No one is above the law, especially not in the dystopian setting of Mega City One in the newly released “Dredd 3D.”
Directed by Peter Travis, this adaptation of the 1995 “Judge Dredd” tries to amp up the story with more violence and special effects, but lacks in storyline and characterization.
Dredd (Karl Urban) gets teamed up with a new rookie partner Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) who is a mutant with psychic powers. Dredd, not convinced Anderson’s up to the challenge of being a Judge, decides to take her under his wing. He allows her to make some decisions in order to test her
abilities as a Judge, but plays the role as both a partner and mentor.
The duo investigates a murder at Peach Trees Apartments where they are introduced to the villainess Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) who’s taken control over the building. with 200 floors of suspects to choose from. Ma-Ma, a drug lord, mass produces “SLO-MO”, a substance that makes time slow down dramatically for the user. During the investigation of the murder the Judges capture Ma-Ma’s subordinate Kay (Wood Harris), and fearing the Judges will discover her operation through Kay, Ma-Ma locks down the building, sending an army of thugs to kill the Judges for her.
One of the major problems with the film is lack of characterization. This movie fails because it doesn’t take any time with its characters. Viewers know nothing about Judge Dredd or his past, a topic the 1995 version shed some light on. The writers provide the audience with a simple briefing on Dredd, his token rookie partner Anderson and Ma-Ma.
Travis’ version of the movie leaves holes in Dredd’s past. Without an exploration into his back story, nor the stories or inclusion of other characters such as his insane brother Rico who framed him for murder, the plot holes in “Dredd” leave audiences confused.
Fans of the Dredd comics will already know his back-story, but new comers to the series who haven’t seen the 1995 “Judge Dredd” or read the comics will be lost. Karl Urban’s take on Dredd is a brooding, hateful version compared to the Stallone’s 1995 counterpart. Dredd feels more like a sinister Robocop than a human fighting for a good cause.
Another problem is the villain Ma-Ma. She’s not a very good antagonist because of the lame decisions she makes throughout the movie. She has a whole army and 200 floors of the Peach Trees Tower under her control, yet she doesn’t use it to her advantage. Some of Ma-Ma’s tactics are questionable, leading her to be easily sabotaged and further distancing herself as an accomplished villainess. The writers have Ma-Ma make all the wrong decisions just so Dredd can ascend towards her, a cheesy tactic that is blatantly obvious to the viewers.
The setting of Mega City One is not nearly as present as in the 1995 film. While in the previous version, the city was the heart and soul of the crime infested world, the 2012 version glosses over the city, and fails to show the importance of judges in Mega City One.
The “SLO-MO” drug is basically a tool for director Pete Travis to use as an excuse for slow motion in the movie. Every time someone uses “SLO-MO”, an action scene follows. While fun to look at with some descent cinematography, it does make the contained world of the Peach Trees more interesting. However, the use of the effect still doesn’t deter the audience from the staleness of the one building setting.
The weight of the movie’s violence bogs down the plot with a few dozen bloodied corpses serving mostly as shock value rather than telling the story. The 1995 “Judge Dredd” was violent, but didn’t play any of it for shock value, whereas the new film seems to be using the violence as a tactic for viewer attention.
Dredd 3D fails to capture the futuristic setting that the 1995 version set up for audiences, leaving viewers wishing for more. The average cinematography and overuse of the visualization of SLO-MO serve as a double whammy distracting audiences from the action. The film should have focused more on the characters and less on the special effects for the action scenes. As a result, Dredd 3D gets a failing grade at the Judges Academy.
Paul Bagnall can be reached at [email protected].
Pancho • Jan 22, 2013 at 8:52 am
I really enjoy this movie and i dont understand why not was a box office success, how this happend in such a movie. I saw this movie a week ago (dont ask where)and i was surprised that i didnt see it on movie theathers in my country (Argentina). Mistakenly it was in my country cinemas (october) but i didnt saw it so i think not was properly promoted here. A friend tell me that was only one or two weeks on cinemas and i didnt believe it. Without checking who was the director or actors because i “accidentaly” saw it i feel grate when i guess that Dredd was Karl Urban, one of my favoutite actors. Movie was atonishing, good action, the slo-mo parts were awesome, i never feel that were out of timing or anything like that. I Always saw movies on 2D, didnt like 3D because makes me unconfortable but as Nathan says above, this was a movie to see on 3D. This movie can be pulished a little bit in some parts but i will buy the DVD and ill put it on a special place in my shelfbook. Im looking forward for many sequels because left me wanted more and more!!! This movie will be a Classic for fans.
Nathan • Oct 22, 2012 at 7:38 pm
It does not hold up to the “Judge Dredd” movie because this movie is done much more closely to the actual comic. In the comic, Dredd is a gruff character with a strong sense of justice in black and white terms. I feel Karl Urban depicted this very well. Not to mention that Dredd in this movie can be seen as more of a symbol than a charter; because we do not a see a human face, rather him being a judge. I did not feel like I needed any more characterization on judge Dredd. Because Rico is in this movie, (or any other character in Dredd’s past mind you) there is no reason to tell the back story of the other characters. Dredd is simply a Judge upholding the law. Now on a personal note, I hate 3D movies; but this movie being named “Dredd 3D” was made for 3D. I enjoyed the 3D in this film very much. I also enjoyed that most sequences containing the pop out 3D were also in slow motion (another thing I normally hate in movies) so that I had time to take in and enjoy all of the 3D pop-outs. As for the slow-mo just being filler, the director of the movie even said himself that it was a plot element. When ever someone inhaled the slow-mo drug, the colors became more sharp and vivid, and even the plainest things looked beautiful. The director said that the reason the citizens of Mega City One use Slow-Mo was so that they could find pleasure and enjoyment even in the ugly city by allowing them to take it in slower. And as for the violence not adding to the plot of the movie; once again, the violence follows the original comic book more accurately (And its a modern day action movie, what do you expect). I will agree that the character of Ma-Ma was not characterized enough. By the end of the movie, I did not feel a hate toward her that I would normally feel for a comic book villain. Although it does make sense why she appears inexperienced throughout the movie, she is only a retired prostitute after all. I would rate this movie a 7/10 and would recommend it to both fans of Dredd, and those who are not familiar with the universe. This review did much too harsh of a job in my opinion. It is worth your 10 bucks to go see.
Justin Bergmans • Oct 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm
The reviewer doesnt get the character at, judging how he keeps comparing it to the stallone version. The 95 film was a mess thst tried to turn dredd into a likable guy.wrong.dredd is not a hero or likable..he’s achild blooded killing machine that has no backstory..that is dredd.this guy has no understanding of the comic at all.
ccdev • Oct 3, 2012 at 4:54 am
Dredd was a crap movie. it is not even close to the level of a kick ass actioner like Die hard or Predator. this is B grade at best with lousy
pacing, so so action scenes, gratuitous violence just for the sake of it, incredibly (stoopid) escapes like the mini-gun missing dredd, his ridiculous recovery from an armour piercing bullet that tore a 4 inch
hole thru the wall, a Lawmaster that shoots.22 bullets (seem like it,wtf?) etc etc.
As for the fans, Urban may have been passable as
Dredd and the uniform was wonderfully adapted but this movie is no way encapsulated Mega city one, with all the possible wackiness and over the top futuristic stuff. And hearing judge dredd say “shit’ instead of ‘drokk’ shows what a bastard child this ‘dredd’ movie is. the producers missed all the essential ingredients, substituting them with dark,boring, violent scenes. and the history and potential of Dredd deserves better than the producers using some lame ass slo-mo gimmick to enhance the movie.
If this god awful boring art house actioner
is now considered good entertainment (as with that piece of giant crud,
The Avengers), I’d hate to see a lousy movie.
Boss • Oct 3, 2012 at 1:12 am
Horrible review, I wonder if the author was watching the same movie as myself? Dred 3D is arguably the best action flick of 2012 thus far, and the 3D scenes especially in the parts where slow mo was used were the best, it actually made you feel at times as if you were doing the drug.
Emilio • Oct 2, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Wow, David. I think your review of this awesome film would have been much better than this uninformed reviewers article. As a matter a fact, most of the negative reviews I’ve read are based on the wrong premises laid out by the Stallone movie.
I mean, this Dredd is so spot on that even the fact that he NEVER TAKES OFF HIS HELMET is taken into account. You don’t see Karl Urban’s face. The fact that they got that right vs we need to see the protagonist face is awesome. Not like in the Stallone movie which was helmet optional.
I also agree that the slo-mo effect was just right. I say it added to the pa ing and atmosphere of the film. Please post a copy of your reply here on rotten tomatoes.
David • Oct 2, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Wow, a fan of the universally panned 1995 car crash, that says it all. It seems that everything you know about Dredd is filtered through that mess and together with your insistance that this film should be a remake, when it isn’t, has lead you astray. So to put you right on a few of these ill-judgements one by one…
This isn’t a remake at all. It’s an original movie based on the long running comics. As such it doesn’t need to retread the same areas as the Stallone movie and thank god for that. With 35 years of stories why should Rico be in it? This is a different timeline and nothing wrong with that. Rico’s absence does not leave a “plot hole” in this story, which is not a biography of Dredd but a day or night in the life – it’s more The Graveyard Shift than The Return of Rico. (The irony is that Rico doesn’t seem to alter Dredd much anyway, it was the other way around and only got a couple of issues out of 35 years!) The only hole here is your referencing the riddled 1995 movie (“out of range” rounds nonetheless fall around his feet helped by gravity… a console room explodes for no reason… a lawgiver is easily smuggled into Aspen prison etc etc)
The 1995 got it all wrong and mangled the storyline anyway, for example Dredd is supposed to be aware of his cloned origins and none of these big names would all happen to be on the council together just to be conveniently wiped out. So both sticking to the letter of canon it and in coming up with something equal it failed, except in twice the current budgets worth of eye candy, not counting the dreadful lycra bling and codpiece. Origin stories aren’t always necessary and often result in predictable tedium that hold up the progress and action; better save such luxury for after the typical scenarios, characters and Judge system has been introduced and the characters, to quote one reviewer, could be seen to be “cool”. The 1995 movie failed because audiences couldn’t care about a dynastic power struggle or take the premise seriously no matter how lovable and hollywood-heroic they tried to make the post-American fascist supercop.
On the whole the characterisation in 2012’s Dredd is authentic, not least Dredd and Anderson. We see Anderson going from hesitant and anxious failure to a confident, ass-kicking judge, and learn about her mutant “psi” origins. (Compared to Hershey in the first movie who the script writers mutated into some sort of gf-counseller as prop for their liquified Dredd “character”.)
Dredd is spot on, neither parodying nor lacking the bone-dry wit, efficient and yes, a bit Robocop ‘cos “old stoney face” was the template Robocop was based on which is no secret now. His tactics, movement, voice work are pitch perfect. We learn that unlike Stallone’s Dredd he doesn’t do brainlessly stupid and innocent-endangering things like blowing up cars for parking offenses, that he needs “100%” certainty and is willing to be lenient on minor crimes if the circumstances dictates it. We even get a bit of tantalising mystery when Anderson is reading his mind (which was going to be continued if there was a follow up). I don’t see how this efficient and more authentic interpretation is “hateful” unless you deem brain-numbing catchphrases, a knuckleheaded helplessness and a comedy sidekick which De Souza and co brought was needed to “improve upon” the comic. You are not supposed to a 100% “like” like the judges is the point.
We get a back story for Ma Ma which is sufficient to explain her nastiness, so I don’t really know what you want. The other judges were good despite less screen time (and loosely inspired by “The Pit” as Dreddheads will notice).
Re the city not being “as present”, well duh. They were only given a modest budget which dictated the wise decision to set this movie in a city within a city, the 75,000 populated city block. I should think that was pretty obvious. There’s actually a wide interpretation of the city in the comics and in the early days it often looked more like “Escape From New York” depending on the artist. The slow-mo is hardly overused, most of it’s over in a few brief scenes by the first third or so, I thought there was going to be lot more (it’s virtually what you see of it in the trailer). That leaves room for more cat-and-mouse action and a bit of a twist in this lean and tense 95 minute action-thriller.
This was intended as an introduction to an accurate characterisation and world of Dredd which would be fleshed out in sequels; as you said it left viwers wishing for more. I hope people will keep an open mind and go see it while it’s still showing but unfortunately due to the misinforming of Stallone turkey fanatics and poor promotion States wise, turnout has been dismal so with respect to getting The Cursed Earth, Chopper and Satanus you’ve been the architect of your own disappointment. Still, at least you’ll have your cheesy 1995 codpiece-d visually random extravaganza to relish with it’s hackneyed hero’s emotional journey that neither fans not critics cared about.
Jake • Oct 2, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Somebody is foolish enough to like the Stallone movie over this one? It may be your opinion but it’s a really dumb one.
Austin • Oct 2, 2012 at 3:08 pm
A.) what hype really was there? Oh the 123 reviews on rotten tomatoes in which the film earned a 76% fresh. B.) why are you referring to the film as a remake? It’s a retelling of a character.
Adam • Oct 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm
The new movie is really good – ignore this review folks and go see for yourself.
Joe Uman. • Oct 2, 2012 at 9:33 am
The 1995 film wasn’t a faithful adaptation of Judge Dredd, it was a Stallone film that followed his usual tropes so comparing it to it is a bit of a false principal to start from. You should be comparing it to the comic.
Viewers don’t need to know about Dredd’s past, they need to know what he does – being a Judge – a concept which the 1995 film dumped after 15 minutes so Stallone could run around showing off his over-expensive face for which he was paid $15 million.
The new film is a faithful adaptation of the source material, not a remake, a proper-make.
James • Oct 2, 2012 at 9:05 am
What a poor review, It’s not lived up to the hype because people haven’t gone to see it. The vast majority that have, have loved it from what I’ve seen and heard.
Mark • Oct 2, 2012 at 8:36 am
Having read this review I’m wondering if I actually seen the same film as the reviewer?
I haven’t read any of the comic books but this was a film I really enjoyed. The story is simple and the action brutal, but over all it’s a very effective presentation. I loved the gritty realism along with the dry humor.
There are some slow motion scenes, which I thought were used to good effect, but apart from this there are very little special effects. I don’t know why the opposite is alluded to it this review?
Finally, there are no plot holes that I could see. Sure the movie does not give the full back story of Dredd but this is not a plot hole. As is many other movies, it’s simply unnecessary to give this information as the story never requires it.
My advice is to go see the movie for yourself. Like me, you may just love it.