Think I am the only person who thinks John Dredd (2012) is bad and after reading the comics again.

Don't know if the movie is large enough to merit discussion here. But Judge Dredd is probably not popular enough for comic book threads there, and the Judge Dredd-specific subreddit is basically dead.

But the 2012 movie has been reviewed on Letterboxd enough to warrant some commentary on this subreddit.

Basically, the movie is about Judge Dredd and telepath Anderson ( a non-Judge) being trapped in a tower dominated by a dealer with a drug that literally slows down time.

The entire society is a grimy and gross sprawling megacity in classic dystopian fashion. With a hinted-at, though never detailed, anti-mutant discrimination policy.

Honestly, my basic problem with the movie is just how flat and boring the aesthetic is on top of everything else.

The comic is hilarious, filled with jokes about soviet bureaucracy and corruption on top of just general humor tone.

The movie has instead a stiff upper lip, which means the world, which in the comics is clearly a satirical version of late 70s UK/America, comes off instead as a boring and frankly dull dystopia. And one whose high technology comes off less as a funny contrast and more as a plothole.

Similarly, Judge Dredd in the comic (at least Judge Dredd Cold Wars) acts like a real judge; he does not generally kill people but sentences them to prison outside self-defense situations. The movie portrays him as nearly all firepower, like the Punisher with the badge.

The movie's whole introduction of corrupt judges also felt lazy; instead of asking whether the Judge System works throughout the movie, it turns out Judges are easily corrupted like a 1950s NYC cop by the Mob.

I gave it a 2/5 because its competent and the slow-mo sequences and mental sequences involving Anderson are cool but otherwise it felt like it was missing the point the entire runtime.

I'm not going to mention the insufferable critic that I stumbled upon who always seems to complain about things that are not relevant to the film, because that would just give this person more attention.

But RottenTomatoes would be better served if they allowed their logged in users the ability to mute specific critics, and not have their ratings factor into the calculation. In other words, give us a more curated experience.

Alright, we all know some times when the Oscars really got it wrong, like

picking "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan" in 1999

or

"How Green Was My Valley" over "Citizen Kane" in 1941

or

"Do the Right Thing" not even getting nominated in 1990.

OK, so let's give the Oscars committee a time machine. What cases like these would you like to see the Oscars correct, to give credit where credit is do (in 20-20 hindsight)?

I thought Eddington was the best movie I saw in 2025. The film is the perfect balance of satire, comedy, tragedy and action. However, the film was not as widely praised or celebrated as OBAA, a film with similar satirical and comedic aims. Both films cover prescient subject matter. But now with the data center debate heating up, I believe Eddington will age better than OBAA and will be reconsidered at some point to be a masterpiece. Thoughts?

The film follows Mark Turner (Sparks), the heir and chairman of his family’s billion-dollar company, as he struggles to reclaim his life after battling depression. As his world begins to fracture, the line between imagination, ambition and self-destruction becomes blurred, in what the filmmakers told Deadline will be an emotionally charged portrait of resilience, identity and recovery.

I just watched Spielbergs newest movie and in it there were some shockingly bad looking stunts. For example the scene where the red Alfa Romeo gets pushed into the passing train. It looked so incredibly fake.

I have noticed this in a few newer movies lately and I remember around 2012 when movies like skyfall came out stunts like that looked much more real. In skyfall there is even a similar car/train scene and it looks miles better.

Have I just gone to the wrong movies?

This is going to sound funny but I first fell in love with scoring as a kid, when I first watched Finding Nemo. At that time, I used to wonder why I felt so emotional when watching the movie (other than the plot). But while growing up, I began realizing that the purpose of these scores is to use motifs and intense orchestration to make the viewer feel something almost tangible.

I started hyper-fixating on scores while watching movies and even now, I still feel maybe even more intensely for Finding Nemo (which might sound silly, I know).

I fell in love with more composers, like John Williams, Hans Zimmer (I got to see this dude perform live, it was crazy), Howard Shore, James Newton Howard, etc. But it wasn’t until I watched American Beauty that I decided Thomas Newman was my favorite composer ever. Obviously, I know a lot of people would disagree with me, saying he’s never even won an Oscar or that composers like Williams and Zimmer are far better. But, subjectively, with Newman, I feel such intense frisson with every movie, so much so that I began noticing his style of music without looking at the credit details.

What bothers me about Newman is how many people don’t know him or forget about him (which is crazy considering his family’s prominence in film scoring).

But all the movies he composed for, Meet Joe Black, Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Road to Perdition, Scent of a Woman, etc, have made me feel almost insane while watching them. It’s like my soul reverberates against my body, causing shivers to shoot up and down my spine (I tend to get poetic when speaking about Newman). I literally start tearing up from the score, even if there isn’t anything sad happening, I’ll cry and uncontrollably smile.

Anyway, I just really needed to rant about my love for Thomas Newman. My passion for film scores has insufferably become my entire personality and, funny enough, nobody in my life understands and it drives me NUTS.

Native Son (also known in Spanish-speaking countries as Sangre negra) is a 1951 drama and film noir movie directed by French filmmaker Pierre Chenal. It holds great historical and cultural value, notable for being filmed mainly in Argentina in the English language because American studios at the time refused to produce it due to its strong themes regarding racism.

The film faced severe censorship in the United States. About 30 minutes of footage were cut (800 meters of celluloid), removing scenes of violence, racial tension, and interracial sexuality. It was banned entirely in several U.S. states.

After spending decades mutilated and semi-lost, the U.S. Library of Congress and entities like the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) managed to reconstruct and restore a complete, uncut copy using Argentine and Puerto Rican reels. This full version finally premiered in theaters and festivals starting in 2016.

This might be a stupid question. I just watched both parts of the movie for the first time at my local theater and am a little confused about a few of the plot points. I’m trying to make sense of BB being alive but the only scenario I can think of in which she’d be alive is if Beatrice gave birth to her while she was in a coma. But how exactly could that have happened😭😭

What are the historical movies that got almost everything right?

With the release of The Odyssey and all the discussion around its historical accuracy, costumes, dialogue, casting, and faithfulness to the source material, it got me thinking about which historical movies are already considered the gold standard for authenticity.

I know no movie is ever going to be 100% accurate. Filmmakers have to condense events, invent dialogue, and make changes to tell a compelling story. But are there any films that historians or people who know the period well generally agree got almost everything right?

Apocalypto came to mind (although I'm not sure, so correct me if wrong), for its depiction of Maya culture and use of the Maya language.

Curious to know what movies got the details right, and what is it that they did better than most?

Recently I’ve seen a ton of hate that people have for Dwayne Johnson and honestly…it’s so stupid.

Like, “oh he only plays himself,” but A, so do most actors(including very good ones to be honest) and B, he doesn’t really need to not do so. Most of his movies are popcorn movies that you can watch and have fun while having a good laugh and enjoying yourself. I’m not watching Jumanji’s 1 or 2 and expecting Casablanca, so I don’t understand what people want. He’s good at what he does, and to deny that he’s entertaining is, I think, pretty silly. I’ve never watched a movie with him that I didn’t think was a little funny or entertaining, and I think that’s fine. Like everyone hated on Red Notice for some reason, but, for what it was, it was a good movie.

Oh and the “He’s in too much stuff” crap is ridiculous as well. He’s an actor…his job is to find work and act. It’s not his fault that he gets so many roles, so blaming him instead of the studios that hire him is silly. And also I think it’s stupid anyway to hate an actor for being in multiple things…that’s literally their job.

And then there’s the “He’s a bad actor generally” sort of criticism, which I think is A, untrue given his performance in movies like the smashing machine(where I think he did a decent job) and I also think he did alright in Gridiron Gang as well, and B, also ridiculous, because, once again, he’s not really attempting critical or Oscar bait films that much and honestly…that’s perfectly fine. Like I said I don’t watch every movie expected to see the Godfather or Casablanca or 12 Angry Men. Some movies are just fun popcorn movies and that’s absolutely fine.

So, in my opinion I think that the Rock is actually pretty entertaining and a lot of the hate that the guy gets is totally forced. He’s a pretty positive guy that’s honestly completely unproblematic, and he does a good job at what he attempts to do. Because of this I think that a lot of the hate he gets comes off as disingenuous, petty, and overall pretty forced.

This movie surprised me! I saw it advertised in theaters a few months back and thought it’s just another Jason Statham movie. Besides a bit of odd dialogue and some iffy performances it’s overall a solid revenge flick. If you are into the Nobody, John Wick, and equalizer stuff you will most likely enjoy this movie! I’d give it a solid 7.5-8/10 fun movie.

Hi reddit, Nicolas Winding Refn here to answer your questions.

You may know some of my work, including: Drive, The Neon Demon, Only God Forgives, the Pusher trilogy, Bronson, Too Old To Die Young, Copenhagen Cowboy.

My new movie, HER PRIVATE HELL, is out in theaters July 24 from Neon. It stars Sophie Thatcher (COMPANION, HERETIC), Charles Melton (MAY DECEMBER, WARFARE), Havana Rose Liu (TUNER, BOTTOMS), Kristine Froseth (HOW TO BLOW UP A PIPELINE, APOSTLE) and Diego Calva (BABYLON, ON SWIFT HORSES).

Here's the trailer: https://youtu.be/C7E-0t1TfzM?si=7eyu-zRC3b69jbBD

When a mysterious mist engulfs a futuristic metropolis, unleashing a deadly and elusive entity, a troubled young woman searches for her father. Her quest collides with an American GI on a harrowing odyssey to rescue his daughter from Hell.

Go ahead and ask me anything! I'll be answering your questions starting at about 1:45 PM PT/4:45 PM ET this afternoon, Wednesday 7/22.

The film follows a group of college students whose late-night drive turns into a nightmare after they find themselves stuck on an endless road with seemingly no way out. As reality begins to twist around them, they must figure out what's happening before it's too late.

The movie is set to hit theaters on August 21.

What are your first impressions? Does the premise remind you of films like The Endless, Vivarium, or the series From, or does it feel like something completely different?