JOE SOAP]

Violence, gore, etc, aside... I just think (as I did since the Stallone effort) a Dredd film could be so much complex and cerebral! Yes, it's always going to be, at its core, an action film, but I think it could have been a multi-layered, fantastical, satirical action film, about justice, society and the evolution of urban life...

And by the way, since I personally work with 12-year-olds, some of whom are highly intelligent, I see no reason why "appealing to 12-year-olds" (as well as 40-year olds... etc) is necessarily a bad thing. If one has an important message to get across (which was possible with a Dredd film)... intelligent mass appeal can be a good thing!

The film that was pitched was the film that managed to secure funding and get made - all previous film-options and efforts pitched by other production companies in the 13 year gap between the '95 film and the DNA punt failed to do that. Personally I think it had all the things you say it didn't; maybe not as writ large or played as broad as you'd like it, but they managed to make a Dredd film on $35 million and it wasn't shite. Hollywood didn't manage even that with five times the budget.

[Mark Taylor]

I once walked out on a film half way through because it was (at least up to the point where I walked out) the most tedious and boring piece of crap I have ever seen. However at least I had the good sense not to bother commenting on it afterwards. See, I'm not even going to tell you what the title was (actually it left so little impression on me I've forgotten it).

A. I don't write for 'Total Film' or rottentomatoes.com.

...sure, but if you could be bothered taking the time to write a review, It's somewhat stunning that you couldn't be arsed taking 45 minutes to watch the other half of the movie behforehand. Either the movie is worth your time or it isn't. Make up your mind.

B. I think I watched enough of the film to get the feel of it.

...except the only way you could know that for sure was by watching the other half of the film.


Most likely others have posted similar comments but frankly, I could only be arsed reading half the thread.

[Mark Taylor]

You're right, Dredd is nowhere near the quality of the Resident Evil films.

Exactly, that babe in Dredd's costume was nowhere near tight enough.

[shaolin_monkey]

I suppose I also forgot to add another point which is that it is the case today, in the US, in real life -- where drugs that are not physically addictive or have harmful side effects (in terms of causing anti-social harm) is an excuse for the state to slam you in jail and perhaps even shoot you in the face. US jails overflow with a population of victimless criminals, merely those who have opted to use arbitrarily proscribed substances.

And it is that case today that many news consumers do not bat an eyelid at this state of affairs.

So to depict that happening in the film, in itself, is not satirical intent, in my view. There must be something more.

I'd just like to point out the kid got shot in the face 'cos he pulled a gun on Dredd, not because he was a drug user. Notice the kid next to him was left unharmed.

If real life police are shooting non-threatening drug users in the face, then I would say Dredd was rather lenient in comparison, hmm?

[DrQ]

I honestly think it's actually more cerebral than you're giving it credit for being: give it another chance, try watching it all the way through, either alone or with someone who's into the type of film it is.

But Darnmarr, if I don't think it's particularly cerebral in the first half, am I really likely to think it is in the second? It's always possible, I suppose, but I think unlikely - especially as I have read a reasonably detailed synopsis of the whole thing, and it looks like nothing particularly surprising happens after the point where I stopped watching.

[DrQ]

I once walked out on a film half way through because it was (at least up to the point where I walked out) the most tedious and boring piece of crap I have ever seen. However at least I had the good sense not to bother commenting on it afterwards. See, I'm not even going to tell you what the title was (actually it left so little impression on me I've forgotten it).

"good sense" is a matter of opinion, Mark!  ... (aren't we all entitled to our opinions, whatever they're based on?)

Please do tell what the film was, I'm curious...

[DrQ]

B. I think I watched enough of the film to get the feel of it.

...except the only way you could know that for sure was by watching the other half of the film.


Most likely others have posted similar comments but frankly, I could only be arsed reading half the thread.

Not being a pro film reviewer, do I really need to be "certain" I don't like it to make a decision not to continue watching it? It wasn't a case of "couldn't be arsed" - I was actually offended by the film! I know I am somewhat preaching to the converted on this forum, which is why on the whole I appreciate that most of the opinions offered (generally contrary to mine) are done so respectfully and intelligently. It's great to have a debate without it lapsing into personal insults etc! - which I have substantial experience of, directly and otherwise, elsewhere - being the reason I have actually been put off contributing to online forums for a while... and the reason I am continuing to contribute to this one!

Anyway back on topic...

What it boils down to (or what it at least partially boils down to) is that I found the film alienating. The first half was alienating, and nothing that could happen in the second half could change that - even if the second half was a Disney Pixar version of Dredd! (which would be offensive in an entirely different way (maybe...))

I can see the artistic merit of the gore and the (imagined) rape scene... but I don't think it was necessary. Re the latter, someone else mentioned (sorry, I can't remember who) that Anderson turned this round in a way that empowered her - which is great and all... but the brief but explicit visualisation of the rape is still there! Which inevitably affects the rating of the film and alienates those who, for whatever reason, don't want to subject their eyes and soul to an explicit rape scene. Like I said... I don't think it was necessary. The scene could have been played, the point made, with a clever interchange of verbal communication between the protagonists. Were the actors not up to this task?

Someone else mentioned something about not liking violence to be sanitised... but as has also been argued here, the violence in 'Dredd' is 'fantasy' rather than realistic - so doesn't it then glorify the violence, rather than just showing it for what it is? I draw people's attention to the opening scene of 'Saving Private Ryan,' which is highly realistic, shows blood spraying about and whatever, but doesn't glorify it - I think I would have been happier if the violence was more along these lines - zooming in on the flaying and the like, however artistically, is a glorification.

[mididoctors]

Someone else mentioned something about not liking violence to be sanitised... but as has also been argued here, the violence in 'Dredd' is 'fantasy' rather than realistic - so doesn't it then glorify the violence, rather than just showing it for what it is? I draw people's attention to the opening scene of 'Saving Private Ryan,' which is highly realistic, shows blood spraying about and whatever, but doesn't glorify it - I think I would have been happier if the violence was more along these lines - zooming in on the flaying and the like, however artistically, is a glorification.

I would turn that on its head... The glorification of violence troupe is pretty universal.

I would go as far as to paint saving prt ryan as a pro war movie that totally glorified and legitimized violence including legitimizing the inhumanity of it. Because the realism allows one to not have to question ones own motive in watching it and the narrative is completely pro war.

the war is /can be/made legitimate as long as it is given meaning and in SPR you are cuddled the whole way through by numerous little morality plays. I actually grew to detest this film on repeat viewing because it is a lie in so far as it is not really that realistic anyway and is just a vehicle for war porn


DREDD is full of violence porn it makes few excuses for it and the protagonists on either side of the law have sociopathic drives [yes DREDD too] which enable them. You have to carry the burden of enjoying the violence yourself as a viewer. there is no excuse given to you by the film makers

the affect is alienating at times.. whats your point?

[Frank]

an explicit rape scene

Really? Is this one of the scenes you've only read about?

[Mark Taylor]

Not being a pro film reviewer, do I really need to be "certain" I don't like it to make a decision not to continue watching it? It wasn't a case of "couldn't be arsed" - I was actually offended by the film!

Few things offend me, however ill-informed opinions have been quite near the top of that list for a long time, regardless who they're coming from. They are the foundation of every form of bigotry and prejudice that plague society.

Your decision to stop watching the film, by the way, is in itself not something I have the slightest problem with. Ignorance is a valid choice. Spouting opinions based on it, not so much.

[IndigoPrime]

DrQ: Out of curiosity, have you watched Skyfall and, if so, what did you think of it? Given some of the stuff you're saying about Dredd, I'm very interested to get your take on that film.

[darnmarr]

Glad you're enjoying the debate, Dr.
(me too, contrary standpoints are often the most informative).
But you must admit that all of your arguments are handicapped to a certain degree by the fact you didn't watch it!
As for being offended, well we're all offended by different things so it's difficult to talk about in any meaningful way; to my mind, the film stuck so very closely to the spirit of the strip in action and characterisation that I find myself wondering if it is simply the medium that offends;
I wonder is it that a splash of black ink and an "AAAAAARGH!" is just more tolerable in an abstract 2d panel of your childhood and only becomes 'offensive' when depicted in realistic colour, bone-crunching sound and actual movement?

After all, Dredd has been killing and maiming folk, week-in, week-out in a variety of spectacular ways, pretty much since his inception; even the family-fun scenarios you suggest in your original post all involved violent death at some stage, for certain individuals.

I guess what I'm asking is, if darkness, and violence and death leave such a bad taste in your mouth then what on earth do you think you've been reading all these years? Or is it that such violent situations simply lose their offensiveness to you when depicted in the funny papers, and ,if so, then regardless of how cerebral you dont find it-  this film  seems to have taught you something.