moviemaniac008

The film is dedicated to the memory of the mother of the director, assassinated in 2009. While that was a touching move and while the movie certainly has noble aspirations, this movie, from a purely cinematic point of view is nothing short of awful. Hilariously awful, might I add.

I won't try to sum up the plot of the film like I usually do because I couldn't for the life of me remember what it was about. One minute it's about cultural diversity in Montreal, next it's about a conflict between families in Haiti and eventually it turns into a woman becoming a fugitive from Haitian authorities. These all events all feature the same woman, and is supposedly a continuous telling of her story, but I can barely make the links between the different parts of the story.

Marie-Ange Barbancourt overacts in just about every scene she is in. She is, however, much better than all the supporting actors in this film. One I can think of right now is the judge during a court scene taking place in Haiti whose sentences feel overly written and whose intonation is even worse.

The film features some very funny moments (although they aren't intentional), such as when Marie-Ange's character visits a person and they have small talk for a minute or so before they start yelling at one another insults that I'd frankly never heard of in my life. Other scenes include Olympic medalist Bruny Surin and another actor playing some overly cartoonish cops (with a special gun handshake...yep you read that right)...I mean I can tell that the director wanted to show them as being evil, but there really are no motivations for their actions. Their actions are unexplained and do not make sense, and it's even funnier when the rookie cop starts shooting randomly in the air and his superior tells him that he's learning fast. Another scene involves demonic possession, and my question is this...why? It didn't bring anything to the story, and was never referenced again.

In short, if Quebec ever wanted to respond to Tommy Wiseau's The Room, this would have to be the movie. Studying film in college at the moment of this review, it should be noted that I haven't even talked about the film's technical problems yet. Frames that look pretty weird, sound that just lags from scene to scene (it will either just cut during dialogue or will feel way too low...one scene in particular that comes to mind is a scene in which a washing machine makes more noise than the characters talking. I cannot believe that nobody saw that during post- production)...This film is absolutely terrible.

A Final Word: A friend of mine works in a theater. He states that on Saturday, during the whole day, only one person bought a ticket. That same person got a refund 20 minutes into the movie. Yesterday, the theater was empty except for me and this friend, and another woman, who walked out after 40 minutes. That didn't matter because we didn't have to contain our laughter anymore. If anybody walked by our auditorium, they must've thought we were watching the comedy of the century.

I checked Dredd out of curiosity one evening. Having never seen the ''Judge Dredd'' with Stallone and having only heard negative stuff about it, I will not compare the two together. But all I can say is that the 2012 Dredd is simply put, an amazing action film.

Dredd tells us a story of a violent city in the near-future where cops have the right to kill criminals on the spot depending on the severity of their offences. The main character, ''Dredd'' (Karl Urban), has a rookie for the day, a telepath by the name of Anderson (Olivia Thirlby). On her first training assignment, Dredd and Anderson must inspect a murder scene at a residential sector ran by Ma-Ma (Lena Heady). As soon as they arrive, the building is put on lock down, and the cops must shoot their way to the top if they want to survive.

The story of Dredd shares many similarities to ''The Raid: Redemption'', but don't be afraid of paying to see the same film: both shine in their respective ways. The Raid was all about awesomely-choreographed fight scenes, some of which were pretty brutal. Dredd on the other hand, appeals more to a modern American audience who wants a typical point-and-shoot type of action film. Dredd shines in delivering a simple story that still manages to keep the viewer interested in it all movie long.

As the lead character, Urban is amazing, while his co-star Thirlby is also very good. The two main leads have a great chemistry together. To all those skeptical of Urban, do not worry, for the Dredd character fits him perfectly. I think that Dredd is probably one of the most epic character I've seen on the big screen this year, slightly behind Tom Hardy's Bane.

The action is amazingly shot. Director Pete Travis shows very good usage of slow-motion, which can lead to certain parts to be very intense. Speaking of intensity, Dredd never shys itself of showing blood and gore, and is very worthy of it's R-rating. So if you're sick of all the PG-13 action films like for example, Taken 2, this movie is really for you.

I had no choice but to see it in Real D-3D. How was the 3-D you ask? In my opinion, it was pretty good. I probably wouldn't have paid for it if I had the choice, but what I got was pretty solid. The scenes with the drug, SLO-MO in particular are very well made, especially with 3D. As the name of the drug implies, you get those scenes in slow-motion, and those slow-motion scenes are usually largely propelled by 3D.

If it's not too late, if Dredd still plays in a local theatre near your house, then do yourself a favour and rush out to go see it. It's very well worth your time and I'm still thinking about it a month after I've seen it. Definitely going to buy the Blu-Ray to watch it again and again.