ReelCheese
Joined Sep 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings521
ReelCheese's rating
Reviews218
ReelCheese's rating
JUDGE DREDD was meant to be the summer blockbuster of 1995. The fusion of Stallone asskick and the newly hot comic book genre was supposed to be irresistible to audiences. Visions of a franchise a la BATMAN danced in the minds of studio execs.
Instead, JUDGE DREDD went down as one of the biggest disappointments of the year, a huge critical and commercial flop and another skid stain in the descent of Stallone's career. And it's easy to see why.
JUDGE DREDD is loud and contrived. It is poorly edited with a guaranteed cliché every ten minutes. It flows with as much ease as a sandpaper Slip 'N Slide. While it cost $70M, huge dollars back in '95, today it looks like something you'd see on the CW.
Stallone, his pupils blanketed by icy blue contacts, alternates between so-so and apathetic in his titular performance. He does, however, spew his ridiculous dialogue with the zeal of a man falsely convinced the words will become catchphrases. (How could he not see the folly in a line like, "I should have taken care of you myself -- personally"? Well, what exactly can you take care of yourself but not personally?).
The supporting crew is no aid. Armand Assante, our evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil villain, is given surprisingly little to do except cackle like a Saturday morning cartoon baddie. Diane Lane looks like she's trying but never fits into the nonsensical mishmash. Comic relief Rob Schneider serves up exactly one laugh ("We don't have time for this" he disgustingly remarks as Stallone unclothes a judge to pilfer his uniform) and is generally annoying otherwise.
The whole thing is overseen by Englishman Danny Cannon, then an inexperienced director in his mid-20s who was inexplicably handed the keys to this wreck. The action sequences -- of which there are actually few -- are not Cannon's strength. He seems confused and over his head, not knowing quite what to do other than shout "Action!" on random, pointless explosions and trite fighting sequences. One suspects there must be a director's cut of this film floating around somewhere that makes far more sense than what made it into theatres.
But I'm convinced that the biggest reason JUDGE DREDD was an unexpected failure is its appearance and source material. With his gold-armor-covered spandex and very plasticy helmet, Stallone looks like Captain Power, the hero of the 1980s TV show at which children fire their light-sensing guns. Sure it's a faithful replication of the comic-book Judge Dredd, but who cares? Judge Dredd was (and still is) such an obscure character that to think his name recognition would draw bums into theatre seats is naïve to the point of absurdness.
Who didn't want to like this movie? Stallone, despite his many poor career decisions (this being perhaps the worst... and that's saying something!), is a great action hero. But this is just a mismatch for him, and I can't imagine he was pleased with how it turned out. The final verdict: mindlessly mediocre.
Instead, JUDGE DREDD went down as one of the biggest disappointments of the year, a huge critical and commercial flop and another skid stain in the descent of Stallone's career. And it's easy to see why.
JUDGE DREDD is loud and contrived. It is poorly edited with a guaranteed cliché every ten minutes. It flows with as much ease as a sandpaper Slip 'N Slide. While it cost $70M, huge dollars back in '95, today it looks like something you'd see on the CW.
Stallone, his pupils blanketed by icy blue contacts, alternates between so-so and apathetic in his titular performance. He does, however, spew his ridiculous dialogue with the zeal of a man falsely convinced the words will become catchphrases. (How could he not see the folly in a line like, "I should have taken care of you myself -- personally"? Well, what exactly can you take care of yourself but not personally?).
The supporting crew is no aid. Armand Assante, our evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil villain, is given surprisingly little to do except cackle like a Saturday morning cartoon baddie. Diane Lane looks like she's trying but never fits into the nonsensical mishmash. Comic relief Rob Schneider serves up exactly one laugh ("We don't have time for this" he disgustingly remarks as Stallone unclothes a judge to pilfer his uniform) and is generally annoying otherwise.
The whole thing is overseen by Englishman Danny Cannon, then an inexperienced director in his mid-20s who was inexplicably handed the keys to this wreck. The action sequences -- of which there are actually few -- are not Cannon's strength. He seems confused and over his head, not knowing quite what to do other than shout "Action!" on random, pointless explosions and trite fighting sequences. One suspects there must be a director's cut of this film floating around somewhere that makes far more sense than what made it into theatres.
But I'm convinced that the biggest reason JUDGE DREDD was an unexpected failure is its appearance and source material. With his gold-armor-covered spandex and very plasticy helmet, Stallone looks like Captain Power, the hero of the 1980s TV show at which children fire their light-sensing guns. Sure it's a faithful replication of the comic-book Judge Dredd, but who cares? Judge Dredd was (and still is) such an obscure character that to think his name recognition would draw bums into theatre seats is naïve to the point of absurdness.
Who didn't want to like this movie? Stallone, despite his many poor career decisions (this being perhaps the worst... and that's saying something!), is a great action hero. But this is just a mismatch for him, and I can't imagine he was pleased with how it turned out. The final verdict: mindlessly mediocre.
By the time this film came out, I had not watched an original Three Stooges short in about 18 years. I did not remember the original Stooges being overly hilarious or ingenious and was not sure a PG-rated update would rewrite my recollections.
But THE THREE STOOGES proved to be an amusing-enough ride. And we have the performances of the new Moe (Chris Diamantopoulos), the new Larry (Sean Hayes) and the new Curly (Will Sasso) to thank for that. With obvious affection for the original actors, and some obvious voice training, the new trio illustrate the subtle genius of the Stooges' shtick. For some reason, if done just the right way, whacking a guy in the head with a sledgehammer can still be chuckle-inducing in 2013.
Directors Peter and Bobby Farrelly borrowed a page from THE BRADY BRUNCH MOVIE by injecting the Stooges into contemporary times. The approach works particularly well here since even the original Stooges never quite grasped the realities of the world of the 1930s, '40s and '50s that they encountered. The Stooges here are charmingly "pure of heart, dim of wit," to quote the new Larry.
Just like the original Stooges shorts, THE THREE STOOGES is cohesively imperfect. One scene, involving peeing babies, attempts a gentle form of gross-out humor that feels just plain awkward. The Stooges' famous shtick -- the nose pinching, head bopping, toe crunching and hair yanking -- is at times gut-busting but wears a little thin as the hour-mark of this brief film approaches.
If you hated the original Stooges, you will hate this movie. If you sort of liked them, you will sort of like this movie. If you loved them, you will find this to be a touching monument to those pioneers of comedy. Supposedly there will be a sequel, so we probably haven't seen the last of these guys just yet.
But THE THREE STOOGES proved to be an amusing-enough ride. And we have the performances of the new Moe (Chris Diamantopoulos), the new Larry (Sean Hayes) and the new Curly (Will Sasso) to thank for that. With obvious affection for the original actors, and some obvious voice training, the new trio illustrate the subtle genius of the Stooges' shtick. For some reason, if done just the right way, whacking a guy in the head with a sledgehammer can still be chuckle-inducing in 2013.
Directors Peter and Bobby Farrelly borrowed a page from THE BRADY BRUNCH MOVIE by injecting the Stooges into contemporary times. The approach works particularly well here since even the original Stooges never quite grasped the realities of the world of the 1930s, '40s and '50s that they encountered. The Stooges here are charmingly "pure of heart, dim of wit," to quote the new Larry.
Just like the original Stooges shorts, THE THREE STOOGES is cohesively imperfect. One scene, involving peeing babies, attempts a gentle form of gross-out humor that feels just plain awkward. The Stooges' famous shtick -- the nose pinching, head bopping, toe crunching and hair yanking -- is at times gut-busting but wears a little thin as the hour-mark of this brief film approaches.
If you hated the original Stooges, you will hate this movie. If you sort of liked them, you will sort of like this movie. If you loved them, you will find this to be a touching monument to those pioneers of comedy. Supposedly there will be a sequel, so we probably haven't seen the last of these guys just yet.
Stallone's first non-franchise effort in over a decade is made (somewhat) notable only by the 60-something's presence. Here he's Jimmy Bobo, a colorless, humorless hit man partnering with a somehow less likable good-guy cop (Sung Kang) to stay alive and avenge a fellow hit man's death.
"Bullet to the Head", titled in the leave-nothing-to-the-imagination tradition of "Snakes on a Plane" and "Hobo with a Shotgun", has a certain '80s action feel to it. With uninspired, unimaginative filmography, the film looks like it takes place within a five-block radius. And one struggles to conceive of where the $55-million budget went. Sometimes you have to remind yourself that you're watching a 2013 theatrical release and not an 11 o'clock movie on basic cable.
Not that that's always a terrible thing. If a film starring a rapidly aging 67-year-old action star doesn't have nostalgia going for it, it's in deep trouble. Watching Stallone kick ass again is actually enjoyable, though not as enjoyable as it should be for all of its axe-wielding wonder.
The weak link is not Stallone, though. Nor is it Kang. It is minor-character-turned-chief-villain Keegan (Jason Momoa). His character is never properly fleshed out, his motivations made clear. Instead he is presented as some mystical being, made of evil and honor, and his overtaking of his bosses at the climax is beyoned contrived.
Another 10 minutes or so of screen time would have solved a lot of the problems with "Bullet to the Head", but it would have also created a whole other problem in making the film too long for all but the Stallone diehards to bear.
"Bullet to the Head", titled in the leave-nothing-to-the-imagination tradition of "Snakes on a Plane" and "Hobo with a Shotgun", has a certain '80s action feel to it. With uninspired, unimaginative filmography, the film looks like it takes place within a five-block radius. And one struggles to conceive of where the $55-million budget went. Sometimes you have to remind yourself that you're watching a 2013 theatrical release and not an 11 o'clock movie on basic cable.
Not that that's always a terrible thing. If a film starring a rapidly aging 67-year-old action star doesn't have nostalgia going for it, it's in deep trouble. Watching Stallone kick ass again is actually enjoyable, though not as enjoyable as it should be for all of its axe-wielding wonder.
The weak link is not Stallone, though. Nor is it Kang. It is minor-character-turned-chief-villain Keegan (Jason Momoa). His character is never properly fleshed out, his motivations made clear. Instead he is presented as some mystical being, made of evil and honor, and his overtaking of his bosses at the climax is beyoned contrived.
Another 10 minutes or so of screen time would have solved a lot of the problems with "Bullet to the Head", but it would have also created a whole other problem in making the film too long for all but the Stallone diehards to bear.