Dredd (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Dredd yellow light Karl Urban

I’m “biast” (pro): loves me some Karl Urban
I’m “biast” (con): nothing
I have not read the source material
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)


I dunno much about Judge Dredd. I know he springs from a comic book series, I know he’s Judge Judy and executioner, and I know he never takes his helmet off. Forget the roughshodding of civil rights: it’s that last one that’s a major bummer. Because in this second attempt to bring Dredd to the big screen — we do not talk about the 1995 flick starring Sylvester Stallone — Dredd is played by Karl Urban, and he in fact never removes his headgear. This is the biggest crime committed by this generally meh-to-middling action movie. For it is a damn crying shame that Urban’s handsome face is mostly covered up the whole time.

Dredd — if you’re “lucky,” Dredd 3D — has some issues, it’s true. But not so many that I am uncomfortable making a joke at my own expense about how the film fails to service my fangirl needs. Cuz that’s part of the good, the clever, the intriguing in Dredd. For Urban — you remember him as Bones in J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot, and as Rider of Rohan Eomer in The Lord of the Rings — is still totally riveting with only his mouth and his manly, unshaven chin with which to express himself. (It’s funny how director Pete Travis — no, I’ve never heard of him, either — sometimes lets the camera linger on Dredd’s mouth the way, in another film, the camera might linger on a character’s eyes, in order to gauge his reaction to whatever has just befallen.) In a world where dumb action movies, as this one aspires to be but cannot bring itself to be quite entirely that stupid, are over-the-top and overexplained and overenunciated, there’s a surprising and gratifying minimalism to Dredd.

Of course, the minimalism works against Dredd in huge chunks, too. We’re in a future of unspecified futuricity, where most of the planet is an irradiated wasteland and yet the strip of civilization between the former Boston and Washington is one of the few places that remains livable. Say what? In what universe would the American Northeast not be the first region to get blasted into nuclear glass in a global conflict? (I mean, if you want to cripple the United States, you take out Washington and New York, no?) Maybe there’s a reasonable explanation for this, but we never hear it. If you can get past that, though, you can “enjoy” the hellish urban atmosphere of Mega City One, which stretches from the former Boston to the former Washington and is punctuated by enormous towers, 200 stories tall, housing the miserable remnants of humanity. And you can come along for a day in the life of Judge Dredd as he mops up the wicked and the evil, a day on which he just so happens to be assigned the task of evaluating rookie Anderson (Olivia Thirlby: The Darkest Hour, Solitary Man).

One thing that’s nice — for postapocalyptic values of “nice” — is that this society clearly has no problem with women doing nasty kickass vicious jobs like Judging, because we glimpse other women doing this work, too. (Though there’s a special reason why Anderson is getting a rookie tryout that I won’t spoil for you, cuz it’s kinda B-movie fun.) Or with women being violent crimelords who terrorize the proles and their minions with equal aplomb. For here we have Ma-Ma (Lena Headey [Game of Thrones, Sarah Connor Chronicles], who is awesome, as always), who rules the Peachtrees neighborhood, one of those massive 200-story structures, from her perch atop it, and is very very keen to take out the two Judges — that would be Dredd and Anderson — who have wandered it into on a seemingly routine call.

In some ways, this is like this year’s The Raid, which gave us present-day Indonesian kung-fu cops infiltrating a Jakarta highrise in order to take out the crimelord who runs it. But there’s more humanity in Judge Dredd, and more leeway for exploring issues of morality, thanks to its science-fictional setting that means we don’t have all the information we need to fully understand its world. There are small moments of unexpected poignancy here that challenge the dog-eat-dog postapocalyptic ethos we might be expecting. And there are startling moments that appear to subvert everything crappy action movies have taught us to anticipate from movies about badasses like Dredd: though he has the legal right to make instant judgments on the fly, Dredd refuses to execute, on the spot, a bad guy on “only” a 99 percent certainty that he’s guilty. I’m not sure I can articulate how much this one teeny-tiny moment rocked me, because Teh Movies have trained us to “know” that guys like Dredd shoot first and don’t even bother to ask questions later, they’re that certain of their rightness. It’s not even that Dredd is wavering or hesitating: it’s that the rules of his world are not the rules of our world, and we’re only learning them as we go.

This is the thing that is so fascinating about this Dredd: its protagonist is not a rogue cop, not a cop who’s off the reservation. He is (I think) a regular guy in a world that is different from our own in ways we don’t even realize we can’t anticipate because we’ve unconsciously brought contemporary expectations into the multiplex with us. Where Dredd falls down is in being this intriguing and then letting that intrigue dissipate because there’s no time to explore it in 90 quick minutes. This should be a 20-hour TV series, not a movie. This is Max Headroom meets Robocop, and there’s simply way too much stuff to explore and examine in that mashup. I mean, yeah, the 3D is blurry and painful to endure, but that’s not the real problem with Dredd. It’s that, for another example, it postulates a drug called slo-mo — which is what Ma-Ma is building her empire on — that slows down time for the user without explaining why anyone in this hellish world of misery and grime would want to make their lives pass slower. Oh, for certain, the movie gets at how forcing someone to take this drug before you torture them would make the torture worse. But, you know, this movie really needs a scene in which slo-mo makes it seem like an orgasm lasts longer. It needs a scene about how corporate-executive assholes are trying to use slo-mo to get more work out of desperate proles.

All of which is, I know, too much for a single movie. But Dredd, as it is, only makes slo-mo seem good as an excuse for making bloody splatter last longer. That’s not how it should be.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
73 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Joe Soap
Joe Soap
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:33pm

No the satire is implicit in the film, you justhave to see it.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Joe Soap
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:39pm

What satire do you see in the film? I don’t see much at all.

Jim Campbell
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 3:57pm

It seems to me that having a scene where Dredd soundly beats a suspect for information and then retires to the corner of the room, seething with silent menace with the stars ‘n’ stripes behind him, while his psychic subordinate rips the information from the suspect’s mind is not short of satirical intent.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Jim Campbell
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:31pm

What’s satirical about that? Apart from the SF element, it’s a fairly straight-up depiction of shit that is happening right now. Satire requires some element of the ridiculous, which I don’t see here.

Jim Campbell
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Sep 15, 2012 9:17am

Umm, no. Lampoon requires some element of the ridiculous. Satire is something entirely more subtle, although frequently conflated with broader humour these days.  The comic is rarely directly critical of Dredd himself, preferring to simply present his actions to us and allow us to be appalled/amused/enthused as we find appropriate. A large part of the satirical thrust of Dredd the strip is to take an uncomplicated fascist and place him in complex situation so that –despite our best instincts– we root for him.

The template for many of the short-form Dredd stories has always been the absurdist comedy: take a current trend/craze; extrapolate to absurd degree with either malign or unintentionally disastrous consequences; insert brutal future cop as straight man with … unfortunate consequences for the other protagonists.

However, as Wagner himself notes, Dredd lends itself to all-out action, doomed romance, tragedy and horror as well. The reason the strip works is that Dredd is essentially unchanging throughout; the rock around which these stories accrete.

(Good to be able to find an intelligent discussion, BTW. A pleasant change from: “wtf they redid the stallone flick this is gonna suck ass”)

Sean
Sean
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 24, 2012 6:07am

When the vagrant gets squashed. Don’t quit your day job toots.

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:38pm

The film misses an opportunity to let us see the real impact of this drug on its world. Is it dangerous? Is it only being used by bad guys (which is what we see in the film)?

I don’t *need* the film to tell me anything. I want the film to flesh out its world a bit more.

junox
junox
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 3:11pm

 all drugs are dangerous aren’t they ?? that’s what i was told…. unless you get them on prescription then there okay  unless you take too many

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  junox
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:15pm

Hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic or not…

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:54am

the drug enabled the gang to get into a position where they could move out of peach tree and start to move in on other blocks.  It wasn’t about the affect it had on an already broken society, it was about how blocks within the society were battling for supremacy, and the slo-mo enabled these gangs to get stronger (by creating addicts that fund them).  This is the impact it has on society

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kv11
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:21pm

*sigh* But the gang could only be able to move out of Peach Tree if this drug appealed to lots of people. There’s nowhere near enough indication in the film that this is the case.

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 23, 2012 3:45pm

and it does, they even have scenes in the film where they are discussing the distribution of the drug – after all – THIS IS WHERE IT IS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED.  They locked down the tower block to prevent the judges from interrogating the high value suspect the judges are dragging them around – DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURE OF SLO-MO IS THE ENTIRE SET UP OF THE FILM.

And there’s no question of “Moving out” – where would they move to?  They control Peach Tree tower block, but they can expand their influence with the sale of slo-mo

Sauchieboy
Sauchieboy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Oct 27, 2012 9:24am

Thought provoking review.  The bad guys weren’t really bad guys. The film makers didn’t spell that out for the viewer either, they trusted we’d think that one through for ourselves as well. I enjoy being treated as the same rational adult at the cinema as I expect to be treated as in real life.

If every time a film makes you think about something for yourself, long after the film  is over, is that an example of the film’s power and the ability of its makers to stimulate your imagination; or is it a failure on their part, MaryAnn?

Every time I watch The Godfather part two I find myself imagining what happened to the 1920’s characters in the periods between those which appear on screen, does that mean Coppola screwed up? Should there be a seven hour cut somewhere? We never get to spend much time with Norman Bates when he’s in the delusional state that sees him convinced he’s his mother – missed opportunity, Hitch.

The film gives you that lingering, sensuous visual of Headey in the bath, which conveys everything you need to know about the sensory impact and erotic potential of the drug; and it shows you how far it has propelled Ma-Ma (whore to kingpin), and the price it has exacted from her and the people under her dominion. The film’s really more concerned with power, and the things it does to the people who wield it, than a specific drug and what it does to the people who take it.

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:40pm

The film does not appear to be satirizing the idea of instant justice.

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:41pm

Who cares what stretch of land it is?  It really doesn’t affect the film that much.

So why does the film mention it, then?

that has nothing to do with the situation Dredd and the rookie find themselves in.

As I said, there’s too much ground to cover here in a single film.

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:46am

Well you say “if you can get over it”, I am quite bemused why it would irritate someone.  And for size of budget the film had, sure they could have spent an hour giving us boring backstory and origins of the city, but that affects none of the characters or anything they’re doing.  We weren’t watching the film for an origin story

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kv11
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:17pm

I am quite bemused why it would irritate someone.

I am bemused that someone who enjoys science fiction — as this film is — wouldn’t find this weirdly distracting.

they could have spent an hour giving us boring backstory

Or they could have just left out the mention of “Boston to Washington.”

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 2:15pm

right, you’re bemused that someone doesn’t care what stretch of land this is set on?  You are incapable of disconnecting the dredd world with reality?  It just doesn’t matter that much, it doesn’t affect anything in the film – a routine call for dredd who is evaluating a rookie.  “Yeah that’s all good, but it shouldn’t be near what I know as washington”

And people who don’t live in America couldn’t care less whereabouts they set it, it’s all the same to us

Let’s say, for sake of argument, that they didn’t mention “Boston to Washingto” – in what way would this have affected the story, the characters, anything in the film? If changing this makes absolutely no difference to anything, why would it be such a gripe where a viewer would struggle to come to terms with?

Scott Mortensen
reply to  kv11
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:44am

I’m not sure the cursed earth in the comics is even stated to have been caused by nuclear war. Maybe a solar flare fucked up the containment at nuclear reactors except those with the foresight to shut down their grid? Maybe it was nuclear war but the east coast was the only one employing anti-missile shields? The film doesn’t feel the need to explain something the characters have known their entire lives.

Mega City One is a lot like ‘The Sprawl’ in Neuromancer, in which the entire eastern seaboard has become a massive city. I like the idea because whenever I visit the east coast it not only seems like a possible future, but a likely one if you give it enough time. Where one city ends and another begins seems like an irrelevant tax issue so the rich can keep their tax money in their own area.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  kv11
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:58pm

You might not realize it, but at this point you’re arguing about a Flying Snowman. And there’s no sense in arguing that. Everyone has their own Flying Snowmen, that one conceit that, for whatever reason, breaks immersion and suspension of disbelief. For MAJ, it’s the idea that the West Coast and Eastern Seaboard, out of all of the U.S., would be the parts that survive a nuclear. And like all Flying Snowmen, she has a point: just a Gollumn really should have burst into flames halfway down to splattering on the surface of the lava flow, the Deep South (centered in Memphis or Birmingham), Mid-west (centered in Indianapolis or Minneapolis), or Southwest (centered in Denver or Phoenix) regions would be far more likely places for Mega Cities to spring up*.  But either way, it just doesn’t matter. Not because you can come up with some justification for the way the story is written. But rather because it’s too late. The Snowman has already taken off, MaryAnn’s willing suspension of disbelief is already broken. You’re not going to logic it back together for her, no matter how many posts you write.

* In fact, the names of most of those cities, particularly Memphis and Phoenix, would lend a certain poetry to the idea.

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:42pm

There’s no mention of this in the movie. And I’m talking about the movie.

Themanfrommu
Themanfrommu
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 6:07pm

 Just as you have made an assumption that there  is no considered reason for the megacity having survived the nuclear attack, is it not also a reasonable assumption that there is a reason for the megacity having survived the nuclear attack such as defense missiles. The proof for the latter assumption being that the city exists. If you feel it necessary for the film to spell this out then fair enough.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Themanfrommu
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:19pm

The proof for the latter assumption being that the city exists.

I don’t understand this argument. If this is a valid defense, that any old idiocy in every film can be justified by saying, “Well, it’s in the film, therefore it must make sense, even if we can’t see how it makes sense.”

Scott Mortensen
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:47am

Use your fucking imagination sometimes. You would have complained about a scene of tiresome exposition where the characters talk about something they’ve been living with their entire lives too.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Scott Mortensen
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:18pm

My fucking imagination works perfectly fucking well, thank you very fucking much.

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:44pm

I have not taken slo-mo. Neither have you. In the world of this film, who would be using this drug to turn killing and pain into something beautiful? Bad guys. Are only bad guys using slo-mo? Do ordinary people use it, and if so, how? That’s what I’m asking.

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 2:39pm

ugh, “you only see bad guys using it” and everyone knows drugs work differently depending on whether you’re a baddie or a goodie – Did you miss the whole “bad guys supply everyone with this” story, where they were making the drug to supply and use that to gain more territory?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kv11
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:21pm

everyone knows drugs work differently depending on whether you’re a baddie or a goodie

Do you seriously believe this is what I was saying?

I was suggesting that it’s ridiculous that people who aren’t committing mayhem are standing around waiting for someone else to commit mayhem so they can see the beauty in broken glass or brain matter flying around in slow motion.

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 9:47am

they don’t commit mayhem non stop for 24 hours a day.  Perhaps you should look at some of the promotional material for this film.  What with you being a film critic and all….

This will give you a good idea of what it does

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wWDRPOHMvE 

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kv11
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:17pm

Yes, I’m a film critic. And if I have to watch promotional material in order to understand what is going on in a film, that film has failed.

they don’t commit mayhem non stop for 24 hours a day.

You’ll have to explain how that relates to what I’ve been saying.

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 23, 2012 3:42pm

well you don’t have to watch it to figure out what’s going on.  I didn’t before, and I knew what was going on, but I only posted that in the hope that it might have triggered some sort of memory from the film, and the motivations behind taking slo-mo..

As for the mayhem quote, well I think I might have misunderstood what you said about people causing mayhem, i’ve tried reading it again and it makes less sense.  People who commit mayhem, people who don’t, doesn’t matter who they are, they all need downtime and an escape from reality, which is what drugs do for people.  

MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 2:46pm

That’s one example. But again, she’s a bad guy. Are non-violent people using this drug, and how? And how useful — as a diversion or intoxicant — would it be on a regular basis? Is *everything* beautiful slowed down? I doubt it.

Ashley Beeching
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 7:29am

Boredom and unemployment is endemic in Mega-City One, so Slo-mo would be used to combat this, as drugs are in our society today.
As for satire. Dredd’s satire is from the Dirty Harry school-subtle and bitting.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Ashley Beeching
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:22pm

Slowing everything down makes life less boring?

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 10:46am

in the same way drinking alcohol can make life less boring.  All it does is lower your inhibitions, slur your speech, unbalance you and give you a hangover.  It would be cool as fuck seeing everything in super slow motion for a while!  

kv11
kv11
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:47am

but it doesn’t matter if they’re “bad” or “good”, it still shows how people enjoy it.  We can use our imagination to think “hey if they’re using it like this, I guess that’s how people use it” – being good or bad makes no difference to how the drug would work.

Scott Mortensen
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:51am

Perhaps theres a euphoric feeling that also goes along with it? Otherwise there wouldn’t be much addiction potential, it would just be something interesting to do sometimes.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Scott Mortensen
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:16pm

There’s no mention of a euphoric feeling.

darren maher
darren maher
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 4:50pm

I have a read a lot of reviews of this film and this is probably my favourite.

Jpb19702000
Jpb19702000
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 4:50pm

The USA had a missile defence shield during the Atomic war that was not 100%
The result the east coast, west coast and south survived while middle America gor nuked.
The east became Mega City 1, west Mega City 2, south Texas City and middle America the Cursed Earth.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Jpb19702000
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 5:15pm

Again, this is not in the movie. At all.

Jpb19702000
Jpb19702000
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 5:49pm

I just hope this is a hit so we finally get the Dark Judges in the sequel.
They are the undead judges from another dimension lead by Judge Death with his assistant Judges Fire, Fear and Mortis.
HSSSS THE CRIME IS LIFE THE SENTENCE IS DEATHHHHHH!

David Chapman
David Chapman
reply to  Jpb19702000
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 6:15pm

 If the film is a success, Garland plans to do the Dark Judges in the third movie.  The second movie will be either The Cursed Earth or America, he’s not been consistent on that point.

MaryAnn: it’s actually very important that Dredd never removes his helmet.  He never does in the comic – it’s a thing – but it also adds to the idea that he is not a man, but rather a faceless embodiment of the Law.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Chapman
Wed, Sep 12, 2012 11:15pm

MaryAnn: it’s actually very important that Dredd never removes his helmet.

I’n aware of that. :->

John Smith
John Smith
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 7:57pm

 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-factsandfigures-crime.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048539/London-soars-list-Britains-dangerous-places-killings-continue-spiral.html

http://expat-times.com/2011/10/londons-boroughs-newham-and-lambeth-the-poorest-and-the-most-dangerous-map/

again, these are facts.  violent crimes per 1,000 people are higher in london than many US cities (like seattle).  some of our cities are awful, e.g. Chicago and Oakland.

NYC actually has a quite low violent crime rate PER CAPITA and now that we are at a 4 decade low in homicide and 4 decade low in part I and Part II crime is actually very safe.

a movie that does a take on british street crime and the fear of an “average joe” living in a violent borough is Harry Brown with Michael Caine.  I strongly recommend it.  It’s kind of a british charles bronson movie

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  John Smith
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 8:04pm

Quoting the Daily Mail in support of your argument is much like quoting the National Enquirer, only rather than being fluffy and harmless it’s a mass of racism and bigotry. If you want other people to believe your numbers, find a real source for them.

John Smith
John Smith
reply to  RogerBW
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 8:51pm

 yawn.  i quoted several sources and spare me the logical fallacies ok?

i don’t care if you believe my #’s or not

the first source i quoted gets the statistics from the HOME OFFICE in the UK.  argue with them, ok?

this is not rhetoric.  these are facts.  the UK has a higher Part I and Part II occurrence rate per capita than the US

fact

London is more violent (Part I crimes especially) than many american cities, e.g. seattle, and new york city

fact

thus, your chance of being a victim of violent crime, ceterus paribus is higher

fact

London is far safer than many jurisdiction worldwide but on a comparison basis is on the “violent” side of the spectrum

here’s EXTENSIVE data from the national archives
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

here;s an article that reports on statistics culled by the European Commission and the UN

argue with THEM.  they are (yet another source). source after source : Home Office, UN, etc. etc. all say the same thing.  if you disagree, then YOU provide a source that provides different statistics.  i can’t find ANY
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2009/07/people-refuse-to-believe-this-is-true.html

i have no idea why some people so embrace falsehoods that no amount of data will sway them.  if you are one of these people, then so be it. 

facts are facts.

and again, if YOU have data that conflicts with what i am reporting then bring it on.  i am always willing to learn AND admit i am wrong, but it takes data and evidence. 

Captain_Swing666
Captain_Swing666
reply to  John Smith
Sun, Sep 09, 2012 11:16pm

There’s sum seriously dodgy websites you’re quoting from Jimbob.

Paul
reply to  Captain_Swing666
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 12:00am

Yeah, but he’s using words in all caps.

You can argue with him, after all, but you can’t argue with capital letters!

John Smith
John Smith
reply to  Paul
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 5:55am

im quoting the home office, the European Commission, the UN etc. 

you have provided exactly zero data that conflicts with this

you are engaging in juvenile debate tactics.  you can’t refute the data, so you attack the poster with snark.  that may work at recess in 6th grade, but it fails here.

again, there are multiple sources.  they do not have an axe to grind vis a vis for making the UK look worse than it is.  why would the Home Office kludge stats to make the UK look worse?  Are they trying to suppress tourism?

Seriously.  It never ceases to amaze me how often people who would probably act like adults in a normal conversation have to devolve to this level in an internet conversation.  I was asked to cite some evidence, and I did so – citing numerous sources that all show a consistent story. 

And the response is snark, cognitive dissonance inspired evasion of the issue, and attacks on my writing style

It’s pretty sad. 

It’s on the same level as a rightwinger when discussing some factoid thart Michael Moore brings up responding with a “yea, but look how fat that guy is”.

Seriously. That’s what you are doing

Captain_Swing666
Captain_Swing666
reply to  John Smith
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 7:08am

So far your links have been isolated country statistics from sites with a right wing agenda. Lets see some valid comparisons.

Scott Mortensen
reply to  Captain_Swing666
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:55am

Even hardcore leftists seem to get nationalistic when an outside talks about their country. It’s kind of like your family, YOU can talk shit about them all day long, but heaven help us if someone else berates them.

Paul
reply to  John Smith
Thu, Sep 13, 2012 5:40am

You open one of your lengthy comments: “yawn.”

And then you go on to berate me for “snark” and “juvenile debate tactics.”

Seriously?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Paul
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:39pm

The use of “yawn” is pretty much a good indicator that one has lost the argument.

rustybroomhandle
rustybroomhandle
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:16am

I have not seen this film yet, but used to read the heck out of the comic. A lot of the comic’s stories were simplistic vignettes, so the minimalist story seems to be accurate. The comic was heavy on the satire too, but a lot of the time it was more subtle – small references in the artwork, bits of graffiti or in the names of the tower-blocks. 

Sensibleken
Sensibleken
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:18am

The idea of slo-mo is, aside from being a McGuffin, is that when on it the pastel world of Mega city one becomes vibrant and beautiful, illustrated best in the scene with Ma-Ma in the bath waving water and bubbles repetitively before her eyes. In a world where you could have you’re head blown off legally, where life is so cheap it is no wonder it’s citizens would choose to spend time in a beautiful showed down existence. I know I would.

Dandomino
Dandomino
Tue, Sep 11, 2012 3:23pm

Very poor Review. Seems to be the reviewer Missed so much of the film and setting. They appear to not have much of an imagination or the integrity to do research or just fill in the blanks herself. In fact I would ascertain the reviewer has very limited understanding of contemporary film. Since much of the review starts off with a whine that they cannot see eye candy in the shape of Urbans face. Thats the kind of text that highlights a critic without a critics eye or mentality.   The film was brilliant btw, not perfect but still brilliant. Satire, social commentary, beleiveable world , action, plot, suspense and imagination with some very good directing skills. Garland has redeemed himself for writing The Coma and highlighted his continuous skill in writing film scripts that achieve mainstream and critical  applause.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Dandomino
Tue, Sep 11, 2012 6:36pm

Serious question: How did you end up here? Where were you that linked to this site and what caused you to follow that link?

I ask because you’ve managed to “ascertain” shockingly little about “the reviewer” – who’s name and image are prominently featured at the top of every page, eliminating the need for careful avoidance of gender pronouns. Which is to say nothing of her “understanding of contemporary film”, which, to your mind, seems to be entirely without sexual context.

b.lynch black
b.lynch black
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Sep 11, 2012 7:05pm

you know, if she doesn’t just sit back and enjoy the eye candy, she’s told she’s “thinking too much” and if she expresses a longing for eye candy she “doesn’t understand film or have integrity.” there really is no way for “them” to win…. really? the commenter can’t even be bothered to find out the proper pronoun for the reviewer he/she/it is reviling?

CBA Warrior
CBA Warrior
Sat, Sep 15, 2012 12:06am

1.  Sorry I slated ‘The Raid’ a few weeks ago.  I now respect this movie.
2.  I left the Cineworld Newport Wales cinema feeling that the ghost of the 1995 version was laid to rest by the utterly superb performances throughout, and the fine attention to detail which was exactly what my regular dose of 2000AD ‘Thrill Power’ was sustained upon.  Dredd was mean, no holds barred grim hell of the dark post holocaust future which I read every week when each story line was a tight pocket of anxiety and fear.  Yep, this one hit me on all levels, all 200 to be percise!  Like Abram’s Star Trek re-boot, this is Judge Dredd as he IS – THE LAW!!

MBI
MBI
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 6:44am


Where Dredd falls down is in being this intriguing and then letting that intrigue dissipate because there’s no time to explore it in 90 quick minutes. This should be a 20-hour TV series, not a movie. ”

This is entirely correct, but not a complaint that would make me personally drop it to a yellow light.

Scott Mortensen
Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:37am

Beavis and Butthead comes to mind.

zzartzz
zzartzz
Sun, Sep 23, 2012 7:25am

I was looking forward to this flick. I saw it today and was bummed. The slo mo effect was the star ( dazzling and beautiful).
The ol’  hide, seek and destroy in a confined space got monotonous. The splat of falling bodies make me never, ever want to commit suicide by leaping ( instant hamburger in a plastic bag plop). The rookie was miscast (IMO); her voice just didn’t make it for me.

Henry
Sun, Sep 23, 2012 9:45am

Watched the movie non-3D and enjoyed it sooooo much better.  This was a action movie that just did that and didn’t get lost in its special effects.  3D has become a distraction and I strive not to watch any movie with it.

Sean
Sean
Mon, Sep 24, 2012 6:00am

The world’s major cities had missile shields. That’s why the east coast, most of Texas, L.A. to San Francisco, Moscow etc. survived the first nuclear war.

Thermit16
Thermit16
Tue, Sep 25, 2012 4:42pm

Judge Dredd never removes his mask period. So the biggest crime is one of the movies strong points, and your issue with the mega city 1 is should be directed at the comic. The movie is staying true to the source which makes it also good. The fact that they did this on a low budget and still made a great action hero movie is awesome. And it has no rob schneide. Your review is poorly made.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Thermit16
Tue, Sep 25, 2012 5:26pm

Know how I know you didn’t read the comment thread?

All of this has been addressed already.

Bubbazaneti
Bubbazaneti
Wed, Jan 02, 2013 3:31am

Try reading the conic before creating a review…..cause YOUR review suck. …the film is great and follows the comic very close….and so it should be! …..Dredd never takes of the helmet…..looking forward to Dredd 2.

vsmusic2000
vsmusic2000
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 1:30pm

Strange to note that the rookie can’t read minds with her helmet on but can read other judges’ minds who are wearing helmets themselves including the female judge who was about to kill her. *Hmmm*

Salvador Kapur
reply to  vsmusic2000
Wed, Mar 13, 2013 6:19pm

She says that it “interferes” with her abilities, not that it neutralises them completely. The same way that wearing the helmet would obviously affect her vision, but wouldn’t make her completely blind.

Andy Haywood
Andy Haywood
Mon, Jun 01, 2015 6:49pm

Chavs do NOT “run amock” here. Football hooliganism is incredibly rare to the point of near non-existence and violent crime is certainly lower here than in the US (and gun crime is VERY rare). It’s not illegal to own steroids for personal use (although I’ve never met ANYONE who uses them) but it IS illegal to sell them.

The UK ain’t a perfect Utopia (where is?) but check your facts in future.

Whit
Whit
reply to  Andy Haywood
Mon, Jun 29, 2015 11:57pm

Actually, no. Stats have to be compared with certain caveats (for example under homicide stats, UK only includes ones where charges are successfully preferred toward someone, however … While the U.S. does habe more homicides, per capita, the UK has more violent crime . The chance of being stabbed (far less likely to résult in injury vs death ((from firearms) or shot in the UK is about 1.4 times the chance in the U.S.

However, in the UK, the proportion of stabbings to shootings is so much higher than in the U.S.

Also, UK has higher robbery (a violent crime) and Burglary (a nonviolent crime)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Whit
Tue, Jun 30, 2015 8:50am

Citations needed.