Tag Archives: Editorial

The Case for Dredd 3-D

Posted on by Semtex Skittle

558551d83bc53bcdec27e79335a5e8bd

I don’t know that many people who, in the thrall of a weak September, dished out the $5, $10, $12, to see Dredd 3-D. This is curious, because I saw it the day that it came out, and I sang its praises til… wait, when am I writing this? I suppose the singing goes on. If you’ve seen Dredd 3-D, you probably had the same initial reaction I did – that this movie is much, much, much better than you ever thought it would be. But, having seen it three times in theaters, and roughly one billion times since the DVD release… there’s more to this movie. This is a truly great film. And since we’re in the season of handing out awards, and because movies like Dredd 3-D know from the moment of their inception that they will never sniff a nomination, it seems like a fine time to extol the virtues of what might be the best action movie made since the calendar flipped over from 1989.

If you’ve seen the film, I can probably spare you most of this song of praise. Of the few people that I know who have seen the film (most of them forced to see it by me), I have heard very few complaints. Of course, I have targeted the film’s audience amongst my own friends, and I’m not trying to win it the support of the Academy. But for a film to be so universally heralded amongst fans of a certain genre is actually fairly impressive in 2013, let alone for that very same film – a gritty B action film, by all accounts – to command a startling 77% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, is nothing short of incredible.

For the uninitiated, let’s start at the beginning. What is Dredd 3-D?

Well, it’s an exploration of a dystopian future that is the primary subject of the long-running Judge Dredd comic strip, an American hero who has been published almost exclusively in the United Kingdom. Dredd is a living metaphor, he is blind justice, the implacable and unrelenting arm of the law. He is fearless, he is formidable… he is the law. In a desolate future, North America is a nuclear wasteland. Outside of the boundaries of the incredible Megacity One, all is irradiated desolation. The Megacity runs from Boston to Washington DC, and contains twice as many people as lived in all of North America in 2012. Within the city limits, only one organization is still fighting to maintain order… the Judges of the Hall of Justice. They are judges, they are juries, and if necessary, they are executioners.

In Dredd 3-D, this is effectively all of the exposition we need. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is the merciless reality of a law that is actively losing its struggle to serve and protect. Megacity One is falling apart day by day. But if Dredd himself is dismayed, he does not show it. Our opening sequence is a bloodbath of a high-speed chase through the streets of Megacity One that is given all the feel of a totally average day on the job. Innocent people die, vehicles are destroyed, drugs are consumed, and assault weapons are in abundance. So routine does the film make the bust feel, that it drew me into the world of Judge Dredd. Once I was there, and once the action started, the film never released its talons.

From there, Judge Dredd hauls rookie Judge-Candidate Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) out into the real world. As befits an assessment, Anderson takes the lead, committing herself and Dredd to respond to a multiple homicide at Peach Trees, one of the massive megastructures of Megacity One, a single tenement that houses over 75,000 people. Upon arrival, the Judges determine that the corpses – skinned and thrown off the balcony of Peach Trees’ level 200 – were executions, intended to send a message. From there, we’re off. The Judges fight their way up the megastructure and toward survival, battling against the savage druglord Ma-Ma (Lena Headley) and her minions. Most of the effects are practical, most of the dialogue is minimal, and while the story does have its emotional aspect, the action is the centerpiece of this film.

So, given that, why would I prop this film up as one of 2012′s best? Why would I, had I an Academy vote, have nominated Dredd 3-D for Best Picture (and probably Best Direction and Best Score, but probably nothing else). Because Dredd 3-D understands its genre, and its audience, and it attempts to be a perfect film within that framework. There is no pretension here. There are no regal accents, timeless proclamations of love, or elaborate Victorian costumes. That probably disqualifies Dredd from an award this year, but it shouldn’t. Because Dredd is a better film than Les Miserables (which, earnestly, has been done better more than once before). It is a better film than Lincoln (no one has ever claimed that they felt Dredd 3-D’s length)… because Dredd 3-D is a perfect action movie. If we do not ascribe any deeper motivations or requirements to a film than it be relentlessly entertaining and that it fill the basic requirements of its genre, there are few films ever made that will fill this criteria better.

Dredd 3-D sets up its scenario expertly, in a handful of scenes, and without much in the way of dialogue. Karl Urban has proved time and again that he is both versatile and talented (and criminally underrated, but that’s neither here nor there) but he is not asked to do much here. Dredd delivers his lines in the same tone of voice regardless of the situation. Where Dredd’s catch-phrases seemed campy and over-wrought in the 1995 adaptation starring Sylvester Stallone, Urban seems to have the better measure of his character. He is mercilessly deadpan, transforming one-liners into either tiny morsels of dry humour or vaguely ominous threats. Because Dredd’s persona is so unvarying, it never seems like he’s delivering a line. He is simply stating facts, as he observes them, and we are reacting in turn. Throughout the film, Dredd delivers roughly three facial expressions – a default look of grim severity, a look of significant disappointment (when a particular misfortune befalls rookie Judge Anderson) and one that I would not describe otherwise than grim fury (when a particularly more unfortunate misfortune befalls rookie Judge Anderson).

Dredd 3-D doesn’t demand much from its audience, but it outputs entertainment at an almost unvarying rate. The action scenes and set-pieces are actually remarkably varied (such as they can be) despite the confined nature of the film’s locations. As we watch, Dredd’s relentless implacability, and the sense that he literally cannot be stopped, actually become a fun part of the story. There is literally nothing to recommend the villains of the piece to us, despite a fairly layered performance by Lena Headley, who manages to be savage, determined, exhausted, and regretful basically all at once. This is one circumstance in which we very much want “the law” to prevail… and if what you hunger for is watching the law burn gang-bangers to death with incendiary ammunition, this film will grant you your fondest wish.

So, while Dredd 3-D may not have been nominated for any prestigious awards this season, please do it the favour of checking it out. It is a nearly-perfect action movie, and it is that way in spite of, not because of, its source material. Show it some love, and hope that the who’s-who of Hollywood realizes why this film is worth our time – and that they make many more films just like it.

Titanic In Retrospect

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Recently, I tried to rewatch an obscure art film from 1997 called Titanic.  From the time I was 12 until I was 16, I watched this movie a lot and, without fail, I cried and cried at the movie’s end.  (Admittedly, it was pretty easy to make me cry back then.)  I decided to rewatch it because I was curious as to whether or not Titanic could still make me cry. 

For those of you who aren’t into art films, here’s a quick synopsis and review of Titanic.

The film’s plot: Bill Paxton and an obnoxious fat guy are held hostage on a submarine by a senile old biddy who insists on telling them the story of how she lost her virginity 98 years ago.

Meanwhile, in London, Leonardo DiCaprio steals some poor kid’s sketch book and then sneaks onto a cruise ship where, pretending to be an artist, he seduces and murders lonely widows. 

Also on the cruise ship is Kate Winslet.  Kate’s engaged to Billy Zane but she’s unhappy about it because — well, there’s some men you fuck and there’s some men you marry and let’s just say that you don’t marry Billy Zane.  Once the boat sets sail, Kate decides to jump overboard.  However, just before she can jump, she’s spotted by Leo.  Leo quickly tosses a burlap sack containing the corpse of Lady Astor into the Atlantic and then rescues Kate.

Kate rewards him by taking him down to her cabin and showing him a painting by Someone Picasso.  (Early on in the film, Billy correctly says that Someone Picasso will never amount to anything and that’s true.  Someone was always overshadowed by his older brother Pablo.)  Leo looks at the painting and says, “Look at what he does with color here.”  As a former Art History major, that line made me smile.  That’s the type of statement that is regularly uttered by people who can’t think of anything else to say.  When a guy looks at a painting and says, “Look at what he does with color here,” what he’s actually saying is, “Look, babe, I went to the damn art museum with you so there better be a blow job in my immediate future.”

Leo has dinner with Billy and Kate.  Leo says, “I’m just a tumbleweed blowing in the wind.”  Over at the next table, a shifty young man named Bob Dylan overhears and thinks, “That would make a good song.  But the little man must die so nobody knows I stole that line from him…”

Anyway, Leo eventually slips Kate a rohypnol, convinces her to pose naked while he secretly tapes her for Youtube, and then proceeds  to have sex with her in the back seat of a car.  Afterward, Kate says, “Do you want to hang out tomorrow?”  Leo replies, “Uhmm…I might be busy.  I’ll call you.”  “My God,” I said as I watched all this, “it’s like reliving my freshman year of college all over again.”

Anyway, 8 more hours pass.  All the rich passengers on the ship do rich things while all the poor passengers get drunk and trash the lower levels of the boat.  Suddenly, without warning, the boat is besieged by the living dead.  Billy Zane insists that they would be safer in the basement.  Leo disagrees while Kate says, “So, you think you can just fuck me and leave!?  No way!”

12 more hours pass.  The living dead manage to rip a hole in the side of the boat.  Billy chases Leo and Kate around the Titanic as it sinks.  “I hope you’ll be very happy together!” he screams.  Meanwhile, up top, two rich guys put on tuxedos and one of them says something like, “We’re going to die like gentlemen.”  Which I guess is what they end up doing though, honestly, it sounds to me like the guy’s just being a smartass.

Eventually, Kate and Leo end up sitting on an iceberg together.  Kate wonders if this is a dream.  Leo proceeds to spin a top on the ice to find out.  Suddenly, Bob Dylan floats by in a rowboat.  “This machine kills fascists!” he shouts as he shoots Leo with a crossbow.  Leo sinks into the water.  Bob Dylan smirks.  “How does it feel to be on your own?” he asks.

The end.

A quick review: I guess the easiest way to review Titanic is to answer my original question.  Does the film still make me, at the age of 24, cry like it did when I was 12?  No, it does not.  To be honest, the only tears that I shed while rewatching Titanic were tears of shame and boredom.  This is the movie that I once thought was the greatest thing ever?  True, I was young and stupid but still…

On the plus side, Kate Winslet gives a good performance even if her character is basically just a sexist male fantasy.  Billy Zane is also a lot of fun as her jilted suitor.

On the negative side, there’s everything else.  The script — written by Someone Cameron — is full of laughably bad lines and plotwise, the film has all the depth of a lanced boil.  The romantic elements of the plot made me cry back when I was 12 because I didn’t have a whole lot of real world experience to compare Titanic’s fantasy against.  Now, at the age of 24, I’ve actually had to deal with my fair share of guys who say actually do make dumbfug statement about things like being a tumbleweed blowing in the wind (not to mention being king of the world).  I’m not saying that a good movie can’t present a romantic idealization of reality.  I’m just saying that a good movie can do that without insulting the viewer’s intelligence like Titanic does.

One last note — Leo DiCaprio has become a great actor.  But, in Titanic, he just comes across like a shrill poseur.

I Learned Something Today Conclusion: Just because you and a million others think that a movie is great today, that doesn’t mean that the movie’s going to be anywhere near as good 12 years later.  In this age of Avatar and the Social Network, that’s a lesson that I think many self-appointed film “gurus” would do well to consider before they throw a hissy fit just because a complete stranger on the Internet disagrees with them.

Daybreakers Perpetuates “White Man Guilt” (some spoilers)

Posted on by Arleigh

While watching The Spierig Brothers’ latest genre offering something bothered me as I sat in the theater. The feeling of unease and discomfort was there (it may have been the theaters nachos but now I’m not so sure). It wasn’t until I was home from watching Daybreakers that it finally hit me. The film’s many social overtones in addition to the liberal amount of gore and blood displayed in the last half-hour also hid an insidious cliche that’s been used far too many times in genre storytelling. I speak of the “white man guilt” syndrome which pervades many popular stories and films.

How could I say that this little vampire scifi/horror film was perpetuating a racist tone in its storytelling? I assure you that it wasn’t easy to see but my eyes were finally opened up to that distinct possibility once I properly digested things.

First, let me give a brief synopsis of what the film is all about. Without going into too much detail about the plot not already spoiled in the trailers, Daybreakers tells the story of a future 2019 where a vampiric virus has swept across the globe, turning most of the population into vampires (with all the traditional colorings and habits). Humans are now the minority in this future Earth. Humans who have become the natural resource the world’s new dominant lifeform needs to consume. But this is a natural resource that is dwindling in supply as less and less humans have been found by the machinery of the vampire elite and overlords. Yadda-yadda and more yadda we’re introduced to one vampire who hates what he has become and hates even more what his kind has done to the minority that are the surviving humans. He wants to find a cure for what he and his race have become so as to make everything all better. Again after more stuff happens he soon comes across a band of these minority humans who suddenly trust the very thing they hate and fear the most. Soon one of these humans approaches him and tells him that he’s their only hope for survival. Lo and behold, he does end up helping them and thus he exsanguinates (literally at times) the guilt which had been eating in the inside.

Just recalling all of that makes me even more sure that Daybreakers is racist in how it portrays its main protagonist. Let’s start with the fact that the hero is white. He’s even whiter than usual since the vampire in him has made him averse to tanning. The head of the all-powerful military-industrial corporation (see they’re also military because they have security with guns and soldiers to find new resources) he works for is evil-incarnate and also white (thus we’re led to believe that being white means one is evil). This hero vampire wants to save the humans and thats why he refuses to drink human blood like the rest of his kind. He talks about his kind using up the blood resource without any thought that doing so means destroying this minority tribe of whats left of the human race.

While the cure he has been searching for to cure not just himself of vampirism but all others like him does get found it is this white vampire with a guilty conscience that ends up figuring out how to replicate the cure. While it was these minority band of humans who had it all along it took one of their enemy who has a change of heart to save them. By saving them he also sheds the guilt of his own majority race’s actions and behaviors toward this minority group by literally becoming one of them as well. By becoming one of them he’s experienced first-hand what this minority group has suffered at the hand of his kind. But in the end, he’s also the only hope this group has to ever living happily ever after.

Do you not see the pattern of “white man guilt” which insidiously weaves it’s way into a story where most people wouldn’t see without the help of those who sees them plain as day. The vampire society intent on exploiting the remaining minority tribe of humans sees themselves as civilized and even gave the humans a chance to assimilate (as told in the beginning), but being the “noble savages” that these humans are refuse to do so because they value the natural way of things before the virus which made humanity became crazed parasites.

Why did it take a white, angst-ridden, reluctant vampire to finally find the cure? Why not let the humans who actually had it in their possession to find it themselves and cut the middle-man out of it? It’s these questions which need to be asked to help initiate a dialogue about how racism is still prevalent in Hollywood and with the white people who help finance such films. People whose guilt about what their ancestors have done have made them genetically culpable of their racist sins. Anyone who can’t see this racism in this narratively-flawed, albeit very gory ending of a vampire flick are hiding in a cave and refuses to believe that racism exist in everything (as long as it’s told by a white person). If minorities refuse to sound out the clarion call to discuss such a divisive issue then it is up to those white people who feel such guilt about what their forefathers have done to do so. I mean, if the people being oppressed and belittled can’t see it for themselves, then the guilt-ridden white America will do it for them whether they want it or not.

So, just like James Cameron’s Avatar and Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 (both of which have been labeled as racist in their own way), I do believe that Daybreakers just continues to perpetuate the insidious evil that is racism by way of “white man guilt” in these films. The fact that the filmmakers are a couple of white brothers from Australia just makes the point even clearer.

In conclusion, as I read all that I just wrote I do believe that I’m nothing but full of political-correctness crap who shouldn’t be taken seriously when it comes to actually discussing race relations and how it affects current society. Maybe the fact that I’m not white made me open up my eyes to the load of crap I just wrote and that sometimes a film is just a film. I’m sure bringing that last part up would label me a racist as well.