Cool News
Nordling does a focused review on V FOR VENDETTA from BNAT 7!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Hey folks, Harry here with the first full length review written on V FOR VENDETTA - this one by Nordling. The Nord is a mighty man of passion - and this review is no different. However, he discusses many very extreme spoilers - so if YOU don't know the comic or graphic novel that this is based upon - I don't recommend reading this review. Suffice to say - he absolutely loves it and feels that on top of being a morally ambiguous work - that it is highly entertaining and important. Here ya go...
Hey all.
This review will assume that you have read the graphic novel. I really don't know how else to write it. If you have not read Alan Moore's graphic novel, I urge you to read it before reading this review. If you want to be unspoiled about the film and the story, I'll say this: I think this is an extraordinarily important film, but the ad campaign that the WB is presenting at this time will make the film really hated by a lot of people. It's not THE MATRIX. Strictly speaking, V FOR VENDETTA isn't even an action film in the strictest sence. The action scenes it does have are few and only last a couple of minutes. For those having not read the book, V FOR VENDETTA is a brave film that tries to find the truth in our confusing times - what is our role in our government? And how much can we stand up to oppression before it becomes terrorism? It's a film that definitely needs to be seen and discussed, especially in America and Britain, and I hope everyone that has a chance to see it does so and joins the great conversation about what freedom really means. From here out, stop reading, if you haven't read the graphic novel.
I realize I've written some about V FOR VENDETTA already in my BNAT 7 review, but it's been more than 24 hours now, and the film simply will not leave my mind. I'm an optimist. I generally think that good things always happen and that if you wait around long enough the world will eventually right itself if things are bad. I'm not sure how this has anything to do with V FOR VENDETTA, but when that film was over I had such a feeling of satisfaction and of karma wheeling around again. I think that if people let it, V FOR VENDETTA could change lives. And at the same time, I am afraid of how wildly misinterpreted it will be.
For Alan Moore fans, let me say this: you're going to be happy. The film is extraordinarily close, in spirit and in text, to his graphic novel. The Wachowski Brothers do not spare any punches when necessary, and many of the sequences that fans hold to heart are there. I'm going to flat out say it - V never takes the mask off. You never see his face. I am so impressed with Hugo Weaving for taking a pretty much thankless role without any great actory moments to show off and making a full-fledged character. Weaving has a moment in the beginning of the film as he lets the world know his point of view, with V words strewn throughout his monologue, that under any lesser actor would have been embarrassingly bad. He pulls it off so well that towards the end of it people were applauding in the theater. I'm not sure if Weaving is actually the actor in many of the scenes (I believe he replaced another actor during production, although I may be wrong about that) but I have to give him marks for bravery for even attempting it. Which brings me to Natalie Portman.
It is easily Natalie Portman's best performance. I'm not a fan of hers. Say whatever you want about Lucas, but the actor also shares responsibility if they can't sell their part to the audience and I thought she was terrible in most of the Prequel trilogy. Frankly the only part before this that I thought she was terrific in was THE PROFESSIONAL, and to a lesser degree, BEAUTIFUL GIRLS. But in this Portman completely comes to her own as an actress. She breaks your heart, and at one point in the film, as she is being imprisoned, she really makes you feel her terror and sadness. There isn't a bad performance in the film, frankly, although John Hurt as the High Chancellor could get on the hammy side. But Stephen Rea and Stephen Fry are great as well. Fry, especially, gives his character a great moral weight.
This is James McTeigue's first film. Rumors have it that the Wachowskis actually directed the film, and I don't know how true that is. But I will say that I thought V was very well directed. The actors are given much room to make their roles their own, and I fully believed in the world that the filmmakers were trying to present.
Alright. We're going to get into it. V FOR VENDETTA's subject matter will be very uncomfortable for a lot of people. I get the idea that Fox News will have a thing or two to say about it. Let's start with the word "terrorist." How does one define a terrorist? Does their motive have anything to do with it, and are their motives for violence an excuse for their actions? It really depends on how the viewer feels what is justified in the name of what is right. For me, violence is never justified, and that makes the ending for V FOR VENDETTA that much more unconfortable. And at the same time, I completely understand how they got there. As a person, I can never see myself in a situation where violence is worth the preservation of your ideals. If I or my family are personally threatened I would fight for their liives and mine. But I have no idea what would bring me to the point of violence against a society. V and Evey can be seen as freedom fighters to some, and terrorists to others, and personally my jury is still out on what they are. But they have been driven to the point that justifies their violent acts. Which brings me to a section of the film that will be heavily debated. Heavy spoilers follow.
At one point, Evey is captured by the government and forced to endure torture and solitude to give up the location of V. She is there for months, as her captor tries to break her spirit. At one point, Evey discovers in her cell a note written by a woman named Valerie, who was killed because she was a lesbian. Her story provoked much of the tears in this screening. Through Valerie's tale, Evey summons the courage to face her captor and she discovers her own political awakening. And at the end, she discovers that V was her captor all along. She is rightfully stunned and angry, but V insists that this was the only way for her to find out the truth about herself. Filmgoers will come away from this sequence troubled. Did V program her? Or did she really discover her own truth? The answer lies within the filmgoer, and I would like to think the Wachowskis wanted this discussion to happen, because they never answer that question. Evey becomes politically aware and helps V in his quest for revenge and justice, but it really is left up to the viewer to decide what really happened to her. I personally don't know what to think. Before this point in the film I was completely on V's side, and afterwards there was some moral ambiguity in his actions that painted a new color over the rest of the film. I loved that about V FOR VENDETTA. There are no easy answers to the political and the moral position that you find yourself in, and it's extremely important that you find them out.
I heard that Alan Moore was upset at this adaptation of his work, and really, he has no right to be. I think of all the films based on his comics, this one is the absolute closest possible. Harry wants to see the Wachowskis do WATCHMEN and I couldn't agree more. If they approach that great work with the reverence shown here that one will be a genuine classic. As for V FOR VENDETTA it deserves respect and discussion, and in the coming months we will read all sorts of pundits opining its value and the controversy it makes. I just hope that people will judge the film honestly and try to open their minds to alternate viewpoints, instead of yelling at each other from their trenches. See V FOR VENDETTA, and join in the conversation.
Nordling, out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Why did this get pushed back, anyway? From what I hear it's done, finished, ready for primetime. I want to see this NOW dammit. Oh yeah, just a reminder: SIN CITY UNCUT hits the streets tomorrow.
-
I couldn't stand The Matrix sequels, and I've got a full-on robot chubby for this thing. Thanks to Nordling for taking the time, and for being eloquent. I'm sure the mudslinging will come eventually, but for now we can just anticipate. This probably won't change the world, but any dialogue opened up is a good thing, same with the dissent that keeps progressive societies alive and kicking.
-
Dec 13, 2005 1:47:34 AM CST
Sorry, but I trust Alan Moore's judgement.. ya know, THE GUY
by zikade zarathos
First I gotta listen to Harry call Alan Moore a "bitch" for daring to dislike a movie based on his original material, and now I read that Alan Moore "has no right" to not like Wachowski's V FOR VENDETTA movie (I know they didn't direct it themselves, but c'mon...), and because what? Because some guy, sitting in a 24-hour movie-a-thon induced haze, thought it was good? Please. I have no idea how good VENDETTA really is (obviously -- this COULD be a case of Stephen King hating THE SHINING)), but don't say that the original creator has no right to say that he feels the adaptation fell short. That's disrespectful at best, repugnant fanboy hyperbole at worst.
-
The Matrix sequels sucked unholy amounts of ass. I'd love for V to to be awesome, but I'm still skeptical.
-
Dec 13, 2005 2:17:50 AM CST
"I heard that Alan Moore was upset at this adaptation of his wor
by negative man
Um...ya...huh?
-
First, z.z., it's not ONE guy who said it was amazing. All 6 people who have written about BNAT loved it. I'm sure you'll make an excuse for them too. Do you think Alan Moore has seen the finished film? Probably not. I love the guy's work to death but maybe he's TOO bitter at this point? What makes you think the author of the source material is an expert? Look at John Irving's Cider House Rules--he wrote the damned screenplay and it's shameful! Considering how the geek community was so harsh (deservedly) on From Hell, Constantine, etc., I think they're well aware of what an unfaithful adaptation smells like. But you go on doubting just to feel above the enthusiasm.
-
Oh that's brilliant - trust a guy that might have a financial grudge, that hasn't seen the film - to some comic geek, that like you loves Alan's work, has no financial attachment or association to Warner Brothers and HAS SEEN THE FILM. Very bright. Cuz we all know Alan's support of FROM HELL and LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN meant those film adaptations of his work were fucking "brilliant".
-
No, the United Kingdom did not slide back into fascism under Margaret Thatcher. In that respect, those who, like myself, lost some respect for Alan Moore because of this comic's inherent moonbat alarmism have been proved correct. But of course that does not prevent the story from being repackaged for a new generation and another Western nation supposedly on the brink of fascism. The story is still fascinating and enlightening. The characters are interesting and the plot is cool. But more importantly, I think that the "message" that survives the comic's surface-level failure is one that is important for all times and all places. No, we are not witnessing the birth of Hitler's Germany here in the USA of 2005. But we do need reminders like the one this story gives, that we are in charge, not they. "The only man to enter Parliament with good intentions" indeed. ;) Can't wait for this flick to come out!
-
Dec 13, 2005 2:31:57 AM CST
"I love the guy's work to death but maybe he's TOO bitte
by zikade zarathos
Possible. As I said, this could be a case of Stephen King hating on Kubrick's THE SHINING: Alan Moore could be dead wrong. (And Harry, Moore didn't like FROM HELL or LEAGUE -- and about "financial grudges," give me a fucking break. Whose making excuses now?) BUT... how does Moore not have the "right" to dislike this movie? How is he a "bitch" for saying he didn't like the script? Take out all the unsubstantiated bullshit Harry's projecting onto Moore's viewpoint, and you're left with the fact that the guy who has the most insight into the work has publicly said he didn't like the direction the filmmakers were taking it, and I trust that point of view more than these six random people. AGAIN, MOORE COULD BE WRONG, as I said in my original post, but the way some reviewers have been tangentially attacking Moore has REALLY rubbed me the wrong way.
-
Dec 13, 2005 2:46:03 AM CST
Me thinks that a persons political inclination will color what p
by negative man
Hence, it won't change minds, but just reinforce what people already want to hear or believe. A majority of people will probably enjoy it (or not) as an entertaining movie of 'man against establishment'. Much to the likes of 1984, Robin Hood, Braveheart, Batman, Zorro or Star Wars. People to the extreme 'left' or 'right' will cheer or jeer the film for its message. In the end, V for Vendetta should be considered a cautionary tale. But we all know people will use this, a Hollywood vehicle to make bags of money in a capitalist society, as an alarmist call to arms. The revolution will be commercialized.
-
As an Alan Moore devotee for many years, I can trust his judgement and integrity (financial grudge?)more than the Wachowski brothers. If Alan Moore said the adaption was terrible, then it is very likely, I'm sorry to say,, that it is terrible.
By the way, there is no record anywhere, of Alan Moore supporting either From Hell or LOEG. He has made it clear, that he has never watched those movies. -
I just thought I might put in my two cents on the argument, since its actually a much broader academic discussion than just the adaptation of V for Vendetta (Who'd of thunk it! Talkbackers in scholarly debate!) Although I disagree with the comment that Moore has no right to express such an opinion, I also must agree with Harry and the reviewer that its out of his hands. In academia its called 'authorial intent', and its an interesting issue. The simple fact is that once a piece of art or text is released upon the masses, the author loses control of how his work will be judged, translated, and assimilated. Scholars now point out that for all we know Shakespeare, Joyce, or Pynchon did not intend to employ half the layering and symbolism the public has discovered in their works. But since mankind enjoys assigning meaning onto things and ordering them according to personal views and beliefs, more often than not we each find something unique in our perspective of a given subject. Consequently, the film V for Vendetta is just that, an imagining of the story according to a voice that found different priorities and angles to focus on in the re-telling. Moore cannot be so utterly condemning of the work because it is no longer his. He gave it to the public, and they shall translate it into their own vision and worldview as they see fit. The intent of the author is secondary to the reception into the masses and the consequent reaction where it undergoes a transformation that more often than not transcends even the creator's ambitious intentions. So thats my point: Alan Moore should understand that he is sharing his art with a public forum, where it is free to become an animal independent from his control and influence.
-
Dec 13, 2005 3:13:01 AM CST
V for Vendetta might just be the best comic series ever done...m
by blue1622
does Natalie get naked in the rainy rooftop scene?
Sweet Allah, i hope so. -
Because if you didn't like Natalie Portman in that, there's something wrong with you.
-
That's a fair point.
I think it should be noted however, that Alan Moore is not out there campaigning against the film. Someone asked him his honest opinion of the screenplay and he gave it. It seems the Wachowski brothers put it into his hands hoping he would endorse it as the best Alan Moore adaptation yet (not much competition there!), but Alan Moore saw it as watered down, Americanized treatment of his work.
Hollywood is free to dumb down and remove all subtlety from V for Vendetta, but when Alan Moore calls them out on it, he is torn down and called a "bitch".
What's that about?
Apart from Moore's single comment, he has had little to say about the film. I doubt he cares too much about the film at all.
The reviews so far are encouraging, but all the praise seems to be for Alan Moore's new-to-the-medium-of-film ideas.
My personal feeling is that one of the all time great works in one medium is about to become a ham-fisted soon to be forgotten product in another medium.
-
Hey, nice to see that I'm not the only academic who likes aintitcool. Sounds like an interesting theory, do you know good literature on that? It would mean scientific analysis of literature (or any other art from) is futile, wouldn't it? Since there is no meaning in art, but the one which we give it.
-
Alan Moore doesn't have any kind of financial grudge against the film - in fact he's totally waived any income that might have derived from it (or from Watchmen etc). What he has against the film is that on a panel Joel Silver said Alan Moore loved and approved the screenplay, when in fact he refused to read it and refused to speak to the Wachowskis. It was nothing personal, he just wanted nothing to do with Hollywood, because it was souring him - almost polluting his creativity. What really turned him against it all was the LXG lawsuit. Basically in the process of adapting his comic, a bunch of other bits were added in (Tom Sawyer, Moriarty as the villain) that were actually stolen from another screenplay. In the lawsuit he was accused of having only written the LXG comic to act as a cover for that theft. That was enough to make him withdraw from Hollywood for good. All the comments that have been attributed to him about the V for Vendetta script don't come from him having read it - he was just repeating what David Lloyd had told him about it.
-
Dec 13, 2005 4:25:38 AM CST
DumbPunter, I'm positive Alan understands he is sharing his
by negative man
Translations of his work may become an independent animal, but he has every right to call it a bad doggy. He can still pass judgment on what other people DO with his work. How they may change his work and use it to push their views or alter it to appeal to an audience it was never intended for. In that sense, he can easily say "This script you have written based on my work is bad translation. I do not like it" A creator understands that his work will be changed and is prepared for it. Alan Moore has worked for a long time and understands the process. That doesn't mean he has any less right to be upset with how a creation of his is transformed and repackaged. It's like saying a painter who creates a work of art called 'Flowers in the Attic' should not be upset that his work is later reprinted in a book with the painting printed backwards and re-titled 'An Attic full of Flowers'. It is still the work he created and the title is the same in essence, but it doesn
-
Thanks!
-
Oops, Moriarty was the villain in the comic. Well, the rest of it was right (more or less)! Can't wait to see the film.
-
Dec 13, 2005 5:14:47 AM CST
Damn, DumbPunter an' Negative Man, I gotta gets me one of th
by mr. p. lant
Yee-haaw! I'm goin' to community college!
-
Harry, it's cool that you liked the film and that others liked it. Hell, I hope I like it. But you have publicly bashed Moore unjustly and owe him a public apology (as if he really reads this). It is my understanding that he was not exactly giddy over the screenplay. I suspect that, while they may have gotten much right, the filmmakers may not have been able to convey the larger points Moore makes in his book. It is my understanding (and I'll wait and see the film before making pronouncements) that the issue of anarchism is pretty much sterilized in the script. If this is true, then the thematic underpinnings of this story will be betrayed, no matter how much more "comfortable" some may be with it. And that is not my definition of "uncompromising." Not releasing it in November was already a compromise and speaks volumes about whether the filmmakers are compromising. And, frankly, the issue with film adaptations of Moore's work is that, while they often give you the veneer, it is obvious that the filmmakers didn't "get" the real ideas and themes that make Moore's work the best in the comics medium. I think dismissing Moore's opinion of whether or not his work has been understood and reasonably adapted by the screenwriter is bullshit. Harry, I enjoy your site and thank you for your contribution to geekdom... but you owe Alan Moore an apology for the disrespectful manner in which you have discussed him of late. As for V for Vendetta, I suppose we will see soon enough whether the filmmakers "got" the book. And since you have raved about the film, we will also see if you "got" the book. Posting your opinions on the web has made you a bigshot. But, don't forget the critic's lesson, Harry. A critique can be a confession.
-
Answer 1) Hence the second sentence of my post: "... I disagree with the comment that Moore has no right to express such an opinion". Answer 2) Pynchon is renown for being a recluse, never granting interviews or even allowing a photograph post-highschool, hence my use of him as an example. Answer 3) Additionally, in regards to your analogy about a painting printed backwards and retitled being the equivalent of what is being done to Moore's work, as long as said painting was credited to a different artist attempting to reflect on his own views about the original piece with his own set of values now attached and manifested through a new angle, I think it would be valid, unlike your analogy. So, my point is that Alan Moore can say he doesn't like the script, he can say he doesn't like the movie, but he cannot say that the film being made is not "true" to V for Vendetta. It has been made according to the values of a new artist(s), and so it will obviously have new aspects and focuses that Moore perhaps are secondary. Back to my comment on your analogy, if you look at the posters, none of them say "Alan Moore's V for Vendetta", but instead explain it is a new vision "From the Creators of the Matrix Trilogy". Just as I said about the painting being appropriate if it is credited to an independent artist, so here we see the film being described solitary from Moore. What he should understand is that the translatioon of his work is probably not meant to be utterly faithful. It was began in 1981! In this day and age, 25 years is significant, especially post-9/11, so to be frustrated with a terrorism-centric story being altered to refocus it according to a newer worldview should be expected, not scolded. I would be very suprised, especially after early reviews from fans, if the creators did not hope to honor Moore's work and spirit, even if changing it.
-
If not... you've never heard of "deconstruction"?
-
Dec 13, 2005 7:00:42 AM CST
I stopped giving a shit about critical theory when people read M
by cameron1
Seriously, though "authorial intent" is ALL important, I say bollocks to those people who really believe that any piece of literarute can be interpreted in infinite and valid numbers of ways. Really that's just ego masquerading as some democratic will to let everyone'e reading of a work of art to be important or valid. They aren't. If you remake or adapt the work then you are simply using the ideas from the original as a framework or filter for your own ideas. You didn't find these ideas in the original work you twisted the evidence to fit what you believe. Having said that Baudrilliard is fascinating to read.
-
Dec 13, 2005 7:26:38 AM CST
" I get the idea that Fox News will have a thing or two to say a
by chrth
I think pretty much Fox News won't care...good review though. Hey, is the plot twist with Fate still in the movie (not the Voice, Fate itself)?
-
Far be it from me to tell him he shouldn't complain, but look at it this way: If a friend of mine [call him Mister X] has written several books, each of which had in turn be made into a movie, and the first adaptation was fucking horrible, and the second adaptation was fucking horrible, and the third adaptation was "OK", I would huzzah Mister X for bitching about the first two, but if he kept bitching about the third I would tell him to be happy for little things.
-
I'm a big Alan Moore fan. While I liked V for Vendetta, I think I would have liked it much better back when I thought anarchy was cool. Now that I know better, the whole book just seemed naive and quaint.
-
Dec 13, 2005 10:19:24 AM CST
Let's face it. Whether he loves it or hates it, it still may
by doom ii
Just because a WRITER may not like an adaptation of his work, doesn't mean it won't be great. Two completely different mediums, people. I bet Alan Moore would direct a HORRIBLE version of his own V graphic novel. Stephen king was always bitter about his books-into-novies, but when he was handed a camera and some money, he turned out Maximum Overdrive! What a rancid turd of a film that was. There is always the Frank Miller/Sin City exception, but he also had experienced filmmakers on set at all times (Rodriguez & Tarantino). So I respect the writer and his creations, but do not care a whole lot about what he has to say about a film.
-
There is nothing worse than a whiny "baby" complaining all the time. If as a writer/creator you don't like what Hollywood does to your work, QUIT FUCKING SELLING THE RIGHTS! Be a real "artist" and not some complaining sell out bitch.
-
Actually, Moore doesn't own the rights to V. He didn't sell the film rights as they weren't his to sell. When Joel Silver stated that Moore approved of the script, when in fact Moore did not... Alan got understandably upset. Moore has stated again and again that he is largely unconcerned with what Hollywood does as his work is right there on his bookshelf, unchanged, no matter what Hollywood does. So how does that inspire you to call him a whiny baby complaining all the time or a "sell out bitch?" Please, Doom II, thrill us all with some sort of justification to your bullshit rant.
-
If Alan Moore is upset that he didn't get any money from the film, I can completely agree and understand. I think artists should be paid for their work if it's adapted, and if he got screwed, that ain't cool. If Alan Moore is upset that he was misrepresented by Joel Silver about his opinion of the script, I can back that too. But if Alan Moore thinks that the film itself is crap, he's welcome to that opinion, but I think he would be wrong. More than any other film based on his works, I feel that the Wachowskis got this completely right. Does it have everything? No, but neither do 99.9999% of all adaptations. I feel very strongly that the spirit and the message of Alan Moore's work rings true, and I hope he sees the film and lets the world know what he thinks. By the way, I agree with Stephen King's assessment of THE SHINING, which I won't go into here for length and fear of a riot.
-
Alan Moore talked about it all very funnily in the interview with Stewart Lee on Radio 4. He was rueful if anything - after he decided to reject all the Hollywood money that was coming his way, gigantic cheques arrived for Watchmen, V and Constantine in short order. He stuck to his guns, though, and passed them all on to the relevant artists.
-
the movie is incredible. It is a complete, faithful adaptation of the book (which I have read several times). It is brutally thought-provoking and beautiful. Shame on Alan Moore for distancing himself from this project. True, he can do whatever he wants, but I think it's sad that he cannot appreciate how wonderful this film is.
-
It was one of the most interesting interviews I'd heard in a long time, and I agree that Moore didn't come across as remotely bitter or whiny. Indeed, it is worth noting that he voluntarily gave away the money for V, Constantine and From Hell, which seems an odd basis upon which to form a grudge.
-
It's his creation. If the film is great and Moore is still pissed, I'd be surprised, but I wouldn't start hating on him like a lot of AICNers are doing.
Without his work you wouldn't have this 'great' film you're going on and on about. I'm all for positivism, but not if you're going to shit on a fucking legendary writer. -
As many have already posted, Moore was very pissed after Silver's comments and any misgivings Moore had was a direct result of the fuck ups, From Hell and LOXG, combined with his feelings over the script.
I've heard about the scenes that appeared in the script review and are still in the film, and yes, I haven't seen the film, but shit, they still sound terrible. This crap about explaining the background to Guy Fawkes is retarded.
I'm not one of these Moore zealots who'll dismiss any opposing view, but I don't see how you can show such disrespect towards Moore, for simply voicing his opinion. It's not like he's making money from V... -
I'm a Brit and I picked up the V for Vendetta books earlier this year to see what all the fuss was about. I was absolutely amazed by this series and I can't wait to see V on the big screen, I think the Wachowskis will atone for their past sins ( Matrix Reloaded & Matrix Revolutions ) with this one! P.S. To all you Alan Moore detractors, read his damn books and discover for yourself why he hates Hollywood's bastardization of HIS material!
-
I hope the film works, but I will remain sceptical until I see the film myself.
The problem I have is that a lot of the reviewers of V for Vendetta come off sounding like they are unfamiliar with the source material. The comic is not a "uncompromising vision of the future", it is much,much smarter than that!
Besides, Harry has the tendency to write over-enthusiastic reviews that don't hold up in the long run.
He seems to have his list of favorite film-makers whose new films he wants us to love by "willing" us through his orgasmic reviews. The way this website deifies its Geek gods, you would think a bit more love for Alan Moore would be forthcoming. The man is a genius, and not one of those everyday geniuses either, I am talking a Philip K Dick or Kubrick level genius. -
And I'm proud to be your bottom. Nice review, punkass
-
may your balls be that Earl Grey that I so deeply desire. Dip, dip...
-
Dec 14, 2005 5:43:14 PM CST
Shit, i really wanted to read the full review...well i think
by curryice
it's really time to buy the graphic novel. So many positive reviews by BNATers that i fucking can't wait to see it.
-
What a shower. All this bullshit about what Alan thinks. He doesn
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts