nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Judge Dredd Movie

Cantona's Collars

Looks like the movie has a leading man.http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/21/scoop-karl-urban-to-be-cast-as-judge-dredd/
Let's hope it is REALLY faithful to the comics,I grew up with it and was unhappy to say the least with the Stallone version.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Saw it last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sure, the 3D was largely unnecessary, but it worked really well with the slo-mo sequences, which surprised me by how artistic they were

when Ma-ma is falling through the smoke is probably the best example of this

What shocked me more than anything else, is the fact they included Justin Bieber on the soundtrack!

OK, so maybe technically not, but anyone who has seen it, do they think the music during some of the slo-mo sequences sounded more or less exactly like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspuCt1FM9M

gandalf

Saw it tonight and really enjoyed it despite it being 3d. I think seeing it without the distraction of 3d will make it a far better experience. Urban was perfect in the part, Lena Headey was excellent as MaMa and Olivia Thirlby was good as Anderson.

Definitely a major step up from the Stallone version (which is a guilty pleasure of mine despite it being a crap film).

Sad Professor

phil1nj wrote: »

Just out of curiosity what makes you think that it fell below box office expectations in the UK? Currently it looks like it's made about $5million there, similar money to the movie Lawless (and with a lesser know cast it has to be said).

Well, that was my point. It's a low budget adult action film. They probably didn't have high expectations for it, hence the 3D-only distribution. It may have topped the UK box office, but it didn't have very strong competition and it dropped very fast. However, given the lack of promotion, I guess it's done quite well.

Also, have you seen the movie yourself? And if you have (issues with the 3D format aside) what did you think of it? Do you think, as a movie, that it deserves the drubbing at the box office that it appears to be getting? I'm not trolling here, just genuinly interested in whether or not you thought the movie was worth any sort of merit.

I wouldn't mind seeing the film but I can't find any 2D showings. As I explained before, I don't like 3D and would like to see more 2D showings of films like this. For that to happen films that are distributed almost soley in 3D like Dredd need to flop. But in this case, the studio probably thought they had a flop on their hands anyway and won't see the lack of 2D showings as being the problem.

I have nothing against the film itself. I'm just opposed to paying extra for an inferior cinematic experience.

norrie rugger

Sad Professor wrote: »

Well, that was my point. It's a low budget adult action film. They probably didn't have high expectations for it, hence the 3D-only distribution. It may have topped the UK box office, but it didn't have very strong competition and it dropped very fast. However, given the lack of promotion, I guess it's done quite well.

I wouldn't mind seeing the film but I can't find any 2D showings. As I explained before, I don't like 3D and would like to see more 2D showings of films like this. For that to happen films that are distributed almost soley in 3D like Dredd need to flop. But in this case, the studio probably thought they had a flop on their hands anyway and won't see the lack of 2D showings as being the problem.

I have nothing against the film itself. I'm just opposed to paying extra for an inferior cinematic experience.

So you are the mod of a Film forum but, because the distributor made a decision, you wish a very good film to fail??

jaykhunter

I agree that we shouldn't be 'forced' to see a film in 3D but I thought it was very enjoyable and don't it to fail, I'd love a sequel. Plus the use of 3D was far above the average slosh IMO.

Wrote up a review in the review sub-forum. In short the gritty action film is refreshingly nasty and feels very true to Dredd. Unfortunately I'm sure Resi 5 will bring in 9 digits at the B.O. and this one'll get passed over completely.

ebbsy

I d'ont really care if the film was 2D or 3D, I was more interested in whether it was a good film or not.

And it was a really good film. Fair play to the directors for doing in properly and not pandering to younger viewers. They should take a bow.

And the overall positive reaction to it is very pleasing as well.

NinjaK

Am I the only one who thought the story was a bit short? I mean trying to get up a tall building to arrest/kill someone is a bit short.

Sad Professor

norrie rugger wrote: »

So you are the mod of a Film forum but, because the distributor made a decision, you wish a very good film to fail??

Did you read my post?

I don't want a good film to fail. I want good films to be released in proper quality. If Dredd's box office discourages other distributors from cutting out 2D showings, then I'd be more than happy to see this particular distributor's decision backfire on them.

And I don't know what my being a mod has to do with anything.

Cantona's Collars

Sad Professor wrote: »

Did you read my post?

I don't want a good film to fail. I want good films to be released in proper quality. If Dredd's box office discourages other distributors from cutting out 2D showings, then I'd be more than happy to see this particular distributor's decision backfire on them.

And I don't know what my being a mod has to do with anything.

I went to Movies @ Gorey to see it,same price for the ticket as it would be for a 2d showing.
Reckon with word of mouth,this will do huge business in DVD/Blu Ray sales & rentals as all those who missed it on the big screen lap it up.Mate of mine loves Dredd but due to insane work hours he couldn't see it at the cinema so Xtravision will be his port of call for the dvd release.

phil1nj

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't want a good film to fail. I want good films to be released in proper quality. If Dredd's box office discourages other distributors from cutting out 2D showings, then I'd be more than happy to see this particular distributor's decision backfire on them.
QUOTE]

I'm just wondering if the plan was to shoot this in 3D all along. I haven't seen the movie in 2D (seen it twice in 3D) and I thought the 3D really added to the slo-mo scenes (colours and effects). I know its reaching to assume that an entire movie format would be based around 3 or 4 keys scenes in the movie but I can't see these scenes as having the same impact in 2D. Of course, ultimately it comes down to revenue as well, 3D means higher seat prices which (in theory) will boost the final take. I've no doubt this thinking also helped Promethus' box office numbers (another 3D movie that didn't really benefit one bit from the format - the visuals would have worked without the 3D IMO and these were the best things about that movie).

gothictwilight

zerks wrote: »

I went to Movies @ Gorey to see it,same price for the ticket as it would be for a 2d showing.
Reckon with word of mouth,this will do huge business in DVD/Blu Ray sales & rentals as all those who missed it on the big screen lap it up.Mate of mine loves Dredd but due to insane work hours he couldn't see it at the cinema so Xtravision will be his port of call for the dvd release.

I have a feeling also that this could be a slow burner. The budget for Dredd was quite low so it should turn a decent profit once the tickets/DVD/Rental sales come in.
It is filling a gap in the market also; The 80's style, action gore fest movie:)

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Did you read my post?

I don't want a good film to fail. I want good films to be released in proper quality. If Dredd's box office discourages other distributors from cutting out 2D showings, then I'd be more than happy to see this particular distributor's decision backfire on them.

I completely get where yourself and johnny are coming from, really I do. Normally I would agree with you and I would avoid 3D myself as much as I possibly can.

You have to pick your battles though and I think it's a bit lousy to take a stance like that against an independent film that needs all the help it can get. A low budget film made outside of the big hollywood studio system is not going to make one difference to the 3D market, the only thing this film bombing will hurt is the chances of distributors backing more in well made dependent genre movies aimed at adults.

I often hear posters on here saying it sucks how people don't support independent movies more yet give out stink about studios churning out big budget crap like battleship et al. Well this is one of those times.

Sad Professor

Well, the only stance I've taken in this thread is that I refuse to be bullied into seeing a film in 3D because the distributor is trying to maximise their revenue. I would like to see Dredd theatrically and if I could find a 2D showing close to me I'd go see it. But there isn't any and the two multiplexes I emailed seemed fairly unconcerned, suggesting that 3D is popular enough in this country for distributors to get away with this. I'm looking at the bigger picture here and am very disturbed by the prospect of films getting 3D only releases.

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

You have to pick your battles though and I think it's a bit lousy to take a stance like that against an independent film that needs all the help it can get. A low budget film made outside of the big hollywood studio system is not going to make one difference to the 3D market, the only thing this film bombing will hurt is the chances of distributors backing more in well made dependent genre movies aimed at adults.

I often hear posters on here saying it sucks how people don't support independent movies more yet give out stink about studios churning out big budget crap like battleship et al. Well this is one of those times.

Personally, I have had to pick my battles, and alas Dredd is one of the casualties. It's been a long time since I remember so many excellent releases in a single month, and while I've had an excessive fifteen to twenty cinema trips over the last three or four weeks, time and money is always limited. So when films like Tabu, About Elly, Looper, Keyhole, Holy Motors, Alps, Berbarian Sound Studio, Samsara, The Imposter and others - not to mention several of my favourite films receiving theatrical screenings, and a small pile of screener copies I had to work through - are showing there's always going to be a loser or two (couldn't even justify seeing the 35mm print of Persona, my all time favourite film

).

I'm actually disappointed I haven't had the opportunity to watch it, as am interested in it and am hoping perhaps unreasonably that a few cinemas will be showing some 2D screenings as the film's box office potential whither and dies (pretty much already at that point). But with so many options here in Dublin the 3D screenings have meant Dredd has lost out a few times, and I'd rather just wait to rent the Blu-Ray. And trust me: I very, very rarely say that.

I still don't think Dredd is exactly an underdog - certainly a tough sell given its age rating, but at a budget of a not to be sniffed at $45 million and based on a reasonably well-established property it's one of those cases where the 'independent' label is a tad murky. Compare the budget and box office receipts to several of the films I mentioned above (most of which deserve an appreciative audience, and one or two that are close to masterpieces), and it IMO does not top the list of the most important current battle grounds.

3D may be a big reason I have yet to see this, but frankly since it is unexpected silly season for new releases it isn't the only reason.

Sad Professor

Yeah there's way too many good films on at the moment, a lot of them with fairly limited releases. I'm still hoping to see most of them while they are on, but its difficult to fit so many films into a small window of time. It's usually the mainstream stuff I end up missing since I figure "ah sure that will on for weeks" and then I end up forgetting about it. I probably need to be realistic and start prioritising.

I'm still hoping a few 2D showings of Dredd will pop up.

gandalf

phil1nj wrote: »

I haven't seen the movie in 2D (seen it twice in 3D) and I thought the 3D really added to the slo-mo scenes (colours and effects).

TBH the only reason those scenes were in there was because of the 3d. It was done well but I felt and I do in general with 3d that it distracts from the actual story and enjoyment of the film. 3d is a gimmick to extract more euros from our wallets.

Typically I would avoid a 3d version of a film unfortunately I didn't have that choice with Dredd. I know I will enjoy the film a lot more when I see it in 2d, I would love that to be in the cinema but I reckon I will have to settle for it to be on DVD.

pixelburp

I think it's a tad unfair to pick Dredd as one to take a bullet in the war against 3D - it's a soft target when you look at its box-office openings in the States & see it was beaten by stuff like Finding Nemo 3D; surely these are the battles to be fought, where the cynical cash-grab is far more obvious than Dredd. Ditto any other film that's been retrofitted for 3D. Arguably marquee films like The Avengers should have been boycotted for its shoddy post-production, enforced 3D and not smaller projects like Dredd, that arguably has been 3D from the get-go (afaik)

InvisibleBadger

This is the best comic book movie I've seen in a long time. No obvious flaws. Good script and great directing. The 3D is used to superb effect and really added to the movie. The violence is well done and Karl Urban is great as Dredd.

Galvasean

I hear it's not doing well Stateside. Looks like there will be no sequel so

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

I think it's a tad unfair to pick Dredd as one to take a bullet in the war against 3D - it's a soft target when you look at its box-office openings in the States & see it was beaten by stuff like Finding Nemo 3D; surely these are the battles to be fought, where the cynical cash-grab is far more obvious than Dredd. Ditto any other film that's been retrofitted for 3D. Arguably marquee films like The Avengers should have been boycotted for its shoddy post-production, enforced 3D and not smaller projects like Dredd, that arguably has been 3D from the get-go (afaik)

That's kind of distorting what Sad Professor and myself are saying. Personally, I didn't specifically pick Dredd to pick on. I pick on and boycott all 3D releases equally: shot in 3D, post-production or even re-releases, I ignore them all. The only 3D film I've paid to see in the last half year or more is Brave, and that's because I only realised after the transaction had gone through that the preview showing would probably be in 3D. All other releases I have gone out of my way to see without a superfluous dimension, unless I have been forced to don them at press screenings or the like. Dredd is the first time I have been unable to view a film I've wanted to see in 2D, and truly feel I will enjoy the film more at home than in the cinema. My dislike of 3D is greater than my interest in this one film, and given the insanity of worthy new releases September offered Dredd was a casualty unassisted by distributors' and exhibitors' decision to limit 2D prints.

Goldstein

Seems pretty clear from the numbers (A paltry $21,000,000 worldwide to date out of a budget of $50,000,000) that the audience isn't there in sufficient numbers to support a good R rated comic book movie like this so we shouldn't be surprised that we keep getting a never ending stream of **** ones targeted at children and tweens. Hard to argue with the studios maintaining that policy after this.

The absence of 3D showings isn't enough to account for a decent movie like this flopping to the extent that it has. If 3D was that big an influencing factor then 3D would have already failed and that's clearly not happening yet at least.

The rating, the lack of promotion, the lack of a bigger drawing cast, the time of year, the lack of 3D showings. Even with all that it still doesn't make sense.

jaykhunter

I'd like to think/hope that the main problem was with advertising, than there being a lack of people willing to see an R-rated action comic book film. The latter means we'll never see another... The director even stated in a few interviews that Dredd 3D isn't a hollywood remake, it's an indy film; so it wasn't clear what this film was and was being judged by other thoughts. I imagine it's strengths were lost on pretty much everyone who wasn't completely in the know (so 99.9% of cinema-goers). So it wasn't put out as 'the indy film that could' but maybe was seen as 'that God-awful attempt from the 90s without the stars/another cash-in'. Either way word of mouth from those who did see it didn't really make a difference. Damn shame.

Sad Professor

Goldstein wrote: »

The absence of 3D showings isn't enough to account for a decent movie like this flopping to the extent that it has. If 3D was that big an influencing factor then 3D would have already failed and that's clearly not happening yet at least.

I agree that it's not the only factor. But most big 3D films have a decent number of 2D prints in circulation, at least initially. Where as Dredd was released in the UK and Ireland almost exclusively in 3D. Unless you think everyone is choosing 3D over 2D (when given a choice), it's crazy to dismiss this film's lack of 2D showings as a factor in its box office returns.

Johnny_ultimate and I are surely not the only ones who dislike 3D enough to decide that we'd rather wait on the DVD. I know several people who are partially blind, wear glasses or suffer headaches and as a result instantly rule out 3D showings regardless of the film. I was also speaking to a person in work in the other day who seemed to associate 3D with kids films and was surprised when I told them Dredd was rated 18s.

And I see the head of Sony UK saying the other day that customers have shown they aren't interested in 3D. He was talking mostly about 3D in the home, but I don't think cinema is any different.

don ramo

thinking about it there, how did this cost $45 million dollars and Looper only cost $30 million dollars, both sci-fi film, both had good scripts,

dredd was contained in 1 giant building and had Urban Thrilby and Headey, looper played it smart with the future world settings,

with hoverbikes

and whatnot to push it home, and looper had Levitt, Willis, Blunt, Daniels, and Dano,

so a fair amount of CGI went into both films, with looper having the bigger cast,

so i cant understand how Looper cost $15 million less than Dredd,

then the BO is more curious, with both films being highly acclaimed, so i dont understand how Looper made $20mill at the US BO on its first weekend, while Dredd has only made that worldwide in 2-3 weeks,

Goldstein

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree that it's not the only factor. But most big 3D films have a decent number of 2D prints in circulation, at least initially. Where as Dredd was released in the UK and Ireland almost exclusively in 3D. Unless you think everyone is choosing 3D over 2D (when given a choice), it's crazy to dismiss this film's lack of 2D showings as a factor in its box office returns.

Johnny_ultimate and I are surely not the only ones who dislike 3D enough to decide that we'd rather wait on the DVD. I know several people who are partially blind, wear glasses or suffer headaches and as a result instantly rule out 3D showings regardless of the film. I was also speaking to a person in work in the other day who seemed to associate 3D with kids films and was surprised when I told them Dredd was rated 18s.

And I see the head of Sony UK saying the other day that customers have shown they aren't interested in 3D. He was talking mostly about 3D in the home, but I don't think cinema is any different.

I'm far from a fan of 3D (This was the one exception I enjoyed) and I agree the decision to force 3D on people was a terrible call which has undoubtedly taken its toll on the film's box office earnings but it doesn't seem to account for the sheer scale of failure we're seeing, nor do the other factors we've all mentioned. Putting aside the admirable trait of backing up your convictions with action, regardless of what issue we're talking about, I just don't see there being large enough numbers who felt as strongly to the extent that they were also prepared to forego the experience on the big screen for the sole purpose of making a stand against 3D. If only there were that many people who felt strongly enough to boycott 3D releases across the board, the effect of that would have decided the issue long before now.

I suppose a complete lack of promotion is the only thing I can think of that could even begin to explain Dredd bombing like it has - I'm not sure how or to what extent it was promoted in the US so can't comment but it can't have been the most stellar job.

Galvasean

I think bad promotion is the main factor. I haven't seen any promotional stuff for it outside of the cinema. That's not to mention that the trailer is quite poorly done.
Plus the crap Stallone film is still in people's heads. Most people I've talked to about it asked, "is it like the first one?" or "is it a sequel to the Stallone film?". It was fighting a tough battle to distance itself from the '95 film and the marketing team failed miserably.

johnny_ultimate

I must admit I feel a little hard done by the insinuation (admittedly not made in a hostile or even intentional way by most) that by not going to see this film that people are in someway hurting or limiting independent releases, and I'm sure Sad Professor and others would feel the same. Personally speaking, I spend an awful lot of my time, money and energy both supporting and promoting theatrical releases of world, arthouse and independent cinema (even did my masters thesis on the subject). Now, while it is nice to see a multiplex action release financed outside the studio system and that hasn't been toned down for the widest possible audience, its medium-tier budget makes it a considerably well-resourced underdog (who, if you look at metacritic, has only experienced reserved praise and occasional hostility).

The same cannot be said of fantastic recent releases like About Elly, Keyhole or Holy Motors - relegated to an arthouse screen or two in capital cities. If you think Dredd's box office is shocking, spare a thought for Himizu - an acclaimed film from a cult director whose London box office was so appalling (many thousands of times less than what Dredd managed in the UK) that it forced its already fringe, specialist distributor to halt theatrical releases completely, despite pouring most of their own limited resources into the film's promotion and release. Of course arthouse and world releases are going to do considerably worse business than an English language comic book franchise, but personally I consider those battles much more worthy of my perhaps futile effort. Given this and The Raid, it's also fair to say R-Rated action movies don't exactly set the box office alight in general (especially in the US), despite the vocal commitment of their cult fanbases.

I can only re-stress that I still do want to see this film, and if I had time in its first week of release I most certainly would have made an effort to attend one of Cineworld's awkwardly timed daily 2D showings. But I don't feel guilty taking this stance against its prevalent 3D release, given the energy I always put into supporting independent cinema releases.

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I must admit I feel a little hard done by the insinuation (admittedly not made in a hostile or even intentional way by most) that by not going to see this film that people are in someway hurting or limiting independent releases, and I'm sure Sad Professor and others would feel the same.

I don't think anyone thinks anything of the sort and if they do then they haven't been reading too much of these threads over the last few years.
Edit: Also, something tells me the reciprocal list of great independent films the rest of us have missed during their cinematic releases would be the more telling.

I'd laugh if, after all the hulabaloo over this release, that when you do get to see it on DVD, you think it's rubbish

Mickeroo

Goldstein wrote: »

I don't think anyone thinks anything of the sort and if they do then they haven't been reading too much of these threads over the last few years. I'd laugh if, after all the hulabaloo over this release, that when you do get to see it on DVD, you think it's rubbish

Good point, now that you mention, I actually don't think he will like it

johnny_ultimate

Goldstein wrote: »

I'd laugh if, after all the hulabaloo over this release, that when you do get to see it on DVD, you think it's rubbish

The possibility has frequently crossed my mind :pac: