Heartbreaking Honesty - "Brokeback Mountain" Review

Throughout my life, the film "Brokeback Mountain" was always treated like a joke. It was always seen as that silly, funny movie about two gay cowboys. There was an underlying sense of disgust and mockery in just about everything I heard about the film. When I was less educated and open about the LGBT community as a kid, I bought into the homophobic hype a bit, and always just assumed that the movie wasn't good. I gave the movie a watch for the first time, and as an adult, fierce advocate of the LGBT community today, I can happily say that "Brokeback Mountain" is a downright incredible film, rife with honest and realistic heartbreak and beauty.

The film stars Heath Ledger as Ennis, and Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack, two men who stumble upon sexual advances after meeting during a mutual gig herding sheep. Eventually, the two men part ways after this summer of confusing love and lust, and go back to seemingly heteronormative lives. However, the rest of the movie shows that these lives lived away from each other only work so well; the two manage to get away from their wives for time with each other.

There is some debate as to exactly what sexual orientations Ennis and Jack fall into, but that debate is hardly relevant in regards to the quality of the film. Neither character identifies as anything and have sexual relationships with both genders to varying degrees of intimacy, making it hard to confidently apply a specific label. The horrifically homophobic times the two live in make it difficult to effectively explore their sexualities and come to a proper identity, thusly creating ambiguity for them and the viewer. What isn't ambiguous is that the two men are in love with each other, and that they can't embrace that love because of the hyper-masculine and massively intolerant society they are a part of. 

Ennis and Jack's love is done without Romanticism, and works perfectly in its own way. This is not a romance film filled with astounding, glorious choruses to particularly strong scenes, or anything like that. Every powerful bit of affection is a struggle that lasts for only so long. The relationship of these two men is not always pretty; in fact, it is often quite ugly. The atmosphere of hatred towards homosexuality is shown most directly when Ennis tells a harrowing story from his childhood about his bigoted father, and bleeds into the whole film. 

The two characters themselves are fleshed out and fascinating, aided by the great acting of Ledger and Gyllenhaal. The supporting cast is also great, with folks like Michelle Williams playing Ledger's chief female love interest, and Anne Hathaway playing that of Gyllenhaal. The movie is well-written, but simple pieces of performance go such a long way. Often times, body language and facial expression manage to get across more than words in "Brokeback Mountain," making the most intense and important scenes all the better. 

The titular Brokeback Mountain serves as simple symbolism, representing the unbridled comfort in being who they really want to be: in love with each other. I appreciate a film that is willing to reject the American norm and do a bleak ending, and that is exactly what "Brokeback Mountain" does. There is no happy ending to this same-sex romance, showing the realistic nature of such a relationship in this time period. The movie embodies the exact, hazy mixture of euphoria and confusion that LGBT people have historically lived with and continue to live with today. 

Loud Optimism - "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Review

One of the most exciting things about 2012's "The Amazing Spider-Man" was the fun garnered from its fantastic portrayal of protagonist Peter Parker's alter-ego as a strongly confident, wise-cracking goofball. The sequel, aptly titled "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," has an important theme at its heart that it takes seriously, as well as its fair share of drama, but the movie as a whole takes that fun from the first and catapults it into a loudly joyous and optimistic experience. This is the chief reason why this movie, despite big problems with the two major villains, succeeds as a very good ride.  

After a mildly dull and shakey-cam filled (albeit compelling in the long-run) opening scene about Peter's parents, the audience is treated to an incredible action sequence filled with awe, humor, and seamless set-up. Spider-Man's web-swinging looks better than it ever has in the film medium, with lots of elegant acrobatics, first-person points of view, and cool slow-motion. The titular web-head also spits out a ton of hilarious one-liners and taunts the bad guys in his signature cocky, goofy fashion. A super powers-less bad guy played by Paul Giamatti gives an incredibly fun performance filled with exaggerated screaming and meat-headed mannerisms, aided by neat zoom-in shots of his screaming, pudgy face. It is so much unabated, pure fun; this same kind of fun finds its way to a healthy portion of this film, even just through funny dialogue when there isn't any action going on. The viewers are also treated to a quick but totally effective conversation on the street between Spidey and new character Max Dillon, who later turns into Electro. 

Dillon is a compelling character, incredibly well-acted by Foxx. Dillon is deeply troubled psychologically, with an intense inferiority complex. It's played for laughs, through his mad, bumbling social failings, but it's also effective on a higher level. Dillon develops an obsession with Spider-Man that makes him dangerous when he stumbles upon the power of control over electricity through a freak accident at Oscorp. This makes Dillon a wholly sympathetic character, which again, Foxx portrays wonderfully. The actor's skill seen in his silly comedic work as well as his more dramatic work in stuff like "Django Unchained" allows him to pull off a nuanced, lovable little train wreck.

It's a darn shame that they give up on the character towards the end of the movie. It's also a shame that time is taken away from him to develop a pretty crappy Green Goblin character. 

Dane Dehaan plays Harry Osborn, a friend to Peter and a higher-up in Oscorp after his father passes away; this character is poorly acted and feels out of place, only redeeming itself slightly whenever he is decked out in the aesthetically-pleasing Goblin get-up. Harry is characterized as intimidating throughout much of the movie and the writing is fine in that regard, but Dehaan simply doesn't pull it off. His performance is weak and doesn't grab for attention. The character is also jarringly thrusted into a close friendship with Peter, and has an overly simple development that makes the stealing of screen-time from Foxx's character criminal. Both characters are lazily brushed aside at the end to save for further use in sequels, leaving a complete absence of closure for both of them. There was thematic potential for Foxx's character as well as Dehaan's character to tie into the overall theme in a much closer way, but that is abandoned. These stumbles form a big gash at this movie's quality. 

It really is a shame, because there are so many fantastically good things to this movie. There is a large amount of character drama in this movie for Peter Parker in his romantic life, with his aunt, and in dealing with his dead parents. Andrew Garfield reprises his role as Parker and does the same quirky, slick, great performance as before. His romantic chemistry with Emma Stone's   Gwen Stacey is remarkable, no doubt helped by the actors' real-life relationship together. Their struggle is dramatic in a way that comes full-circle with the theme of the role of Spider-Man. Sally Fields has already proven herself as an incredible actress and her performance in this movie doesn't stray from that. There is one scene in particular in which she gives a powerful, teary-eyed speech about her love for Parker. The drama with Parker maddeningly worrying and obsessing over the kinds of people his parents were effectively adds to the Spider-Man mythos in an original way, and also increases the level of adversity the character has to face in a good way. 

That is what is really special about "The Amazing Spider-Man 2:" Parker has a tortured sole and has to deal with a lot of heavy drama, but the movie simply uses that to make the joyous optimism even more palpable. Sure, he has clue what he is doing with his girlfriend, but he is still able to stop criminals and have the city of New York cheer him on. Sure, there is an awfully dark and sad thing that, after lots of harrowing foreshadowing, finally happens at the film's climax, but the last scene builds it all back up. After a tear-inducing scene with a kid showing bravery inspired by Spider-Man, our hero gets right back to fighting the good fight, giving hope to regular people trying to do their best and live happily. 

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" stumbles in big ways, but it does something very well that most superhero movies don't; its loud positivity and optimism convinces that maybe everything is going to be okay. Thanks to that, I'd say it's a very good movie. 

S456 ARCHIVES: "Guardians of the Galaxy" Trailer Releases Online

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2013-14 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

On Feb. 19, 2014, Marvel Studios put out the first trailer for the upcoming superhero film "Guardians of the Galaxy," which is set to release on Aug. 1, 2014. The movie stars Chris Pratt of "Parks and Recreation" fame as Peter Quill, along with others such as Vin Deisel as Groot and Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon.

The trailer has a stark focus on comedy, with a myriad of jokes, as well as on science-fiction, with its setting in space.  A simple plot is established in the trailer: Peter Quill, taking on the name Star-Lord, along with his team of misfit superheroes, steals an important object that villain Ronan wants to get his hands on.

This film, directed by James Gunn, is another movie in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" Marvel has been crafting since 2008, starting with "Iron Man." Each movie in this line takes place in the same fictional universe; all of the movies interconnect with each other.

The Guardians of the Galaxy has existed as a team in Marvel's line of comic books since 1969, first appearing in "Marvel Super-Heroes" #18. The team got its own comic book series in 1990 called "Guardians of the Galaxy," which lasted 62 issues. This series was relaunched in 2008, and then ended again after 25 issues. A second relaunch occurred in 2013, and as of right now, the series is still going with over 10 issues already released.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" is not a well-known property, but Marvel Studios' track record is financially successful. "Avengers" made $200.3 million in just its first weekend and is the third-highest grossing film of all-time, and "Iron Man 3" was the highest-grossest movie of 2013 as well as the fifth-highest grossing movie of all-time.

S456 ARCHIVES: A Breath of Fresh Air: Gravity - Film Review

~~ the following is a piece I did for the 2013-14 school year of "The Ram Pride," Ringgold High School's school newspaper ~~

A few astronauts, namely a space-rookie named Ryan Stone and a space-veteran named Matt Kowalski, are calmly working on a damaged satellite. Regular small-talk is exchanged. The situation escalates until soon enough an alarming amount of debris crashes into the satellite, sending the rookie spinning out of control, tethered to a detached hunk of metal. She begins to panic more and more as she becomes less and less in control of her fate. She drifts into space, fully detached. 

The premise of Gravity, a new movie starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, and directed by Alfonso Caurón, is compelling, and thankfully the film's execution is equally so. This movie is a terrifyingly plausible display of the human psyche when put together with the scares of space. This isn't a movie about mind-boggling future technology, or anything mysterious that may or may not be waiting out there for us to discover. This is a movie about the horror of the known, present and realistic. And it's fantastic.

What's presented here is a very effective mixture of thriller and science-fiction. The dialogue and acting is natural and believable, making these characters come to life. It's when these actors play their characters as horrified in one scene, and then nervously comical and chipper in another, that Gravity most shows just how unsettling it is. The movie looks stunning from a technical standpoint, with both methodical floating and exciting carnage which engross in whichever way each portion of the film calls for. Sound is also smartly played around with to tug on heart-strings and shoot up heart-rates. Seeing the film in 3D is so mesmerizing that I can honestly say it's the best experience I've had of the gimmick. The movie is aesthetically masterful. 

Gravity has a clear, focused story that it wants to tell, and sticks to it. Every second is relevant, delivering a plot free of fluff. Typical Hollywood conventions are not stuffed in here for length and easy-viewing; this is a unique film. It's structured like a single, long sequence, it takes its time on even small things when it needs to, and doesn't feel the need to align itself with expectations. The movie is constantly unpredictable and surprising. It's a breath of fresh air

By the time the credits roll, Gravity triumphs as a faithfully succinct tale of isolation, determination, and horror. Occasionally it gets a bit hokey, revealing perhaps a tiny overabundance of pride and confidence from the director. But ultimately, this stems from the fundamental truth that what he put together is special. Gravity is sublime. 

Frozen (Film) - Review

I was taken by surprise at the decent acclaim that Tangled garnered, and so too was I taken aback by the response to Frozen. The trailers make Frozen out to be nothing too special, but that isn't the case. This is a special movie that will almost certainly go down in history as another Disney classic. With Frozen, Disney has crafted a self-aware, forward-thinking, and also very enjoyable film.

Anchorman (Film) - Review

Anchorman should be so much better than it actually is. It casts Will Ferrell alongside the likes of Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, to parody 70s-style misogyny in news broadcasting.  It's produced by Judd Apatow. Maybe by the standards of 2004 this was better, but today, at least, this is bad. What could have been a hilarious ride of mocking sexism is a joyless mess of a film that is only occasionally funny.

Ferrell's character Ron Burgundy is the beloved lead anchorman for a San Diego news station, along with other respected anchors for sports and weather and such. I can't tell you their names, because they're too boring for me to remember. One's gimmick, the one played by Carell, is that he is mentally retarded with an "IQ of 45," but the only real difference between him and just about every other character is that his mental problem has been diagnosed.

They're on top, so when a woman is hired on the station and garners some success, they become enraged, because she's a woman! This premise lends itself to an ongoing joke in the film; the anchors are sexist! They treat women like means for sex, and this is acted out in a very juvenile fashion. Prejudice is funny when it's made to look ridiculously bad, but here, it feels like just another joke. Initially the film-makers try to make the woman, played by Christina Applegate, a straight-man to their idiocy, which was functional until they gave up on that idea. Eventually her character becomes a whole lot less strong, and she falls for sexist dope Burgundy because that's what the dumb script calls for. I cringed and literally face-palmed throughout the film.

The core issue here is that the movie really doesn't know what it wants to do. Is it really trying to smartly satire old-school misogyny? If so, why is the woman turned into a submissive (and even damselized, at the end) joke? Is it about Burgundy's station beating out its competitors, like a very involved fight scene towards the middle, and an important exchange of dialogue at the climax, both seem to allude to? If so, why is it so underdeveloped? There's a colorful bit of animation abstractly visualizing sex, is it really just supposed to be a senseless, ludicrous collection of comedy?  If so, why ground the movie in troubling, serious subject matter?

The movie also has a habit of pretending its actors are much more talented than they actually are. And that isn't a slight at the talent here, because it really does bring together impressive performers. It's just that most of the jokes are one-man shows. We're usually watching an actor act towards the camera. To sustain a movie, it would make more sense to have the cast working off of each other more.

I can be a bit positive about the movie. It's not actually offensive, it just doesn't work. And it is occasionally funny. The attempts at satire don't really work, but when it's just trying to be humorously stupid, it tends to work a good bit. That animation I mentioned earlier is quite funny, and there's some good laughs when things get very ridiculous towards the end.

But the high points really aren't enough. I was surprised how much of a mess this movie is. Anchorman sports an all-star cast alongside its fantastically talented leading man. It's a shame that it's so awful. 

Paranorman (Film) - Review

The commercials leading up to the release of Paranorman did not properly represent what it is. These previews made the movie out to be a mindless kids-slanted comedy, albeit with some pretty animation. And that's really not a fair depiction of this film. It's much better than that. Paranorman is funny, and has some stunning visuals, but it also tells a thoughtful, moving little tale.

Paranorman is a mash-up of drama, comedy and horror. The movie's endearing protagonist is Norman, a kid ostracized because of his supernatural powers. He can see the dead, and while it's very real to him, others don't believe him and don't wish to attempt to understand him. However, things get interesting when an outbreak of zombies attack the town, and Norman is the only one that can save the day. It's a clever set-up that lends itself to a compelling theme.

Paranorman confronts the nature of fear, and how it makes well-intentioned people treat others poorly. And all throughout the movie, there are bits of smart, more random satire that fit in snugly. I was taken aback at how well Paranorman manages to make commentary without attacking any kind of people. Bullies, for example, are challenged in this movie, but through comedy and simple logic, the movie lets the audience know why we should be against bullying, without demonizing the children who happen to be bullies. And then some of the humor is just gags, and it's mostly very funny and clever. Like most comedies, it slips into awkward, groan-worthy territory at times, but here it's very rare.

This movie has superb aesthetics, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has seen a commercial for it. The stop-motion animation is quick, snappy and gives the movie a distinct and delightful charm. The movie is vibrant within its specific color palette, which is a bit dark, but it fits. All of the characters have exaggerated personalities that are perfectly represented visually, and the performances for their voices are also great, for that matter. The dull, teenaged beef-cake, for example, has a ridiculously toned chest, rarely seems to look people in the eyes when he speaks to them, and has a compressed, simple voice. The movie effectively plays up a light-horror vibe. The movie's intro sequence and end credits do an especially good job of this, but the creepy yet goofy monsters and nods throughout also do the trick.

Paranorman surprised me. It's a brilliant film. It looks excellent and is filled with creativity. It's very funny. And it's also a very intelligent movie that says a lot and does a remarkable job of saying it all. I love this movie: It's truly fantastic.

Monsters University (Film) - Review

Pixar was once known as a group of film-makers with a perfect track-record. Now, with movies like Brave that didn't give people the oomph they expected, and an influx of sequels that are making people doubt the studio's creativity as of late, that reputation has dwindled. Monsters University is Pixar's latest film, and it pains me to say, as a big fan of Pixar, that this movie is very bad. There are some good laughs and the movie looks nice, but it's aimless and sometimes even mean. 

Monsters University is a prequel to Monsters Inc., following Mike and Sully as college students. In Monsters Inc., it's established early on that these two are amongst the best in their profession, and this movie aims to tell the story of how they got to that point. And it really doesn't tell that story at all! The story of how they actually get good at their profession is told through a contentless time-lapse at the end of the film, after the climax. What actually makes up the bulk of this movie is a meandering lot of comedy, visual effects and underdeveloped, lazy, senseless plot that actually manages to offend. 

About half of the jokes are tired and groan-worthy affairs that have been done to death in other movies. Get ready to see a stock-nerdy kid moan at his mom for making him look lame because she's a mom and that's lame. The other half are very funny and very clever, playing off of the stereotypes of the characters. That same lame mom character has a particularly hilarious bit when we learn about her music tastes. And continuing on a positive note, the movie is very colorful and animates very well. The characters really come to life and some cool things are done visually every now and again. 

But I can't be too positive. Two big things really ground my gears, which brings me to my conclusion that this is a very bad movie. The first is that the movie establishes an interesting, tough dilemma, but really doesn't solve it at all. Mike and Sully both want to be great scarers, but Mike lacks natural talent and struggles actually performing, and Sully is too caught up on resting on his laurels and doesn't want to hit the books. Do they better themselves? Sometimes they do things that are impressive within the context of this movie, but it always feels fake. Mike doesn't find any solution at all for his problem, and Sully consistently refuses to hit the books and try harder. And for whatever reason, even though they both seem to have equal problems to me, the movie looks down upon Mike more and Sully less, which is jarring. 

The second problem is what actually managed to strike me as unethical, which is the elitism that the movie defends. Other professions besides scaring are always treated as a complete joke by this movie. At one point Mike is discouraged from scaring, and goes to a class about the production of scare canisters, which is an important role in this society, but even the professor hates it. There are a few stock-nerd characters that Mike is trapped into playing with in a scaring competition, and two of them show passion for unique career choices of their own, but by the end of the film they still decide to go for scaring. Their "skill" that is "gained" in scaring is even faker than Mike and Sully's because their apparent skill gain is usually just meant to be goofy anyway, because the notion of these characters doing well with scaring is laughable. 

This isn't a good movie. Unlike Cars, I can't even say that it isn't bad, because it is. It's very bad. The movie struggles to make a point, and when it does, it's not very nice. There are some laughs that are truly great, and Pixar is still able to make a very pretty movie, but that's not enough to pull this lazy movie out of the mud. If this wasn't a sequel, I wouldn't believe you if you told me it's a Pixar movie.  

Man of Steel (Film) - Review

For the last five, maybe ten years, Batman has been the king of superheroes in the mainstream, as well as in the not-so-mainstream realm of actual comic books. Because of this, the hype for Man of Steel, a Superman movie directed by Zach Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, has been big. The movie is out today, and it's great. Snyder and co. have crafted a fantastic story that nails what makes Superman so special, and sets a pretty much perfect foundation for future movies, but some shoddy film-making takes away from the high quality of the story. 

This movie starts from the beginning of the Superman mythos, with Kal-El being born into a dying Krypton and put into a spaceship to Earth, where a pleasant country family finds and adopts him as their own. Krypton is filled with future-technology and dragon-like creatures and it's all quite cool. The premise is established clearly in this scene - Kal-El is being sent to Earth, and once he's there, he would be like a god to humans. His loving parents reluctantly say goodbye to their son, finding comfort in the possibility that he'll serve as a source of hope for humanity. 

Man of Steel nails the most important thing for it to nail - Superman's supreme moral goodness. Superman is much more powerful than anyone on Earth, but chooses to do good. Having these powers gives him a heightened sense of moral responsibility. Life is sacred to him, regardless of whether it be humans, or Kryptons, and he feels as though he has to help because he can. We see Kal-El, or as his Earth parents come to name him,  Clark Kent, struggling with his place in the world from a young age, to a teenaged age, to an adult age. Henry Cavill does the role flawlessly as well: There isn't much more one could ask from him. The various child and teen actors Snyder casts as Clark at earlier stages in his life do an equally impressive job for their respective roles. 

Not only does Clark have to figure himself out, but he needs to be accepted amongst the people of Earth, as he's potentially very dangerous from an outsider's perspective. Because of this, General Zod is the perfect villain to use first, because his philosophy towards Earth is the exact opposite. The movie smartly compares his mentality to cold, evolutionary biology - the dominant species will get rid of the inferior ones, and claim their land and recourses as their own. Michael Shannon's performance is nothing special but he does his job, and Zod's an intimidating villain, threatening the entire planet. It's through this character that humanity understands that Superman is not a threat. He's the perfect character foil, exemplifying Superman's supreme moral goodness.

The problem with the movie is that it doesn't have the punch that it needs. The movie has an excellent story and sets up an excellent world with an excellent hero-villain dichotomy, but it doesn't deliver the powerful cinema that it needed to. There are essentially two action scenes, both of which are quite long, and they're not that great at all. The first action scene is cleverly brutal, showing truly the first challenge that Clark faces, having been amongst mere humans his whole life, but it's really just a bunch of punching. A bunch of punching for a long period of time with buildings blowing up all over the place gets boring. The second fight scene, at the end, is mostly more of the same from the first, albeit with some cool things thrown in here and there - like Zod attempting to hit Superman with a girder only to have Kal's laser beams cut it in half - but it's not enough. Aside from just better action, more could have been done, like cheers or teary-eyed thank-you's from the people of Metropolis, but none of that is here. The only fist-pumpingly exciting scene in the movie is a small moment that a member of the supporting cast has. 

And then there are smaller things that I didn't like. This is a nitpick, but Snyder has Cavill doing a good bit of screaming in the movie, and it's a little annoying. Less of a nitpick, Amy Adams plays a very well-written Lois Lane, but she doesn't have the fierceness that I want a badass reporter like Lois to have. She has a soft voice and a welcoming gaze, and that's not what I want. And the comedy here is good but I could have used maybe a bit more to help cleanse my palette from all of the sternness. It is a movie about a dude that wears a big, red cape, after all.

But overall it really is great. Not only are Superman and General Zod brilliantly built up, but the supporting cast is excellent. Russell Crowe is a perfect Jor-El (Superman's actual father); assertive yet calm and collected. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Clark's adoptive parents are sweethearts. Laurence Fishburne as the editor-in-chief of the Daily Planet and Christopher Meloni (Stabler!) also stick out, especially the latter, whom steals the show with that fist-pumpingly good scene I mentioned earlier. Despite the action being nothing special, the special effects and the hammering score in the background are impressive. And the ending is cute. 

Like The Amazing Spider-Man from last year, Man of Steel is a great, but not excellent or fantastic movie, that lays a pretty much perfect foundation for sequels. This movie gives us an amazing Superman made even better by a brilliant character foil in General Zod. It just simply isn't as enjoyable of a movie as this story could have easily been, due mostly in part to action that is just okay. But it's the first movie in a series, and with that in mind, what Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan delivered is admirable. 

Dredd (Film) - Review

 When Dredd was announced and trailers started coming out for it, the response seemed pretty negative. I saw people write it off as Hollywood frigidly attempting to make a quick buck off of the nostalgia of its audiences for the 90s Stallone film and Judge Dredd comic book series. When the movie actually hit theaters, the reaction was surprisingly positive. Those that saw the movie generally had great things to say about it, and the movie was critically well-received despite being a financial flop, actually losing money at the box office. I haven't extensively read the comics, nor have I seen the Stallone movie, but my interest was piqued. I just got done watching it on Blu-Ray, and I'd say it's a pretty good action-filled romp, despite some problems with characterization. 

The movie starts off with an incredibly awesome intro sequence establishing Dredd as a badass cop [called a "Judge"] trying to establish justice in a city filled to the brim with crime. After that, Dredd is introduced to a rookie named Anderson that just narrowly failed her exam to become a Judge. He is instructed to take her out on duty and judge whether or not she should be hired, because she not only shows potential but she has psychic powers. The two decide to investigate a block at the scene of a triple-homicide.

They encounter a man that Anderson's psychic powers tells her is responsible for the triple-homicide, but Dredd decides rather than trust her "ninety-nine percent" certainty, it's best to take him in for interrogation. This intimidates drug-lord Ma-Ma, who has employed this man in her gang's murderous domination on other gangs and the production and distribution of an illegal drug called "Slo-Mo." She devises a plan that sends the entire block into lockdown, and intends to kill Dredd and Anderson in order to stop them from taking in the man for interrogation and spilling the details on her operation. The basic premise is established: Dredd and Anderson have to get themselves out of this block alive, and ensure justice is served. 

It's a pleasantly simple premise. This allows for tons of action, and the action is good. The violence looks great. It certainly leans on the cheesy side, but that doesn't take away from the entertainment value. People's faces get torn apart, mush that looks like bubble gum is underneath of skin, the "Slo-Mo" drug allows for some sweet slo-mo sequences, and the various applications of Dredd's weaponry are fun to watch. It's brutal, but rather than being uncomfortable, the brutality serves as spectacle when it's supposed to be spectacle and service to the story when it's supposed to be service to the story. The low budget makes the film look noticeably less produced than other movies you'd see at the theater, but it's not much of a problem. The story is unaffected and what they do with the budget is creative and looks good, so I can't knock it too much for its noticeably low budget.

My biggest issue with the movie is a rather annoying plot hole dealing with Dredd's characterization. As I said earlier, Dredd decides at the beginning of the movie that Anderson's "ninety-nine percent" certainty wasn't good enough to execute the man for the triple homicide, so they have to take him in for interrogation. This implies that he needs a spoken confession or hard evidence for an execution. However, later in the movie, in an act of rage, Dredd decides to do a makeshift interrogation of his own, and eventually allows Anderson to read the man's mind. "If you leave it to me he doesn't have to speak," Anderson says. She learns about Ma-Ma's operation in full through just her psychic interrogation, and not through a spoken confession or any hard evidence. Dredd doesn't object this time, and even formally accuses Ma-Ma of the new information he acquires from this moment shortly after. Is this because he gained more trust in Anderson from the start of the movie up to that point? Maybe that's what they were going for, but nothing here substantially makes that implication. By the end Dredd certainly seems to have gained trust in her, but I think the moments that made that change in him happen after this troubling scene. As it stands, Dredd seemingly makes a decision during this makeshift interrogation that contradicts the decision at the beginning of the film that gets them wrapped up in this predicament in the first place. 

Looking past that, the performances are great and the film does some great things thematically. Karl Urban plays a badass Dredd and has some really satisfying dialogue. The movie establishes him as an uncompromising function of the law that isn't against executing those that the law finds guilty of such a punishment. This of course raises ethical questions about government-sanctioned execution, that is thankfully challenged through Anderson's character, played by Olivia Thirlby. She hesitates to use her power to execute as she is more empathetic and kind, seeing the good in people and the problem with the coldness of government execution. Lena Heady plays a detestable bad guy as Ma-Ma that sets up a conclusion that has Dredd giving her a taste of her own medicine. How Dredd does what he needs to do comes off as uncharacteristically cruel from him, but brings her story arc full-circle in an inventive way.  

The action really is great, and unabashedly violent without being uncomfortable. The characterization of Dredd takes some head-scratching turns towards Unchallenged Contradiction City, which really hurts the film. But the characterization at its best is when the movie really shines, portraying Dredd as an utterly badass but ethically questionable function of law-enforcement and Anderson as a sympathetic counterweight, both fighting against the despicable baddy in Ma-Ma. As a whole, it's pretty good.