Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Massawyrm professes his thoughts upon BNAT 7 and why V FOR VENDETTA was the best film he's seen this year!

Hey folks, Harry here... Massawyrm is a bit of a 'tard. I love him, but he really is. But he's an enthusiastic heartfelt 'tard. And... he's not afraid of dropping his drawers, shitting on your carpet while doing armpit fart renditions of the 1812 Overture to prove it. Today - he sends love letters to everything that played BNAT 7 except KING KONG and DESCENT. 'Tard. Sigh.

Hola all. Massawyrm here. Well, another BNAT has come and gone and now that I’ve gotten some sleep, dropped everyone off at the airport and finally had the chance to relax with a cigarette to digest the emotions of the weekend, I can finally sit down to review exactly what I saw. And it was a wild weekend indeed. Easily the second best BNAT of all time, BNAT 7 was an interesting mix of emotions and surprises – that oddly enough had quite a lot of parallels to my personal favorite, BNAT 5. There was a Peter Jackson film in the number 2 spot, a special Mel Gibson clip, a Chan-wook Park film, a French action film and an emotional, controversial final film that just blew me the hell away. All in all, it hit almost all of the right notes with me.

So here goes.





King Kong

You know. Every room has its asshole. That one guy that just doesn’t get what everyone else does, just doesn’t see the movie they see. That one freaking pain in the ass that just can’t feel the love and forgive the mistakes like everyone else does. Unfortunately that guy wasn’t sitting next to me this year – instead, I was that asshole. I did not love Kong. And while this might seem like a crime of high treason here at Ain’t it Cool, being the resident pariah around here has its perks. Like being able to write a negative review of King Kong without anyone bitching about me more than they already do.

Now I certainly didn’t hate King Kong, but I don’t love it. It’s good, but heavily flawed. And I strongly feel it’s going to find its place in history next to Titanic, because frankly, that’s the film it is most akin to. It is a technical marvel full of achievements worthy of making it an historic piece of filmmaking. It is an emotional love story that is going to play to a large, but specific crowd. And it is going to make an Assload of money, driven by that specific crowd who will pay to see it time and time again. I do not doubt for one second that when the dust clears, Kong will be the second highest grossing film of all time. But like Titanic, it is a flawed film which will manage to have its flaws inflated by reactionary haters who will feel they have to scream against the booming voice of overwhelming approval. And as the lovers scream back the sides will get more and more decisive. Then, as the film fades from peoples memories (as it has already occured with several BNATers – they remembered watching, they remembered it was awesome, but salient details eluded in a way that didn’t occur with other films) they will hear the flaws, acknowledge them, and the flaws will become what they remember. I like Titanic. It was a good film. So’s this. But it lost me.

And the point it lost me was during a Skull Island sequence in which our heroes get chased by a stampede of Brontosaurus’s (Brontosaurai?) Up until this point, I was really into the film. Sure, it was moving slow as molasses – but I knew Kong was coming and that the setup would pay off in a big way. But then this stampede sequence occurs and what I saw not only took me out of the film, but turned me off to it so much that I could never get back into it. What I saw was several actors running in place in front of a green screen while digital footage played behind them. Now the CG in this film is incredible. Kong looks fucking amazing – the single most real CG character yet to be put on screen. The Dinosaurs looked 7 different kinds of awesome. Skull Island – just gorgeous. What looked fake? The actors. For some reason, the digital effects merging the Actors with the CG was so off, so garbled, so obviously intentionally blurred, that I never saw Ann Darrow in Kong’s hand, never saw Adrian Brody running from a dinosaur Stampede, never saw crew members being torn apart by bugs. I saw actors being inserted into a CG movie. And I didn’t care or worry about them at all. Not once after the stampede.

I’m a huge Jackson fan. I love every little bit of his other work. But this, let’s call this what it is. It’s his fetish film. Fetish films are a big thing right now, and people either love them or hate them. Tarantino had Kill Bill, Gibson had Passion of the Christ and hell, Rob Zombie is forging an entire career as a director making his own little fetish films. These are directors so in love with what they’re making, that they go beyond the realm of dream projects and become something so decisively what it is that you almost have to love the material going in to really appreciate the film. And I never LOVED the original Kong. Sure, I liked it, but not to the level that Harry, Quint or Moriarty do. And certainly not to the level that Jackson does. So for me, the idea of taking a 100 Minute movie and turning it into a 187 minute movie just didn’t work.

That extra 87 minutes? Entirely fetish. It’s the legendary long lost sailors getting torn apart by spiders sequence that film students have dedicated entire careers to locating. It’s scenes of Ann Darrow actually trying to make Kong happy when he looks depressed. It’s CG dinosaur fight after CG dinosaur fight on Skull Island. It’s a plane sequence atop the Empire State building that goes on several minutes too long. It’s character arcs that are fully realized before the end of the second act – characters that never show up again. And if you’re the type of person that could watch the original Kong for hours and hours and wish there were tons of additional, new scenes, then this film is most definitely for you. But me, I was bored for the last half of it. Once I ceased to feel the characters were in any real danger, I couldn’t get back into it. Kong was just an effect at that point. One I couldn’t really care about, no matter how hard I tried. And believe me, I tried.

But there’s nothing wrong with fetish films, except that they rarely play to audiences that don’t already love the material. Fortunately, Kong is one of those classic many, many people love. This film is going to succeed and make a lot of people happy. So did Titanic. I congratulate Jackson on the dozen or so Academy Awards he’s going to win, because, he is going to win them. I just hope his next film kicks my ass like his last nine did. Some will argue that this is his finest film and most deserving of praise – and many will name it as the best of the year and one of their favorites of all time. I, unfortunately, will not be among them.

But I believe I was the only person out of over 200 that didn’t like it. So take that for what it is.





Sympathy for Lady Vengeance

God I love Chan-wook Park. The man just makes some of the very best revenge films the world has ever seen. And what I love so much about them is that they are not just about “getting” revenge, but rather about what Revenge is at its core. The first two thirds of this play out exactly like Parks other films, and while I enjoyed it, I began to get this creeping feeling in the back of my brain that this was simply what Park does – that we had seen his full range laid out in his previous work and that this was going to be the beginning of a long series of retreads. And then the third act came and blew my ass out of the back of my seat. What Park does with the characters, what he does with the plot of the film – well, it becomes something entirely different. It becomes an amazing examination into the minds of those that want revenge and are ultimately given the choice of getting whatever revenge they desire or getting justice. It becomes an emotional vice grip that keeps squeezing and squeezing until you’re ready to burst.

Park doesn’t make typical revenge films. He doesn’t adhere to the formula so many of us have come to know and love – introduce a character, watch him lose everything that means anything to him and then watch him beat ass until he finds the guy responsible. No. Park makes films detailing the long, eloquent, deliberate cold blooded revenge Count of Monte Cristo style. When Shakespeare wrote that Revenge is a dish best served cold, he wasn’t just saying some cold assed shit to scare a mother fucker. He was talking about this kind of revenge. (American producers and directors would be wise to take note before they EVER include that line in a movie again.) And it’s very affecting. Park slowly peels the onion of the human psyche and forces us to confront the very nature of what revenge is and just how it can change a person.

Lady Vengeance does this in a way we’ve yet to see, offering up one hell of a moral dilemma that’s going to hit people where they live. It’s bloody, Macabre and one of the finest films of the year. Currently I’m torn on this one. While not as “cool” as Oldboy, I find this film superior in mood, theme and overall dissection. I also feel the ending is far more satisfying. Which is better? I’m still not sure. But when all is said and done, it’s playing on the same level as Oldboy. Highly Recommended.





District B13/District 13/Banlieue 13

Holy crapping on a couch, Batman. This film was fucking awesome. Another in a long series of French produced/Luc Besson written action films, District B13 is certainly among the cream of the crop. Lacking much of a plot to speak of, District B13 is a series of bad assed fight scenes that stem from the new desire to see wireless kung fu – to see fight scenes that look like they actually are humanly possible, if even by those that are simply nearly super-human. The fight scenes are explosive, the soundtrack thumping and the characters just plain bad ass. There’s nothing to digest with this one, little to really talk about. It’s just, good old fashion action movie fun.

A cop and a crook (wrongfully imprisoned) have to break into a walled off district on the bad side of Paris in order to recapture a neutron bomb from a crimelord with which our crook has a long history. Much assbeating ensues. That’s it. But it’s tremendously satisfying. For anyone who loved Nid De Guepes (The Nest) or any of it’s current French ilk, District 13 really delivers on the testosterone driven, ramped up action thrills. Highly recommended for Martial Arts or Action movie fans.





The Descent

There is only one movie I actually hated at BNAT this year, only one that left a truly bad taste in my mouth. That movie was The Descent. Many old school fans of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 may remember the classic episode in which Crow, Tom and Joel were subjected to the B Movie Classic “Lost Continent.” That episode became an instant classic with the utterance and repetition of one line. “Rock Climbing, Joel. Rock Climbing.” Well that line came back to haunt me while watching the British entry to this years BNAT, The Descent. “Rock Climbing, Massa. Rock Climbing.”

In what could easily win the “Lifetime/Oxygen Horror Movie of the Year Award”, if there even is such a thing, The Descent is the story of a pack of dull women who decide they want to spend the weekend spelunking. What follows is a series of boring conversations, rock climbing, as the women crawl deeper and deeper into a cave, rock climbing, accidentally get trapped by a cave in, rock climbing, and bitch at one another. A lot. Rock climbing. But wait, there’s more. They discover they’re not alone. Then there’s more rock climbing. Then “the monsters” (and I use that term very loosely) begin to pick them off one by one. Along with more rock climbing.

Unfortunately, when this film isn’t showing climbing, it’s busy committing what I call the “Sins of Jeepers Creepers” by showing us everything we ever need to know about the “monsters” long before they should. Your average movie goer will have this monster figured out long before a single drop of blood is shed, and then it becomes a series of boring women getting eaten, interspersed with more rock climbing.

But what are these monsters? What terror awaits the women of the Lifetime network as they delve deeper and deeper into the bowels of this god forsaken rock? The fucking Batboy (tm). That’s right. Anyone familiar with the World Weekly News knows about this vicious beast. The Batboy (tm). Apparently, there’s more than one, and they’ve stolen a box of Marilyn Manson’s make up and creepy contacts. That’s it. Okay, one could make an argument that they’re the lower budget cousins of Gollum, but Batboy is more appropriate. That’s the level of cheese this movie delivers.

Oh, but what about the scares? They’re all cheap. Every last one of them. I hear tell that many of the Bnaters who are claustrophobic got freaked out. Cool. Not being claustrophobic myself, the scenes in the caves just bored me. “Wow, they’re crawling belly first through another tunnel. Amazing.” But the scares had people jumping out of their seats. Why? Well, because the film is so damned quiet, what with all the rock climbing, only to get tremendously loud as the Batboys (tm) jump out of the dark to scream “BOO!” in their batlike language. Of course people jumped. Of course they screamed. It’s an old trick, a cheap trick, and a trick that is accompanied by not one moment of actual mood.

This is your bargain basement horror film that succeeds only in being as cheap and utterly unoriginal as most of the other direct to video horror films out there. There’s no great kills, no great twists and absolutely nothing worth mentioning. Except Rock Climbing. Lots of Rock Climbing.





V For Vendetta

V For Vendetta was not just the single greatest film experience I had at BNAT. Rather, it is the Single Greatest Film I’ve seen all year. It is an utterly perfect, flawless film, ripe for debate and ready to be argued. It is a comic book adaptation of material now 23 years old, and yet, it could not have been made at a better, more relevant, more appropriate time. This is a film about revolution, a film about police states and terrorism. It is a film about what happens when people are afraid and let those that offer safety at the expense of freedom reign. It is a film about one man pushed over the edge, completely destroyed and ready to get revenge. But more important than revenge, this man wants revolution. This man wants not to cut the chains of slavery off of himself, but rather off of his people. And this man, this V, is a terrorist.

And that’s gonna piss a lot of people off. And it should. V For Vendetta is far from your run of the mill sci-fi. It is an important work of fiction that has more truth to it than is comfortable to most. In this country we have this conceit about terrorism in which we like to forget that we invented the ideals of modern “terrorism”. Despite being taught all about it in grade school, we forget that we won our independence through it. Sure, some will immediately fire back “The Boston Tea Party was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of vandalism.” And they’d be right. Of course those people don’t like to talk about our tactics during the revolutionary war in which brave British soldiers wore bright red coats, marched into fields and lined up to fight a “civilized” war. And those men were cut down by American men, hiding in the trees wearing street clothes that were indistinguishable from any other citizen. The Brits called us cowards. Uncivilized. But for over two hundred years we have operated under aegis of the motto “Desperate times call for desperate measures.” Now the tables are turned. We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at an occupying army. What was once our proud methods of liberation, what was once our revolution against not only tyranny, but outdated methods of warfare, has now become our burden. And now we as a people have fallen into desperate times, times when instead of standing up, we chose the path of least resistance. We chose safety over freedom. And we’re paying for that mistake. And deep down, many of us are waiting for a V.

But V isn’t some action film glorifying a terrorist waging war against a “Right Wing” regime. It is a film about ideas, about the monstrosity on both sides, about discussing what exactly terrorism is while similarly showing the loss of freedom through control by the media. And while the Wachowskis have made a few changes to the original story, they haven’t changed it very much. The theme still remains, only having been slightly tweaked here and there to update the material and enhance its relevance.

This film is extraordinarily powerful. It is a genre fisted gutpunch that uses Science Fiction in the way it was originally intended – as an allegory for high-minded ideals. And while it is busy dissecting terrorism, it is also careful to illustrate the importance of simply showing up over the power of violence. Ultimately V For Vendetta is not a piece glorifying terrorism, but rather one that demands a catalyst to encourage the people.

Hugo Weaving owns this film. His ability to showcase the soul of V, despite the fact that he is a singularly expressionless character is amazing (insert Paul Walker joke here.) This is the single greatest masked character on film since Darth Vader, and while that seems like a bold statement, Hugo Weaving is there to back it up every step of the way. Natalie Portman gives her best, perfectly layered performance since The Professional (Leon), and Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry and John Hurt all deliver with the oomph we’ve come to expect from this trio of masters.

I cannot fully express the love I have for this film. It is strong, brash, unflinching science fiction that goes for the throat and never lets go. And it’s going to get attacked – in a big way. Fox News, particularly Bill “then I’m gonna massage your pussy with a falafel” O’Reilly (who gets beat up pretty bad in this), are gonna jump on this like nobodies business. They’re gonna highlight the terrorist hero, preach about a pro-gay message, roll out stories about sex change operations and just go all sorts of nutso on this. And God, I cannot wait for it. If Warner Brothers has someone with a big old hairy pair of balls sitting on high, they’d hold a screening just for O’Reilly and Fox news, then blatantly refuse to ask for an embargo. This is a film that will live and breathe controversy. The worst thing that could happen to it is that news stations decide not to talk about it. Because anyone who slams this, anyone who calls it un-American and a defense of terrorism, will lose all credibility with anyone that watches this. And to their credit, these holier-than-thou chuckleheads can’t resist talking about a movie like this. They can’t stop themselves. This is everything they find unholy, everything they stand against. And it’s so fucking cool, it’s going to make scads of money if WB advertises it right. The Re-Re right won’t be able to contain themselves. Terrorism, homosexuality, violence, attacks on the media – all rolled up in a nice little package and delivered through Satan’s medium “film”. They’re gonna shit themselves as their brains leak out their ears.

I loved this film. With all my heart I loved this film. As it came to it’s resounding end and unveiled its final shots, tears actually began to stream down my face. Now I don’t cry often – hardly at all. Not even when Kong died. But this – this made me weep. The climax is so perfect, the final shots so beautiful, that I couldn’t contain myself. I was weeping for the film and weeping for my dream, my dream of what this country was and could be again. That’s exactly what this film is about. The dream of freedom and those that would fight and die for it. When this film ends, it proves not to be about terrorism at all. It proves to be about patriotism. It proves to be about what you are willing to do to your very soul for the sake of your country. Sure the hero is a terrorist – he’s also the single greatest patriot put to film in decades.

V For Vendetta is an instant classic – a work of true genius. And the only thing that pisses me off about it is that I have to wait another three months to see it again. I hope Warner Brothers is taking this time to print up Guy Faulks masks to hand out at every press screening of this film. There’s nothing that makes me smile more than the idea of seeing five hundred people walk out of this film wearing the masks. You want Press Warners? You want to hype this? Do that. And watch Fox simply shit themselves.

Well, it was another great weekend, and I’m beat. Time to catch up on some more sleep.

Until next time, friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. I know I will.

Massawyrm

Kick My Balls, They're Tempered In Steel Like Raza And His Men!




Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:28 p.m. CST

    it looks good...

    by movieman742

    I think that the v movie looks really good. i cant wait to see it. First???

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Can't wait

    by Banky the Hack

    Can't wait to see V. I just hope the Wachowski's don't try to stretch it into an ill-conceived trilogy from an awesome first movie.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Kong can't match the utter brilliance of Aeon Flux

    by Bob of the Shire

    Right Massawyrm?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:51 p.m. CST

    You said it best on V

    by victor laszlo

    Glad someone else has some sense on 'Descent' -- bummer about your Kong ride though...

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:54 p.m. CST

    It's "brontosauri" if you stick to Latin. If you go back to

    by judderman

    I've been waiting for someone to really hate The Descent. I loved it, mainly because it scared the living hell out of me, but I knew that someone not as disposed to being scared would see the various bits of which the movie was composed and realise just how goddamned silly it is. Still, I thought the women were fairly sympathetic, actually. At least the main character. And Nora Jane Noone. She's just cool.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:55 p.m. CST

    RE:I strongly feel it

    by Citizen Arcane

    Oh fuck me, I was afraid someone would finally say that. And I was the lone voice back in 1997 that said, "what the fuck?". I still think I'll like Kong, but that review is probably closest to what is going to be my opinion on it.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Sweet merciful Christ

    by chrth

    When did "slam Fox News" become a pre-req for discussing V? Is that the rule? Do I need to say "Fox News will rue the day V arrives ... and Cheaper by the Dozen II delivers twice as many laughs as the Martin original"? And yet, once again, I never realized that we're living in such oppressive times. Are things going that well for you the only way to add some excitement in your life is to fantasize about a fictional fascist government dictating your every move? (hmmmm) ... that notwithstanding, I am excited to hear all the positive (non-political) things being said about, I am definitely psyched about this one now.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Kong

    by movieman742

    I honestly don't want to see this. I might go see it around Christmas time but it just doesn't look interesting. To me it looks like a summer blockbuster, not a holiday awards movie.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:03 p.m. CST

    You're all wrong

    by chrth

    There's no such thing as a Brontosaurus.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Great review of Sympathy for Lady Vengeance

    by Garbageman33

    Probably the best one I've seen yet. Speaking of which, I don't understand why the only film anyone seems to want to talk about from BNAT is V for Vendetta. I haven't seen that film so I can only speak of SFLV, but Massawyrm is right. It's unlike anything Park or anyone else has done. It's just an amazing film. Better than Oldboy in my opinion. To me, that felt more like a fairly straightforward revenge tale. Albeit one with a really interesting setup. This gets to the core of revenge and what it means and makes you think about whether you'd really want it or not if given the chance. Probably my second favorite film of the year.

  • You know it's true. You can debate it all you want, but the truth is clear. Fight the power.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:09 p.m. CST

    hey, Massa, good call on Kong

    by HypeEndsHere

    Harry painted himself into quite the corner on this one. He doesn't have any other option BUT to love it. the only thing keeping us from that review of his is his struggle for "cunnilingus" synonyms.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:12 p.m. CST

    "Hitler's Germany was a cakewalk compared to Bush's Amer

    by DocPazuzu

    Oh lord...

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:13 p.m. CST

    props to your Kong review

    by ripper t. jones

    As pariahs go, you write a pretty damn fine negative review.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:18 p.m. CST

    "But V isn

    by InspectorDoppler

    So they weren't faithful to the comic?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Discussion Question about V

    by chrth

    I'm going back to reread it, but before I do so, I wanted your take on the following idea: for V, vengeance is his primary mission, anarchy is secondary, even incidental, and may only exist as a rationalization for his vengeance. The idea that got me thinking about this is what happens to the Voice of Fate. "Muting" the Voice was a great tactical move; however, we know the real reason why V did it. If the Voice hadn't been involved, would V have still taken him out? I'm not saying which side I fall on in the debate, because like I said, I'm going to revisit the work to look for 'evidence' for and against that idea. I was just wondering what y'all thought.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Funny. I had the "apatosaurus" jibe over on another board

    by judderman

    my feeling is, no matter what happens, they're brontosauri, and that's that. Long after the original books citing initial scientific credit have turned to dust, the apatosaurus will still be called the brontosuarus.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Ending of V?

    by CrimsonGhost

    Does it have a whole crowd of people rioting while wearing V masks? Because if it does, if they kept that in the film, count me out. I can't get down with that level of having my hand held...

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:34 p.m. CST

    "They

    by luckylindy

    Seriously Massawyrm...i fell down laughing so hard at this line. Great reviews...V cant come fast enough.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:34 p.m. CST

    A few notes

    by Massawyrm 1

    chrth - once you see V you'll understand. The Voice of Fate in the comic, a radio "newsman" is replaced with a very Bill O'Reilly like character, and the news/propaganda machine has so many similarities that you can't see it as anything but an attack on Fox news. It is the most startling parallel in the film. Bob of the Shire - Aeon Flux was not brilliant, never said it was. It was good. I also said Kong was good. Take that for what it is.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Massa -- did they update the film, then?

    by chrth

    More TV, less radio? And how do they handle Fate, then? Is it still a single computer, a network, etc.? Or is it no longer a plotpoint?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:38 p.m. CST

    massa is dead right on kong... i saw it monday...

    by NKG

    in a press screening in Athens Greece.... i could not point out what exactly bothered me but the whole brontosaurus stampede scene probably best describes my problem with the film.... it looks totally fake.... there are good effects scenes like the battle with the t-rexes and there are bad effects scenes like the stampede... indeed u never get to see a crisp and clear view of naomi in kongs hands.... its a pity though cause everybody shines, black, watts, brody, serkis.... new york circa 1933 is amazing.. anywho...

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Swarmy's quotes were good for a few chuckles too

    by luckylindy

    dude...i am a liberal...and even ur attempts at comparing the world's worst supervillian (Hitler) to a third rate stooge (Bush) made me blush. Bush is not like hitler...hitler is like hitler. Stop comparing other people to Hitler. He is in a class i'd like to call "Motivated Shithead". Bush is just more of a "Shithead". God help us if he ever gets motivation or a clue.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Oh, and one more question

    by chrth

    If they O'Reilly'd the Voice, did they remove the Voice from the camp, or was he still a guard? Pretty harsh, don't you think, because I'm pretty sure Bill O'Reilly has never been a cruel prison camp guard.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Please, details

    by Eric Kurth

    I can't believe this site has so many V for Vendetta reviews without a single one that actually addresses the criticisms brought up in those script reviews, the one here, the one by Rich Johnston, and Moore's comments. FedCo? Eggy in a basket? The army of anarchists who all dress the same? Did these things stay? Someone please tell me!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Massawyrm on "King Kong"....

    by El Scorcho

    "It's good... But I... didn't like it." Direct quotes from his review.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:52 p.m. CST

    WETA has .

    by Shaner Jedi

    always had great animation. Think The Frighteners, Gollum, I, Robot(that fucking tunnel chase:100's of fx shots done in mere weeks), etc. The Workshop creates some amazing miniature work. But where they've stumbled numerous times is in the COMPOSITING of these numerous elements. Time and time again in LOTR the compositing is shoddy(still love the trilogy though). So on a pure technical level, they still need to get their shit together with the comps.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Alan Moore left DC because the Bros. W said he loved it..

    by DOGSOUP

    ...dirty liars. Alan Moore is the guy who gave us this future. Any movie based on his creations I'm skeptical about. I'll see V, but I really don't think as of now that the Curse of Alan Moore is lifted.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Good job on the editing, El Scorcho

    by HypeEndsHere

    "Thou shalt...kill..." Direct quote from the Ten Commandments. served.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Whoa whoa whoa...hold on a second

    by chrth

    What's all this talk about an army of anarchists?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:57 p.m. CST

    And I do want to say something about LXG

    by chrth

    I thought the movie wasn't that bad, to be honest. I'll go hide now.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:58 p.m. CST

    more notes

    by Massawyrm 1

    Yes, they most definately updated it. Like I said, a few "details" are changed but the bulk of the events and the theme remains the same. Let's just say the "Voice" is still involved - although in a slightly different way. But it works. Eric - unfortunately, V wasn't ever on my radar very much, so I missed the script reviews. Although I can say I don't recall FedCo - and the eggy in a basket stuff works very well. Just a small bit in the film that I can't imagine anyone bitching about.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Indycollector ...

    by chrth

    I'm pretty sure Swarmy was jokingly channelling the moonbats, and didn't mean it himself. That said, your comment reminds me of the Simpsons ep where they showed the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, etc., in prison ... and you're supposed to laugh, but at the same time you have to say: If it's really that bad, why aren't they in prison?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:01 p.m. CST

    "Terrorism" is not always wrong

    by Omegaman

    if youre attacking an oppressive, murderous government, and not killing innocents. I don't know how much care V does to avoid that cause I havent read the novel though. But thats the whole problem with this "war on terror" idea, were not at war with teror, thats just the method employed, were at war with Islamist fanatics. But anyhow, I can't wait for this movie, I knew this would be great, and now everybody is raving about it - except the author lol. But this is the kind of story and hero that gets me fired up, somebody fighting a tyrannical government that has taken away freedom and is treating its people like shit. This should really touch a nerve with audiences, I predict a surprise huge hit.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:01 p.m. CST

    What Park should do next...

    by Christopher3

    "South Park The Movie 2: Scott Tenorman Must Die!"

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:03 p.m. CST

    "We chose safety over freedom. And we

    by jorson2

    Interesting how so many people are saying we are sacrificing freedoms for safety under the Bush Administration, but they never really get into the specifics of which freedoms arre gone. Most of the V review I agree with, particularly about the terrorism tactics, but regarding the REAL WORLD exactly which freedoms have we sacrificed?

  • I didn't realize they were going to release the film in Cuba, the Middle East, and several specific-but-whose-names-currently-escape-me countries in Africa?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:04 p.m. CST

    army of anarchists

    by Eric Kurth

    chrth - What's been said to be the final scene, people rallying around V by wearing Guy Fawkes masks and smashing stuff. There were set photos that pretty much verified this. I was paraphrasing Rich Johnston's quip on the matter. Ummm... Here it is: "The reviewer [the AICN script reviewer] also reports that at the movie's denouement, the crowd all wear V's mask. Because nothing says anarchy better than dressing up in the same uniform." Basically, the reports I'd heard about the film before all these reviews were indicating that V had been softened to merely the ghost of Guy Fawkes, out for revenge against a nasty government, with little in the way of actual Anarchy being espoused. But these reviews are saying that the film stays true to the spirit of the book. So! Some textual support would be awesome.

  • The first thing I'd remove is the ability to anonymously criticize the government in a public forum. Hmmm. Whoops, gotta go, I have to go be oppressed ...

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Thanks for that bit of info, Eric

    by chrth

    ...I may have to go search for the original script review. The idea of there being an army of V is not very palatable to me.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    P.S. "V" would make a good double-feature with...

    by Christopher3

    Apted's "1984." Weird that John Hurt, the erstwhile Winston Smith, is now playing a Big Brotherish character.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Wait! Kong dies?!! How about a fucking spoiler warning!!

    by Hail

    Just kidding. I didn't see someone say this earlier, so I thought I'd be the fucker to do so. And it sounds like Kong's needing a little more cowbell ;)

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Anarchy bleh.

    by Shaner Jedi

    Minarchy yeah.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Jorson and the freedoms long gone

    by Massawyrm 1

    Here's just a short list off of the top of my head. First and foremost, as a smoker, the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it. Not allowed anymore. Nail clippers are gone as well. How about the freedom of speech and the right of redress from our government. Anytime Bush shows up anywhere, any protesters are funneled off to a "Protest Zone" which is always out of sight of the Presidents route. How about the freedom to check out books from the library without the government being able to know what we're reading. Lost that for awhile and got it back against the Administrations wishes. How about the right of due process. Why are we holding people indefinately without so much as being charged. These are just a handful of freedoms we've lost. There are more.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:13 p.m. CST

    V and why America is better than Nazi Germany

    by MajorOcelot

    I saw the trailer a while back and didn't really know what it was about despite it looking cool, but I am definitely very excited now especially if it bashes any new network. News nowadays is unbelievably gay. I can't watch "serious" news because it make me physically feel pain. Someone needs to tell them to drop that non-regional diction crap it is a joke. Also, Swarmy, I really hope that statement is just meant to be funny because, man, if it isn't you are truly brainless. America may be in kind of a slump leader-wise, but let me go out on a limb and say Nazi Germany was way worse. I hope I didn't offend anybody with that radical statement.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:21 p.m. CST

    "regarding the REAL WORLD exactly which freedoms have we sacrifi

    by minderbinder

    I'm not real crazy about the government being able to secretly investigate whoever they want for no reason, track private citizens' purchases and library use, etc. Call me crazy, but the less the government interferes in my life, the better.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Well, the US has turned its back on habeus corpus. That'll

    by FluffyUnbound

    And then there's the fact that the authorities can now do warrantless searches without prior or posterior notice, which means that the 4th Amendment is gone. Oh, and then there's that little thing where we maintain secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe. "Oh, but no American citizens were sent there - just non-citizens!" Well, since they're SECRET prisons, how do we know that? How would we know it, on an ongoing basis? I take it that there are people here who won't think that any freedom has been lost until and unless the point is reached where their own fat asses are hauled out of the mall food court, but your casual enjoyment of your freedom is predicated on a broad set of principles and precedents that are all under attack. Don't worry, we'll wake you when your online porn and drive-through tacos are threatened. // With regard to the Voice, I don't think his murder was vengeance. Isn't the point made that V is killing everyone who could identify him from the camp, to make sure his identity will remain secret? Isn't it described as "clearing the ground", at one point? I still think the Voice would have bought it, but if he wasn't in a position to know who V was he might not have bought it FIRST. That being said, taking out the Voice first was also convenient for V in strategic terms, so having the Voice be at the camp worked out nicely for him, didn't it?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:22 p.m. CST

    The Wachowskis never said anything about Moore loving it.

    by Prankster

    That was Joel Silver. He's an action movie producer--not known for their subtlety and discretion. I don't want to sound like an "insider asshole" but I did talk to a guy at Comic-con who knew Moore somewhat and said that his supposed hatred of the script had been blown out of proportion. Mostly, he's a private guy who doesn't like being put in the spotlight, which is what Silver did, hence his negative reaction. As for the whole "Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks aren't in jail, are they?" discussion, I agree it's stupid to paint that kind of level of restrictiveness existing in the US...because it blinds people to what's really going on. It's certainly true that the Bush administration isn't pulling people off the streets and locking them up for speaking their mind. It is locking people up and torturing them with little evidence, but those are all brown people who wear turbans, so who cares, right?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:22 p.m. CST

    chrth

    by Omegaman

    You automatically assume Im some kind of leftist or something criticising Bush, and America I guess. Nothing could be farther from the truth, well not as far from Bush heh, but America is the freest country probably ever. I don't want to sound too much like a jingoist, flag-waver... but Im as patriotic about as anyone. Those countries you mentioned are what I mean by tyrannical. You are too knee-jerk, just like 'liberals' can be. That's the only way I can mke sense of your post.

  • except to say this: I love how "the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it" was first on the list. Due process? Meh ... I NEED A SMOKE!!! ... seriously though, when could you ever smoke when you got off a plane? All the airports I've been through were non-smoking between the gate and baggage claim.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Omegaman

    by chrth

    I'm just confused by who you expected to have a nerve touched: as someone else said, countries that have a legitimate fear by the content of this film aren't going to allow the film to air in the first place. The only nerves that can possibly be touched are those who already have an overreaction to the current state of things in the West. (And for the record, in case anyone cares, I'm a Libertarian, not a wingnut)

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Mass

    by Shaner Jedi

    First and foremost, as a smoker, the freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it. Not allowed anymore. Nail clippers are gone as well. Actually the TSA announced last week they're relaxing restrictions on sharp objects now. You can carry some objects previously forbidden.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Fluffy (re the Voice)

    by chrth

    It actually bothers me that the Voice was at the camp. I guess I just have a hard time reconciling the contradictory image: it'd be like Walter Cronkite running guns during the Spanish Civil War (sorry, couldn't come up with a better analogy on such a short notice). ... The problem with "clearing the ground" is that it creates a pattern by which to identify V. If V's purpose is to remain hidden, the mask should be enough. If anarchy is his primary mission, he has jeopardized it by the emphasis placed on vengeance. And if anarchy isn't his primary motive, then what compelling reason does he give us to agree with his actions? Yes, the government had done some shitty things. But I'm more interested in a V taking action against *current* problems (like he does by rescuing Evey) than in avenging past sins. And if one focuses on the latter over the former, then they're not a revolutionary (unless accidentally), they're just a vigilante.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:35 p.m. CST

    You shouldn't need to be living under tyranny

    by Omegaman

    currently for it "to touch a nerve". It should because of our past and how we had to fight for our freedom, that goes for other countries too, other western style democracies. And it should also touch a nerve because of World War II. Im sure thats why Natalie Portman made the movie. She's not living under the Nazis now, but the story still touches her emotionally. We do need to be careful though not to give away our freedoms because of a "war on terror" that is true as well. Im surprised that as a libertarian you don't take that more seriously.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I hear your pain

    by flossygomez

    I understand your confusion at people that love King Kong, I've never really understood it myself. It's just another beauty and the beast rehash. I'm going to Kong for the spectacle of it all, expecting to be caught up in the pathos of the storyline and simultaneously rolling my eyes as I did during the whole ET phenomona. I will go see it in the theater once, maybe twice if I like the action scenes on the island. But as far as monsters go, King Kong never thrilled me. I have high hopes for V for Vendetta despite the fact that the Wachowskis really screwed the pooch (script) on the Matrix series. At the very least, it's the funnest trailer I've seen in quite awhile.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Re:I didn't realize they were going to release the film in C

    by El Scorcho

    Nicely done.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:44 p.m. CST

    The problem with being a libertarian

    by chrth

    Is that I think a lot of stuff shouldn't be impacted by the government in the first place. It's seems silly to me to argue against the government being able to track your library borrowing when public libraries are funded and supported by the government. Do I think libraries should exist? Heck yeah. But it's like work email. The company is providing you with an email account, it has a right to that email. Well, the government is providing you with that library card, it has a right to the information on the library card. Now, there is a local vs state vs federal aspect to it, but let's face it: most of the criticisms directed at the government are the results of INCREMENTAL restrictions, not full bore new ones. That's why a lot of people don't care: the increment isn't large enough for them to notice or to feel the effect. It's like gas prices. Someone who fills up his tank 3 times a week is going to notice a two-cent increase at the pump a lot more readily than someone who fills up his tank every two weeks. Sorry, I'm digressing. My point is: plenty of freedoms have already been sacrificed to the government long before 9/11 ... and not many people want to roll back to 1928.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Chrth

    by FluffyUnbound

    Well, I think Moore uses the convenient artifice of having the set of people who ran the camp and the set of people who currently run the state largely overlap. I think he does this largely for plot convenience, but also because it has the effect of truncating the state. The real problem you'd have in launching an anarchistic campaign against a modern state is that modern states are hydras with incredibly deep organizations. You kill ten guys, there are a hundred thousand guys behind them in line waiting to step into their shoes. That's part of the reason that the historical anarchistic terrorism problem went away after the first World War - after the monarchies died, the anarchists could no longer delude themselves that they could succeed. When the problem is a king, a bomb seems like an answer. When the problem is a bureaucracy, you're facing a different strategic challenge. But Moore makes HIS state seem like it's made up of about twenty guys. Kill those guys or drive them insane, set them against each other, exploit their own idiosyncratic weaknesses, and POOF! State collapse. Moore makes it seem easy by limiting the number of personalities. As an American, it was easy for me to suspend disbelief as he did so, because naturally to all Americans Britain seems like a tiny little country, not much bigger than London really, where everybody knows everybody else and where one terrorist could probably take the whole lot down.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:47 p.m. CST

    I want to be clear on who I am calling a coward

    by MrCere

    Dear Massa - You said this: "We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at an occupying army." Are you an idiot or did you have a case of it while writing? Comparing the American Revolution to today's terrorists is stupid beyond words. Terrorists aren't taking shots at an occupying army, they are blowing up school children, old ladies and whoever happens to be on a bus. They are killing countrymen and often the terrorists are not from Iraq but from somewhere else. Those that are indigenous were also religious oppressors and killed people who didn't buy into the totalitarian regime. Did the colonials attack mother England and kill random people milling about? I don't recall it. Now, this isn't to say the film has a strong, timely message, just don't drag colonial America into a comparision it doesn't remotely fit. Thanks for the reviews.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:49 p.m. CST

    holy shit, guys, studio ghibli is adapting earthsea into an anim

    by Holodigm

    that really excites me, those books rules. continue flaming.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:51 p.m. CST

    I love shit that's gone to piss off the Right...

    by Lost Skeleton

    ...cuz it is so damn easy to do nowadays! Go V go! I am looking forward to King Kong anyway but Massa may be right. I love Titantic...flaws and all...but it does have a lot of them. But great movies with commercial success are easy to tear apart. I can't wait for V man.

  • People in this country are not being killed for hints of disloyalty only to have their ashes returned to their families. We don't have to walk around in fear in the streets. The Bush Administration and their business cohorts have taken advantage of this country time and time again in the most blatant ways and then lie to our faces about it, but I can tell everyone on the street they're a bunch of cocksucking motherfucking assholes and i'll still be alive without a scratch on me tomorrow. That is a luxury, yes a luxury, that we have that hardly anyone else in the world can claim, and certainly not the people that lived in Nazi Germany. Think before you speak, write, or act.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Fluffy, that's a great post

    by chrth

    I've been working towards that idea with V, and you're 100% correct. It brings up the question: how do you overthrow a bureaucracy? Have you read Player Piano by Vonnegut? It has a similar theme (although, being from the 50s, is dated). For me, I was able

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:02 p.m. CST

    (post continued)

    by chrth

    to suspend disbelief because of the war/depression. I can see a situation where enough is going wrong that a small cabal is able to take control. Did you know that the United States constitution has only instituted Checks and Balances at the body level, not the individual level? In other words, nothing in the constitution prevents someone from being simultaneously the President, the Chief Justice, and the Speaker of the House. Far-fetched scenario, yes, but it's happened before historically ... so that means it can happen again. Sorry, I'm digressing again.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Conservatives Will LOVE This Movie

    by Ill Clinton

    The themes in this movie are right up a conservative's alley. I loved the comic, I'm sure I'll love the movie if it is close to faithful as an adaptation. At the time the source material was written, it was a stinging indictment of the practices of the US Democrats. To a degree, it still is, but funny how some people will see it as applying specifically to the Bush administration. Don't worry, conservatives will be at the theaters if this film is any good.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:16 p.m. CST

    No lighters or nailclippers on airplanes....

    by Lando Griffin

    followed by the holocaust and slavery on the All-time oppressions list. **************************Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ******************** Well last I checked protestors still have the right to assemble and speak. I missed the part of the amendment that specifies where exactly protestors must assemble and who MUST listen to them. Then again what do I know, logic be damned, I'm just a pre-programmed jack booted thug but hell Bush=Hitler and we're all oppressed, only the enlightened know it. Now go about your lives (and by that I mean get in your expensive cars, work your fruitful jobs, type/play/post on your fancy computer with your highspeed internet when you're done go get a $5 latte at Starbucks bitch about how rough you have it/Bush made it, get home turn on your HD tv watch your complete anthology of whatever dvd, order yourself some takeout and before you lay your head on that pillow reflect on how easy those damn jews and blacks had it compared to you - damn the man keeping you down - stop to think who is the man and are you related to him? are you also part of the machine? are you as punk as you think you are? more corporate than you think you are?) nothing to see here.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:29 p.m. CST

    "I was weeping for the film and weeping for my dream, my dream o

    by mocky_puppet

    douche chills.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Liberal Geeks = Faux Stupidity

    by jackburton2003

    They can't even pretend to just be stupid, they have to pretend they're not stupid by making stupid comparisons to shit they don't have the slightest knowledge about. Comparing the American Revolution to today's terrorist. Dear God. Gods like this asshole is the one hiding in his trenches during World War I pissing himself while real men went out to fight.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:47 p.m. CST

    The issue of prohibited items on airplanes is an extremely minor

    by FluffyUnbound

    Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Stand in line. Show your papers. Have your face scanned by biometric devices. Wait to be searched. Don't worry, preferred travelers "with clearance" will soon have SPECIAL papers that will let them wait in a shorter line. Move to the right. Register here. Please report any suspicious activity to the nearest security officer. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. // By the way, the 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing, but the day is coming [and it's coming right damn soon, if we get a McCain Presidency] where it will be a criminal act to walk down to your local radio station and ask to buy air time to run a political ad. And as Mr. Delay's prosecutor knows, "assembly" is just another word for "conspiracy". // Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched. Fit your children with these radio tags. Applications for the new national ID will be taken starting July 5th. Stand in line. Show your papers. Wait to be searched.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Anyone who voluntarily went over the top in WWI was a moron.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Germany was at least as much of a democracy as Great Britain or the United States were. The slogans of WWI were a lie. Britain was at least as responsible for the war as Germany, and the Czar was the most responsible of all. If you died in WWI, you died for nothing. Less than nothing. Eugene Debs was wrong about every single last other thing in his life, but he was right about that. The right thing to do when they blew the whistle for the charge was to turn around and shoot the nearest officer in the face.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Kong is ok, not great

    by holidill

    I saw this last thursday in Baltimore at the Senator theater. First it is too long, at 3 hours 8 minutes it's too long. The actors are good, Kong is amazing, but the story was ok. Plot holes abound, like how will they keep Kong sedated for weeks when it took 6 bottles of chloraform to knock him out, how are they feeding him so he does not die, when Denham left America he had a warrant for his arrest, now he's the toast of the town. The subplot between the castaway they found in the water and the black sailor, they spend a lot of time on it and then it disappears. The beginning moves really slow, Skull island has it's moments but is repitious with the multiple shots of the islanders who disappear after Kong leaves and never return, the dinosaur stampede with Raptors? There were other dinosaurs. IT looked very Jurrasic Park 4 to me. The effects I agree were weak at certain points, especially in wide shots of Kong with Ann in his hands. The last part in New York was very good but the film was just too long. If Peter had done some slicing and dicing to make it maybe a 2 hour movie, or 2 hour 20 minute movie, it may have been perfect. To me, it's just ok.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:05 p.m. CST

    chrth

    by DocPazuzu

    As a librarian (among other things), I can't support your "heck yeah" when it comes to the government having the right to snoop and see what you've been borrowing at the library. First of all, a public library free of government intervention of any kind is (or should be) a fundamental part of every democratic society. Just because they are to a large degree funded by taxes doesn't automatically mean the government should then have the right -- as if they "bought" the library -- to keep tabs on people's reading habits. In the United States, if a book is available for anyone to buy in a bookstore or online, then the purchase or reading of that book can't suddenly be deemed a sign of a person's guilt of anything just because it's convenient for the government. I have both Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and The Turner Diaries among my many books at home. Owning any one of those could easily be construed in a worse-case scenario as "evidence" of either my intent or guilt of something. It's very un-American and an exceedingly dangerous slope to venture down. Besides, the practice of scoping out someone's list of library books is ultimately pointless. "Dangerous" books are routinely read by scholars and the curious. Terrorists could also read the books in the library (or tear out pages) rather than borrow them and leave a trail -- or even make photocopies of relevant pages. What people read proves NOTHING. If certain books actually can be considered "dangerous", then the government should have the courage of their convictions and ban them outright. They won't do this, however, because people would rightly be outraged by the very notion, so they go the "soft" route by obtaining the right to snoop, thus creating grounds for pretext (if they should need to grab someone) and lulling the gullible members of the public into a false sense of security. I understand your points, but I just don't subscribe to them.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:05 p.m. CST

    jackburton2003...

    by Shaner Jedi

    ..Mass might've been making more of a tactics used by terrorists similiar to revolutionaries argument rather than saying they shared the same philosophy. Interestingly, guerilla warfare laregly didn't exist in ancient times because the victors would sack the city and either kill the occupants or sell them into slavery. In the case of Rome, burning Carthage wasn't enough. They had to despoil the soil.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:14 p.m. CST

    You're not alone, Mass: I thought KONG was seriously flawed,

    by Film Whisperer

    And mostly because Jackson is genetically incapable of editing anything out. Simply put: too long, too redudundant, too much unnecessary charactor development of supporting characters that went nowhere, the actors get lost (esp. Black and Brody after 90 minutes), CGI that didn't work (I had the same reaction as you re: the dinosaur stampede -- it looked like fake LAND OF THE LOST background work). The only thing that brought it over the top for me was the finale, which is truly spectacular. I actually don't think this will follow TITANIC, in that it won't win 11 Oscars. It's good. Just not great.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:32 p.m. CST

    The Analogy is Valid

    by Southpaw Samurai

    Shaner Jedi's point that Mass was probably making an analogy of methods rather than philosophy or motivation is very valid. Anyone who wants to deny how uncivilized (especially for standards of the day) and savage the American Revolutionaries could be really does need to go back and read accounts from various sides of the war and walk away with a bit more objective view of what happened. Read letters from French soldiers who came to support people who's ideals seemed so interesting and noble, but who sometimes acted completely opposite. Read journals from British officers who witnessed what felt like pure barbarism as Tory loyalists would lynch pro-revolutionary folk and their families and how then revolutionists would savagely mutilate Tory families and burn their homes. From that perspective you WILL see what our soldiers see in Iraq, wondering if there's any point to helping people who seem hell bent on just killing each other. You'll see how both soldiers of 'First World' countries lived in fear of being randomly attacked or sniped by an enemy they couldn't identify or easily find. How their spirits were assaulted as they knew popularity for the war they were stuck in was dwindling at home and there was no clear path to a final victory. And you'll understand where Massawyrm and the others are coming from. It IS a similar story, whether you are pro or anti the current situation, it's just difficult to see it from the opposite side of the coin.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Southpaw...

    by Shaner Jedi

    ...and like many "insurgencies", the revolutionaries were never the majority. They were always outnumbered(until the french came along), lacked enough manpower, lacked a real navy. That's why they could never really meet the redcoats face to face on the opne battlefield. So they had to adopt hit and run tactics(after Concord),sabotage, hyping and mythologizing of events(Boston Massacre) to make them seem worse than they were(Paul revere's drawing, with the evil, snidely-whiplash redcoats, did alot for this), and help from outsiders: indians and the french.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Must see "Vendetta" NOW!

    by jrbarker

    I can't wait.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Finally

    by Joshua D. Terry

    A voice of reason and objectivity on Kong. Fetish is quite the right word.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Waitaminute... Isn't "V" in England?

    by MondoGundark

    1st of all, to make it relevant to Americans, shouldn't they have rewritten it to take place in the US? Everyone knows we can't identify with non-American actors. And...a...mask? You don't see Iraqi insurgents wearing masks...you didn't see people in Compton wearing masks during the L.A. riots... And another thing, I don't buy the idea of an intellectual revolutionary leading today's crowd. They shoulda made "V" a TV-friendly charismatic guy who gets his mindless followers do his dirty work...kinda like Regis Philbin, or Howard Stern...then again, today's rabble wouldn't get off the couch unless the house was on fire. Shaken AND stirred! CAPITAL LETTERS!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:55 p.m. CST

    The Descent

    by Rowley Birkin QC

    Massawyrm is right about The Descent. It's an awful movie, and cheap looking, as cheap-looking as a season 1 episode of The X-Files. The lamest thing in the movie is not the derivative gangle creature, but the "tough" Irish girl, played by Nora Jane Noone as a groan-inducing Dolores O' Riordan stereotype.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Agree with Massa and most of the people on this board who have a

    by Doc_McCoy

    Good, not great. It's an incredible spectacle with many amazing moments, but it's full of problems. And yes, it's a *huge* problem that most shots that mix creature CGI f/x with human characters look *awful*. But I still liked it overall. The Kong vs. T-Rex fight alone is worth the price of admissions. By the way, V IS FOR VENDETTA can't get here fast enough.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:14 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I love that story from the Revolution...

    by Frisco

    ...where General Washington had a flunky strap a bunch of explosives to a teenager with Down Syndrome and forced the kid to walk into a school and a splode himself. Hoo boy, what a great moment from our Founding Fathers! I guess it's true what they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Frickin' tool, Massawyrm.

  • Nope. We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at innocent civilians and non-combatants. Say, for instance, oh, I don't know, let's say a wedding party of innocent Muslims. Dressing in street clothes and blowing up a wedding party. Yep. That's a low-life coward. Attacking soldiers? Not at all. Not really. In point of fact, paint it how you will, last time that I checked those who attacked soldiers while dressed in street clothes were called "insurgents." Watched any news programs lately or you just getting your news by Al-Jezeera dispatch? I've got no problem with standing up to totalitarian regimes and fighting against tyranny and those who would curtail our God-given freedoms. Count me then as a revolutionary. My problem comes in two parts. One part involves the methods of the "fighting back." Blowing up an underground of innocents is no act of courage and lumps the "freedom fighters" in the same batch as those they oppose - as a group willing to sacrifice the individual for the greater good. "Yeah, yeah," they say. "This will motivate the domesticated populace!" Well, fuck that. You're no better than the totalitarians you fight. My second problem is in the equating of a political enemy with the evil totalitarian regimes you claim to despise (while adopting their means, of course). The constant battle in Western civilization between freedom and restriction is age-old and count me in the middle. In times of peace, freedom expands and the rights of the individual take precedent. But during times of war, liberties are curtailed in some small regards to better fight a battle against an ideology that wouldn curtail those liberties not for a time, but for all time. When the battle is won and the conflict resolved, the pendulum again swings back for greater freedoms. I find repugnant those who equate Western democracies and their leaders (Bush, Blair, Chirac) with the totalitarian thugs who would completely and whole-heartedly end any idea of Western freedom. Yes, remain vigilant. Yes, contest the line between freedom and necessary restriction, but you do yourself and your cause a great disservice by resorting to these outrageous and ridiculous comparisons. And, if you think that your comparisons are true and right, then why spend so much time in these Western democracies. Why not spend some time with your freedom-loving brethren in Somalia and Iraq? Put your money where your mouth is.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:14 p.m. CST

    P.S. Outside the topsy-turvy political world of Bill Maher...

    by StrangeCo

    What the hell is the point of those who "support our troops" spending so much time defending the bravery of those forthright souls who blow up innocent women and children at a wedding party or standing in line for a school bus. The point is not their bravery or cowardice. It is the ideas and ideals for which they exercise their "bravery." Some of the bravest bastards in the world went to war to conquer Europe and flash-fry Jews. Why don't you spend some time defending the bravery of the Nazis? Bravery, like diamands and black gold, is a commodity. It can be used to service any idea or ideal. It is the ideas and ideals that are the problem. Spend so much time defending the "bravery" of those devoted to your extinction and you're no better than those who you say went to war for another commodity - oil.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Dumbass! Misspelled "diamonds."

    by StrangeCo

    You get the point though.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Ted Bundy was hella brave, too

    by StrangeCo

    Entering that sorority house FULL of athletic young women with only a tree branch to protect himself as he raped and murdered from room to room in the dead of night. Oh, the pinnacle of bravery, he! You see, sir, it is the purpose to which one applies one's bravery, not the commodity itself.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:57 p.m. CST

    I think you're confusing Ted Bundy with a different mass mur

    by FluffyUnbound

    Bundy killed his victims in secret, one at a time. I can't remember the name of the guy you're thinking of - although I do think I saw him on TV a few years ago; he went gay in prison and videotapes surfaced of him taunting the camera that he partied more inside prison than he ever had on the outside. Can't remember the guy's name, though. Maybe it was Speck or something like that?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Massawyrm 1, there is no bigger tool than a political tool

    by StrangeCo

    "The freedom to carry a lighter on my person on a plane so that I can have a cigarette when I step off of it." Are you fucking kidding me? For real? Dude, you are seriously fucking lost in some crazed la-la land. Oh, the humanity! Bush has curtailed my freedom to carry a lighter on an airplane. Not a peep from this political idiot about the freedom that is curtailed on the other side by restricting the right to light up anywhere you want (witness the Democrats and trial lawyers war on smoking and "big tobacco"). Nope, only Bush stopped me from lighting up after I get off the plane 'cause, boy, if it wasn't for him I know that them there Democrats would let me blaze cigarettes wherever I wanted. Yeah, let freedom ring! "How about the freedom of speech and the right of redress from our government. Anytime Bush shows up anywhere, any protesters are funneled off to a "Protest Zone" which is always out of sight of the Presidents route." Ah, the beautiful joy of ignorance! First, this has gone on to some degree with every president for years! I love how with political awakening comes the realization of inequities and unfairness, but only during the reign of the president during the time of our awakening. Ever been to Crawford, Texas, massa-political commentator? Two routes to Bushy's ranch. Both covered by protesters of the Cindy Sheehan variety. I guess their freedom not to show up in his breakfast nook was curtailed. Remember a dude named Clinton? He was a Democrat defender of all rightness and freedom. How many crazed protestors showed up at his speeches? Few, my good man. Few. That's to protect the president (no matter what his political affiliation) from the tender ministrations of those idiots who fall for your faulty and flawed arguments, those who believe that the other party is the source of all evil in the universe, those ignore evidence and plain, old logic. "How about the freedom to check out books from the library without the government being able to know what we're reading." Where the fuck did that "freedom" come from? Is that the same "freedom" as the one for me to be a Peeping Tom and check out your mom or your sister without the government arresting me? "How about the right of due process?" How about it, genius? I'm not writing this to you in prison, am I? You seem to be whole-heartedly against an "evil" administration devoted to world domination, yet somehow you've magically escaped scrutiny and incarceration by jackbooted thugs. What a miracle! "Why are we holding people indefinately without so much as being charged." Maybe this will answer it for you. I'll try to go slowly so that you can pick it up. Say what you want or will about Tookie Williams it took 25 years and millions of dollars to exercise the will of the state (and the people) against this American citizen. The West is currently fighting a war against a minority (let's say) of extremists in a religion that accounts for more than one billion people. So if the extremists are just one our of one thousand of this Muslims that means that we're fighting a war against potentially one million enemy. Did you support giving legal representation to every Nazi defeated in WWII? Would that have been fair to you? We'd still be trying the dying Nazis. Offering "adequate legal representation" to enemy combatants who think it brave to blow up wedding party or a line of schoolchildren waiting for a bus is simply ignorant. "These are just a handful of freedoms we've lost. There are more," you say. Please name them 'cause I've yet to hear the one that I can do without in order to preserve the bigger picture. Do you often enjoy a seven-course meal and forgo eating for weeks? No? Why not? Because you sacrifice the greater freedom and joy (the seven-course meal) for the "luxury" of those smaller freedom and joys (eating for weeks). It's a simple analogy and one even you should understand. I've noticed you didn't mention any "freedom" curtailed by Democrats. I guess that's because Democrats like FDR and LBJ never curtailed freedom. That leads me to believe that you're simply a hack and nowhere near the "free-thinker" that you claim to be. Be for freedom! That's cool. Take a moment to realize that your enemy is not a Republican president or a Democrat congress who deny broad freedom for a short time. It's an ideology espoused by a vocal minority of a large religion who would deny you ALL FREEDOM for ALL TIME. Where are your posts against this ideology? A deafing silence.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:13 p.m. CST

    If America was rich with oil...

    by Rant Breath

    and another, more powerful country invaded us to change our laws and leadership, those who fought against the invading army would be considered HEROES. Never mind, go back to watching the Fox news version of human history.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:18 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by StrangeCo

    Nope. It was Bundy. After bravely escaping the authorities in Colorado during his trial, he bravely traveled to Florida where he bravely changed his name and bravely tried to blend in with a university population. Unfortunately, though he bravely tried to fight to fight the demons that drove him, he bravely picked up a tree branch and bravely entered a sorority in the dead of night to bravely go from room to room, bravely murdering and raping like our brave enemies half a world away in Iraq. It is for this crime that he was tried and ultimately convicted, bravely meeting his end in the electric chair in Florida. Again, bravery is a commodity exercised by men in the service of certain ideas and ideals. It is the ideas and ideals we fight, not the commodity.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:22 p.m. CST

    Rant Breath

    by StrangeCo

    I get my news from a variety of national and international sources and think about them. Unlike you, it seems. Where are your protests against the wars in Bosnia and Haiti, sir? How about Clinton's bombing of Iraq at multiple points? How about his call for regime change? Your equating a Western democracy with a Middle Eastern totalitarian dictatorship reveals your own lack of insight and depth. Go join your freedom fighting brothers against the Western imperialists, sir! Put your money where your mouth is.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:26 p.m. CST

    P.S. Rant Breath

    by StrangeCo

    Our discussion was not about the invasion of Iraq, but the larger war on terror against "brave" terrorists. If, sir, your analogy holds and America is not "HEROES," why don't you become one yourself by bravely blowing up a nearby American elementary school or wedding party of collaborators to strike a blow for the "HEROES" in Iraq?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:26 p.m. CST

    China has the internet

    by Evil_Twin

    Does censorship mean that much any more when anybody, with a little patience, can bootleg just about any movie off the internet? You just know that there are going to be $5 bootlegs all over Hong Kong days after V is released. The reaction from both the left and right in this country is bound to be overblown, but what happens overseas is potentially the most interesting story about the release of V.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Amen, Evil Twin!

    by StrangeCo

    Political hacks and partisan firebrands on both sides of the aisle in this country will natter at will. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the implications for this flick in REAL TOTALITARIAN REGIMES not these straw men created to garner votes and political power for partisan hacks. This subtlety will be lost on those who claim censorship is my not being allowed to say anything that I want to say, anytime I want to say it, anywhere I want to say it, including with your money. Read a book, people! Learn something more than the latest "talking point" from your political party whatever that may be. Learn, question and think then draw your conclusions! Be free where it counts most of all - in your thoughts! One may possess all the physical freedoms in heaven and earth, but if you're not mentally free then you're never truly free at all.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:55 p.m. CST

    V for Vagina

    by admkirk

    StrangeCo, I don't think the conservatives on this site do much research unless you consider listening to right-wing radio, watching Fox News and, well, watching the mainstream media. As for the liberals, well, I just don't see where they are. For all the rhetoric that the conservatives use about bashing liberals and how liberals are in control of everything, I see very few people actually declaring themselves "liberal" and even less people in power in this country who could be called "liberal". Right now, America is more conservative than it has been probably since FDR. For much of the 20th century, being a liberal was a good thing. Liberals were fighting for the New Deal, Civil Rights, Women's rights, end to segregation, medicare, medicaid. Now, liberals are the devil. Liberals hate America. Liberals are the enemy. They have no morals, no patriotism. When you start to see a country act irrationally like this and abandon one political philosophy that has been working in favor of one that has been counter-productive, that is the beginning of the end. A democracy is only as good as its people and if we're voting for people who lied us into war, steal our money and swish to create government by religion, well, that is what we deserve.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:25 p.m. CST

    V for Vwha' Happened?!?!

    by StrangeCo

    Same old straw man argument, Adm Kirk. "[L]iberals are the devil. Liberals hate America. Liberals are the enemy. They have no morals, no patriotism." Gee, that's so different than "conservatives are the devil. Conservatives hate America. Conservatives are the enemy." These are really just overblown arguments by BOTH SIDES in order to gain votes and political power. That's not to say that there isn't a grain of truth on both sides. Can't really attack your poltical enemy as a Servant of Xenu, waging Temporal War from the Nnth Dimension and expectant to gain much ground and advance much of a political agenda. Instead, take the other side's real positions, distort them out of all reason, and attribute that to them then watch the votes pour in for four more years of a fat-cat lifestyle. Works for both sides of the aisle. Sure there are differences and sure they need to be debated and fought. But to equate the other sides position with PURE AND TRUE EVIL is silly and counterproductive. You say that to "abandon one political philosophy that has been working in favor of one that has been counter-productive, that is the beginning of the end." What's the one that's been working? Liberalism (as narrowly defined within the broader confines of Western Liberalism - which contains both conservative and liberal streams) and the redistribution of wealth has "been working?" Must be why there's no homeless or poor or child abuse anymore. The "working" of liberalism is a wonder. Next, you say that conservatives "lied us into war, steal our money and swish to create government by religion." You, sir, fall for the same old shit. Sure, be against Republicans or Conservatives or Know-Nothings or Whigs, but know your facts. ALL politicans lie. ALL politicians lie us into war. ALL politicians steal our money - that's called taxation. Do your taxes go away under a "liberal" government? I love how it's "stealing our money" when it's a Republican president while espousing the virtues of Medicare and Medicaid - two programs which "steal our money" to pay for "wars on poverty." No problem with that unwinnable war, I take it. To say that Republicans or Conservatives or Know-Nothings or Whigs would surrender us to a "government of religion" reveals your own failings to the straw man arguments of your obvious intellectual betters - they know just what to say to whip you into line.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Right now, America is more conservative than it has been probabl

    by StrangeCo

    Anybody tell you that FDR was liberal? Thus, the whole New Deal that you praise a few sentences later. "For much of the 20th century, being a liberal was a good thing." Um, that's in hindsight. At the time of the battle for civil rights, being "liberal" was by no means the widely acknowledged "good thing," even by those who supported the end and not the means of liberals. "Liberals were fighting for the New Deal," you say, an income redistribution scheme which did little to end the Great Depression. In fact, it was the World War (which you apparently despise being lied into) that ended the Worldwide Great Depression. As such, the New Deal remains a hotly debated "good thing" to this day. Civil Rights, women's rights, and an end to segregation are all great achievements of liberalism. The problem with liberalism today (the other side might say) is the same problem that you have with Conservatives or Republicans and their war in Iraq, that is to say, a matter of overreaching. Conservatives and Republicans say that the war in Iraq was a matter of "defending America and her freedoms." They even go so far as to present their case to you in those terms, stating that Sadaam Hussein's past behavior represented a danger to America and her people and, thus, according to them, he had to be taken out. Ah, you go to far, you say! To launch a pre-emptive war is wrong! Yet, liberals today ask for "pre-emptive" action on the environment in the form of the Kyoto Protocols because "we can't afford to wait until the danger of global warming is upon us." The bad press is usually on both sides an issue of overreaching. Medicare and Medicaid are two more prime examples of this overreaching. The pendulum swing to the Right that this country witnessed in the 1980s was a direct result of the overreaching and lack of results of the 1960s. Hell, look at it on a smaller scale: in the early 1990s, Clinton sought some form of national health care, right? American people saw it as overreaching and provided him, not with national health care, but a Republican congress. When the majority of the U.S. people see Bush as overreaching (into our freedoms) they'll provide him with a Democrat congress. C'est la vie!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:06 a.m. CST

    Did the Batboys in "Descent" sing from their namesake musical?

    by Lenny Nero

    "Hold me Bat Boy/Touch me Bat Boy/Help me through the niiiiiiight." Don't deny your best inside, Massa.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST

    *Beast* ... Don't deny your BEAST inside.

    by Lenny Nero

    Damn drunk fingers.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Don't know if America is more conservative now,

    by DinoBass

    but it certainly is less intelligent, with all this debate about evolution vs. creation-- er, intelligent design.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:38 a.m. CST

    I went poopy today

    by IAmJack'sUserID

    it was fun

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Couldn't Agree More DinoBass

    by Ill Clinton

    People STILL arguing for evolution is definitely a sign of diminishing intelligence. We are indeed living in dark times my friend.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:01 a.m. CST

    Oh hush, DinoBass and Ill Clinton, both of you.

    by Lenny Nero

    Not the time. Tomorrow, you can go back to this, but for now, I shall have none of it.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:05 a.m. CST

    StrangeCo

    by Massawyrm 1

    You talk about doing research and not being so reactionary, yet your arguments all stem from the point of view that I am a liberal democrat. On the Contrary, I'm a dyed in wool, Traditionally Conservative Republican. 5 minutes of research on this site would have turned that little nugget up. Reread your arguments. They're almost entirely the usual fallacies. Gee, I'm not as free to light up here, but try lighting up in (Country X). The minute I start comparing my freedoms to dictatorships rather than my freedoms in this very country five years from now is the day I put a bullet in my noggin. Now, while you're at it, reread what I said. I am not talking about terrorists who kill innocents, but the men we hear called terrorists every night on the news - who occasionally get the level of respect of being called "Insurgents". These are the terrorists I was referring to. Oh, and legal representation to the nazis? Again with the fallacies. I'm not talking about the guys in camp x-ray, or even camp 6. I'm talking about the provision in the Patriot act, which has been used several times, to detain AMERICAN CITIZENS without so much as charging them or granting them visits by their family or legal representation. You keep slinging your hash, man. Keep twisting the argument by diverting it from what I'm talking about. You may actually convince yourself that you're right. But you're not convincing anyone else.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Comingsoon.net says a new trailer for V is out THURSDAY!

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:30 a.m. CST

    Massawyrm 1, you do some reading yourself

    by StrangeCo

    I never called you a "liberal Democrat." Kinda touchy for a "traditionally Conservative Republican," aren't you? I addressed your points, including the bravery of whomever you point to as "brave" and reiterate to both you and Bill Maher again - who gives a shit how brave people are who blow up wedding parties and schoolchildren. If you are so myopic as to seriously believe that your five year comparison is reasonable and rational, well, sir, I'll send you the bullet myself for you're in for a lifetime of misery in a country where the pendulum swings widely from year to year (witness FDR's internment camps and JFK's war in SE Asia), but never truly abandons freedom. You've obviously been fooled by some philosophy that paints those who blow up busses as brave freedom fighters and your own countrymen as the true threat. By the way, I mentioned Democrats when discussing cigarette smoking and no foreign dictatorship. I find it strangely curious (cough*bullshit*cough) that the model of conservative Republicanism didn't leap at the opportunity to point out the flaws in the Democrat "attack on the freedom to light up anywhere." I addressed exactly what you were talking about. The fault, dear Brutus, is in your lack of specificity while spouting the slogans of a party with whom you don't identify (cough*bullshit*cough).

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:35 a.m. CST

    KONG was great.

    by jrbarker

    I just got back from seeing the midnight show. It was fantastic. Yes, you could see the seams in the Bronto stampede scene. But other than that the fx were great.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Once again, StrangeCo

    by Massawyrm 1

    You've strayed from what I'm talking about. Let me be crystal clear - I NEVER EQUATED THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS WITH BRAVERY NOR WITH OUR TROOPS NOR WITH AMERICANS OF ANY KIND. You, my friend, cannot seem to differentiate between "insurgents" and "terrorists" which was EXACTLY the point I was making. I have no need to attack the Democrats right now, they're doing a fine job embarressing themselves as is. As to not identifying with my party - that's the typical ReRe Right "We're the majority" group think bullshit statement. I do, in fact, identify with my party - just not the current leadership. I Identify with john McCain, Arlen Spectre, Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr. and Colin Powell. Go ahead. Tell me these people aren't republicans. Tell me the beliefs of these men no longer stand. You Tighty Righties, or psudo-cons if you will, may have co-opted the party and even the term conservative itself - but you are not the Party. You are members of it. And you're going to have to deal with the fact that there is a large percentage of us that don't like you or what you stand for - yes...in your own party. There's a reason 10% of Republicans who voted Bush the first time voted Kerry the second.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Let me be crystal clear (for the fiftieth time)

    by StrangeCo

    What does the bravery of terrorists or insurgents have to do with shit? You've yet to answer that. Me? A Tighty Righty? Not hardly, chief. I stand on my own. I look at separate ideas and rank them on based on my own thought processes. Not what I'm fed. I find ideas of value on both sides of the aisle and, depending on the circumstance, support both sides. I stand for individual freedom AND group responsibility. I continue to ask you: where's the Reagan conservatism in your post regarding Bush's curtailing of freedom, a curtailing supported by the Democrats in Congress. See, Bush ain't an emperor, much as he, his supporters, you, or his enemies might think so. He doesn't rule by fiat. There's a little institution called Congress that he must go through to pursue many of the very ideas that you find so heinous. Congress is closely divided with members of both parties. Didn't see you attacking the other side, Conservative Republican though you be. That having been said, where's your comment about the government of religion come from, oh, Conservative Reaganite? Reagan himself courted Conservative Evangelical EXACTLY as much as Bush, if not more. Anyone who claims to be a Conservative Republican and links Arlen Specter, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush doesn't know what he's talking about. Specter, McCain, and Bush (the Elder) are members of the moderate/liberal wing of the Republican party. Reagan was a Righty from way back and so is Bush. Please illustrate to me, the ignorant outsider, the difference in Dubya's policies and those of Ronaldus Maximus. You say "I NEVER EQUATED THE KILLING OF CIVILIANS WITH BRAVERY NOR WITH OUR TROOPS NOR WITH AMERICANS OF ANY KIND" yet own review betrays you. Here are your words: "In this country we have this conceit about terrorism in which we like to forget that we invented the ideals of modern

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5 a.m. CST

    GIVE ME NAIL CLIPPERS ON A JET OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Millions of North Koreans weep for your suffering.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST

    StrangeCo, If You Can't See The Difference Between Bush Jr A

    by Ill Clinton

    I suggest YOU are the one that needs to do some research. Stop repeating the thoughts of other people and be the independent thinker you claim to be.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 8:48 a.m. CST

    StrangeCo posting the same old nonsense.

    by FluffyUnbound

    "Where are your posts against the evil ideology we face?" Nobody despises atavistic Islamic fundamentalism and its rejection of modernity more than me, pal. I was pro-war at the time of the invasion and I am pro-war now [although I am struck dumb at the criminal incompetence this administration has demonstrated in waging the war]. I was so pre-war at the time of the invasion that I loudly and prominently declared the issue of WMD irrelevant; the Hussein regime, as far as I was concerned, had no right to exist, and that meant that any Tom Dick or Harry off the street who wanted to topple that regime had the moral right to do so, WMD or no WMD, sovereignty or no sovereignty, and I held further that a system of international law that served to protect the existence of a regime like Hussein's was morally illegitimate and could be ignored at will. Staking out these positions early has proved itself useful in the last couple of years, believe me. [Again, because of the absolutely ludicrous level of incompetence demonstrated by this administration.] So YES, let's go out and track down evildoers and kill them dead, if they won't come quietly. But you know what? Thinking that we should fight [and kill] our enemies is a lot different than thinking we should torture the enemies we capture or who surrender. It's inexplicable to me that people like you can't see that. It's the same difference - the EXACT same difference - between thinking that we should capture muggers and murderers, and should be willing to use the necessary level of violence to force them to surrender if they don't comply, and thinking that once we catch muggers and murderers, we should assign prison guards to the task of torturing them for fun, or for "information". And here's the problem: posts like yours make it clear that you think that authoritarianism is actually the superior governmental form, and that it's actually the safer and more productive policy. YOU find it inexplicable that I don't fall in line behind you to support "temporary" or "marginal" restrictions in freedoms, and you find it inexplicable that I don't think we're accomplishing anything by setting up a security and surveillance state on our own soil, and you find it inexplicable that I don't think that torturing captives for information is a good idea, "sometimes". This makes it crystal clear that you think that a free society is weak, and foolish, and a "luxury", and something we can only afford once every possible or potential enemy is dead. It makes it crystal clear that you envy regimes that can take these "necessary" and "prudent" actions without the encumbrance of a citizenry that has a voice and that objects to them. You may think I am putting words in your mouth, but I'm not - it's just not possible to draw the conclusions you draw without believing at some level that, "sometimes", repression is both necessary and effective. So to ask us to trust you that your actions are for everybody's good is absurd - you're too stupid to know what everybody's good IS. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that while the pathological security state that has been implemented in the US hasn't made us any materially safer, it has damaged the fabric of the spirit of the nation in innumerable ways. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the generation of children being brought up in this atmosphere is likely to turn out to be a generation of slaves, and your casual certainty that we will "naturally" turn the pendulum back "when the crisis passes" means little or nothing once you've conditioned enough people to subservience. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the position of the United States in the world has been undermined by the existence of Guantanamo more than it could possibly have been undermined by anything the terrorists could do short of a nuclear attack against multiple cities. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that nothing that could possibly have been gained by way of "intelligence" at Abu Ghraib could have helped the war effort as much as the revelations of the abuses there have HURT the war effort. If you weren't stupid, you would realize that the tactics you favor are LOSING THE WAR, BOTH WARS, both the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". We may still win in Iraq, because the upside for Iraqis if a stable and free state can be established there may just be great enough that they will overlook the abuses we engaged in as part of a misguided effort to use oppression to create freedom. But it's a dice roll now, and it didn't have to be, and would not have been, if closet authoritarians had not been in charge.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:09 a.m. CST

    McCere Hasn't Ever Heard Of Native Americans

    by BlankGeneration

    The Indians we slaughtered would have damn sure called us terrorists if that word existed in their language. We didn't kill women and children and random people milling about in the conquest of this country? Riiiiight on, man, preach it to the choir, brother.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:22 a.m. CST

    What True Patriotism Is

    by BlankGeneration

    True patriotism requires not only giving law enforcement and military the tools it needs, but also adequately protecting citizens against abuse of that power. And BushCo has shown time and time again their propensity to abuse that power, and in the end, that makes the adminstration's tunnel-visioned pursuit of Islamic zealots unAmerican and unpatriotic. word.

  • Massawrym proves he doesn't even know the DEFINITION of terrorism, yet he chooses to lecture us about politics - typical. The soldiers in the Revolution were not terrorists - they were soldiers, and they fought a soldier's War. Yes, they didn't wear bright Red Coats, but they didn't HAVE them. They lined up on the field of battle and fought the same kind of War that the brits did. Terrorism is the DELIBERATE TARGETTING OF CIVILIANS in order to "terrorize" the population. By defintion, the American Revolutionaries could NOT have committed terrorism, even if they wanted to, as the Brit Civilians were a continent away. Terrorism is people putting bombs on busses and deliberately blowing up little kids - we did no such thing during the Revolution, or even anything close to that. We fought soldiers and we fought them in a stand-up fight.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Dagan?? Stand Up Fight?

    by BlankGeneration

    Not to compare colonists with Old West settlers, but that high horse you are sitting so smugly on is about to stumble over a big pile of dead Apapche babies.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 10:25 a.m. CST

    "The fault, dear Brutus...."

    by occams_razor

    StrangeCo, seriously, who the fuck talks like that?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Who talks like that?

    by greatmoose

    Educated people.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 10:38 a.m. CST

    What will Iraqi children will learn in school 50 years from now?

    by Rant Breath

    That George "Dubya" saved them and gave them democracy or that the American imperialist were expelled by brave patriots(insurgents). I guess as long as the United States has access to Iraq oil in the year 2055, it doesnt matter.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST

    greatmoose

    by occams_razor

    I'm educated too greatmoose but I don't sound like a douchebag when I have a discussion. I really think it's the nature of forums that makes people say things in a way that they would never talk like in an actual spoken conversation.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Yeah, OK, whatever, Occam.

    by FluffyUnbound

    You know what I generally find to be the case with people who appear to have excellent writing skills but who employ a dumbed-down speech pattern? The dumb version is usually the real person. The eloquent written version is usually a put-on. Not always, but most of the time. I don't expect people to speak in perfect paragraphs, but if your writing is full of stylistic flourishes, neat allusions, and literary puns, while none of that comes across in your speech, you're probably a faker. You're either using an existential plagiarist [which would be bad] or you're deliberating hiding your intelligence in your speech [which would be worse]. I guess there are exceptions - the person who is so socially awkward that they're too afraid to speak, or the person who is a great thinker but a stutterer, or the diamond in the rough who philosophizes with the immortals but talks like a Mexican truck driver. There are always exceptions. They don't really change the rule.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Spirited and intelligent discussion?

    by Freakemovie

    ...on a talkback? No way. You guys have impressed me. But then some of you had to go and ruin it by actually believing that comment in the beginning about Hitler being better than Bush was real and not sarcastic. I mean, that's just plain a new level of stupidity. A new high and a new low all in the same talkback.....just to throw my two cents in, by the way, the further left OR right you go, the more stupid you get. Bill O'Reilly=tard. Michael Moore=turd. Moderate all the way! We make up 90% of this country and you never seem to hear from us! Moderate all the way!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound

    by occams_razor

    Don't get your jockies in a wad here buddy. All I am saying is that I am amazed at how many 50 cent words are cashed in when people discuss the color of lighsabers or how realistic the hair looks for a CG creature. I'm not saying these people are dumb, maybe their passion for what they love, that near autistic level of focus on this one certain thing brings out this hidden dictionary in their brains and they can't help but write like that. But I still think saying shit like "The fault, dear Brutus..." doesn't help you convey any point other than you sound like a pretentious douchebag. But, like you, I am just a guy out there on the interweb posting on a movie forum and the only thing that really matters right now is the office christmas luncheon I have to attend in 15 minutes so I can eat for free. Though I do have to ask, why is your name FluffyUnbound? Not a jab mind you, just curious.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Dagan.....

    by Shaner Jedi

    "By defintion, the American Revolutionaries could NOT have committed terrorism, even if they wanted to, as the Brit Civilians were a continent away." Um no, they were British COLONIALS. WTF do you think that means? They were citizens who overthrew their own government: the british colonial assemblies,the crown,the british "occupiers", as they came to be seen as by the sons of liberty, and replaced them with an sovereign confederacy of state republics. Once again, they didn't use the tactics of muslim fundies because they were men from the enlightenment. But they did tar and feather tax british tax collectors, burn tory "sympathizers", and drove many fellow colonials from the colonies via harassment, intimidation, and sabotage.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Why even attack someone for actually using decent English?

    by DocPazuzu

    With all the cretinous, monosyllabic, mouthbreathing fucktards currently shambling through the internet, why in God's name get on someone's balls for using perfectly correct English even if it is a bit too florid for your taste? Why aren't the grammatical heretics and anti-spellers your first targets?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Quick responses then back to work

    by StrangeCo

    Firstly, the "dear Brutus" line was what happens when you post at 3 o'clock in the morning when you have to be at work the next day. Nonetheless, I stand by the reference. Brutus was a Roman Senator (Republican) who claimed to be all about Rome (be a Conservative Republican) while stabbing ol' Caesar, the wildly popular leader of the Romans (Bush), in the back. I think the allusion, apt or hamhanded, should be quite apparent now. Secondly, FluffyUnbound, I think that you've misread me. I've got plenty of criticism for this administration and I don't remember that torture was ever brought up once. I also don't remember authoritarianism being brought up. The discussion was mainly focused around the silly claim that the Bush administration was planning on taking away all civil rights and freedoms in their march to become Emperor while praising the bravery of insurgents, terrorists, or whatever. This guy's evidence was that he couldn't carry a lighter on a plane anymore. Now we all now that the banning of lighters on a plane is solely the responsibility of the Republican party while all righting thinking Democrats have railed against it since the founding of the Republican. (That's why you see so many "smoke-ins" in protest of the Bush administration.) Additionally, literature has widely illustrated that the prohibition of lighters on airplanes is the classic firs tstep on the way to a totalitarian dictatorship. Thank God, we've got Brutus looking out for our best interest and the interests of Rome. I rightly pointed out that this was ludicrous. I am pro-defense, pro-capitalism, anti-tax, pro-civil rights kind of guy. I believe that government is best when it stays the fuck out of our business unless its to protect the citizenry and by "protect" I mean from physical death, not "protecting" us from gay marriage. I don't like to be told what to do by some "authoritarian" any more than the next guy, in fact probably less than most. I don't know where the shit all this torture shit came from, but nice post and, for the most part, I agree with it.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:46 p.m. CST

    DocPazuzu

    by occams_razor

    I wasn't attacking him for using decent english. Decent english conveys a point effectively. His english was all kinds of fine up until the Brutus comment and then he sounded like a pretentious douchebag, something that internet forums have enough of. Now I don't know the guy, don't know what he is like in real life, maybe he is a twat in real life, maybe not, it's kinda hard to get an idea of who someone is on a movie forum. I was just stating my opinion of his word choice. As for using correct grammar and all that jazz, it thrills me to no end to see people writing out complete sentences and having actual thoughts that don't involve "teh" or the idea of something being "gay". Doc, you wanna fight the good fight and try to correct the teeming masses who can't spell? Good luck with that, I think if we ever find away to combine porn and grammar lessons into one program we might have a start. Maybe after enough ass to mouth scenes, the kids would begin to remember what a preposition is.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:50 p.m. CST

    StrangeCo

    by occams_razor

    Hey, I still don't like your word choice but I completely understand the 3 am, "What the fuck?" posts. I've been there before and to an ex-girlfriend on her blog none the less....yeesh.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Wow, could I mistype some more

    by StrangeCo

    That's "we all KNOW that the banning of lighters" and "since the founding of the REPUBLIC." Oh, and I talk EXACTLY like I write (including typos); it's weird. Shit, I gots to work. Fuck, just reread more of what FluffyUnbound had to say and, damn, I've got to respond, but later...

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Reviewer = Asshole

    by Itchy

    I'm sick to fucking death of the idiotic comparisons about what's happening in Iraq and the American fight for independence. The revolutionary war was fought over such radical concepts such as freedom, equality, justice. It was not fought in order to maintain a repressive, barbaric theocracy whose stated purpose is to kill every non-muslim on the face of the planet. And last time I read Democracy in America, I don't recall de Tocqueville reciting with approval how the founding fathers used to strap explosives to their chest and walk into nurseries on orphanages just to cause maximum shock and horror. I hate you jerkoffs who spend a couple of years getting spoonfed the standard liberal pablum at your state schools and then go running to draw parallels between every horrible regime in the history of humankind and the US. Get it straight - the USA is not, will not, and has never been the moral equivalent of Pol Pot, Hitler, Saddam Hussein or any other mass murderer.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:06 p.m. CST

    And another thing ....

    by Itchy

    I hate you because now I probably won't watch the damn movie ... and I really wanted to stare at bald Natalie Portman for a couple hours and imagine rubbing my nutsack on her forehead.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Swarmy...

    by tango fett

    please tell me you are being sarcastic.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Thank GOD there is SOMEONE...

    by tango fett

    ...on this talkback who has some sense. Brownie points, IAmJack'sUserID.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 7:12 p.m. CST

    "The revolutionary war was fought over such radical concepts suc

    by Rant Breath

    Hardly. The Revolutionary War was fought to stop King George from taxing the US. Insurgents fight in Iraq to stop President George from taking their oil. I know it's my "American duty" to demonize the insurgancy but I refuse to be a complete tool.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Is enslaving people for hundred of years and nearly wiping out N

    by Rant Breath

    the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein's rule or is it much much worse?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Once again, Massawyrm writes with his balls, not his brain.

    by Borgnine JR

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Why on earth

    by Pageiv

    Do you assum conservatives dont believe in fighting for liberation? If you ask me the liberals are the ones to group all terrorists in the category of being good when conservatives can see a difference. Last I read the book, V wasnt choppin heads off overweight americans or blowing up kids at a toy give a way. Most conservatives will love this movie (if its close to the book). http://www.geocities.com/pageiv71/Michigan_Partisan.html

  • Dec. 17, 2005, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Massawrym's review of King Kong

    by dastickboy

    Having just watched the film last night I have to say Massa was way off. It sounds like he just wanted to find something to dislike because it is a major event film. I think it's pretty weak to pick out minor flaws in the CG when the major character is such a step forward even from just 2-3 years back (Peter Jackson's own words from his interview with Jonathan Ross). Also no character arcs from the boat were fully realised before hitting Skull Island, the crew COMPLETED their arcs on the island as they wouldn't feature in the rest of the story, and why would they? Sorry Massa, I respect that you put your critique out there and you had the balls to pull out the negatives, I just think you made a much bigger deal of them than was necessary.

  • Dec. 19, 2005, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Americans arguing with one another is like...

    by morgenes25

    a debate between Forrest Gump and George W. Bush. Haha, no wonder your country is gradually losing it's power, and turning into the next Macedonia.

  • Dec. 19, 2005, 1:46 p.m. CST

    It's funny...

    by Childe Roland

    ...and sad to see so many apparently well-prepared and eloquent arguments launched impotently across the bows of the Replublican and Democratic flagships without either side really noticing the few decent points being made. First, the tactics American revolutionaries employed in the 1700s were unorthodox to say the least and were very much like the tactics employed by the insurgents we face in Iraq (as well as the enemy we faced in Vietnam), be they native Iraqis or foreign supporters of those people against what they perceive to be an unjustified invasion (not unlike the French were to the Colonists). American revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from being told how to run their government by the most powerful nation in the world at the time, which was concerned about the resources it would lose favorable access to if the colonists gained their independence. Not so very different than the insurgents in Iraq. Modern terrorists strap bombs to children. The colonists strapped guns and drums to theirs. As for the targeting and murdering of civilians, as a policy I don't believe it was encouraged by the colonists in their war against the British (wouldn't really have been practical, given that the war wasn't fought in England), but soon after it most certainly was encouraged in the former colonists' dealings with the native inhabitants of North America (pioneers of germ warfare, our founding fathers were, when a people not subject to their political rule were sitting on something thaey wanted). But how does any of this really matter to what's going on today? Are we trying to demonstrate how little we've learned from our own history? When examining our freedoms to determine if they are being curtailed, we don't need to look at third or fourth world nations and regimes. All we need to do is look at the constitution. This original contract with America pretty clearly states what we should be able to expect in terms of freedoms. If any of those freedoms are not present, you can bet there's been some curtailment. Bush is not Hitler. That comparison is absurd. As is any comparison of Hussein to Hitler. All three are leaders who made or allowed morally questionable and unquestionably selfish choices to be made by their governments. And all three believed they were acting in the best interests of their people. The War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is entirely different than any military action the previous administration took in that neither of these Middle Eastern incursions were supported by the UN. We were asked to the dance, even, to a certain extent, in the bombings of Iraq under Clinton. So a direct comparison holds no water at all. These are simply facts being presented for clarification and consideration. America has always done exactly what its leaders believed to be in the best interests of its people at the time, but those interests (and, specifically, which people) have always been open to the interpretation of the administrations in power as well as the people who did not agree with those administrations' decisions. It's the way our country "works." But at least those criticizing the current decisions without attempting to compare them to past abuses by the U.S. government ("if you criticize Bush for this, why not go back in time and criticize X for that?") or to abuses by leaders of foreign nations, past or present (I wonder if Hitler knew just how famous he was going to be as the stick by which all future political evil would be measured - and comparisons between the U.S. and Rome are humorous on thousands of levels) are exercising their rights as free-thinking individuals and not trying to make excuses for something they can't support logically or morally. To suggest that anyone who criticizes the current administration should either shut up or go and fight for the other side is asinine beyond words. We are not only free to question the actions of our government, it is our duty as citizens and defenders of a free nation. Any moron can point a gun and shoot what he is told to shoot. It takes a bravery to ask "why?"

  • Dec. 30, 2005, 4:11 a.m. CST

    Yay for Moral Subjectivity! Yay for historical ignorance!

    by aceattorney

    Yay @ the neolibs!