thi sis proper here yah
Saw Dredd for the first time. Absolutely brilliant movie - loved the whole feel of it. 7/10, maybe even an 8. The blood CGI was a bit goofy, but it wasn't that distracting and the story was good. Simple and to the point. I suppose if they do a sequel then they can dive more into the Dredd character and this was more a movie about getting you hooked and telling Stallone's film to take a backseat.
That being said, I wish they had taken a few cues from Stallone's flick in terms of adding depth to the universe, but the movie clearly didn't have a large budget, so you have to make cuts somewhere. The movie didn't suffer from it, though, if you've seen the Stallone movie and already know a bit about the Dredd univerise.
That being said, I wish they had taken a few cues from Stallone's flick in terms of adding depth to the universe, but the movie clearly didn't have a large budget, so you have to make cuts somewhere. The movie didn't suffer from it, though, if you've seen the Stallone movie and already know a bit about the Dredd univerise.
Bourne Legacy 7/10 chase sequence the entire movie! haha almost. Not as tiresome as the feeling i got from the last Bond movie. ..Loved the shots in snowy thick Alaska and in the Philippines. Well made. Will watch the next oneSpoiler (highlight to read):
Aaron cross is not as hot as jason bourne of course. But he still shines as a badass. His tagalong, the doctor, is a pretty bonehead(as in she had no idea what she was doing at her work) but manages to stay alive
..he is able to shoot down a drone.. then wrestle a wolf and stick a tracker in his mouth in the nick of time. haha!!
Aaron cross is not as hot as jason bourne of course. But he still shines as a badass. His tagalong, the doctor, is a pretty bonehead(as in she had no idea what she was doing at her work) but manages to stay alive
..he is able to shoot down a drone.. then wrestle a wolf and stick a tracker in his mouth in the nick of time. haha!!
i'm sorry but how does "not having a large budget" excuse shoddy story-telling / lack of background-foregrounding / poor explication? writing is writing - it costs the same process and the writers charge the same, whether they create a shallow and lame universe or a deep and engaging one. it's not budgetary limits that makes a film suck dick, in terms of narrative. it's just a film sucking dick. i can guarantee that the CGI effects you thought were so 'awsm' cost a whole lot more than the time/effort it takes to make a fictional world seem a little more 3d.CapnNismo wrote:
Saw Dredd for the first time. Absolutely brilliant movie - loved the whole feel of it. 7/10, maybe even an 8. The blood CGI was a bit goofy, but it wasn't that distracting and the story was good. Simple and to the point. I suppose if they do a sequel then they can dive more into the Dredd character and this was more a movie about getting you hooked and telling Stallone's film to take a backseat.
That being said, I wish they had taken a few cues from Stallone's flick in terms of adding depth to the universe, but the movie clearly didn't have a large budget, so you have to make cuts somewhere. The movie didn't suffer from it, though, if you've seen the Stallone movie and already know a bit about the Dredd univerise.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-07 09:03:34)
OK, I'll bite...
The film was 1 hour and 35 minutes long. "Judge Dredd" by comparison was 1 hour and 36 minutes long, but had a great deal less action in it. The action in Stallone's version was always very quick but because they had a much larger budget, they could spend it on showing you the world in which Dredd lived. They had the money to build the various sets and locations that "Dredd" most certainly did not have.
In "Dredd", there were a few scenes when it was instantly clear that they were shooting in front of a green screen and combined with the CGI, it was a bit distracting, but the rest of the movie was still quite good. In the case of "Dredd", once you were locked into your seat, the action never really stopped - it was a very fast-paced film whereas "Judge Dredd" didn't have this pacing at all.
You were saying?
The film was 1 hour and 35 minutes long. "Judge Dredd" by comparison was 1 hour and 36 minutes long, but had a great deal less action in it. The action in Stallone's version was always very quick but because they had a much larger budget, they could spend it on showing you the world in which Dredd lived. They had the money to build the various sets and locations that "Dredd" most certainly did not have.
In "Dredd", there were a few scenes when it was instantly clear that they were shooting in front of a green screen and combined with the CGI, it was a bit distracting, but the rest of the movie was still quite good. In the case of "Dredd", once you were locked into your seat, the action never really stopped - it was a very fast-paced film whereas "Judge Dredd" didn't have this pacing at all.
You were saying?
right and so you're trying to imply that the pacing of a film correlates to its budget, how exactly? a real old-fashioned set here and there, and several scenes given over to character/world building somehow equates to an 'impossible' task for a modern hollywood film with an animation department and CGI budget? look: if the film sucked on account of pacing/storytelling, that's because the writing was weak, or watered down, or tailored to a more 'omg xplosionz' type audience. not because it had some sort of essential 'restriction' that stopped it from being as good as the original (unless that restriction is one of talent, hahaha).
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-09 06:47:23)
Stallone's wasn't much of an 'original' and the two Dredd movies have absolutely 0 in common besides both being based on the comic book. Fair to note is that this Dredd is actually true to the source material and does a great job at catering to its target audience, Stallone's wasn't/didn't. The movie could've done without 3D but as production started directly after the release of Avatar I doubt the producers had much choice if they wanted to get any funding. Their title 'Dredd 3D' was very camp though and if anything scared their potential audience away.
Yes, the story is somewhat simple and was deliberately kept simple for two reasons I bet: budget constraints and the direction the producers/screenwriter wanted to take with the first (though probably last) installment of their Dredd series. First, sci-fi movies are known to be very expensive and in the case of Dredd it's no exaggeration to say that it'd probably be in the order of 100 mil+ if they wanted to showcase the world it was set in properly. Second, whereas there is plenty of room for drama and a more engaging/intellectual story Dredd is mostly about a future cop shooting everything to shit. As the screenwriter planned three films he probably reckoned it would be easiest for both the producers and for getting an audience to concentrate on that 'shooting everything to shit' bit for his first film.
pacing was fine imo. All in all it was a 7-7,5/10.
Yes, the story is somewhat simple and was deliberately kept simple for two reasons I bet: budget constraints and the direction the producers/screenwriter wanted to take with the first (though probably last) installment of their Dredd series. First, sci-fi movies are known to be very expensive and in the case of Dredd it's no exaggeration to say that it'd probably be in the order of 100 mil+ if they wanted to showcase the world it was set in properly. Second, whereas there is plenty of room for drama and a more engaging/intellectual story Dredd is mostly about a future cop shooting everything to shit. As the screenwriter planned three films he probably reckoned it would be easiest for both the producers and for getting an audience to concentrate on that 'shooting everything to shit' bit for his first film.
pacing was fine imo. All in all it was a 7-7,5/10.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-03-09 08:03:02)
inane little opines
Argo
best director/10
i liked the direction of the movie. of course i'm biased, unlike you fucks i was alive and aware of the time frame the movie happened.
On the other hand, Affleck's a better director than actor. The Academy didn't do wrong not picking him . .. .
best director/10
i liked the direction of the movie. of course i'm biased, unlike you fucks i was alive and aware of the time frame the movie happened.
On the other hand, Affleck's a better director than actor. The Academy didn't do wrong not picking him . .. .
You said the same thing after watching Ice Age.13urnzz wrote:
of course i'm biased, unlike you fucks i was alive and aware of the time frame the movie happened.
he had a cameo in jurassic park as well.AussieReaper wrote:
You said the same thing after watching Ice Age.13urnzz wrote:
of course i'm biased, unlike you fucks i was alive and aware of the time frame the movie happened.
Except Judge Dredd was a very 2d world, there was barely any backstory to speak of - Dredd's personal background was a single sentence - there wasn't a whole lot of character development, it was a weekly comic after all.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i'm sorry but how does "not having a large budget" excuse shoddy story-telling / lack of background-foregrounding / poor explication? writing is writing - it costs the same process and the writers charge the same, whether they create a shallow and lame universe or a deep and engaging one. it's not budgetary limits that makes a film suck dick, in terms of narrative. it's just a film sucking dick. i can guarantee that the CGI effects you thought were so 'awsm' cost a whole lot more than the time/effort it takes to make a fictional world seem a little more 3d.CapnNismo wrote:
Saw Dredd for the first time. Absolutely brilliant movie - loved the whole feel of it. 7/10, maybe even an 8. The blood CGI was a bit goofy, but it wasn't that distracting and the story was good. Simple and to the point. I suppose if they do a sequel then they can dive more into the Dredd character and this was more a movie about getting you hooked and telling Stallone's film to take a backseat.
That being said, I wish they had taken a few cues from Stallone's flick in terms of adding depth to the universe, but the movie clearly didn't have a large budget, so you have to make cuts somewhere. The movie didn't suffer from it, though, if you've seen the Stallone movie and already know a bit about the Dredd univerise.
The whole back story/deep plot was covered in the intro commentary IIRC. So maybe they were just being true to the original?
Fuck Israel
i'm not speaking as a particular connoisseur of the original, here. you're not going to see me waxing lyrical over a sly stallone movie. i'm just making the point that 'budgetary limitations' do not excuse bad writing, or shoddy story-telling. the writing process doesn't 'cost' more for a 'good' story. you either write an engaging film with lots of world-building, or you staple together a barely-coherent script full of set-pieces and explosions. i don't think there's a correlation or direct relation between the quality of writing and the putative 'cost'. i don't think it follows that 'world building' necessarily translates into lots of expensive set design. that's nor more necessary than saying a book that foregrounds itself in lots of world-building will 'cost' more to a publisher because of hundreds of pages of background explication. not necessarily so at all. it's all about creating an efficient illusion - a suspension of disbelief. if a theatre company can do it on stage with $250 of props, i don't think a film needs a billion dollar budget to make you feel a little immersed.
Erm, the original was a weekly comic strip, not the Stallone film.
Fuck Israel
i'm obviously talking about the 'original film' in the context of, you know, this two film comparison.
you are being even more retardedly bellicose today than usual. please go whack one off or something. i'm sure you can steal a minute, as i guess your mom is out of the house today for mother's day celebrations.
you are being even more retardedly bellicose today than usual. please go whack one off or something. i'm sure you can steal a minute, as i guess your mom is out of the house today for mother's day celebrations.
'The original' bore pretty well no connection to the source material, so its irrelevant.
Griping about lack of 'depth' in Judge Dredd is about as dumb as complaining James Cameron didn't go through the killer robot's childhood, relationship with its parents or inner pain to explain its motivations and raison d'etre.
TBH
Griping about lack of 'depth' in Judge Dredd is about as dumb as complaining James Cameron didn't go through the killer robot's childhood, relationship with its parents or inner pain to explain its motivations and raison d'etre.
TBH
Fuck Israel
Die Hard 5/Good Day to Die Hard, 6/10.
Last edited by War Man (2013-03-10 19:08:17)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
well i'm not the one making those gripes.Dilbert_X wrote:
'The original' bore pretty well no connection to the source material, so its irrelevant.
Griping about lack of 'depth' in Judge Dredd is about as dumb as complaining James Cameron didn't go through the killer robot's childhood, relationship with its parents or inner pain to explain its motivations and raison d'etre.
TBH
Oz The Great and Powerful - 8/10
I liked it, especially the witches, its a long time since I read the books but I like the underlying commentary - simplistic though it may be.
I liked it, especially the witches, its a long time since I read the books but I like the underlying commentary - simplistic though it may be.
Fuck Israel
For some reason everyone "who was alive" during that period liked that movie more than the youngins. I dunno.13urnzz wrote:
Argo
best director/10
i liked the direction of the movie. of course i'm biased, unlike you fucks i was alive and aware of the time frame the movie happened.
On the other hand, Affleck's a better director than actor. The Academy didn't do wrong not picking him . .. .
Maybe we'll get an Iraq war movie in 30 years and all of the millenials will be like "you don't know about that time, man! you weren't even alive, man!"
rewatched taxi driver for the first time in a few years.
8/10.
8/10.
Bronson
Meh / 10
There was no story whatsoever. Good acting but terrible script and plot.
If you want to see this sort of movie done well, watch Chopper.
Meh / 10
There was no story whatsoever. Good acting but terrible script and plot.
If you want to see this sort of movie done well, watch Chopper.
seven psychopaths 9/10 . It's very easy going, good flow. Great cast. if you liked In Bruges you'll Prolly be into this one.
hmmmm
Starship Troopers
Couldn't finish it./10
Couldn't finish it./10
trollAussieReaper wrote:
Starship Troopers
Couldn't finish it./10