Dredd (2012) 7/10. I missed this in theaters, and so missed seeing it in 3D. I was going to miss it on blu-ray also, until web chatter convinced me it was worth a look. Turns out, it’s worth several. The story is suspiciously close to the one in The Raid: Redemption (2011), but that, apparently, is not the fault of Dredd—although TR:R was released first, the internet informs me that Dredd was written first, and TR:R is the copy. Whatever. The basic premise—a hero must navigate the inside of a skyscraper in which every hand is turned against him—is a Kirby concept that goes back at least to Mister Miracle #3 and #4 (1971). I didn’t enjoy The Raid: Redemption all that much—the fighting was good, but visually the film was nowhere. Part of the problem was that since it was set in a slum building, the murky lighting made the action difficult to see. There’s no such problem with Dredd—in the future, decaying apartment buildings are very well lit. Not only that, because there are things in use like an illicit drug called “slo-mo” the filmmakers have license to present certain scenes in, you know, slo-mo. And, wow. You will believe that blood sqibs can be abstract art. Throughout the movie, great attention has been paid to the look of everything. There are a number of Leonesque shots using close-ups or big heads placed to the side of the frame—unusual for a film composed for 3D. There is CGI, of course, but not as much as you’d expect—some fx were achieved with nothing more than compressed air and a very fast camera. All in all, the film is visually sumptuous; this is the first time I can remember when, having seen a film flat, I was immediately curious to see it in 3D. The solid plot unspools at a terrific clip—it’s all over in 95 minutes. Performances are good: Karl Urban’s chin as Judge Dredd (the Judge NEVER removes his helmet), and a nicely scarred Lena Headey as the top baddie (her final gambit, making her interrupted heartbeat the trigger for a conflagration, is also a Kirby concept—from Uncanny X-Men #9 (1965)). Then there is Olivia Thirlby, who plays a rookie cop partnered with Dredd for her Training Day. Entering danger without her helmet, she is cautioned by Dredd. She replies that her helmet interferes with her telepathic powers (she’s a mutant). That gives the actress an excuse to show her lovely face for the rest of the film. It also gives Dredd an opening for a dead-pan quip. There are a lot of those—but also one hellacious body count—in this very entertaining film.
The Apartment 7/10I agree also. Nice, but overrated film, and of course overlong, like nearly every Wilder film.
Silence (not always golden) ?/10If it is boring as hell it shouldn't get more than 2/10 on the entertainometer, even if it shows some craftsmanship.
The Apartment (Billy Wilder, 1960) 7.5/10I like how the subplots are tied together and the way everything is (un)resolved.
THE RATING OF A FILM LIKE SILENCE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENTERTAINOMETER. Being bored may say a lot about the box office flop a movie is going to be, but it often says nothing about the actual value of it.
Wilder films are overlong, and I was very worried when I saw the film was still gonna last 45min at a point when I thought we were 5 to 10 minutes from the ending... but it worked.THE RATING OF A FILM LIKE SILENCE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENTERTAINOMETER. Being bored may say a lot about the box office flop a movie is going to be, but it often says nothing about the actual value of it.
No. The two of you.Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".Blaise Pascal approves.
No. The two of you.Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".
