boondocksaint20

I had been wanting to see this movie for years after reading so many glowing reviews about it. I am a huge fan of innovative horror films, often low budget B-Movies, that utilize the best from their budget and story while turning out an entertaining flick (i.e. Evil Dead).

This movie had everything going for it. An interesting 'alien' creature with no origin (which often makes the best protagonist), an isolated setting, and Shea Whigham stealing every scene he is in. The creature design looks good, when you can actually get a good look at it. And this is the reason why the movie fails. Not by lack of trying, but by editing (and maybe, by budget).

Shaky cam/quick cuts kill almost any movie, especially action or horror movies, as the viewer can never quite tell what is going on. It is very evident that the budget was very low, however, the creature effects, though convincing when the camera actually hangs on it for more than a second, apparently were not convincing enough to allow the viewer to get more than a glimpse at a time. This truly kills the tension of the film as the quick cuts of the creature are then continued with even more quick cuts of our main characters' scenes of struggling for survival. What results is a mess...the mind starts wondering what the last quick cut of the monster was, but then is too busy processing the characters' movements with the same quick editing...monster lunges, characters react, same quick editing, etc, etc. The first comparison that comes to mind is Aliens vs. Predator 2, Requiem, where all scenes of the 'monsters' were so barely lit (obviously due to budget constraints), that you literally could not see what was going on. From what I saw from this movie, the effects looked good enough to linger each scene and let it effect the viewer.

So, I love the setup, thought the characters were well acted and love the monster. However, the editing kills any enjoyment from this movie. That's my $0.02.

After my third viewing of Dredd (in 3d) I have found something that I rarely find nowadays...a movie that I can't get enough of. It is action packed, dark, brutal and oddly poetic in its violence. The perfect guy movie.

Karl Urban, as many have said on these boards, IS Dredd...and that is a remarkable feat to pull off, considering half of his face is shielded for the whole movie (just like in the comics). He plays Dredd with a stoic, uncompromising demeanor...someone who lives and breathes justice and the law, who can kick anyone's ass at a moment's notice, but who also has a very slight 'human' side to him that comes out in brief moments of morality.

To be honest, I did not see this in the theaters after not really caring for the Stallone version back in the day. The trailer did look very promising, so it was one I waited for the 3d Bluray release. I am so glad I took the chance because this movie is so satisfying in everything you could want in an action movie.

The 3d looks fantastic on Bluray. The studio used new 3d cameras that really show up on the screen. Thankfully, there really aren't many 'throw random things at the viewers face' type of gimmicks, but more so, concentrates on closeups of the actors showing their faces in great detail. This is critical for a character like Dredd, who teeth gnawing grimace must be showcased in order to show any type of emotion from the character.

I can't say enough good things about this movie and it is becoming the movie I showcase on my home 3d theater. Hopefully, the home video sales more than made up the rather lackluster box-office results to warrant a sequel. Check it out if you want to go through a wild ride through the eyes of a regular day in the life of Dredd.

The Good: The movie is well acted by all. All of the actors did a great and realistic job of conveying the situation of being locked up in a 'new age', yet old-school insane asylum. The twist at the end helped tremendously. Though it wasn't entirely inspired by originality, it justified the past 100 minute viewing experience with a pretty good 'Gotcha' ending. Pretty good mind you, not great.

The Bad: Thought there are a few effective shock moments, the suspense or feeling of dread just isn't there. The competency of the story and actors are all there, but I'm sorry, the movie just isn't scary. Even the main 'villain' doesn't come close to mustering internal fear like they should. The direction, acting and script were all very good, but the execution of fear and horror were just not there.

Overall, a pretty good movie. John Carpenter still isn't what he was back in the late 70's or early 80's, but this was a nice entry into his portfolio (hopefully, Comeback). The ending does save this movie for the most part as it adds an interesting way of looking at everything that just unfolded. However, as a 'Master of Horror', this movie just doesn't deliver enough of the goods for it to be a classic, or be worthy of the person whose name precedes the title.

I give it 7 stars. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.