DREDD [2012]

BETWEEN SLY AND A HARD-FACE


2012, USA
Pete Travis
7 // 10




Is it OK to let the realism creep into our comic-book heroes' film adaptations? Couldn't we at least once have a Dredd with a proper jaw? Am I secretly missing the codpiece? There's only one way to find out!

It probably shouldn't come as a surprise if I say that I was a little bit apprehensive before watching the new Dredd. Yes, the overall positive reviews are one thing, but on the other hand, they were mostly coming from people who loathed the 1995 version. Which, incidentally, I rather like. Let me explain.

Yes, Sylvester Stallone was not the best choice. Looking today back at the poster picture, I simply cannot believe how smooth-faced the man was in that film. Those lips, just look at them! If you compare that with Karl Urban's face, Stallone seems almost feminine. Here, have a look:

SOURCE

But then again, is Urban any better in the grand scheme of things? I mean, how good an actor needs to be for a role like this one? No, seriously? What you need is a voice, two facial expressions and a jaw. I'll give those two points for the voice, but in the visual department... well, personally, until someone's brave enough to go full Judgement-on-Gotham-Bisley on the on-screen Dredd, I'm sulking. Dredd as a character is absolutely iconic. And while it is OK to play with that icon, to look for new, innovative ways of portraying it, there'll be always risks. Like, for example, ending up with a film, that it's really good in its own right, but is simply not that much of a Dredd film any more. Which, I think, is the case here. And since we're at it, same goes for Mega-City One. While the one portrayed in Pete Travis' film has a great sense of credibility, well, at least for me, it simply doesn't feel vertical enough. In the opening and closing vista shots it simply looks like any normal American city with the (scarce) array of mega blocks thrown in. It's a coherent vision but it (sadly) kicks the retro-futurism of the comic book Dredd in the teeth.

And that brings us back to the previous film, the one that nobody likes (I do! I do! I do!). Yes, it was over-the-top. Yes, Mr. Stallone has spent more time without his judge helmet than with it. Yes, it was Americanised and Hollywoodised to within an inch of its life but... but at the same time it wasn't too far off from the multitude of printed originals. The city was alive and didn't feel like a low budget backdrop. Dredd had his big, shiny eagle on his shoulder because, well, because he IS a comic book character whose very essence is being over-the-top, not a slightly futurised SWAT trooper. And then there was the lore. The Cursed Earth, The Angel Gang, the Lawmaster... All these things make Dredd Dredd I think and I would love to see a sequel to Dredd in which some of that feel, some of that original comic book madness is married with this new, realistic approach. Even though I fully appreciate all the effort that went into production of Dredd and making sure that the Lawmaster was a fully functioning motorcycle just the same as the Lawgiver was a fully functioning 9mm firearm. 

As for the cast, while I appreciate the fact that the choices made were interesting, I'm still not too convinced whether they were actually good. Karl Urban I like. I like him very much since his appearance in Bourne but liking him doesn't mean I'll accept his every role automatically. This seems to be the time when I'm not so sure. Like I said before, I don't really think he's got the face for it, and then, being a good actor as he is, I think he's also trying a little bit too much. A little bit too seriously. Still, I'm not against, I just think there could be some better choice. Lena Headey, however, oh dear... If it wasn't for the hair and the scars I wouldn't be able to tell Ma-Ma from Cersei. What a disappointment.

And last but not least there are two more aspects of this film that have to be addressed. First, the score, which (Hallelujah!) does not feature Batman-like strings or Inception-like Tibetan farting trumpets. It's refreshing. It's also, as it happens, a very good album to listen to in its own right.

The second thing to mention is the visuals. Now, I've seen in my life a thing or two on the screen. And yet few things before did I find so beautiful and shocking at the same time. I'm not referring to Karl Urban's chin, of course, I'm talking about the on-screen violence in Dredd. The visual design team decided to use a slow motion technique as a star of the show which, in conjunction with other clever ideas (like using air compressors to replicate explosion shock waves on human bodies) produced an unprecedented effect of a gory, perverted and yet mesmerising ballet of tormented anatomy. This film is unapologetically brutal. But it's not just violence-brutal. It's psychologically brutal. It turns the viewer into Alex from the Clockwork Orange. It attacks you senses and makes you want to look away but then you immediately realise you can't because before you know it, you're far too much fascinated to not look, to not participate. It taps very cleverly into our natural curiosity, the part of it that makes us slow down on the motorway in a secret hope of seeing some gruesome details. Well, if you ever wondered what would happen to a human face when a bullet hits it, or how does human body react to an impact after a multi-storey fall, just watch Dredd. Just remember, there is a price for sedating that kind of curiosity. And the price is best described by that ancient Internet wisdom - what's been seen cannot be unseen. Take it as a word of warning then.

So I guess my conclusion would be that Dredd is a case of a flawed gem. It's memorable, it's beautiful in a psychopathic king of way and the production team has done a job that the biggest Hollywood blockbusters can be only jealous about. But as far as I'm concerned it is not that much of a Judge Dredd film. The previous one did that bit better.