beauf wrote: » The new Dredd is a decent movie, though it doesn't give the 2000ad vibe. Just feels like its set in present day tbh. The old one tried much harder with the sets and design, but its more of comic feel, not gritty enough, and the acting wasn't great. Dredd was never my fav character, which would have to be Rogue Trooper, and Slaine
Goldstein wrote: » Dredd was one of the best comic book/superhero movies I've ever seen -
Goldstein wrote: » You people are crazy. Dredd was one of the best comic book/superhero movies I've ever seen - up there with Nolan's Batmans, Superman '78, the first Ironman & Unbreakable. It was as good as a perfect adaptation of the comics anyone of us will ever see on the big screen.
MisterAnarchy wrote: » Watched this in 3D at home last night. I found it fairly underwhelming as a film and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable. It looked too clean as a film,almost artificial looking ,just didnt seem right. The plot was too predictable with poor dialogue and the action scenes had no suspense. Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.
MisterAnarchy wrote: » Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.
Lamper.sffc wrote: » In what way?
MisterAnarchy wrote: » Watched this in 3D at home last night. I found it fairly underwhelming as a film and the 3D wasn't great ,probably 5 scenes in total in the whole film it was noticeable. It looked too clean as a film,almost artificial looking ,just didnt seem right. The plot was too predictable with poor dialogue and the action scenes had no suspense.Dare I say it the Stallone film was more enjoyable.
norrie rugger wrote: » Could be using excrement/bacteria to make combustion fuel
Beefy78 wrote: » It also didn't look futuristic enough. Especially the vehicles. I appreciate it's post-apocalyptic however are we really to believe that all that survived were 800m people, cockroaches and mid-90s cars?
ScumLord wrote: » I thought the city was a bit of a let down but I understand to make a proper futuristic looking city would have added huge expense to the project. It simply doesn't look packed enough, Megacity 1 should have people living on top of people but the film didn't give me that impression. It didn't seem overpopulated, in parts it's very sparsely populated.
Warper wrote: » Saw this in the cinema last year and loved it. As a fan of the comic book as a child i found MegaCity 1 to be as dark and visceral as the comic. Loved the baddie MaMa and the drug Slow-mo provided some great scenes. Perfect length, cool baddie and plenty of action. Must admit though i watched it on Sky few weeks back and didnt enjoy it quite as much but that often happens when comparing cinema - small screen.
Deleted User wrote: » Karl Urban told Comic Con yesterday that himself and Alex Garland are actively exploring sequel possibilities. Seems that he believes that chances of a sequel are quite good give just how well Dredd performed on DVD and Blu.
Sugarlumps wrote: » Nope, Stallone's version was watchable.
Sugarlumps wrote: » Absolute pile of excrement, I've seen better acting in porno's, one of the worst film I've ever watched. I wanted everyone to die. It looked ultra cheap and the story line was retarded.
Beefy78 wrote: » Just checking.... was Stallone in the film you watched?