A few thoughts on "Star Trek" (The Original Crew)

I knew Star Trek from a few episodes of The Next Generation I happened to see when I was a kid and from the license's pervasive status in pop culture (as well as its significant contributions to sci-fi and geek culture). Don't underestimate that latter bit; I went into The Original Series knowing full-well the names and even the personalities of the original crew, a few stories, KHAAAAAN and more, without ever having seen a single clip from that show. I picked all that up simply by existing.

Star Trek (later dubbed "The Original Series" by fans) premiered on September 8, 1966 on NBC and and lasted for three seasons. The show told the stories of the crew of the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise and its ongoing mission to explore new worlds and "go where no man has gone before" (as the iconic intro stated). It was a show about a hopeful future, where mankind has conquered much of space and seeks to learn more about the Universe in a never-ending search for peace, truth, friendship, beauty and all that.

When I finally started watching the series, I was surprised to find a show that was genuinely good. The stills of horrible rubber monsters and shiny suits had given me the impression of something ridiculously cheesy and while the series isn't entirely foreign to smelly dairies, there was nothing invasive that detracted from the show. Apparently, Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) and the rest of the writing crew set out to create a meaningful, multi-layered science-fiction experience-- with a good dose of action and intrigue; it was TV, after all.

A few thoughts on TheCW's "The Flash" (Season 1)

I caught up on The Flash (premiered October 2014 on The CW) and I found the show fascinating. It spun off from Arrow, the network's other super-hero foray (after Smallville), which is based on the DC Comics character Green Arrow. Well, in theory at least; in practice it's a lesser version of Nolan's Batman ripping off Batman's mythology every other episode and pretending to be the first half-way grim and 'serious' thing The CW ever did. For comic book readers, the most conflicting moment in that show must've been the appearance of fan-favorite character Slade Wilson a.k.a. Deathstroke. The show did a good job with him, but he's a Teen Titans villain that lately has been continuously promoted as a Batman villain and whose only live-action appearance now is as a Green Arrow villain. Holy shit.

I'll be honest; I don't like Arrow. I find it dull, pretentious, dreary and overall forgettable. But I have to admit that it's been open to experimentation and it has been changing its formula each season, trying out new things and seeing what works. Presumably in its upcoming fourth season, the show will get closer to the source material; more light-hearted, names will return to what they should be (Arrow will become Green Arrow, Starling City will become Star City etc.) and I can't help but think that audiences' positive reaction to The Flash has something to do with it.

I wasted two paragraph's on the subject's sister-show, because The Flash itself benefits from the comparison. The story of Barry Allen, the Silver-Age Flash is told in the show following The CW's usual patterns: the dialogue is clunky, the characters are stereotypical, there is a lot of useless arbitrary drama fit for teenage audiences and it keeps it mostly PG with the occasional open wound here and there. If you've ever seen another show from this network or The WB, which preceded it, you know already exactly what the failures of this one are as well.

[FILM] "Two Night Stand" Review - Innocuous Romantic Boringness

One of the many downsides of my previous romantic affair was that not only I had very little time for personal activities, such as film and film critique, but my ex had a weird fixation with horror movies. They didn't have to be good, they just had to pretend they were scary (or to have songs in them). It did get me to see the new Evil Dead, which I very much liked, the Conjuring, which is one of the better horror films of the decade so far and a few more indie productions I'd have otherwise missed, but I practically didn't follow any other genre since 2012 (I only put my foot down for Man of Steel-- obviously).

I only saw the first Avengers last week; this week I wanted something lighter. Perhaps a comedy or, failing that, at least a low-key romantic 'dramedy' that would get me a quiet, pleasant Saturday evening.

I chose Two Night Stand, because I remembered a trailer Youtube shoved in my face a couple of months back. It didn't look great, but it did look "easy" and easily digestible; exactly what I needed.

[EASTER FILMS] Oh that wacky Old Testament!

The other day, I caught a bit of "King David", starring Richard Geere, on TV. See, it's Easter over here so a lot of those time epics come on during this time.

As an atheist, I'm not big on many of them, even though I've watched a great deal of those throughout my life. But just because of my philosophical views, I don't instantly despite them; some are actually very good. Franco Zeffirelli's (of Romeo & Juliet fame) "Jesus of Nazareth" takes the de facto position that Jesus was God, but it's a very well-crafted mini-series, extremely well-acted with great sets, dialogue and pacing and fantastic direction. I believe everyone should see it at least once.

As such, I want to point out that the following is in no way a review of "King David". I actually found it fairly enjoyable. I'm also not going to hold it against the movie that it takes the position of the Judeo-Christian God as the only true god, because it's not a historical documentary; judging a movie based on Hebrew mythology for embracing that mythology would be like coming down on Game of Thrones for featuring dragons and non-existent kingdoms.

I'm not an unreasonable man, you see. I am, however, a man scared shitless by the stuff people believe in at times.

For the most part, I'm the kind of person that believes in "live and let live". This extends to my atheistic views as well-- it better, really, as almost everyone I know is a Christian (even though most people don't follow or even know the Bible, they just hold a deep belief in the Judeo-Christian deity). But there are moments, ever so subtle moments, that I just have to raise an eyebrow and call out on some of the bullshit.

As I said, I hold no malice toward the actual movie, because it never claims to be based on real events or historic accounts. At the same time, though, I know that people of faith who watch it, believe in the events that transpire in it; they are mostly taken from the Bible, after all. 

"King David" is, obviously, based on books from the Old Testament and chronicles the journey of the famed Hebrew king and (for most of the movie) his struggle against the old King, Saul. Again, believers consider these to be historical facts, down to the mystical aspects (which the film is fairly subtle about, actually).

Well, here's the thing; the movie starts with a Hebrew High Priest beheading an unarmed, tied prisoner, because God willed it! All the while he berates Saul for not doing it and as such sinning, because the evil first king of Isreal had the good sense to want to negotiate with the prisoner's people and ask for ransom.

This is passed off (in the story and the movie) as the just course of action. 

Then Samuel, the high priest, goes to a man holding two stones, which will reveal to him the next God-anointed King of Israel. Let me repeat that; he walks there and two magic stones reveal the King. There is nothing about that scene that wouldn't have fit in Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Dungeons & Dragons or any other fantasy world, mythological or not. 

The rest of the film cuts back on the mystical BS (though God is a constant factor) and progresses as one would expect, showing the rise, fall and eventual redemption of David. None of it is badly done, but there are small things that still raise questions in my mind:

Why does the highest praise for David include killing "tens of thousands"? I know these were troubled times that relied on warring, but it kind of goes against the whole "ever loving God" thing. Also, "Thou Shall Not Pick And Choose Who You Are Allowed To Viciously Murder" or whatever that

Actually, why does God demand that all heathens are put to death down to (and I quote Samuel on this) the last baby feeding off the tit of his/her mother?

On that note, why does David exclaim that Moses' law is outdated and his law will face everyone (Hebrew or heathen) equally? Can he just do that? Aren't those laws handed down by God? And if Kings, who are hand-picked by Him, have the authority to change these laws and rules of conduct in His name, why was Saul berated as a sinner when he was trying to negotiate the return of heathen royalty to his people?

Why do all politics in Israel rely on God as the highest order? Why do we get a million of these epics and so few stories revolved around infinitely more interesting politics of other ancient civilizations like Greeks or Romans or even the Brits (without them being depicted as asshole oppressors)? They too were devout in their gods, it was a given at the time (Agamemnon did sacrifice his own daughter to boot the Trojan War), but at least the reasoning behind their decisions went beyond "because god willed it".

Similarly, what kind of reaction would a movie about the politics of an Islamic theocracy would face and why should it be any different?

Why is the antagonist and supposedly evil/misled King Saul not only the far more interesting character than David, but also the only sensible person in the story, even despite his brief outburst of fear and jealousy that David might usurp his throne? Why is he viewed as the bad guy, when he's trying to negotiate better terms and money for his people, opposite to a totalitarian philosophy that demands all non-believers are slaughtered?

Why is it okay for David to be polygamous and veer off his intended path, down to manipulating and demanding women marry him, but gay people should be stoned for simply existing (let alone demand they have marriage rights)?

Finally, just to fuck with some religious skulls, why is David's victory over Goliath such a big deal outside the subtext of the meek overpowering the strong? Based on the fight as choreographed in this movie, Goliath, well, sucked!

For one thing -and I remember this being in line with the original story as well- the dude drops, because David had a lucky shot. The stone from David's slingshot hit him square in the forehead (in the glabella region of the skull) killing him instantly. Either David aimed there for no reason or he got a lucky shot in a stupidly unprotected area of the head.

"Oh but that was the grace of God..." No. It was a lucky shot. With a slingshot.

To make matters worse, the way the fight was choreographed, Goliath was a big guy, covered in armour and wielding a shield. He actually uses the shield to deflect David's early attacks, but then he just drops it for no good reason. Yup, he throws a spear at David, which misses and then willingly tosses a perfectly good shield aside and takes a sword out.

He then proceeds to swing that sword like an idiot, while slowly walking toward David, giving the latter ample time to take a seat, eat some seeds, do his nails, lose his virginity, graduate with a PhD in Astrophysics, oh and perhaps throw a rock straight into Goliath's goddamned skull!

If that dude was the Philistines' champion, I'd hate to see their worst warriors. They'd probably crawl into the fetal position in the middle of the battle and munch on their own faeces.

In fairness to some historical accuracy, the actual shot probably never landed on Goliath's forehead. Archaeological data suggests that, much like most ancient warring civilizations, the Philistines also had the good sense to armour the glabella and the nasal bone with their helmets and scholars assume that, based on the description in the Bible, David probably critically injured Goliath's knee, causing him to collapse forwards onto the ground, which then allowed David to chop his head off. Of course, how historically accurate this is remains an uncertainty.

Illustration of young David using Goliath's head as a lantern. It's currently on "off

But none of that matters, because the film adapted what was in the Bible. And people who read the Bible and watch such movies without further research, blindly and unquestionably believe in the events that transpire as historical facts.

And that's just stupid.

Now, what was the point of this entirely unresearched and wholly reactionary piece, you may ask. None, really, a lot of it was just petty frustration that year after year I have to deal with this shit; two weeks of the same movies, some not even directly connected to the Jesus myth (or whatever you like to call it), as well as other ridiculous traditions.

The same can be said about Christmas, but Christmas is actually fun; it's derived from a Pagan holiday (the Winter Solstice), it has cheery songs and decorated trees and flickering lights and colours and presents. Also, movies that make you all warm and fuzzy inside.

Easter? Not so much.

But mostly, every now and then and despite my own philosophy in life, because people need to be called out on their bullshit. Because this movie starts with Samuel taking a head while promoting the slaughtering of every non-believer's man, woman and infant child. And because this movie aired at 10:30am, during holidays, when school's out and the only things children could do was either watch it, or be dragged to church to see the wooden replica of a battered man nailed to a cross.

But at least it's nothing as terribly and dangerously violent as Power Rangers. Right?

[NEWS] Jesse Eisenberg cast as Lex Luthor and Jeremy Irons as Alfred

There are a few legitimately interesting news coming from the sequel to "Man of Steel", which really ought to be named properly at some point. It's shock after shock with this thing, though that's not necessarily a bad thing.

So, after learning that Batman and then Wonder Woman would be in this, with rumours of more Justice League members making at least an appearance, after Ben-frigging-Affleck cast as the Dark Knight, we now finally have two more names added to the cast.

Jeremy Irons, a talented and distinguished actor, is Alfred Pennyworth, Batman's trusted butler and surrogate father figure. Irons is a fantastic actor, but he never sold me as a normal, seemingly mild-mannered butler. That's not a complaint, I'm merely wondering whether or not they'll take another direction for the character, particularly the one from "Batman: Earth One", where Alfred was a trained and active English Secret Service agent before taking over custody of young Bruce.

Of course the one everyone's been talking about is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. People have lost their collective shit over this. Common complaints are common: he looks too young, he's skinny, he just doesn't look the part.

All of the aforementioned complaints are, naturally, absolute bollocks and they are all a diversion from the real protest:

"He's not Bryan Cranston"

Listen to me: I like Bryan Cranston and he would be a perfect Lex Luthor, but get over yourselves you entitled little dip-shits. I think Jon Hamm should've been Superman, it didn't happen. How can you realistically have a problem with this? Not seeing Lex in him right now I get, but are you really telling me that a talented, Academy Award, Golden Globes and BAFTA (among others)- nominated actor will not be able to pull off a role?

You do realize that's kind of how acting works, right? You don't need to have seen these people in similar roles before, you need to let them do their jobs, especially when they have proved that they have to skills. 


By the by, opinions respected and all that PC-bullshit, but at what point exactly did you start thinking that actors, especially skilled actors, require your permission to stretch their abilities and progress their careers and take it in new and interesting directions?

Get over yourselves; about Eisenberg, about Gadot (as Wonder Woman), about Affleck. The casting directors definitely have a better idea what they're doing than you and Warner is riding far, far too much on this entire project to take chances.

Fan-manip of Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Looks fine to me!

Which leads to another point entirely; the entire branding for this movie has changed. "Man of Steel", love it or hate it, was promoted a very particular way. There was an idea, there was a vision, but most of all there was a desperate need to make it work financially and in terms of popularity. Especially considering that the legal dispute between DC Comics and the Jerry Siegel estate left the property in jeopardy, Warner had to release a new movie by the end of 2013 to maintain the rights to the character.

So "Man of Steel" had to play it safe, if not in terms of the actual material (which took chances with a lot of its plot and story decisions), then definitely in terms of promoting it. So, it was branded as the "realistic" approach to Superman, piggy-backing on the success of the Dark Knight Trilogy, with the names of Christopher Nolan and David Goyer all over the trailers and press releases.

The new film has changed entirely. Not only is it no longer a solo-Superman movie, but the driving forces behind it are promoting it differently as well.

The earlier fast-tracking has been stopped. The film has been delayed a whole year, to find a release spot that won't be challenged (particularly by Marvel), which will also undoubtedly give time to polish the film and its inescapable DC Cinematic Universe continuations.

Then, Nolan seems entirely absent from the more recent press-releases. The big name they sold "Man of Steel" on is gone, which actually makes sense considering he was mostly in a supervisory position during the first film as well. Then Goyer is no longer the head-writer; he's credited for the story, but the script is actually penned (or at least re-written and polished) by Chris Terrio, who recently won an Oscar for his screenplay of Affleck's "Argo".

That in itself is pretty big for two reasons: for one, the main problem with "Man of Steel", the terrible script that dragged down the entire film, is (probably) out of the picture now with a much better writer tending to it. Secondly, it points to a thought everybody had since Affleck was announced as Batman: he was chosen not just as a good fit for Snyder's vision of Batman in this series, but also for his connections with talent as a director. He will likely bring people he has worked with on board and he may even helm the directing duties himself in one of these movies (be it the upcoming Batman films or even Justice League).

Finally, one small interesting note is that DC's very own Geoff Johns is now listed as a producer. I was never a huge fan of Johns' work, particularly on Superman titles, but one can't deny the dude has good knowledge of and grasp on the characters and the source material.

For all intends and purposes, it seems "Batman VS Superman" and whatever films follow are taking a different direction. They're branded as huge projects with Academy Award prestige and will probably take a more light-hearted, more comic-book-like approach with the gravitas of big names and multi-million-dollar production values.

I liked "Man of Steel" a lot, but it was a deeply flawed (if not fundamentally broken) film. If it was merely a jumping off point for better things to come, colour me very intrigued and hopeful for the future of Warner's super-hero blockbusters.

[MOVIE REVIEW] The Conjuring

"The Conjuring" is a horror film. I'll open with these few words and wait for everyone to make up their minds as to how good they think the movie is.

 

Done? If you have any sense, you concluded it's another horror flick released in a time when horror flicks are at their most ineffective and carries a bad, generic title, probably favored over other eye-catchers such as "The Haunting", "The Calling" or "We're totally making another exorcism movie".

I went into this film, at the request of my girlfriend alone, expecting the usual cavalcade of jump-scares and loud music stings, with a terrible plot to boot.

Imagine how surprised I was when the movie ended and I realized, it was actually quite good.


The Conjuring is a classic haunting story. When the Perrons, a typical American family of five discover that their new house is haunted and strange occurrences start threatening their safety, they contact real-life "paranormal investigators" Ed and Lorrain Warren for help.

The story is supposedly based on "real-life events" and if that's a selling point to you then great, but it's a marketing blurb that always made me uneasy. Saying "based on" or "inspired by real-life events" is essentially the ticket for sub-par writers to justify the drivel they just shat out in the name of a quick-buck by (voluntarily) gullible audiences.

I find the blurb especially troubling in paranormal flicks, because by default the "true events" are only selectively true. They're not chronicled anywhere, they're not historic events, they are the personal accounts of people who claim to have been involved and for all the rest of us rational people know, they are blowing smoke.

Ed and Lorraine Warren are real paranormal investigators with decades long of action in the field, with Lorrain additionally claiming she's a clairvoyant of sorts and can sense and see the dead. They were best-known for "solving" the case of the Amityville haunting (also turned into a movie in 1979). Ed passed in 2006 and Lorrain hasn't been active for a while-- she's after all 86 years old!

The problem is that not just for skeptics, but also according to far too many folks into that supernatural sort of thing, the couple are considered nothing but a very-publicized pair of crooks.

Earlier when I said horror films are at their most ineffective now I was merely being factitious. The truth is they went through their roughest stage in the previous decade with all the TV starlets clogging up third-rate slasher movies (e.g. the "House of Wax" remake) and that torture-porn bullshit. Now they're in their recovering stage, which means that every now and then the genre can claim a modest win.

I'm generally unimpressed by them, however, as the genre as a whole rarely holds interest to me. I'm a gamer and no matter how you spin it, well-done interactive horror is always going to trump your local amusement park's scary Funhouse.

Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren with the film's scariest prop. It's still not even near the scariest scene.

Still, movies like The Conjuring or the Evil Dead remake (for entirely different reasons) at the very least amuse me, if they treat their subject material with the necessarily directorial respect and more importantly, if they know how to pace themselves.

The plot of The Conjuring is bare-bones-basic. There is no twist, there is no mystery, the whole thing is fairly straight-forward from the first minute. It also doesn't seem to trouble itself with character development and drama and what little is there is actually focused on Ed and Lorraine, not the Perrons. If anything, the Perrons are just the pawns in the huge board-game that is the haunted house.

It's a hit or miss approach, not because the focus is on them or that it's little, but because it exists at all. The Warrens just don't come off as particularly interesting and in fact their quiet scenes are jarring when put next to the rest of the film's tone and pacing. There is also a distraction involving the doll from the poster, a conduit the demon of the story briefly uses to threaten their daughter, but the whole segment just doesn't gel with the rest of the film. I can only believe it was put in for reasons of "authenticity" based on Lorrain's account of the incident.

But you know what? I can dig the approach. A lesson I recently remembered with Evil Dead is that while character development is good to help the audience connect and sympathize with the heroes when shit hits the fan, sometimes the atmosphere and the spectacle alone are enough.

Additionally, if done well, it can be a blessing in disguise as it may create the delusion to the audience that the story's protagonists are interchangeable with them and they can find themselves in that same perilous position, increasing the all-too-important immersion, especially for a horror story. The Perrons are, for all intends and purposes, a typical American family like any other and they are entirely helpless without the aid of the "professional ghost-busters".

Not once do we see what has the kid in tears. Not once does it matter.

How well all of this works depends largely on the skill of your director and fortunately The Conjuring's James Wan (co-creator and director of SAW, of all things) knows how to stage horror.

He takes his time to build tension and escalate the scares until the climax of the movie. The early scares aren't particularly terrifying, but they are spooky and force the audience into a cautious mindset. When finally the time comes to unleash the truly terrifying imagery, almost all of them are effective, because of the tension that has infected the viewer.

For the first half of the film, the evil that haunts the Perrons is entirely invisible and throughout the entire story, we never see a face. The closest we ever get of a form in the entire story is via its victims, who also serve to provide clues for the plot; an excellent trick, as these other ghosts make cameos and exist as echoes in the haunted house, essentially foretelling the Perrons' fate if Ed and Warren are unsuccessful.

The established jump-scares and loud music-stings are par for the course, but Wan at the very least makes his damned best to make them as unpredictable as possible and build them up properly, offering the maximum scare effect.

It's not perfect. The simplicity of the plot is sometimes used as a crutch to completely ignore it in favour of building tension and as such the story can become inexplicably hard to follow. The cast is great through-and-through, but they are underutilized as the material doesn't call for range and they all seem to exist just to shit their pants.

Also, the film lost me completely in the third act and specifically in its climax, which involves -what else- an exorcism. All the tension at that point is gone, there are no scares and all of it is replaced by your standard special effects and screaming and lots of chanting in Latin and Christian superstition for effect.

The verdict is that The Conjuring is good. It's not necessarily the horror experience you've been waiting for, but it's solid. It's tense, it's spooky, it's well-acted and it's effective. I had reason to hate this film through and through, from the title and generic plot, to the resolution being a proper church-approved exorcism and the story being based on the Warrens' accounts who I never thought of as trustworthy. But for all the ingredients that I found shaky at best, the execution is very good and makes for a very enjoyable scary experience. Recommended.

FOLLOW me on Twitter

"LIKE" my Facebook Page 

THE LAWL - A look-back at "Judge Dredd" (1995)

Last Friday "Dredd (3D)" came out and word has it it's actually pretty damned good! So, it seems like the right time to remember the cult-classic comic book character's first cinematic outing, the Sylvester Stallone "Judge Dredd" that came out in 1995.

"Judge Dredd" belongs in that dreaded (lol) era of Stallone action flicks after his Rambo fame had died down a bit and it's an era I kind of hate. On principle.

See, I actually quite like good ole' Sly. Not just his movies, but I like him as an actor. Unfortunately, between Rocky and Rambo (the production of both of which he was involved in) he shot himself in the foot and got type-cast as the "action hero" (which he admits and takes reponsibility for).

This isn't inherently a bad thing, but rarely since did he find material to stretch his acting muscles. I mean, alright, he was never exactly the Christian Bale of '80s and '90s action flicks , but he wasn't Van Damme or Schwarzenegger either.

This is what annoys me about his work from that era. People had bundled him into the same group as those guys and those guys suck! Alright, they're incredibly fun to watch, sure, but the GOVANAH can't act for shit and his genuinely good movies are the ones where he doesn't need to convey any sort of emotion.

Stallone was nominated for Best Actor in Rocky, goddammit!


It's no wonder in the last few years he succumbed and did shit like "The Expendables" (the title of which seems to be Stallone's critique of his career), in one of the most glorious displays of "if you can't beat them, join them" coping mechanism.

So during the '90s and after he had hung both his boxing gloves and machine gun (at least until the mid-'00s), he was often-times cast in big-budget, dumb action flicks that couldn't begin to compare to the wholesome explode-y goodness of his Rambo stuff.

And while a lot of those films have their cult followings, let's not kid ourselves; they aren't exactly good films. "Judge Dredd" is REALLY not a good film.

The sets are well-done but unimaginative, the plot is stupid (and I haven't read the comics, so don't pester me about this), the dialogue is all over the place, there is literally ZERO characterization, there are far too many plot conveniences and the acting is so hammy and over-the-top it ends up being absolutely hilarious.

Also, THE LAAAAWWWW!

I mean, what was the deal with that Janus experiment shit? Right after the Apocalypse, the best plan was to create Solid and Liquid Snake to maintain order in the city? You'd think by the time the world almost ended, at least one motherfucker out there would've written a story about how these things never turn out well.

And why was Judge Griffin trying to reactivate it? What was the master plan? It seemed he considered it the best possible solution to maintain order in a crumbling city, but all the chaos we ever saw in this movie was chaos he instigated to get the project back online!




And what's with all the conveniences? I can look away and pretend the court had sufficient evidence against Dredd, but they were missing something somewhat important like, oh I don't know, A MOTIVE MAYBE? I know the reporter was talking smack about the Council and Dredd in particular, but we never see Dredd concerned about him even in the slightest. He looks at him through a screen at some point, without conveying emotions. This is not a proper set-up!

Also, even if Fargo didn't know Rico was still alive, there is no way the man could be officially incarcerated in the biggest prison they have, without SOMEONE else in the Council knowing and putting two and two together (Griffin notwithstanding).

What about the characterization in that there is none? Apparently Dredd is supposed to be generally emotionless. Okay, fine, this doesn't mean he needn't have a personality! Fucking RoboCop acted more human than he did! I don't even mean deep characterization. Rico's ramblings during their confrontation make Rico a much better-rounded and somewhat more sympathetic character than Dredd.

Yes, the psychotic villain is more sympathetic than the robotic hero. It's not my fault.


None of the above really annoy me, though. What does bother me about the film, to this day, is how it squanders its potential. We are told time and again about the intricacies and the grey area the current system has. This is an overpopulated city where all authorities (judicial, fiscal, governing) are exercised by a council that worship the Law in a very black and white manner.

We could've seen so much more about this system, its ups and downs. We could've seen how the Judges are condemned to an ultimately unhedonic existence of pure servitude to a system and a society they aren't really part of.  The Long Walk is an awesome idea, in a very bleak way, but we are only TOLD about it. 

There is also so much Dredd himself, who is the most black-and-white of them all, could play at. Is he right to operate like that? Is he wrong? Does this complete lack of empathy make him dangerous (lack of empathy is a prime characteristic of psychopathy). There is so much there left untapped! Dredd doesn't even go through an arc. For all we know, once the film ends and he is reinstated, he is back to thinking the Law doesn't make mistakes. He never changes, he just fights to clear his name.

Instead, we throw all that out to make space for Rob Schneider's unfunny shtick. Schneider in this movie is what was wrong with the '90s. He's entirely unneeded in the plot and for the most part he just gets in Dredd's way. He seems as a shoe-horned comedic relief. You can make the case that he helped Dredd mellow out and finally show some emotion and I guess you're right to a degree. I'd also show plenty of emotion if my sidekick was Rob Schneider. Specifically, the kind of emotion that would brutally murder the asshole and then make soup out of his entrails; original Scorched Earth recipe.


And don't even get me started on Hershey, a disposable love-interest who shares a page of dialogue with Dredd in the movie, has zero chemistry with him (but good god is Diane Lane gorgeous) and really, her affection is kind of forced. Much like the comedic relief character, Hershey also feels like a studio mandate. Cut out this entire romance sub-plot and nothing changes. If you wanted sexual tension, look up "flirting". It's fun and doesn't have to lead to anything.

But, you know what? All of the above, every single one of those problems the movie has, is what gives it value and transforms it into a cult-classic. Because "Judge Dredd" is very representative of what pop sci-fi was in the '90s; post-apocalypse, authoritative regimes, grey morality, cartoonish characters and lots and lots of toys.

It was after we saw the worst of humanity infecting our future as a species, but unlike the '80s where we touched the philosophical aspect of it all, we saw the fun in it and made cool stuff to go along. Much of it has to do with the fact that the United States (where these creations originated) were seeing some of its most financially successful and stable periods (which unfortunately would move to produce the pseudo-intellectual fucktards of today).

It wasn't good; it was what you'd get by privileged people as armchair philosophers. in the luxury of their big apartments, while watching their three big-screen TVs, playing Super Nintendo and possibly smoking some joints.

It was vacuous, pretentious and ultimately of little consequence but, damn it, it was fun.

This type of sci-fi has little relevancy to the world today, but it's hard to think of the '90s and not remember films like this one. In some twisted way,  this is a more deserving movie to be remembered than, say, Braveheart (which won Best Picture).

And, if I'm being entirely honest, it totally holds up. It has a shitload of problems, but it's a fun film to watch. I like it and I've made my feelings toward this type of film clear!

So if before or after you've seen the new (likely better) adaptation of the character you ponder whether or not you should have a look back at this one, do so without fear. Fun is guaranteed.