Dredd

Dredd

In 1995, one of the great cinematic abominations of the decade descended on us in the form of Judge Dredd, starring Sylvester Stallone.  On paper, the film had some good stuff going for it.  Stallone looks a lot like the Dredd from the comic books, and the cast also included Diane Lane, Armande Assante, Max von Sydow, Diane Lane, and most importantly, Diane Lane (can you tell I am a fan?).  Unfortunately, Judge Dredd is utterly unwatchable (except for any scene with Diane Lane).  The film took a critical beating and was a well-deserved flop. 

But the comic is a cult favorite, and the character of Judge Dredd, a no-nonsense, brutal law enforcement officer in the future, licensed to be judge, jury, and executioner for even the smallest infractions, lends itself to the big screen. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood tried again.  I'm only surprised it took this long.

In the not too distant future, most of the East Coast has now become one super city called Mega City.  With overcrowding and a scarcity of resources, the world is on the verge of falling apart.  To keep order, the police have adopted tougher tactics, including the creation of the Judges, among whom Dredd (Karl Urban, Lord of the Rings) is arguably the best and easily the meanest. Dredd generally works alone, but on this day, he is saddled with a rookie, Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby, The Darkest Hour).  Anderson isn't doing so great in the Judge Academy, but she has rare, psychic gifts, and the Chief Judge wants to see how she does in the field before giving up on her.  And she wants Dredd to take her out.  The pair respond to a routine call, only to find themselves trapped in a skyscraper under the thumb of Mama (Lena Headey, 300), a vicious drug lord who is pushing the hottest drug on the street, called Slo Mo.  And so the stage is set.  Literally stuck in a building with hundreds of gang members, will the Judges survive?  Will Anderson be able to rise to the occasion and find her inner Judge badass?  Will Dredd be able to erase the painful memory that 1995's Judge Dredd had scarred into my brain? 

Look, I'm not going to lie.  Dredd is not a masterpiece of cinema.  There are a lot of problems with it, including a very bland opening act, some goofy story points, some bad one-liners, and questionable acting in a few places.  And while the effect of the drug Slo Mo, which renders the world literally in slow motion - only with heavy filters and glitter - is kind of neat the first time you see it, it definitely overstays its welcome by the 400th time you've seen it.  Its overuse just bogs the movie down.

But let's not kid ourselves.  We aren't expecting Dredd to be a masterpiece.  But was it fun?  Was it violent in the way action fans would want?  And does it do justice to the original character?  The answers are yes, yes, and yes.  Urban makes an admirable Judge Dredd, and wisely erases any 3-dimensionality or humanity from the character.  There does not need to be any character arc for Dredd, and Urban and director Pete Travis understand that.  Dredd just needs to kill people.  But the film is not devoid of character development, and I found Anderson's transformation to be particularly well handled.

The movie's action is appropriately gruesome and fun, and only goes over the top once or twice.  But what I like most about Dredd is how unambitious it is. I am so tired of every single action movie having the fate of the world, and maybe even the universe, at stake!  Every single big Hollywood blockbuster has to be sweeping and end with some city getting destroyed in an irresponsible and ridiculous special effects bonanza.  And I am tired of it.  You know what happens in Dredd?  The main character goes in a building and there's a gunfight, and then the movie ends.  That's it.  And we don't need anything else!  Hurray for Dredd!  You get a standing ovation for that alone. 

So there you go.  Is Dredd great?  Definitely not.  But it gets more right than it gets wrong, and I was definitely entertained.  Of course, as if you didn't already guess, the biggest problem with the movie is that Diane Lane isn't in it.  


MVP: 
Often with these types of movies, the rookies will just turn into a badass so quickly, it is as if a light switch was flipped on to make them fight better.  It's annoying, but something most of us accept in genre flicks.  This is not the case with Olivia Thirlby's Anderson, who actually undergoes a realistic transition from a rookie in over her head to a warrior who can hold her own without Dredd backing her up.  The character arc is well-balanced and proceeds in a steady pace alongside the main storyline.  Part of the credit has to go writer Alex Garland (28 Days Later).  But Thirlby also puts in a very good performance, taking the meek and nervous girl from the beginning of the film and believably transforming her into a powerful young woman who can threaten thugs twice her size by the end of the film without the audience laughing at her.  Though the character arc is broad, the details of the performance are subtle, and I was very impressed.  Olivia Thirbly, you get my MVP!


BEST LINE:

Anderson (reading a gang member's mind): Sir, he's thinking about going for your gun.

Dredd: Yeah.

Anderson (reading his mind again): He just changed his mind.

Dredd: Yeah.


TRIVIA:
Michael Biehn (The Terminator) auditioned to play Judge Dredd.  While I think he would have been too old to play the part, I love Michael Biehn.  After awesome work in The Terminator, Aliens, and The Abyss, I will never understand why he never broke through and became a star.  He's awesome!

Gravity

Gravity

Beware the hype machine!  When you have critics raving about Gravity being one of the best movies in years, and then filmmakers like James Cameron stating that Gravity is possibly the greatest space movie ever...well, that's dangerous.  And it is setting the bar impossibly high.  Pre-conceived notions can ruin a movie.  The result is that people may not know what to expect from Gravity, but if they don't get the greatest theatrical experience of their lives, they are bound to be disappointed.

'That movie wasn't about anything,' they might complain.  'It looks cool, but nothing much happens.'  And technically, they would be correct.  The story is not original, and it's also fairly slight.  A NASA shuttle crew is in space, working on the Hubble Telescope, when they run afoul of a pile of space shrapnel, destroying their shuttle and leaving only two crew members alive, mission commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock).  Stranded in space and running short on oxygen, they need to think of a way to escape back to Earth. 

And that's about it. I'm not hiding any plot twists or anything.  That is literally all there is to it, story-wise.  But the story doesn't need to be more than that.  Why pad the runtime with subplots that will only dilute the film?  This is lean and efficient storytelling, without an ounce of fat. 

You know what?  I think I am about to be a hypocrite and add to the hype machine.  This is easily one of the most dazzling movies of the year - both in terms of its visuals and in terms of the filmmaking prowess.  Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity is a movie for movie lovers.  Cuaron is breaking new ground in terms of camera work and the use of the CGI (and most fascinating to me, the innovative combination of the cinematography with the effects work).  Cuaron loves long takes, and there are multiple scenes in this movie that go on for an insanely long periods of time without the camera cutting away.  That must have taken an immense amount of intricate planning between the director, the camera operators, and the actors who had to hit their spots perfectly every single time.  This must have been such a painstaking process and I am in awe of what they achieved.

I would even recommend seeing the movie in 3-D, which is a surprise coming from me, because I don't normally like 3-D.  It's an over-priced gimmick, and one that is normally done poorly.  Even when it is done well, I don't think it really adds anything to the film.  Besides, those glasses give me a headache.  But Gravity was a headache worth having! 

The acting is also very good.  Bullock carries much of the film on her shoulders, revealing a depth that I haven't really seen in her other work, including her Oscar-winning turn in The Blind Side.  And Clooney is great, too.  Some folks say, 'he's just acting like Clooney,' but I disagree.  Pay attention to when the suave charmer we all know shifts into Mission Commander mode and starts barking orders.  It's a subtle shift, the way he plays it, but not any less effective because of it.  I thought he was great.

As is the whole film.  There is one moment near the end that annoyed me, the one time the movie breaks into a Hollywood formula, but other than that, I was with this roller coaster ride.  Gravity is one of the most effective films of the year, full of tension and emotion, and I easily think it is one of the top contenders for Best Picture come Oscar time.

That is - if the backlash doesn't swoop in and derail its growing reputation.  Which would really be shame.  Look, this is not the greatest space movie of all time, but it is still fantastic.  Don't let the hype get in your head because it might just ruin a brilliant film.  I was utterly absorbed, and I hope you are just as thrilled by the movie as I was.  Yes, Gravity is simple, but it is cinema as art, and it is simply brilliant. 


MVP:

No doubt in my mind, this is Cuaron's MVP award.  And it is his filmmaking style that elevates Gravity into a work of art.  His insistence on long takes and slower pacing just makes the movie more effective and suspenseful (watching the scene where Stone has to release some clamps near the International Space Station had me so close to the edge of my seat, I almost fell off!  And it is also one, long, stable shot...so take that, Hollywood, with your insistence of shaky cam and over-editing scenes to pieces!).  Anyways, Cuaron is brilliant, and so is Gravity.

BEST LINE:

Dr. Ryan Stone: I hate space.

TRIVIA:

In terms of trivia, I always think it is fun to hear about who was originally cast in a film.  Before Sandra Bullock, the lead character was to be played by Angelina Jolie, but she dropped out.  Natalie Portman was also offered the part, but she turned down the role shortly before announcing her pregnancy.  Robert Downey, Jr, was to play Kowalski, but he also dropped out, opening up the role for Clooney. 

El Cid

El Cid

My friends and family all know that epics are easily my favorite film genre.  I count Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Ben Hur among my favorite films.  What is it about epics that I love so much?  I don't know.  I love the larger than life heroes, the vast scope of the stories, the brilliant sets, the casts of thousands, the grand music...I just love the bigness of it all.  But the very bigness that makes epics so unique is also what often leads to their downfall.  Often these movies will get lost in their own grandness, with their characters and storylines often being trampled by the march of what the filmmakers really care about: big heroes and big armies doing big things.  The best epics are able to strike the balance between the grand scale and the personal story of the characters.  It's not an easy balance, and only a few have truly succeeded. 

So how about El Cid, the 1962 film produced by super producer Samuel Bronston and starring Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren?  The film is considered one of the great epics, and is in fact one of Martin Scorsese's favorite films of the genre.  It was certainly one of the monster blockbuster hits of the decade.  Does El Cid live up to its reputation? 

El Cid is based on the legend of Rodrigo de Bivar, a Spanish knight in the 11th Century called "El Cid" because of his nobility and mighty exploits on the battlefield.  The storyline of the film is vast, including the wars between the Christian and Islamic kingdoms of medieval Spain, not to mention the looming threat of the Moors, led by extremist Ben Yusuf (Herbert Lom), who threaten to invade Spain and destroy everyone - both Christian and Muslim - who refuse to bend to their will.  The "B-Story" of the movie, i.e. the more personal side of the plot involves the evolving and tumultuous relationship between El Cid and the love of his life, Jimena.  Unfortunately, El Cid killed Jimena's father in a duel, but she still agrees to marry him so she can make his life a living hell, put herself in better position to someday kill him, but also because she still loves him.

So how is El Cid?  Unfortunately, the film does not deserve any sort of classic status.  And it is unfortunate because all the right pieces are in place.  Charlton Heston is terrific, and Loren is also quite good.  The costumes and sets are all stunning.  The original score by Miklos Rozsa is brilliant.  And unlike many epics, the story is actually very intriguing, full of interesting characters, stirring stands for truth and justice, and also a fair share of betrayals.  There are moments in the film that are downright brilliant, such as El Cid's duel with a rival king's champion, and when he forces Alfonso, the new King of Castile, to swear an unwanted oath when he ascends to the throne.

So it is a shame that the film never really works.  I think the primary offender is the leaden script which weighs down the otherwise interesting story with hammy dialogue.  For example, the love story has great potential.  Jimena loves El Cid, but is duty bound to try and destroy him.  That is good drama!  And Heston and Loren give it their all, and kind of pull it off.  But they can't quite get the tragic love story to ring as true as it should.  I also have to blame the director Anthony Mann.  Mann is generally a fine director, but I think his work is just kind of run-of-the-mill here.  Mann is actually studied in film school as a master of mise-en-scene.  His framing is the stuff that makes film students go crazy, but I actually think it is distracting (with a few stirring exceptions).  It's not that the directing is necessarily bad.  Yes, there are a few moments that are laugh out loud awful, but for the most part, there is nothing wrong with the film.  It's just that with a cast this big, battles this momentous, castles and sets this visually stunning, and with Heston and Loren leading the charge, shouldn't the movie be better than this?  It's really just a missed opportunity that needed a Wyler, Lean or Kubrick at the helm.

So is El Cid worth watching?  Yes, I think it is.  When it is bad, it is pretty bad.  But when it is good, it comes close to soaring.  So watch it with your expectations at a reasonable level, and I think you will like it.  El Cid does not hold a candle to the titans of the genre, but it is an interesting film, and worthy of being called a true epic.


MVP:
At first, I thought this was an easy choice.  Miklos Rozsa composed a masterful piece of music which is every bit as brilliant as his Oscar-winning score for Ben Hur.  The main title is fantastic and the love theme is perhaps the finest of Rozsa's career.  This score is easily in my top ten favorites.  But a conversation with a friend changed my mind.  He argued that Heston should be the MVP.  This is Heston's movie.  He carries it.  In fact, he elevates the material.  My friend put it this way: would this had been the same movie with a different actor in the role?  I thought about that for a second, and almost immediately I realized he was right.  Without Heston, El Cid would have been a very different movie.  In fact, it would have been another Fall of the Roman Empire.  That epic was produced by the same team, including super producer Samuel Bronston, director Anthony Mann, and writer Philip Yordan.  In many ways, Fall of the Roman Empire should have been an improvement.  The all-star cast was bigger and better, the sets were even grander, the scope spanned two continents of love, betrayal and warfare.  And ultimately the film is a colossus of epic boredom.  The only real difference between the two films?  No Heston.  I know there are some who can't appreciate Heston's grandiose style as an actor, and I do understand that.  But I don't think anyone argue that he wasn't tailor-made for the epic genre.  Whether it is Judah Ben Hur, Moses, Rodrigo de Bivar, or Michaelangelo, Charlton Heston takes on the larger than life persona and makes it his own.  And he makes El Cid better than it has any right being.  And that really is the very definition of a MVP, right?


BEST LINE:
El Cid: "Soldiers!  People of Valencia!  You must not be frightened by the sound of a few drums.  In a few hours, they will be silenced forever.  I promise you, tomorrow morning, I will ride with you!"


TRIVIA:
Heston also thought that El Cid was a bit of a missed opportunity.  He has been quoted as saying that it would have been better with William Wyler (director of Ben Hur) at the helm.  He even thinks he could have won another Oscar had Wyler directed it.  I have to admit, he might be right.  The dramatic potential was in the story.