Reviews

Dredd is a well-executed action movie that fulfills a very basic need for those who are fans of the genre. I mean, it is composed of so many great elements. A dystopian futuristic city wrought by crime, a cop with the drive to try and stop it, a psychotic gang leader, a new recruit with psychic abilities, all of these are awesome on paper, and for the most part come together fairly well. But it's hard for me to overlook some glaring issues, even if I desperately want to overlook them considering how much I enjoyed certain elements of the film.

One of the better aspects of "Dredd" is Karl Urban who plays the gruff voiced hero (or anti-hero maybe) Dredd. As part of the elite police organization known as the "judges," working with little manpower and against an overwhelming amount of crime, Dredd and other judges have the authority to sentence any criminal on the spot, including a death sentence if the crime is severe enough. The judges are cold and unsympathetic, and Karl Urban plays the character well, which is surprising considering that his character has a helmet covering the top half of his head the entire movie. What I am saying is that Karl Urban's mouth and jaw have more character than most actors in action movies. It is a delight to watch, and I wish he was in more movies like this.

The action itself is often fast and kinetic, and perhaps more importantly, shot well enough to keep the viewer interested and engaged. There is a unique justification for the use slow motion as part of the film involves a drug that makes its users experience time slower. Undoubtedly, the best scenes in the movie involve this drug, including a memorable scene were a user witnesses Dredd and his partner taking down some baddies around him. The action switches back and forth between fast paced and intense action to slow motion shots. I was impressed and delighted to see how well it worked.

Thus far, it seems like I should have given this movie a better score, but there are some ugly parts than need to be stated. For one, Olivia Thirlby's plays her psychic character "Anderson" well, but the character was so shallow and predictable, that it ended up being a distraction. I understand that you need a foil to Dredd's harsh brand of justice, but the movie never really stages any kind of large moral dilemma besides a throw away one at the very end that is ultimately hollow. Further, Lena Headey's character, the psychotic crime boss known as "Ma- Ma," is so poorly directed. I think Headey's acting is fine, but considering the nature of the character she plays, a person who has people skinned alive and will kill without remorse, she is so boring to watch. I am not sure what the director or writer or whoever was going for, but most of the time this psychotic crime boss just seemed disinterested, which thus made me lose interest in the character.

The animation is also a sore point. For the most part, it is used sparingly, and to good effect. The movie will have shots of the dystopian city and its "mega-structures," but most of the movie takes place in a grungy building. This serves the movie well because it obviously did not have the budget for anything more spectacular, but also because it makes the movie more raw or real. Unfortunately, someone saw the need to put in some goofy looking animation that distracted from the action. I have a couple scenes in mind, but would rather not spoil them considering they come as surprises. Suffice it to say, they looked cheap and I wish they tried to do something different.

I think Dredd is a good action movie, and I really wanted to rate it higher. But there were too many sore points that nagged at me. A lot of people who like action movies will love this movie, but I don't think it's a classic or one that is worth watching multiple times.

"The Whale" is a documentary where its subject material transcends what is otherwise a very middling documentary. I think you can get most of how I feel about the movie from that sentence alone. It is a documentary where everything is on cruise control, the narrator guides you from event to event, people are interviewed and sometimes they cry, there are scenic helicopter shots repeated ad nauseam, and some Native Americans show up to say something vaguely spiritual. This really wouldn't be worth much if the subject matter, an orca named "Luna" trying to make some friends, wasn't so strong. As such, it ends up being more than the sum of its parts.

This documentary is the story of an orca that got separated from its family. Very early on we learn from a less zany Ryan Reynolds (as the narrator) that orcas stay with their families for their entire life. Alone, and without social contact, Luna stumbles upon, and makes a home of, a place called Nootka Sound. In this stretch of sea it befriends the locals and draws some controversy, as many have differing opinions on what should be done about this whale. The main tension of the documentary comes from the idea that the orca should be left alone, despite its want for attention. Those who hold this view the orca as a liability or safety concern, and state that it is even detrimental to interfere with this whale's life. The other side of this is that Luna is just trying to make a connection, and it is cruel to deny him that.

The documentary does a good job at exploring this bizarre relationship that a community has with this orca. It is touching and sad to see how much it desires attention. The orca will come up to side of boats, and seems to revel in the experience of being gawked at and touched. A lot of the documentary is moving because Luna himself is so surreal, and the interactions between him and everyone is playful and practically human. There is something innately understandable to us concerning the want for companionship. Luna just wants to be friends, and it is heartbreaking because he really does not understand the controversy that goes on around him. You get wrapped in the story so much because of this. This is by far the best aspect of the movie, and it is worth watching because of it.

Unfortunately, the documentary itself has a made for TV feel to it. Ryan Reynolds does an OK job as the narrator, but sometimes his lines feel corny and lack substance. Actually, a much better fit for narrator would be Michael Parfit, who is he director of the movie and was also a journalist who wrote about Luna. In his brief speaking moments he would often say things that are more profound and thought provoking than anything Reynolds said in the entire movie.

Further, while there is tension in the film concerning the real safety concerns that an orca in habituated waters draws, the documentary remains oddly neutral despite an obvious skew. I wish it made a stand, or an accusation, or anything. There was clearly something wrong with how this was handled by the government, but it is only hinted at through slight frustration. I did not want an attack or a diatribe, but it failed to analyze what went wrong and how it could have been better.

Lastly, I am tired of watching a documentary where the narrator will say something vaguely scientific and random pieces of journal or newspaper articles will fly toward the screen, sometimes with highlighted words. It is a stupid effect, and it highlights the fact that this movie is only a little scientific and spends too much time on building Luna up as some sort of mysterious entity, almost mystical. The analogy between Luna and an extraterrestrial is made one too many times. We get it, it's a stranger in a strange land kind of story. So, let it speak for itself and stop beating me over the head with it.

To sum it up, "The Whale" is worth watching because the story itself is provoking and rightfully pulls at all of those humanoid emotional strings. It ends up transcending a documentary that, by itself, is rather poorly produced.

I think it is hard for me to review a horror film. Much like comedy, horror depends on it ability to elicit a specific reaction from its viewer, and sometimes it seems as if this reaction is dependent on the viewers own tastes, or perhaps the state that they are in. I found Mama to be truly terrifying at times (even though the horror tapers off at the end), and I suspect that most viewers will feel some of the fear that I did. Unfortunately, most of the terror is balanced with a dumb story, characterless characters, and a tendency to show too much toward the end.

"Mama" is the story of two sisters found in a cabin in the woods after being lost for years. Their father had brought them to the cabin after killing his wife, and planned to murder the children along with killing himself. He never gets the chance though, as he is soon dispatched by a mysterious entity. The uncle of the children, Lucas (Coster-Waldau), has kept up hope of finding his brother and the children, eventually a group of hunters he hires to comb the woods finds the children alive but feral. After some pop psychology, they move in with their uncle and his girlfriend, Annabel (Chastain), where it soon becomes apparent that some malevolent force has followed the children out of the woods.

One of the better aspects of the film is the relationship between the two sisters. The older sister, Victoria, is able to more readily adapt back into normal life and drop her previous feral attitude. She also becomes more attached to her adopted family, and more wary of the entity that the two sisters refer to as "Mama." Her younger sister, however, is more unwilling to adapt to modern life and sees Mama as a protective and motherly force, drawn to it instinctively almost. This sets up a lot of what happens in the film, and the dynamic serves the movie well. But, they spend too little time on this relationship; instead focusing on other characters or strains that ended having little interest to the story itself.

Perhaps the main reason to see this movie is because of the scares, of which there are plenty. The entity, and even the younger sister, moves in a terrifyingly fast and disjointed fashion. The action to these scenes are rightfully kinetic and the sense of fear is real. There are also some disconcerting scenes, that are not scary, but off-putting. The camera work all around is well done during these horror moments, there was real sense of space to the house and the every character was framed well. All of this said, the horror did die down toward the end. The decision to show the entirety of the monster was a mistake, as my horror at contorted figure changed to mild amusement. Further, the story itself made some of the decisions made by Mama appear odd or just downright stupid.

The acting by Chastain is horrendous, as her character is played as stiffly as possible and her connection to the children is more or less ham-fisted. Further, besides the sisters, every character is uninteresting. Annabel is shown earlier in the film rejoicing at the fact that her pregnancy test was negative and more or less lived a care free lifestyle in rock band. This should have set up some tension when her boyfriend decided to adopt these kids. But it doesn't. In a hilariously bad scene, Annabel sits with her band mates and explains that she has to quit the band (it is never stated why, since she really does not do much). One of the band member retorts that she could just leave her boyfriend. But no, she loves him too much to do that. And that is that, no tension, no drama, I guess she will do anything or drop anything for the one she loves. There is no reason why Annabel is the way she is, and has no depth of character whatsoever, making her eventually warming up to the children hollow.

"Mama" is probably one of the better contemporary horror films out there, and is worth a watch if you like the genre. Unfortunately, it is brought down by too many pitfalls that other horror movies find themselves in. There are good elements here, scary moments, good camera work, and some convincing acting by the sisters. It just feels unfinished or rushed.