Dredd - Review

The cult classic comic series, Judge Dredd, has been running since 1977, but aside from devoted comic nerds and fans of the series, the character has rarely gotten any wide recognition or attention. I'm just as guilty as anyone, though I've always been aware of the series' existence, I admit that I've never actually read a full Judge Dredd comic, though I've always appreciated it from afar. The stories themselves have interesting ideas, containing biting satire for topics including police overreach, brutality, and corruption in a crime ridden society, and asks questions like when does law enforcement overstep it's bounds or then again in such a crime ridden environment, the only way to maintain some kind of order is by operating a near-totalitarian regime. These are all thought provoking questions that could definitely make for an interesting movie. Hollywood tried once back in 1995, in the Sylvester Stallone vehicle titled Judge Dredd. The results were... not so good. While by no means the worst of Stallone's filmography, it was nonetheless a disappointing adaptation plagued by a disjointed narrative, subpar acting, and lame jokes (that's what happens when you make your film's comic relief Rob Schneider). It's 17 years later and filmmakers are at it again with a reboot simply titled Dredd. Does this make up for the sins of Stallone's missed opportunity or is is it another dreadful attempt?

Dredd takes place in a post-apocalyptic future (in an undisclosed year) in the crime ridden metropolitan Mega City One on America's east coast. The only force of order lies within the Hall of Justice whose police force, known as judges, serve as both judge, jury, and executioners with the ability to carry out on-the-spot sentences. The most well-known of the judges is none other than Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) known for his ruthless and brutal form of law enforcement and dedication to protecting what's left of society. On a routine day, he is assigned to train and evaluate Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a rookie judge with powerful psychic abilities. While investigating a homicide at a gang-controlled skyscraper slum, the drug lords running the building seal them (and it's thousands of residents) inside with orders to eliminate the judges. Facing unspeakable odds and vicious criminals, Dredd and Anderson put their knowledge and skills to the test in order to take down the building's criminal element.

I'll be first to admit that I didn't have very high expectations for this film, in fact I was pretty convinced that it was going to suck. With comic adaptations still riding high, I figured that this would just be a film to make a quick buck at the box office regardless of it's quality. To my surprise, however, the film is actually pretty damn awesome. It's by no means a perfect flick nor is it one of the better offerings of the genre, but it hits most of the right notes and delivers pretty much exactly where needed. It's a brutal, bloody, over-the-top, sci-fi/action flick with a fun cast, some great thrills, and even a few beats of decent satire. It had a team of filmmakers and actors who clearly respected the material and made an honest effort to create a quality film, and it shows. Like I said, I've never read Judge Dredd comics, so I can't speak for how accurately the flick follows them, but from what I've heard from comic purists, most of the film is quite faithful, so take that as you will. I will say this much, one of the main complaints about the original film was that Dredd spent most of the movie without his trademark helmet (in the comics, he never removes it), but here, Urban spends 99% of the film wearing his headgear, so that's got to count for something.

Karl Urban has made quite a name for himself as one of the more prolific character actors working today. With supporting roles in high quality genre films like Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Bourne Surpemacy, the guy was ideal choice for the role of Dredd. Hell, even in some of his roles in lesser films like Doom or Priest, he's still managed to hold his own. Dredd himself was heavily influenced by many of Clint Eastwood's earlier roles, and it shows in Urban's performance. Seeing as how Dredd never removes his helmet, there are some times he makes some odd and kind of goofy looking facial expressions, but for the most part I dug the hell out of this portrayal of Dredd. Urban is a badass, and he brings those traits to the character, holding his own in the action scenes and giving the character a good sense of toughness and fun. He's tough as nails but also gives the character a bit of humor here and there too, so for that I give immense props.

The rest of the cast did a solid job as well. Olivia Thirlby's performance as the psychic-rookie-judge Anderson was surprisingly solid, but more than that is actually something I really liked about the character. One of my constant complaints in these kinds of movies is that whenever the main character has a female sidekick and/or rookie accomplice, they often end up captured at some point requiring the main character to come to their rescue. This is an outdated stereotype bordering sexist that has really overstayed it's welcome, but Dredd manages to sidestep this issue. Anderson is a rookie judge who does make a mistake here and there, but she always holds her own in her fights and overcomes each of her obstacles using her own skills and intelligence, for once not requiring her male counterpart to come to her aid. In other words, she's a complete badass of a character that's just as tough and cunning as Dredd. You also have Lena Headey as the villainous mob boss nicknamed Ma-Ma. She looked like she was having fun with the role as a relentless diabolical monster of a character. She has some pretty memorable scenes and overall makes for a good villain for this kind of a film. I don't have too many complaints about the cast, for the most part, everyone was quite good.

The selling point for this kind of film, however, has got to be the action. If that's all your expecting from Dredd, I can pretty much guarantee that you will leave satisfied. As I mentioned above, the film is bloody and gory as hell, capturing (from what I've been told anyways) the themes and style of it's comic counterpart.  The film opens with a great chase scene, and following that is a barrage of awesome shootouts, fights, and killer stunts. The cinematography does a good job framing all of the erratic action without devolving into ADD shaky cam territory. Plus the movie was partially filmed in 3D, and to it's credit, has some pretty cool looking 3D shots. One of the film's subplots involved a drug trade involving a substance called Slo-Mo that slows down the user's perception of time. This was used to create some neat slow motion 3D scenes that, while eventually overstaying their welcome, are pretty cool to watch, for a while at least. I don't know if I would recommend the few extra dollars for a 3D show, but if you're a fan of the technology, you'll probably enjoy it. Overall, this was one thrilling film that delivered on all the brutal and bloody action I could have wanted.

Despite all the film's strengths, the story is kind of a mixed bag. It's by no means terrible, the pacing is good, the characters are adequate, and it has some interesting ideas. Unfortunately it also contains some plot holes, inconsistencies, and subpar execution of it's attempted satire. It seemed like the film was trying to ask the question of whether such a brutal form of law enforcement might have been doing more harm that good, or possibly whether the judges are any better than the criminals they take down. This concept, in it of itself, is interesting enough but unfortunately it's not explored very well. There are a couple of scenes in the beginning where Judge Andersen begins to have doubts about carrying out executions, but soon afterwards those qualms just seem to mostly go away. In the end, it seemed like the film was simply saying that in a chaotic world, the only remedy is an equally chaotic form of law enforcement... and without any other conflicting viewpoints or ideas, that's kind of a letdown. It seemed like it was trying to work on the same level as Robocop, another sci-fi action flick with similar themes, only Robocop featured a near perfect balance between the bloody action and poignant satire (seriously though, Robocop is still one of the best sci-fi movies ever made). That said, mediocre satire aside, the story at least serves as an adequate means to deliver on some great fast-paced action and enjoyably quirky characters. I suppose that has to count for something.

All in all, Dredd is a very fun, if somewhat flawed, action film that deserves to be seen. It's by no means perfect, but if you're looking for a fun action film with brutal violence and good visuals, this should do the trick. Check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Cosmopolis - Review

This movie is... going to be a real challenge to review. Cosmopolis is one of those films that takes a while to sink in after watching, mainly in the sense that I had to try and decipher whether I just watched a profound stroke of genius or a pretentious colossal misfire. After the screening, people would ask me whether I liked it or not, and my response was typically, "I don't know." This was just one of those films that was so weird and bizarre that it forced me to come to terms with what I had just watched. It's been a little over a week now and I feel like I've sat on the film enough to give a proper review. That said, I can't help but feel like this might be one of those films that if I see again, my opinion will probably significantly change (for better or worse). Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on Cosmopolis.

The film stars Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer, a 28-year-old self made billionaire travelling through the busy streets of Manhattan in his stretch limo en route to the barbershop. Along the way, he is visited by an array of colorful characters, who interact with him on a variety of topics ranging from economics, philosophy, death, life, sex, and the list goes on. As he travels, everything about Packer's world and outlook is challenged. How will the day end and how will he react to his discoveries?

I should probably get this out of the way, the movie stars Robert Pattinson, and as you may or may not know... I really can't stand the guy. It's not that I have a vendetta against him per se, it's just that every time I've seen him on screen, the guy has made absolutely no impression whatsoever. It's not just Twilight I'm talking about either, even in other films like Goblet of Fire or Water For Elephants, he has just come off as bland and dull. That said, I think one of the main problems is that in most of his roles, he's generally played dull, dead-serious, straight-man kind of characters (even in the genre films he's been in like Twilight or Harry Potter, the guy's characters have always been dull as dishwasher). You got to wonder if that might change if he was given the chance to star in a more eccentric role, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly, Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone, or James Woods in Videodrome. Hey, wait a minute! All of those films are directed by David Cronenberg, just like this film here! Yeah, this actually might work! To Pattinson's credit, he actually does an admirable job in the role (I'm as surprised as anyone). While I'm not convinced that he's a "good" actor, his emotionless and borderline-psychopathic kind of traits work to his advantage here, allowing him to thrive in a role that could only come from the mind of an equally messed up nut like David Cronenberg. Maybe Pattinson has found his niche, and once his residual good luck from his Twilight fame runs out, the guy might actually have a career after all. I don't want to overpraise the guy, he's by no means great in this, but this is the only film in which I've seen him that didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out. That's got to count for something.

Ultimately, what made me want to see this flick was the director, David Cronenberg. He admittedly doesn't have a perfect track record, but what ultimately gets me to keep coming back is Cronenberg's unique and bizarre filmmaking style. Even in the films of his that I didn't enjoy, I at least could find something about them that was engaging and different. His style usually consists of sociopolitical or philosophical themes illustrated through bizarre imagery and grindhouse style violence. While this one is by no means as grotesque as some of his previous outings (it's actually pretty tame compared to films like Videodrome or The Fly), it still has that Cronenberg-esque feel. Everything from the surreal production design, creative camera angles, eccentric characters, off-beat dialogue, and bizarre story screams Cronenberg, and I mean that mostly in a good way. The man's direction serves the movie well, and considering the films's flaws (which I will get into next), in the hands of a lesser director, the film would have probably ended up being a huge disaster. While Cosmopolis is by no means Cronenberg's best movie, it nonetheless showcases many of his strengths.

As mentioned, there is a lot in this movie that doesn't work... and I mean REALLY doesn't work. The film's script boasts a promising premise complete with interesting themes and ideas. The dialogue, particularly the interactions between Packer and his many "visitors" is, for the most part, quite well written. Unfortunately, the movie's pacing is quite abysmal. The film doesn't have a traditional three-act structure, but that, in it of itself, isn't really a problem. Many excellent or classic films, like 2001, The Seventh Seal, or Pulp Fiction have broken away from the status-quo of story structure, but those films had their own distinct storytelling structure that followed a certain sense of rythym (as unconventional as they were). Cosmopolis, in some ways, feels just like a string of random events and scenes, held together by just the most basic thread of a plot. There's little sense of development or rhythm, and by the time the movie ended, I was left wondering what the hell just happened or if anything was really accomplished. It can be serious chore to sit through too, as most of the film is basically just long, sometimes dull, philosophical discussions. While many of the interactions are intriguing, they eventually overstay their welcome, and make you wondering when the damn thing will just end. For those that aren't a fan of slow paced narratives, this one will be a challenge to sit through.

That's about all I have to say regarding Cosmopolis. The ideas are interesting, Pattinson is surprisingly engaging, and Cronenberg's directorial skills are in full effect. If you can handle the slow pacing, odd structure, and overly talky scenes, this one might be worth checking out. Be forewarned though, this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you can't stand overly talky movies with cryptic dialogue and a snail's pace, Cosmopolis probably isn't for you. Take that as you will.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Robot & Frank - Review

Fall is here, so that can mean one thing (well, it actually can mean many things, but given the context of this blog, it has one particular significance), done are the summer's line of high profile blockbusters and in is the line of studio's prestige pieces vying for awards... in other words, it's Oscar season. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the Academy will respond to this one. I can see this one possibly fetching a Best Actor or less likely a Best Screenplay nomination, though I doubt that it has the prestige necessary to get any more, and the chances of it actually winning one seem slim. We'll just have to wait until 2013 when they announce the nominations. But Oscar politics aside, let's talk about the film at hand. Robot & Frank is an interesting sci-fi drama that can best be described as Up crossed with Short Circuit, a story of an ageing jewel thief and his robot companion. How does it fair out... let's look shall we?

The movie opens in an undisclosed time presumably in the not-too-distant future with the aging Frank (played brilliantly by Frank Langella), living alone in his filthy and unkempt house. Years ago, Frank was a master jewel thief, whose life of crime eventually led to him serving time in prison, which in itself lead to a failed marriage and strained relationships between him and his two now grown up children (James Marsden and Liv Tyler). Frank is now on his own, struggling to come to grips with his increasing age and his slowly deteriorating mental health. In fact, his only real companion (and closest thing he has to a friend) is a local librarian named Jennifer (Susan Sarandon). Realizing his father's failing health, Frank's son Hunter presents Frank with an assistance robot programmed to provide him with therapeutic care, housekeeping, and a fixed daily routine. Frank initially wants nothing to do with his new robotic companion, but he eventually starts to warm up to it when he realizes that he can use it to assist him in a new set of heists. He teaches his robot the tricks of his trade, and suddenly Frank is robbing houses again with his technological companion.

The basic plot to Robot & Frank doesn't exactly stray away from a typical formula for the average indie drama/buddy comedy. That said, it does manage to deliver a very well-told version of the familiar narrative, making it into an emotional introspective on aging in addition to being an interesting drama about the depressing results of living a life of crime. With so many movies glamorizing jewel thieves or other Danny Ocean like criminals, Robot & Frank ultimately shows that leading a criminal life leaves you alone, depressed, and bitter. The film doesn't force you to sympathize or even like Frank right away, but it nonetheless portrays him as a person with numerous problems but deep down has a soul. His interactions with his robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) are quite entertaining. The two have some enjoyable comedic bantering but also share a few dramatic moments as well. Fortunately, the movie never comes off as too cute or overly melodramatic either, bur rather hits a near-perfect stride of drama and humor that ensures neither trait overstays it's welcome. Add some great characters, a few stand-out scenes, and some poignant subtext, and it's overall a good story.

The performances are all around quite good, but the stand out, to no surprise, has to be Langella. He really sells the role, downplaying any excessive "cutesy" moments while avoiding any over-the-top melodrama. He carries out both the dramatic scenes along with the moments of humor with his natural presence and dramatic range. It's hard to say right now, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Langella score an Oscar nomination for this role. Susan Sarandon's role as Frank flirt and librarian is fairly small, but she sells it quite well. James Marsden brings a believable sense of frustration, obligation, and concern as Frank's son Hunter, who grows increasingly angry dealing with his father's antics. He comes to his aid anyways because he's his Dad and he has to love him. Liv Tyler does another serviceable job as the daughter, Madison, and that's all I really have to say about her. Peter Sarsgaard's monotone line deliveries as the robot were spot on. It takes a talented voice actor to take an inherently emotionless character and manage to give him some kind of a soul. It's all around a well-acted film with Langella stealing the show. No complaints there.

The movie has a very down-to-earth and interesting look as well. One of the complaints I often hear about future-set sci-fi movies is that they often overplay the futuristic elements. Take Back To The Future Part II for example (even though I do like the movie), the scenes set in 2015 predicted that we would be riding in flying cars, dehydrating and re-hydrating the food we eat, and that we would be watching holographic movies (well, considering the resurgence of 3D movies, that one's almost true). Many movies have nobly tried and failed to predict our future technological developments, and sometimes that can make the movie look quite silly. While only time will tell how close Robot & Frank fared out in this department, it seemed to me that the filmmakers did their homework and creating a fairly believable and down to earth vision of the future. This particular future includes evolved versions of the smart phone, home phones replaced by a Skype-like program, and print media being replaced by digital content. Even Frank's robot bares a striking resemblance to Honda's technological marvel, ASIMO. If robot technology ever takes off in any major way, I would imagine most robots would probably have spawned, in some way, shape, or form from ASIMO. Overall, this version of the future seemed like a thought-out and believable depiction. Like I said, we'll have to wait to see how well it will eventually hold up, but for now, I can buy it.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of things to critique here. As I mentioned, this plot is hardly anything groundbreaking, and even though I enjoyed the overall story, it wasn't hard to predict how it would end. There was even a twist in the third act that I won't spoil, but I have feeling most watching will probably figure out. There is also a strange subplot about Liv Tyler's character Madison, being vehemently anti-robot and makes it clear that she objects to her father having a robot aid. It's never explained exactly why, other than that she's something of a humanitarian (she starts out in the film doing some kind of philanthropic work in Turkmenistan). Maybe there's something I missed, but it seemed like an odd subplot, that not only gets resolved somewhat abruptly, but felt like was supposed to have some dynamic subtext but instead felt more tacked on and pointless. None of these were anything major, but worth noting.

Overall, Robot & Frank was a very enjoyable film. It didn't blow me away nor did it do anything that hasn't been seen before, but it's still a very well-acted movie with a predictable though still enjoyable story. It's hard to say whether this one will score any Oscar nominations, but the possibility is definitely there. If it's playing at a theater near you, give it a watch.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Paranorman - Review

It's September now, so I guess that means the summer movie season is officially over. For me personally, it didn't feel like much of a season. Since July, I've busy moving from BC to Washington, so unfortunately I didn't get to see nearly as many films as I had originally wanted. I did manage to get most of the major releases, but there were plenty that I'm kicking myself for missing. So now, I'm playing catch-up with those that are still in theaters before I move onto the Oscar season lineup. Out of all the films I did manage to catch this summer, I have to admit that there weren't too many surprises or unexpected gems. With the exception of the out-of-nowhere hit Cabin In The Woods, most films managed to, more or less, delivered on what I expected. Films like The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises were predictably good, Amazing Spider-Man and MIB 3 were predictably average, and others like Total Recall and Rock of Ages were, to no surprise, lame and uninspired. To my delight, however, I did manage to catch this little gem of a feature called Paranorman, a stop motion animated flick about a young boy who can communicate with the dead and is called to stop a zombie apocalypse. The few previews I had seen made the movie look promising, but I wasn't expected to like it as much as I did. Here's my full review.

As I mentioned, Paranorman centers around the young Norman Babcock, a young horror movie enthusiast with the ability to see and interact with spirits of the deceased. He lives in the Salem-inspired town of Blithe Hallow, Massachusetts, a centuries old community supposedly plagued by a decades-old witch's curse. None of the town residents, schoolmates, or even Norman's family believes in his ability, and as a result is labeled as a freak. The only person who does believe Norman is his eccentric and similarly outcast classmate, Neil. Despite this, Norman wishes for no friends, and prefers to be left alone (with the exception of the ghosts he frequently comes across). Norman, who has more or less come to grips with his gift/curse, faces an all new challenge when his recently deceased Uncle warns him that the aforementioned witch's curse placed upon the town centuries ago that will cause the dead to rise again. The reluctant Norman, aided by a team consisting of his new friend Neil, his preppy sister Courtney, Neil's dim-witted jock of a brother Mitch, and the school bully Alvin, races the clock to put an end to the curse before it's too late.

It's easy to see why Paranorman is good, but it's kind of tricky to identify what exactly makes it great... and make no mistake, this movie is indeed great. You've got a movie with stellar stop motion animation, a likable and well suited lead character, and a very creative script that finds a near perfect balance of inspiration and originality in addition to providing suitable jokes and themes for both kids and adults. Ultimately, what separates Paranorman from the barrage of other animated comedies is the script. While I can't go as far to call if "perfect," as it does have a couple of things to nitpick, it basically hit all the right notes and managed to do something that most family films simply fail to pull off. It's a concept with a likeable and well-developed main character, an ensemble of colorful supporting characters, a few decent twists, and some well-meaning themes and messages. In a move unusual for a kids film, Paranorman takes many of it's queues from classic horror films, with many homages and tributes that most horror buffs (like myself) will appreciate. Even better, the film throws in some themes of anti-bullying, conformism, and social culture to give it a bit more weight. It doesn't quite reach the near perfect blend of fun and pathos in most of the scripts Pixar typically brings to the table (though I'd say it's definitely got the leg up on Pixar's last two outings), but it nonetheless hits most of the right notes and delivers the goods.

It seems like the main selling point for this particular flick was the stop motion animation mixed with small details of cgi courtesy of Laika animators. This is the same team that gave us the 2009 film Coraline (another stop-motion flick which also had dark-ish themes). I have to say that I have a strong admiration for this kind of stop motion filmmaking. While computer generated animation is impressive and typically well-done, I can't shake this feeling like it's become almost a cliche unto itself. While I have great respect for the thousands of hard working cgi animators (and I really mean no offense to the work you guys do), there's just so many of them that it's becoming harder and harder to be impressed by the barrage of animated flicks to be released every year. With stop-motion, it's hard not to admire the hours and hours of dedicated work that comes with it, and the end results are usually pretty impressive. Paranorman is primarily stop-motion, complete with excellent character and creature designs, plus some beautifully realized production models of a town that brilliantly parodies Salem in Massachusetts. While most of the film was stop motion (or at least it looked like it was), it also included some small touches of cgi. This mainly comes through in the especially exciting finale, which blends it's creative stop motion along with some trippy and visually dynamic computer generated imagery to end the film on a particularly exciting note. If nice looking animation is all you're looking for, then Paranorman is all but guaranteed to satisfy.

On the not-so-positive side, there are a couple of things I can get into, but nothing that ruins the film. The supporting characters are all diverse and often funny, but their personalities aren't exactly dynamic or original. You have the preppy teenage girl, the dim-witted jock, the fat kid, and the school bully... they're fun don't get me wrong, but they all come from a done-to-death formula that lacked original thinking. Not to mention, some of the jokes fell a bit flat, but when you have a movie primarily aimed at children, that's not really a surprise. Overall, it finds a solid balance between it's kid-aimed jokes and the more adult humor. I know some parents have voiced some concerns over some of the potentially scarier content for their kids. While I'm not going to say what age I think is appropriate (it really depends on your kid and how they perceive what they watch), but I'll say this one definitely seemed aimed toward a slightly older child audience. It's not even really because the film is "scary" per se (the zombie scenes in particular are played more for laughs than anything), but it includes some themes and motifs that are a bit darker and heavier than what you typically see in your average family film. I would say most kids 10 and up could probably handle the movie, any younger than that... I'll let you make that call.

Overall, Paranorman is this summer's surprisingly great film. It's probably on the tail end of it's theater run now, so if it's still playing in a cinema near you, definitely go check this one out. If you missed it, it'll make for a great watch when the Blu-Ray comes out. Either way, see it!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!