Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Moriarty Remembers, Remembers V FOR VENDETTA!!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

It’s been interesting to sit silently on the sidelines for this one so far, having seen it at Butt-Numb-A-Thon with everyone who rushed here to AICN to sing hosannahs about this “revolutionary” motion picture that would “change the world,” and also paying close attention to the brewing controversy so articulately summed up by a reviewer on the Liberty Film Festival site, who I know has also seen the film.

I haven’t written about it yet because... I just haven’t. Other things took priority. It’s not coming out until March, so it’s not like I missed anything. This past weekend, it finally started screening for the public at WonderCon in San Francisco and at the Berlin Film Festival. That odd dichotomy should say a lot about what kind of film this is. It’ll play well at a serious festival like South by Southwest, certainly, but it’s also perfect for the New York Comic-Con, where it’s showing as well. Publications like THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and VANITY FAIR have flipped for the movie, while VARIETY dismissed it and took the opportunity to fire off a few more shots at the MATRIX trilogy for good measure. Finally, audiences are getting their first chances to decide for themselves what they think about this provocative film from writer/producers Andy and Larry Wachowski, directed by James McTeigue, and adapted (loosely or succinctly, depending on who you talk to) from the work of Alan Moore and David Lloyd.

Before we even begin, I want to address the elephant in the room and say that anyone who thinks this film is just a simplistic attack on conservative America is missing the point. I’m sure that right now, being on one side of the wall or the other in the polemic war that’s been simmering ever since Bush took office must make it incredibly difficult to see something outside the narrow prism of current political metaphor, but not everything that has a political opinion is, in fact, about Bush. There is imagery in this film that refers to our present, but just as much refers to our past and even a hypothetical future.

Alan Moore’s book, and this movie, are larger than any simple direct political targets, though. They are instead a reminder of how fascism works, and if the conservatives in this country are going to get upset about that, then perhaps they need to examine their own agenda. Are you a fascist? No? Well, then the movie’s probably not directly about you. Remember when the source material was written... Margaret Thatcher is a more direct political target in terms of the origins of this story than Bush is. And there are many other real-world parallels that find their way into the film that have nothing to do with any current administration anywhere. And remember... the Wachowskis first started trying to adapt this and get it produced well before Bush took office.

All of that is real world business, stuff that some people will choose to carry into the theater with them, and maybe you’ll even argue that you can’t help but carry that baggage into the theater. I would argue back that anytime you do that, you’re limiting your own ability to enjoy or even understand a film. Yes, THE CRUCIBLE was written as a direct reaction to McCarthy and the Hollywood blacklist, but the reason THE CRUCIBLE will endure is because it’s a potent piece about any situation where mass hysteria and crowd thinking gets out of hand, and will always be accurate in terms of the way people relate. It’s great writing.

The original Alan Moore/David Lloyd book is pretty damn great in its own right. It’s not the best thing Moore ever wrote, and it’s pretty obvious that it’s early in his career. It’s a major turning point for him as an artist, I think. It is to Moore what RUBBER SOUL is to the Beatles. I’m sure there are people who think RUBBER SOUL is their best record, and I’d never argue against it, but I think more people would say SGT. PEPPER or even THE WHITE ALBUM are their masterworks, so maybe it’s WATCHMEN or FROM HELL that you prefer. V FOR VENDETTA works because of how much Moore and Lloyd believe in the world that they’ve created, a fascist England where freedom was traded for a stifling, artificial safety, and because it focuses on particular characters in a particular situation.

Calling the fears that V FOR VENDETTA articulates “left-wing” or “liberal” is rather limiting, and limited. I’m sure no one anywhere ever believes that they would be capable of survival and conformity in a world where fascism is acceptable, the norm. No one wants to believe they’d be capable of having been a “good German” during WWII. No one wants to think they’d allow something like that to happen. But it can. Of course it can. And it has and it will. And that’s why a film like this resonates. This is about the way any monolith that wants to control a nation treats its people, the way they are dehumanized, the way their spirits can be broken, and the way they are treated as less than human by the ruling class. V FOR VENDETTA makes personal that process of dehumanization in such a powerful way that I can’t imagine resisting it. Especially since Evey, the central character in both the book and the film, is brought to vivid life by Natalie Portman, doing arguably her best work since THE PROFESSIONAL.

So. All of that is precursor. Let’s get down to the actual film, and let’s put everything else aside. Let’s put aside comparisons to the book. Let’s put aside real-world politics. Let’s just discuss it as a movie.

As a movie, I think it’s pretty good. I think it’s got moments of greatness, and I think it also misses some of the opportunites that it sets up. Overall, I think it’s a potent piece of SF that fits neatly into a tradition of films like PLANET OF THE APES and THE OMEGA MAN, movies that wear their earnest metaphors on their sleeves, totally obvious. It’s lushly photographed by Adrian Biddle, his last film, and it’s got a great hyper-real look and feel thanks to the production design of Owen Paterson and Martin Walsh’s ultra-slick editing. The score by Dario Marianelli is particularly good, effective and memorable.

What makes the film work, though, isn’t the SF setting or the look or the buckets of money that have obviously been spent on it. Nope. What makes it work is the fact that we have here something that we rarely see in SF films these days... a movie about ideas over action, character over special effects, and emotion over action.

Y’know... like THE MATRIX.

I’m sure there will be a lot of speculation about just how much control the Wachowskis really had over the film, and I’m equally willing to bet we’ll see a whole lot of “McTeigue didn’t really direct this” comments, and this will probably end up being the new POLTERGEIST in terms of a director being disrespected or ignored in favor of the producer, but without actually having been on-set for the whole shoot, it’s kind of hard to say who did what. McTeigue is indeed the credited director, and it’s a really accomplished bit of filmmaking for someone’s first time out. It’s obvious that the creative influence of the Wachowskis can be felt in every frame of the film, and that this is of a piece with their MATRIX films in terms of production value. It feels like the logical next step fro them, and it will fit neatly into their filmographies when people look back at their careers. Many of the things that concern them the most as writers are on display here, and it helps that Hugo Weaving gives voice to V.

There are two performances that have to work if V FOR VENDETTA is going to deliver. The first is Evey, and as I said before, Natalie Portman does really nice work here. I know that James Purefoy was replaced during production, and that Hugo Weaving stepped in to play V. I’m not sure how much of what we see onscreen is Weaving, but the voice is his throughout, and he’s wonderful, commanding and playful and sad and angry in equal measure. He has the incredibly difficult task of never once showing his face, but still having to give a nuanced and subtle performance as a human being, and not just a mask. As with the book, the emotional highlight of the film is an extended sequence in which Evey is captured by the government, held for weeks, and tortured in an effort to get information from her about the identity and location of V. It’s translated to the screen almost word for word from the book, beat for beat, and it’s even more powerful than I expected it to be. It also serves as one of the most succinct and beautiful summations of what torture is meant to do and how it can be withstood that exists in any film.

So why am I not raving about the movie the way many of the BNAT attendees were in December? Why didn’t I make it a part of my “best of the year” list like Harry did?

Because this film is so heavy on the metaphor, there are places where I think it disconnects from real human experience, and that bothered me. I also think it has an easy third act. There’s never really any danger that V will not accomplish his goals, because he seems to be omnipotent and magic, able to do anything, be anywhere, and ignore whatever laws of physics he feels like. There are a few action sequences where there’s a sort of next-step-bullet-time effect that’s used to show the movement of knives through the air that seem unnecessary. This isn’t an action film, and in a way, the few action scenes that are included sort of stop the show cold.

Having said that, I would still recommend this to anyone who wants to see SF treated with respect, or who has wondered when we would finally see a film capture the precise flavor of an Alan Moore book. Even though this film take liberties with the narrative, it works overtime to maintain the same ideas that the book tried to express, and it’s sort of incredible that this is being released by a studio as huge as Warner Bros.

Just remember... conservatives aren’t fascists, and liberals aren’t hippies or pinkos, and it is possible to watch and even enjoy a film that deals with political themes without having to agree with every single idea in it. I don’t think V FOR VENDETTA is going to change the world. I don’t think it’s going to cause any sort of revolution. I don’t think this film will even set off a major debate in the media. I do think that it will provide potent fodder for conversation to anyone who approaches it with an open mind, though, and that alone makes it worthwhile.

I’ve been down with a particularly nasty stomach virus for a little while, so everything I was working on got waylaid. I’m starting to get up and around, so keep your eyes peeled for the real return of the DVD SHELF and some new reviews for both films and, yes, scripts. Also, get ready for a series of special articles and surprises all designed to help celebrate the tenth anniversary of AICN, all starting soon. 2006 is going to be a great year here at the site, and I look forward to sharing it with all of you. Until then...

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Happy Valentines Day AICN

    by John-Locke

    About Bloomin time Drewp, been waiting for your view on things for a while. Cheers.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Thank Xenu for Moriarty!

    by chrth

    FINALLY someone reviews V honestly. Thank you sir.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Drew, I guess the real question is: *spoilers?*

    by chrth

    Is there an army of Vs (or Guys, as the case may be) at the end ... and if so, how much does it suck?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Kelli Kapowski is my Valentine.

    by MasterWhedon

    Who's yours?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:29 p.m. CST

    About The Army

    by drew mcweeny

    It's not really an army. They're just people who come out to hear someone or see something... and it actually does work in the film. I know it's not how the book ends, but taken on its own terms, it's an interesting resolution. The best possible? I'm not so sure. But don't presuppose it to suck. It's a really solid execution of very tricky material.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Thanks Drew

    by chrth

    BTW, I hope Harry doesn't have an aneurysm because you dared to criticize his stupid "greatest cinematic call for anarchy since A Clockwork Orange". Great work.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:33 p.m. CST

    great review

    by Sir Loin

    I agree about the political aspects of films...there can be a balance that makes for terrific debates amongst friends after viewing it. Ain't free speech grand?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    And the vanishing review reappears

    by Meremoth

    Fuck yeah, thats awesome

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:36 p.m. CST


    by conniebrean

    Wasn't this same review already posted a while ago? What's with the new posting?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:42 p.m. CST

    V is liberalism

    by MrD

    in the classic sense of the term. Not what modern Americans think of as "right vs left" liberalism. That's shading within a fairly liberal society. It's a story about freedom vs oppression, man vs the state. It's good to hear that the film doesn't degrade itself by wallowing in contemporary bickering (unlike that Masters of Horror episode, which will age as well as whole milk in the desert sun).

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:48 p.m. CST

    One thing people need to keep in mind

    by chrth

    The Fascist government that emerged to deal with the War probably saved the people of England. The problem is that they used the power gained to first eliminate those who they disagreed with (in whatever way) and then to abuse power. Now, it becomes a discussion on the nature of humans, whether absolute power always corrupt absolutely ... and one has to wonder, if they didn't set up the camps, would a V ever have emerged (speaking archetypically)? England prevails, gentlemen.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:49 p.m. CST

    facism in literature

    by adambalm

    It's kind of sad that they're dumping the nuance of the source material as it sounds they're doing. I don't know if people need to be drilled into the head "FACISM IS BAD FACISM IS BAD FACISM IS BAD!" anymore. The other night I found myself reading Harold Pinter's ultra short play Mountain Language, and the most shocking thing about it was the way it just presented a totalitarian government for what it was. No preaching, no speeches, no people being drug out and shot to slow camera work and sad, sad music. Just the cold, uncaring, and chilling scene of family members trying to visit their loved ones, jailed as political dissidents. It was just 5 pages, but somehow I think it will affect me more than this entire movie once I see it. I dunno..

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:49 p.m. CST

    "remember, remember, the 30th of june...."

    by jig98


  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:49 p.m. CST

    C is for Conservative

    by KCMOSHer

    Oh well, it sounded like a witty title for a talkback. I have to say I'm with Mori on this one. Nothing I have seen so far directly attacks modern conservatives. I have only seen the trailers, but even then I can get where the film is headed. This -may- attack what some liberals believe conservatives to be, I will say that. I know full-well that many libs, especially entertainment industry types, see modern conservatives as nothing less than nazis without swastikas. Fine, I get that, but I know it's absolute bunk. Even if that's the case with the Wachowskis and the V film, I don't see where that should matter to conservatives. I mean, as a conservative in California, I'm pretty accustomed to being treated like the boogeyman. In the end, it doesn't really effect me. You can call me a bigot, a homophobe, a nazi, a fascist, and any other epithet you can imagine. Much as Mori says here, why should that effect me if I know that nothing could be further from the truth? More than anyone, America and American conservatives have stood against fascist, totalitarian regimes worldwide for decades now. Why wouldn't I get my cinematic jollies seeing a regime like that being disassembled by a revolution of the people? I'm looking forward to seeing it, and I just hope that Mori and the fine cats at Liberty aren't wrong, and that there aren't any heavy-handed swipes at America or conservatism as an ideal.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 7:52 p.m. CST

    That's some great reviewin'

    by Dr. Meirschultz

    What I want to know is if some version of that song is in it. You know the song, I don't remember what it's called. The song.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:12 p.m. CST

    "Pretty great..."

    by Bean_

    Referal to your Zone list? :P

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:13 p.m. CST

    The Rubber Soul analogy

    by Rasputin77

    The Beatles Rubber Soul analogy doesn't really work for V for Vendetta. Yes, it came before Watchmen, but it is not a stepping stone to Alan Moore's great later works in the way Rubber Soul is. V for Vendetta is as complete and perfect a graphic novel as Watchmen and From Hell. If you think of V for vendetta as a seperate work and not as part of a larger body of work, it is as perfect (maybe not as ambitious) as the other two, but still perfect none the less. A filmaker screwing up the adaptation of V for Vendetta is just as much a crime as if they screwed up Watchmen. I hope the film is as good as they say, but I am nervous anyway!

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:17 p.m. CST

    that song?

    by DennisMM

    "This Vicious Cabaret"? As it's not been mentioned in any review I've read, I doubt it's in the movie.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    God, that Libertas article's author is blind.

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    He's insane. Doesn't want to see the truth. Look, real Liberals don't follow every party line, as do other rational thinkers. This movie is against Facist thinkers and oppresive governments. Look, no one is saying that we are anywhere near the 4th Reich (or whatever it would be at this point), but we are treading dangerously down that line. The fact that even this right-winger can see the arguments against Bush, whether he agrees with them or not, is just evidence that these things are going on. And as a heterosexual, I had no thought as to the fact that the plague could be an allegory for AIDS, I just assumed that it was a tool to instill fear and complacency in the people.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Norwegian wood was awesome.

    by AwesomeBillFunk

    So does this movie make up for the crime of Matrix Revolutions? Have the Wachowskis pussied out by taking this perhaps less taxing and less risky role of "producer"? Was the reception to the Matirx sequels to much of a burn for them? Or will they actually retake the director's chair in an official way some time soon? Either way this sounds like a good movie, and as long as they are making good movies (as producers or directors), I guess I don't really care.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:24 p.m. CST

    that's funny

    by teddanson37

    " a conservative in California, I'm pretty accustomed to being treated like the boogeyman."--adambalm (above) that's freakin hilarious. but anyway, i've never read the graphic novel and have very little idea what the story is about except what is above and what was in the trailer. after seeing the trailer i didn't even think of what the film might say about a political party but what it says about terrorism. the other day, i was watching an old bond flick that i had watched a billion times in high school. and several times i heard terrorism or terrorists referenced and realised before 9/11 we never really thought or worried about terrorism except in bond flicks and comic books. but now, it's real. so that's the question on my mind. what does this movie say about terrorism? like i said, i know next to nothing about the story. but terrorism comes to mind in the trailer, especially with that "people shouldn't fear their government" line.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Look, this flick is amazing. And if it is revolutionar

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    ...y, it won't be necessarily because people will be thinking about Bush, but it'll be revolutionary because maybe it'll encourage people to pay attention to politics.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Pre-Bush Culture Clash

    by Dave Bowman

    It's been going on longer than the reign of Bush II. It really started to get ugly when the Republicans devoted all their energy to trying to destroy Clinton through any means available. They took the man's low-class habit of being elected as a personal insult.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 9 p.m. CST

    No, not that song

    by Dr. Meirschultz

    I was talking about Tone Loc's "Funky Cold Medina". It seems like the perfect fit.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 9:17 p.m. CST

    " see SF treated with respect"

    by Tubbs Tattsyrup

    That comment alone makes me want to see this movie. That and the "ideas over action" part. Looks fucking fantastic.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 9:28 p.m. CST

    NOTHING can forgive Revolutions

    by performingmonkey

    I know it's pretty pathetic but I still don't think I'm 100% over the ass-rape that was Reloaded and Revolutions. Well, maybe 'ass-rape' is too strong a term. Sorry, I mean it's too LIGHT a description for what the sequels did to my brain. Yes, they ass-raped my brain, as impossible as that sounds. The Matrix was one of those one-offs that we now know should have stayed one-offs but were shit upon by terrible sequels. I'm hoping that Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't turn out to be the latest in that line of movies. Star Wars is a different example because each movie post-Empire got progressively worse. Yes, Menace is the BEST prequel movie, despite my hatred of Jake Lloyd as Anakin. AOTC and ROTS are interchangeable though, but I still feel pissed at ROTS so that takes last place for the moment in my mind. Phantom Menace feels to me like the most fresh and original of the prequels. George was at his most creative here, but then after the backlash over Menace he turned to badly written and forced fanwank and fucking over what he started in Menace. Menace feels most like a Star Wars movie. Anyone who can watch the prequels and think otherwise is an idiot. Anyway, I'm looking forward to V, despite the Wachoffskis' involvement. Maybe they're trying to play down their role a little after the Reloaded/Revolutions backlash?

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    McWeeny Props

    by Mafu

    Thanks, Drew. Excellent review, and I'm glad you explained your problems with the film as well as the elements you thought worked. Even handed reviews always read much better for me than rip-roarin' hate or love fests. That way, I don't go into the film with expectations too high or too low. Just thought I'd point out that I appreciate your equanimity. Can't wait to see this film.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    "Governments should be afraid of their people"

    by Terry_1978

    That line had an associate of mine, who is conservative, look over at me and roll his eyes. While it's true with Mori says, some people will take this movie one way, some will take it the other.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Saw this at BNAT...

    by Vegiterrorist

    I think I'd agree w/ Drew's take on the film: it's pretty good. Not great, not life-changing, but thoughtful and often thought-provoking. I think it'll offer the chance for interesting discussions. It's also my opinion that the film won't make much of a splash at the box office or with critics, though I'm consistently proven wrong about what audiences will go see and what people like ($21 million opening for HOSTEL?!?). You know WB is going to sell it as MATRIX 4, essentially, and it certainly is not that. People who go in expecting action will be mostly disappointed. The friends I saw V FOR VENDETTA with at BNAT had little prior knowledge of the film, and knew only that it was from the Wachowskis; they were disappointed and dismissed it as too "talky". And believe me, these two are no film phillistines who like big dumb movies, they just expected something different than what they got, and you know that will happen to many. Thus, negative word of mouth will sink the movie, I fear. The only way this film will spark controversy is if conservative pundits (who probably won't even bother to see the film) get wind of its content. There's a line in the film where V says something to the effect of "Sometimes you have to blow up buildings to get people's attention," and while the film is arguably partisan in its politics, it's hard to read that line as anything but tacit support and justification of terrorism. And lord knows that if one even suggests that maybe the terrorists have some valid gripes with a government's behavior that might make them want to blow up subways or fly planes into buildings, that person is assaulted as unpatriotic and evil, etc. So I could see the FOX News folks, et. al., having a field day with the latest "Anti-American diatribe from Hollywood." At any rate, the film should play well with the Sci-Fi comic book crowd, but I don't think we're enough to sustain V FOR VENDETTA economically. It's an intelligent movie and definitely worth seeing, but its ultimate place in the sci-fi pantheon remains to be seen.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:19 p.m. CST

    V Is For...

    by Trik

    Mardi Gras Head Guy

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:20 p.m. CST

    "Conservatives aren't fascists"? You're kidding me!

    by The Wrong Guy

    I never knew that! JE-SUS CHRIST! Did you need to say that? Who honestly believes that they are? I don't even think Michael Moore thinks that. Good lord...

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:20 p.m. CST


    by Againtoday

    Is this a blog or a review? GET ON WITH IT!!!

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:41 p.m. CST



    POLTERGIEST DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG... You know its true haters... Not sure if that's a good thing for the bearded man but WTH, its true...

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 10:49 p.m. CST

    V is for Voice

    by Omega Effect

    Thank you sincerely for tempering the increasingly egregious hype surrounding this adaptation. The heavy co-opting of this as the newest, hippest, Anti-Bush screed and moreover, a general call-to-arms against Our Fascist Masters is tiresome and alienating to this devotee of the original comic. The comic is so much more nuanced than that and deserves better. I'm usually forgiving of most adaptations - it's tough enough to translate a screenplay to screen, much less a novel or comic. I'm holding this adaptation closer to the fire, though, because of its potential to communicate to a multiplex audience the hazards of true, according-to-Hoyle Fascism. The real deal, and not the Bad America-du jour decaf slippery slope version that gives night sweats and rectal cramps to whichever political party is not in power. That said, I've really been fearing the filmmakers would take that easy path through - wasting two hours on a thin-as-broth caricature of "these troubled times" to please the choir and pointlessly bait all the sweaty Protheros clogging up my TV, radio, and bandwidth. Your review gives me a little more hope in the alternative.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST


    by blackthought

    thanks for finally giving me a level headed review...just remember, don't race toshiro to be a facist.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST

    I didn't read any of the

    by blackwood

    bullshit above me, because at a glance it's all very familiar. Just wanted to give props for a good review.

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST

    "McTeigue didn

    by Eric79

    Well, the Wachowskis DID direct second unit, uncredited, and supposedly quite a bit more...

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:38 p.m. CST

    V blog

    by disneyr

    there is a very viscious vacuous vindictive blog at

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:43 p.m. CST

    by Rupee88

  • Feb. 14, 2006, 11:45 p.m. CST

    nice little review

    by Rupee88

    I agree with most of what you said, so I must say your review is very wise. The "Rubber Soul" analogy is a good one too. Well, maybe this film will cause more people to check out Alan Moore's work which is always a good thing. He's a giant among ants in the comic writing field.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:03 a.m. CST

    "I know V is not going to cause a revolution"

    by Windowlicker74

    ..???.eh ,no of course not, it's a movie. people won't go rioting in the streets or take over the government.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:24 a.m. CST

    No way I'm gonna pay for a civics lesson from a tranny

    by Silver Shamrock

    Can they still be called the Wachowski brothers? Did andy or was it larry finally get his privates ripped out?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:36 a.m. CST

    So, uh.....Moriarty?

    by MattCG

    How loyal is it to the book? I could really care less about the political debate, I just want to hopefully find an Alan Moore book finally treated decently on film.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Said it before, I'll say it again:

    by Zeke25:17

    ALL THREE of the Matrix movies were terrific. Honestly, I have to wonder what the hell everyone who bashes 2 and 3 was looking for; everything I wanted was certainly there! Good to see the Wachowskis about to kick our asses again; also very glad that Hugo Weaving is the hero for a change!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:46 a.m. CST

    Literally - 957 Words Before the Review...

    by hipcheck13

    ...someone sure likes the sound of his own keyboard.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Matrix Revolutions = b-Side of the US "Help" cassette

    by Dataset

    And the first Matrix is Side 2 of Abbey Road. this seems more like Revolver... really revolutionary.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Hell yeah the Matrix sequels rocked Zeke 25:17

    by castaway

    Finally, after reading all the hate over the Matrix sequels, I read a post that is positive. My mind was blown by both about as much as the first one. I almost think people hate the endings where the hero dies or endings laced with sadness, which can be a shame. Mori, thanks for the very well done and equal paced V For Vendetta review, can't wait to see it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I loved all three of the Matrix Trilogy, too...

    by kintar0

    I'm surprised nobody's brought up Larry Wachowski's cross dressing. Like anyone cares? Paul Thomas Anderson is probably gay, too.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Silver Shamrock already called him a tranny

    by crazyeyezkillah

    but so is George W. Bush.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:49 a.m. CST

    F for Freschetta

    by Shermdawg

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:52 a.m. CST

    Liberal propaganda films lke this are a dime a dozen.

    by acroyear77

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Troll propaganda posts lke this are a dime a dozen

    by Saluki

    Heh... Anyways, the Matrix Trilogy was FANTASTIC. Really made a lot of people turn their heads and pay attention to moviemaking, instead of just going in and forgetting what happened moments after the credits splashed onto the screen. Reloaded & Revolutions weren't better than the first (Reloaded needed less dialogue, Revolutions even moreso), and yet I can't call the first superior. Just different.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Revolutions sucked

    by geek molester

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:39 a.m. CST

    How is this movie provocative?

    by Stollentroll

    Thanks to Moriarty for this honest review! I think a lot of people appreciate that you don't just go with the opinion of some nerds who embrace even the crappiest matrix spin-off... But: how is this movie provocative? From what I've heard, it claims that facismn isn't a good thing. And it shows some poorly designed super hero who stands up to the government. But since the US Government can be called a lot of things but not really "fascist", I don't see this stirring up much controversy. Let's face it: ever since "The passion of christ", controversy sells well at the box office. That's why they want to make it look "controversial". If the Wachowskis came up with something as controversial as Kubricks "Clockwork Orange", I'd even consider to see their movie - but this looks as provocative as "The Lion King".

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:11 a.m. CST

    I is for I AM NUMBER ONE!!!!!! whatever he he

    by IamNumber1

    Anyways, I read the comic book, and I loved it. Very interesting book to read that kept you interested the whole way through. It's funny though, I guess you could call me conservative, but the book (and the movie) seems more like an anti liberal message than an anti conservative one. I mean, what is the extreme side of being conservative? Facism. And what is the extreme side of being liberal? COMMUNISM. I didn't major in politics, but aren't facism and communism basically the same thing? In both states, the people are recognized as a collective that must be controlled for their survival, so why are we trying to take sides here one what the movie (and book) stand for? Anyways, the book was good, the movie looks good, and if anything, this looks to be an anti-government film than anything else. See you at the theaters opening night!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:12 a.m. CST

    I is for I AM NUMBER ONE!!!!!! whatever he he

    by IamNumber1

    Anyways, I read the comic book, and I loved it. Very interesting book to read that kept you interested the whole way through. It's funny though, I guess you could call me conservative, but the book (and the movie) seems more like an anti liberal message than an anti conservative one. I mean, what is the extreme side of being conservative? Facism. And what is the extreme side of being liberal? COMMUNISM. I didn't major in politics, but aren't facism and communism basically the same thing? In both states, the people are recognized as a collective that must be controlled for their survival, so why are we trying to take sides here one what the movie (and book) stand for? Anyways, the book was good, the movie looks good, and if anything, this looks to be an anti-government film than anything else. See you at the theaters opening night!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:59 a.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    ...won't endure. It's crap, and the longer high schools keep it in the curriculum past its "Sell by" date, the more people will notice the smell. Good review by the way.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:15 a.m. CST


    by newc0253

    actually, that was kinda my problem with the original comic. besides the crappy artwork, V is presented for most of the book as smarmy and unbeatable. similarly, too, i thought the original was always a little too heavy-handed in its didacticism - although that's hardly uncommon for most graphic novels. that said, it seems like the best alan moore adaption to date. good review, mori.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:36 a.m. CST

    I used to hate Matrix Revolutions

    by chrth

    I had several strong objections to things that happened in the movie, but when I read into it, I realized that my objections were to sequences that were required to fulfill the philosophical themes of the films. After I was willing to drop my objections for storytelling necessity (you know, like we do for the precision Stormtroopers), I found that Revolutions is a dang good film.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:38 a.m. CST

    BTW, those criticizing Moriarty's intro to his review

    by chrth

    Obviously didn't see all the reviews after BNAT. It was necessary, and I'm glad he did it. It's nice to have at least one level-headed individual on this site.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Excelent Review

    by Brock Samson

    I'm glad Moriarty was able to cut through the hype. And I agree that if it's SF treated with respect, I'll be there opening night. Looking forward to seeing it, actually.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:57 a.m. CST

    I am SO ready for this movie...

    by danowen

    I've never been so psyched for a film since... well, Matrix Reloaded. Nothing to do with the Wachowski's involvement so much, just the fact Alan Moore's brilliant novel looks to have been preserved and given a decent adaptation. Now the only problem is the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen is going to look even lamer, and From Hell even sillier in comparison. Shame, too, as both those movies would have been classic of their genre if the filmmakers had just stuck with Moore's vision. Sigh. We may even be gearing up for the WOTW storyline for LXG's sequel if they hadn't stuffed the first one up! Here's hoping they give Watchmen to the Wachowskis! PLEASE!!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST


    by NuteG

    Hey, he was a 1st AD on the Matrix trilogy and the Star Wars prequel sequels, so it's not as though he's walking into the unknown with directing this.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    B for Bruschetta

    by Barriwhite

    How come they don't release the damned thing? March?? Is that the moment Larry Wacko estimates his boobs will be full-grown?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:13 a.m. CST

    I'm with you on the Matrix flicks, Zeke25:17

    by Trazadone

    I continue to be amazed by the hatred over the Matrix sequels. I mean, aside from a slight pacing problem during the first half of Reloaded, the sequels delivered everything they promised and then some. I've never understood the backlash. I guess there's a certain cohort of talkbackers that are analogous to that cranky old man in every kids' neighborhood (i.e., shaking fist in the air, "You kids get out of my yard!"). I file these talkbackers under, "I intentionally hate any movie that people are looking forward to". Just look at the X-Men 3 talk. There's a certain percentage of cranky old men who have already decided that the film is awful based on a few promotional photographs.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Yeah, sure, the Crucible is crap.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Where's that coming from? I guess you could always replace it in the curriculum with one of the thousand or so teleplays or screenplays that are blatant rip-offs of it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:33 a.m. CST

    Mori - very good job.

    by genro

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:38 a.m. CST

    The Crucible

    by UncleEthan

    Ok. I will refrain from hammering those of you who are going after Miller's "The Crucible" with vulgarity and abuse. One of the beuties of the American Experiment is that we are allowed to be as ignorant and stupid as we wish. Oo-rah. That said...if any of you had the slightest bit of historical insight you would understand that the Salem Witch Trials were the true beginning of America. They laid the templet for what we would become and what we already were. Miller understood this and his work is about more than Mcarthyism. It is about the inate American ability to aspouse freedom on one hand while being so totally insecure and fightened on the other. It is about fear. Fear of the other. Fear of women. Fear of sexuality. Fear of anyone who might be different. Do not forget, dear pilgrims, that one of the first victims of the witch trails was an indian woman. America is about freedom to a point, but our forebearers brought with them the intolerance and fear of the "old country". So went the witch his the basic template of American politics, social interaction, and sadly enough, jurisprudence. Selah.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:39 a.m. CST


    by occams_razor

    I love the guy who says The Crucible won't last because "it's crap". Yeah, when your Buffy fan fic becomes the next great american novel, I'll start to listen to you. As for the Matrix Trilogy, I remember sitting in the theater and laughing out loud along with everyone else at how absurd those movies were. I still think the dialogue is hilarious and is about as tedious as masturbating with steel wool. Now I'll be the first to admit I didn't get that whole architect speech, mostly due to the fact that I kept on screaming "what the fuck happened to this movie?" in my head over and over. Well, that, and I really wanted a cigarette. Now, all that being said, if you like it, rock out. At the end of the day, it's just a movie trilogy starring the guy from Point Break. Oh, and V looks like a rental, but please, if you haven't, go out and read the comic, it's wonderful.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:41 a.m. CST

    What I see from Mori's review...

    by genro

    is an adult. Marriage and fatherhood has given perspective. A realization that *NO FILM* is that important, that earth-shattering. This difference between Drew and Harry is quite stark now.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:52 a.m. CST

    V for Vendetta

    by Phimseto

    I think it's very strange that people consider this a left-wing rallying cry. Someone in an earlier post called this "1984 with a superhero", which it is. What people forget is that Orwell's vision was a critique of the Soviet Union. I find it hard to think that this was an anti-Thatcher piece either, though maybe Moore (at the time or in retrospect) has said it was. Thatcher was hated by Labour for her deregulation and devestment of state control. When I first read "V for Vendetta", it was at a time when I was switching camps from considering myself a conservative more than a leftist. When I read the story, I saw very libertarian themes in it - the corruption of the central state, a docile population who cannot comprehend fighting for themselves and who live in fear at the thought of not being provided for, and most of all the idea of individual rights instead of sacrifice for a misguided idea of greater society. "V" is much closer to "Serenity" in its values than it is to "Farhenheit 9/11". I know that the left in this country (and elsewhere) will rush to embrace this film as a statement against big, bad America, but the truth is a little closer to home for them.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:21 a.m. CST

    see phimesto, you made the mistake...

    by Cameron1

    mori warned against. people on the left aren't commies any more than those on the right are all fascists. The comic was an answer to Thatcher's(*spits*) very hard right britain, but it was about what happens when any government on the left OR the right starts controlling the population thorugh fear and propaganda. The left, certainly the left in America won't find this close to home and I shouldn't imagine large swathes of the american right will find it close to home either.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Another great review by Moriarty compared

    by CurryIce

    to the "I hate liberals so i hate the movie" review by this Road Warrior guy on the "libertyfilmfestival" site. Quite funny that he attacks by repeating again and again how paranoid and fear-mongering the filmmakers (and the Left) are and in the end HE is the one who actually sounds paranoid.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Cinematic fear mongering?

    by gboybama

    Most of you are right on target that there's nothing objectionable about this story. I bet it's a great cautionary tale about surrendering control to big brother. The only thing that leaves a bad taste for me is the fact that the book was released in the Reagan/Thatcher 80's and the movie is released during the post-9/11 Bush administration. The timing in both cases is not coincidental. Each case represents the absolute apex of the left's (unjustified) fear that the right is going to have everyone in mandatory worship service, confiscate their back issues of High Times and put a camera in their bedrooms. Conspiracy theory nonsense.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:54 a.m. CST

    any monolith that wants to control a nation

    by jorson2

    This site frequently warns about Fascism but rarely ever do I see a contributor (outside of the Talkbacks) say even a single negative thing about Communism or Socialism. What makes Fascism so bad is the one thing it has in common with Communism, which is a militarized effort on the part of the government to take and maintain absolute control of its citizenry, to put down internal opposition and, in some instances, to threaten and harass its neighbors of opposite viewpoints in the name of security. Otherwsie, if you want to talk about an oppressive government, talk about Communism, where the citizen has essentially sacrficed control over their own lives in the name of economic "equality" and security.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    another solid review from mori

    by oscarmike

    we love you man

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST

    It's gonna be funny...

    by Orionsangels

    When this movie comes out and doesn't change the world and does OK at the boxoffice. The leftwingers are gonna be bangin their heads against the wall. 'Why didn't people see the light and stand up against government? I don't get it. This movie was the blueprint for that. Come on people. This movie teaches you a lesson. This is what America is headed towards. See we told you Bush was evil. You wouldn't listen. We're the left and we're smarter than those hillibilly rightwingers.' - Dream on, haha!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Wait... the Wachowskis DIDN'T direct this?

    by Spike Fett

    Wow, was I ever misinformed.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST

    MORIARITY - Good review, but you're wrong on one thing

    by Dagan

    Your comment to Conservatives that we shouldn't care if the film isn't REALLY about us is off the mark. Here's why. What if I made a major motion picture that said you beat your wife, and treated the whole thing as some cautionary tale about how you beat your wife and other people shouldn't. And this tale convinced the ignorant out there that you actually do beat your wife, henceforth turning a whole segment of the population against you when you've done nothing wrong. Would you be just fine and dandy with that? You know it isn't true, so as you say, you shouldn't care what it's saying or what it's making others think about you and just enjoy it, right? Or would you want people to know the truth about you? That you absolutely don't beat your wife and that doing so would actually go AGAINST everything you believe? Nobody wants their opponents to paint a false picture about them to those who aren't paying attention. Despite the fact that it's monumentally unfair to try and convince the ignorant of something that's completely untrue about a group, it's more than just that - it's very damaging ot the group itself - Conservatives are a political movement, just like liberals. We believe that our ideas are essential for this country, and the benefit of all, just like liberals do. As a political movement, we are constantly trying to convince those who don't pay much attention of the value of our ideas, in order to get elected and change things for the better - again, just like liberals. It IS a big deal, therefore, when your opponents portray you as Nazis or fasciists when it simply isn't true. No, it doesn't make me believe that about myself, but it can convince many of the ignorant that that's true, and thus hurt what we're trying to accomplish. The sheer pervasiveness of this silly paranoid notion springs everywhere in our popular culture - spewed out by the paranoid left in Hollywood. It's not only unfair and wrong, but it's damaging to our political chances, so of course we have a right to care. I'm getting fed up with Hollywood poking a stick in our eye - I used to be very supportive of everything, but it's now grated me so far that I am becoming less supportive of Hollywood. I go to the movies less now. Hollywood wonders why box office is down? Well quit calling over half of your audience fascists every chance you get and insulting them. Make your political movies - but what about making movies for the other side? Or not being so strident and militant about the political crap ALL THE TIME. I've had enough of it so much that I will miss the Oscars this year for the first time in a long, long time. Because Hollywood, knowing how off-putting its constant political activism is to many Americans, just flipped them the bird by hiring a LEFTIST POLITICAL COMMENTATOR TO HOST THE OSCARS! Unbelievable. They WANT to lose audience, don't they? Well, they're getting their wish - becuase if an Oscar-lover like me has been pushed to this point, I can guarantee you that many others won't bother to watch as well, and Hollywood's slide will continue as long as they keep forgetting their primary mission is to entertain, not preach.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST

    "As a movie. its pretty good."

    by calami-shami

    As a cheese sandwhich...ehhh, not so much.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Wow lets make this film larger than it is...

    by Orionsangels

    This movie teaches us about our past and everything we've done, but mainly it says a current administration sucks ass and we need to do something about it. no it's not about that. It's like a metaphor for what's happening now. no wait it's not. It's bigger than all of us! - I hate hype, especially when it has an angle. It's just a fucking movie!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    re:"It IS a big deal, therefore, when your opponents...

    by Lord Asriel

    ....portray you as Nazis or fascists when it simply isn't true." But this film ISN'T doing that. It isn't saying conservatives are fascists. That was Mori's whole point with his preamble and last paragraph.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    I've always been a "Revolver"-era Beatles fan myself

    by IAmLegolas

    Can't wait for this movie.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Jon Stewart isn't a leftist.

    by Lord Asriel

    Let alone a political commentator. He's a satirist. He makes fun of anyone who is in poewr.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:42 a.m. CST

    I still think all movies based on Alan Moore books....

    by DOGSOUP

    ...are cursed. THE CURSE OF ALAN MOORE!!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Lord Asriel - Yes, that's what it's trying to say

    by Dagan

    It's the CONSERVATIVE government, afterall. And many things are put in there designed to echo the current administration, or at least the way that liberals view the current administration. Such as the signs about "Faith", the fear-mongering over terrorist attacks, etc.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST


    by Lord Asriel

    there's very many things that are "bad" about fascism, not just the one thing it shares with communism.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    John Stewart is certainly a left-wing commentator

    by Dagan

    One only needs to watch the show, and listen to his opinions to know that - his opinions both on and off the show. And he's widely perceived as a left wing commentator in our popular culture - the Oscar committee knew this, which is probably one of the big reasons WHY they hired him in the first place. I like John Stewart fine, even if I disagree with him on so many things. But I think it's yet another stick poked into the eye of over half of the audience by Hollywood - and done on purpose. They don't care that they're losing so much audience, obviously, as they will take any chance they can to evangelize and try to alienate the more-than-half of the country that voted for the other guy. This new "mission" has now superceded their imperative to entertain, and they're paying for it with declining box office.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Have you seen the film Dagan?

    by Lord Asriel

    I haven't as yet so I'm not sure what has been added, but from my understanding it was faithful to the comic. Fear mongering over terrorist attacks isn't exclusively the domain of this administration (if you happen to think they are fear mongering), and Faith has been used to control populations for centuries.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Stewart himself says he isn't a political commentator..

    by Lord Asriel

    ..he's a comedian. And he makes lots of jokes about non republicans also. However obviously his targets are going to be more republican than democrat as they are the ones in power at the moment. His election shows made fun of both candidates equally. Plus with Bush himself you have a goldmine of slips and verbal mistakes.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:06 a.m. CST

    The reason people bring up fascism instead of communism

    by Rant Breath

    In V for Vendetta the bad guys are clearly fascist, not communist. The bad guys are in fact the very definition of fascist. Fascism is a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, rascism, and militarism. The villians of V for Vendetta personify that very definition. Not to say that a political prisoner in North Korea wouldnt be able to relate to V for Vendetta but the book attacks fascism specifically, not communism.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I'm never shocked...

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    when I hear negative reactions to The Matrix sequels. Let's examine the facts: 1. Most people are stupid. 2. Actual UNDERSTANDING of something often leads to the ability to appreciate it. 3. The sequels are much more complex than the first Matrix. So, as you can see, there is no reason to be confused by various negative reactions. They're just stupid and they can't understand it. Hope that helps.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:15 a.m. CST

    I almost forgot to mention...

    by Jar Jar 4 Prez

    that all republicans are cunts and Ronald Reagan is a dead asshole! Thank you and goodnight!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Ah. I see...

    by kingsgambit

    ...the movie, made in the last year, is not a political statement on modern America because it's namesake was written during Thatchers era and the Waichowskis have been trying to get it started before the year Bush came into office. To sum it up then: ultraconservative religious fascists. In modern times. Ruling by fear. Overhyping a national threat. Made by an industry and a group of people who'd love nothing more than to lynch the current White House resident. But it doesn't have anything to do with the current conservatives in office because you said so and to not fall in line with that thinking is narrowminded. Glad you cleared that up for us.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST

    The Daily Show

    by Dagan

    The Daily Show is certainly liberal. Even my most liberal friends gleefully describe the show as "very liberal" to me. Sure, he makes fun of liberals as wel, but no different than a Conservative talk show might make fun of a few Conservatives and a lot of liberals - but you don't see Rush Limbaugh hosting the Oscars now do you? Did you see Stewart's pathetically fawning interview of John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign, where he failed to ask even a single tough question? Joke. And yes, there are many factors for the decline in box office, and Hollywood seems to care about all of them EXCEPT the political alienation of the more-than-half of this country that voted for the other guy. You can only let somebody poke a stick into your eye for so long until you decide to stop supporting what they're doing. And we are bombarded by liberal propaganda in TV and films on a routine basis, with the Conservative side of things never shown. Just look at the Oscar nominees this year. Or look at the fact that Hollywood does such liberal pantywaist things as change the terrorists in the Sum of All Fears from the makes-sense Islamic kind to the no-sense-at-all Neo Nazi kind, who last time I checked weren't blowing up anything but just being a bunch of idiots. Hollywood's liberal bent has become outright agressive recently, and they've even admitted it(look at the latest "Prize Fighters" interview with Spielberg, Clooney, et all.) Conservatives are taking notice and there is a huge backlash against Hollywood by Conservatives. Many people refuse to go see movies anymore as a result of being bashed over the head by Hollywood at every opportunity, with no balance and no relief from the preachiness. This IS a big factor in the box office decline, but Hollywood doesn't even seem to recognize it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    C for Vendetta

    by mlkncheezy

    V for Vendetta is my personal favorite Moore work, because it's not spawned by some other comic book idea. This idea was totally new. As for the conservative's reaction to the movie...why aren't they in church praying for me to convert instead of seeing movies. Not that I don't care about their feelings...well maybe I don't. When the Republicans get souls maybe I'll change my mind.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST


    by Cod Profundity

    hmm, the Daily Show I wouldn't say was specifically liberal, just that it mocks conservatives A LOT more because they are in power. If it was the other way round then Dems would get mocked just as much but for very different things. As for the hollywood point, that's interesting, but the films which make the big money are non political, the more personal movies are indeed very political and very liberal, but that's becuase the people who make those smaller more personal films are liberal. You should be asking WHY hasn't the republican side of Hollywood started making smaller more personal movies with conservative ideas, not lambasting the liberals in hollywood for using their "art" to explore and commentate on modern America (afterall that is what films are supposed to do, they aren't always just to entertain.)

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:50 a.m. CST

    moviemack, dagan

    by occams_razor

    I gotta side with moviemack on this one. People might not like gay cowboy movies or the "hollywood agenda"(I remember the days when it was all coke and hookers) but people quit going to the theater because why pay 10 bucks to see a piece of shit film when you can rent something you like from netflix and watch in the comfort of your own home. I quit going to the theater because I hate dealing with the prices, the crowds and the shitty, unintelligent movies that pander more to my libido than my brain. When hollywood starts making good movies again, or at least movies I care to see in a theater, I will go back. Until then, it's me, Netflix and that Uncle Buck dvd. Also, in response to the time honored argument that people don't get the intelligent dialogue in the Matrix trilogy, I like to point out that it was neither A)intelligent or B)interesting. Listening to a guy who looks like Colonel Sanders post butterscotch enema rant on like a first stage alzheimer's grandpa is laughable. Also, I would like to point out that a lot of people I know who think the last two matrix movies are "totally badass" also liked Dodgeball. I do not believe this to be a coincedence.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:55 a.m. CST

    The "Coalition of the Willing"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Give me a break, Mori. If it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit, well, then chances are it is indeed bullshit. This is a heavy slam against conservatism and you know it. By all means, liberals can have their fun, but please let's not hide behind false platitudes. If this movie draws any ire from talking healds on the right, it will be because the movie earned it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST

    I have to ask...

    by Lord Asriel

    what values, ideas, policies and systems does the government in V for Vendetta have, that are so at the heart of conservatism, that it makes this film an attack on all conservatives?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Alien 3 Script by William Gibson

    by GrammarPolice

    Did anybody else know this existed? Jesus...

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:13 p.m. CST

    A is for Ambiguous


    I haven&#39;t seen V is for Vendetta yet, but I plan to. While some conservatives may be a little thin-skinned, the reality is that it&#39;s a movie, and any allusions to a particular ideology are . . . parts of the movie! It may not have much to do with reality, but superhuman terrorists wearing masks also don&#39;t have much to do with reality. And guys flying around in blue tights don&#39;t have much to do with reality, but I&#39;m definitely going to that movie. And, frankly, it analogies and visual style seem more appropriate to Hitler than to Bush or Thatcher, and that will remain true for me, even if the filmakers felt they were somehow making a direct analogy to the Bush administration. The writer for <i>War of the Worlds</a> suggested that he saw it as an analog to the Iraq war, with the alien tripods representing the American Military. Huh? But other than Tim Robbins&#39; incongruous and factually inaccurate assertion that "No occupying force ever succeeded in maintaining power", that political agenda didn&#39;t seem to intrude on the film. I enjoyed Pleasantville, even though the director on the DVD commentary basically said that the movie was entirely about how conservatives are oppressive and don&#39;t like sex (this is not true, btw) and want things black and right and want to put everybody in very constraining rolls and have a fantasy about how the past used to be and . . . ugh! It was pathetic, yet I didn&#39;t get too bad a vibe of that sort of stuff when watching the movie (in part, perhaps, because his view of conservatism has no relationship to reality). The fact is, V is for Vendetta looks very open-ended and ambiguous, and could easily be interpreted as extreme leftism or extreme conservatism, depending on your views of those opposing ideologies. And be equally inaccurate. And irrelevant. Because--hey, get this--it&#39;s a <i>movie.</i>

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST

    To Lord Asriel

    by jorson2

    "there&#39;s very many things that are "bad" about fascism" Name them and also describe WHY they are "bad." And to Rant Breath, I was referring to the reference to Fascism instead of Communism on this site IN GENERAL, not just in stories like this one related to V FOR VENDETTA. I didn&#39;t even mention the movie in my post.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST


    by Lord Asriel

    What? Surely you know?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:44 p.m. CST

    I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ll say it again

    by chrth

    If the current administration really was as bad about freedoms as everybody thinks, you wouldn&#39;t be able to post about it, even anonymously. So when I stop hearing your whining in movie talkbacks maybe then I&#39;ll take you seriously, until then, you&#39;re over-reacting. Been able to say "My rights are being oppressed" makes you sound like an idiot. England prevails, gentlemen.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Moviemack = Generation Dumbass

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Any chance this is as good as "Batman Begins"? FLAME ON!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Doesn&#39;t matter, Moviemackles...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    As long as "V" remotely appears to resemble art (in the form of film) that is questioning/reflecting our current society and present day government, it will be praised to high-heaven. Now, perhaps that&#39;s a payment of a different sort.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST


    by UncleEthan

    Back to the brother who commented that 1984 was a commentary on Communism. You are super close my man. It was actually a commentary on Stalinism AND Facsism which were closer relatives than Stalinism and true Marxism. That being said, Orwell was also a prophet. Remember in the novel that an endless war in Eurasia (The middle east and Afghanistan are Near Asia) was shown on the tele every night in order to scare the populas with fear for "the other"...well if we ain&#39;t in the first days of this process, pilgrims, we aren&#39;t far off.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:40 p.m. CST

    eschew witchcraft!

    by mocky_puppet

    I will not be seeing this movie. witchcraft is not fun, and should not be glorified.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by UncleEthan

    What the hell is the puppett guy talking about. I suppose he has no idea what "witchcraft" really is. Perhaps if he understood that it was a goddess religion that the patriarchal Christian and Jewish societies attempted to wipe out. Perhaps if he understood that the sole reason for trying to eradicate the practice was to remove women from the spiritual role they had and should have. Perhaps if he/she had any idea what they were talking about their post would have made sense.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Here We Go Again

    by NeoCon

    Of course this is a slam against Bush. These same idiots had a picture of Bush next to Hitler in "Reloaded". It is so predictable and boring. Alan Moore is also a big time lefty who hated Thatcher and Reagan. Can some liberal please explain how we are losing our rights? When Clinton was in control he had the IRS destroy his enemies. Only when conservatives are in control do we seem to lose our freedom. Keep complaining that we are listening in on collect calls to Afghanistan. How many elections do you need to lose??

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    of course with a name like NeoCon you&#39;re not...

    by Lord Asriel

    going to be biased or anything are you?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Guilty as Charged

    by NeoCon

    I&#39;m totally biased. But let&#39;s be serious. Bush has been getting killed by Hollywood from the beginning. When someone like Mel Gibson tries to do something different(not liberal/secular) he gets attacked by every mainstream media figure. The Blue States control the media, and the Red States control the country.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST

    And what do we do with witches???

    by Mr Nice Gaius

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Yeah, no debate, right

    by Cerebud

    Look at how long this talkback is. You don&#39;t think there&#39;s going to be a huge debate, at least on the 24/7 news channels? I guarantee it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    daily show = liberal??

    by K|LLDOZER

    it truly astounds me sometimes, the amount of mouthbreathing know-it-alls here. was everyone just TOO YOUNG to remember how The Daily Show tore Clinton&#39;s administration a new one week after week for everything from whitewater to paula jones to NAFTA? and please don&#39;t chalk that up to the show having a different host. Kilborn wrote maybe 3 lines of dialogue each epidsode, and was a complete tool anyway. like someone before mentioned - Stewart leans left, but he&#39;s a satirist who makes fun of whoever is in power and on the news.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:13 p.m. CST

    McTeigue didn

    by seppukudkurosawa

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    True Conservatives DESPISE Government!!!

    by Thunderballs

    Which is why I&#39;ll be seeing this movie! As a true conservative, I know that a patriot&#39;s first duty is to always be ready to protect his country from it&#39;s government. So I support the character in V because he wants to protect his country from their government. Nothing wrong with that. I would think Liberals would be up in arms over this, as they love government, and would usually hate to see a large, controlling government be undermined or overthrown. And Liberals are quite adept at using fear to make weak minded people vote for them(old people by scaring them about Social Security, Women by scaring them about abortion, minorities by scaring them about the return to the plantation and the end of civil rights). Conservatives don&#39;t use fear, they use facts, there are terrorists who want to kill us. Be scared, or don&#39;t be scared, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that there are scumbags out there looking to do me and you harm. I say this movie is an attack on modern Liberalism, and the way they try to control thought(i.e you can never say a man is better than a woman for a particular job, you can never say America is the greatest country ever, shit like that). I support the theme of this movie---DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT, GIVE POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE!!! If that&#39;s not conservative, I don&#39;t know what is.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:16 p.m. CST

    There are fascists on BOTH SIDES

    by Shaner Jedi

    There are those on the right who tell me who to sleep with and love. There are those on the left who try to tell me I can&#39;t own a gun or can&#39;t say certain "insensitive" things. Fuck that! Commies on the left are just as totalitarian as those on the fascist right. It&#39;s the libertarians who are the true center. The modern-day US liberalism is warped version of European social democracy..regulate what is appropriate to say and scam us with false fears of environmental catastrophe so the STATE can grow ever more omnipotent. the "false" conservatives, the NEOS, who occupied the center-left a mere 30 years ago I might add, want the militarist STATE to grow....and don&#39;t mind if domestic measures for our "own good" are put into place. Real conservatism spits in the face of fascism because it calls for a DECENTRALISED STATE and FEDERALISM(division of powers) If you truly love liberty, you ARE a conservative. Not a evangelical conservative, who are socially, but not necessarily economically, conservative. No, to be a true conservative, you are against the centralisation of STATE POWER in all its forms and a defender of FEDERALISM and the protection it gives us against absolutism and fascism. One day, hopefully soon, some liberals on the left will realize they&#39;re more conservative than they realized and will join forces with their forgotten cousins: the libertarian conservatives on the right. Join us leftist brothers and protect our liberties before it&#39;s too late!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST


    by AmirReza

    Now, I used to be quite liberal in my views, but have slowly moved to the centre. I&#39;m not a political fanboy, and I respect both wings of thought (apart from the extremes at both end). I don&#39;t like Bush, but if I was American I wouldn&#39;t have voted for Kerry either since to me he just seemed to be constantly adapting his views to public opinion. Now, related to V For Vendetta, is the question of the fascist state. I haven&#39;t seen the film, but from the trailers it looks like they&#39;ve gone all the way, with John Hurt raising his fist and rallies of soldiers, etc. I usually don&#39;t bitch about deviation from source material, in fact I like nearly every comic-book film I&#39;ve seen (I even really enjoyed Hulk). But, having read V for Vendetta only just before Christmas, I was disappointed about how amazing the subtlety was in Alan Moore&#39;s comic/graphic novel. The soothing Voice doesn&#39;t bark people into submission. If you&#39;ve ever seen the documentary Outfoxed, propaganda works best when people don&#39;t know that it&#39;s propaganda. The whole point of Moore&#39;s novel was that we may already be living in a fascist state and would not know it. The CCTV cameras, government "approved" broadcasts, the growing police force (without openly declaring a police state)... I live in England, and every day I&#39;m watching more and more civil liberties being taken away. I don&#39;t smoke, but the upcoming ban on public smoking is another step to a nanny state. ID cards. The UK equivalent of the PATRIOT Act. Civil liberties are supposed to be integral to the Republican ethos, yet Republicans still support Bush when he takes their highly valued civil liberties away. If I was to categorise myself, I myself might even be a South Park Republican. I&#39;m still really looking forward to V For Vendetta, I&#39;m just a bit miffed at the lost opportunity of REALLY being controversial. That fact may be more horrible than ficiton.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST

    thunderball, you said you were ok with ethnic cleansing

    by Cameron1

    I don&#39;t think any true conservatives are cool with that.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Stewart makes fun of whoever is in power

    by Thunderballs

    This is true, but so what? Do you even listen to the jokes? The jokes making fun of the Left are usually light and airy, oh look how crazy they are over there. When it comes to the right, the jokes are more cutting, and usually revolve around how stupid the conservatives are. You can tell they don&#39;t really want to make fun of Lefties by the jokes, they&#39;re forced, to try and seem balanced. Jokes about Conservatives are always natural to them, and more creative. At least Bill Maher doesn&#39;t pretend to be something he is not, but all this bullshit about how Stewart is balanced in his jokes is laughable. Like what the guy above said about Rush Limbaugh, when he makes fun of the right it is like when Stewart makes fun of the Left, it feels forced and it is not very creative, cause their heart is not in it. The only reason some Libs here think Stewart is a centrist is because they themselves are complete Leftist wackos!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST

    AmirReza, well said sir.

    by Lord Asriel

    As someone who also lives in the UK, but who voted for bush in 2000, I have to agree with your points and certainly that all the subtelty seems to have gone from the film, it seems very accurate in some respects, but in others it has clearly been thought to subtle/complicated for film audiences. It&#39;s a damn shame.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:25 p.m. CST

    um no thunderballs, Stewart makes fun of who&#39;s in power

    by Lord Asriel

    and that is undeniably the republicans, did you miss the post above about how the Daily Show ripped Clinton to shreds?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Harry&#39;s at!

    by Jonesey1111

    Harry rings in about Mr. and Mrs. Smith remake at!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Amire Reza

    by Shaner Jedi

    Your stand for liberty sounds like you are a member of the radical center: libertarianism. Great thoughts on smooth-fascism. I think the west has for centuries been moving towards(or back) to absolutism or neo-fascism. It seems before the ink was dry on the U.S. Consitution, STATE power was growing. It worsened in the US Civil War with the corporatist-personhood, the rise of the railroad magnates, and the newly-formed republicans using their civil war military buildup for imperial excusrions out west with the indians, and throughtout the caribbean and phillipines.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Jon Stewart Admitted He Was opposing Bush!

    by NeoCon

    What&#39;s the debate with The Daily Show? Jon Stewart admitted on the air that he was opposing Bush. The guy takes himself so seriously it&#39;s a joke. He failed with everything he did until he was handed The Daily Show. Remember the MTV talkshow? Remember his acting career?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Hey Cameron1, find where I said that.

    by Thunderballs

    Or are you just another screenname for DocPazuzu? Or are you just repeating his vile hate filled blather? All I said was that Milosevic was trying to save his country from an infestation of Islamic extremists. He went about it the wrong way, but his heart was in the right place. God forbid anyone here doesn&#39;t repeat the "common wisdom" espoused by all the major news networks. Try not looking at something as simple black and white. The world is gray. Now, go find where I said the words "I am okay with ethnic cleansing." I dare you. All I said was I am okay with us killing and torturing Islamic extremist terrorists. I&#39;m wrong? All you cocksucking Liberals love shit like Sin City where the hero tortures and kills people, then turn around and say "How terrible, torture does not work, what savages!!!!" A true Liberal, like a good friend of mine, would HATE a movie like Sin City or Man on Fire. My friend walked out of Sin City because he thought it was too brutal and violent and sadistic, and that it revelled in it. This guy is a REAL Liberal, who actually believes in his principles. Not all you fake Libs who love shit like Hostel and Sin City and a million other movies where the hero is a violent scumbag. Here now I&#39;ll get the argument that it is just a movie, and how I can&#39;t separate real life from movies. Fuck off. A real Liberal would not love all this sadistic shit you guys eat up. As a conservative, I am fine with torturing terrorists and making them suffer, therefore I have no problem with Marv in Sin City torturing guys, cause it works. I respect my friend for walking out of Sin City, he has beliefs, and they don&#39;t end at the entrance to the cinema. Seriously, it would be like you guys loving a movie that shows Bush as a hero and patriot and great president and American, then leaving the theater and bashing Bush. You make no fucking sense!!!!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Oh, Good Lord, Thunderballs


    I hope you&#39;re trying to ape some of the thin-skinned liberals posting nonsense about this stuff, and not seriously that worried about Jon Stewart. Although, yeah, the Daily Show leans leftward, it does so with subtlety and humor and, most of the time, a reasonably soft touch that more folks on the left could use. And who cares if the entertainment world is mostly left? Cameron Diaz worrying that the Bush admin might legalize rape can only be good for the political right (and, indeed, we won in 2004, didn&#39;t we?).

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Thunderballs, you are right about one thing

    by Shaner Jedi

    what NATO, another wonderful statist organ, did by bombing serbian CIVILIANS in the dead of winter constituted a war crime. Nato Chief Ramsey Clarke should&#39;ve had his ass in jail instead of running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. See, there are militarists on BOTH SIDES who never hesitate to use state power on innocents.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Who&#39;s worried about Jon Stewart

    by Thunderballs

    I&#39;m not worried about him, he means nothing. But I won&#39;t stand by when those on the Left try and make him into some kind of balanced centrist. Saying Stewart is a centrist is like saying Fox News is fair and balanced. Give me a fucking break. But you&#39;re right, he means nothing. But I DO care that Hollywood is mostly Left, considering I work in entertainment. I constantly have to bite my tongue at the inane things I hear, for fear of being blacklisted. Hmmmm, the Liberals who decried McCarthy and his blacklist, they wouldn&#39;t then turn around and blacklist a whole group of people themselves......would they?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Actually Jon Stewart

    by Shaner Jedi

    made the White House press corps look like complete jackasses last night in one of his skits. he basically was amazed the media would be treating the hunting accident as the REAL SERIOUS thing Cheney should resign over. It was funny as hell.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Hey Jedi, You mixed up your Clarks

    by NeoCon

    I believe Wesley Clark waas the NATO General and Ramsey Clark was the Attorney General under LBJ who is currently on the legal defense team for Sadaam Hussein. You see, with liberals Bush is a fascist and Hussein is a swell guy.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi---RIGHT ON!!!

    by Thunderballs

    Finally, someone who is able to see both sides of the conflict in the Balkans! You sir are a true intellectual, very rare around these parts. It was WESLEY Clark who rained fire upon millions of innocent men, women and children for no good reason. Yet all we hear is about Milosevic&#39;s crimes. I think Wes Clark and Clinton should have had to answer for us bombing all those civilians in a country that never attacked us.....hmmm, does that sound familiar Libs? Where is your outrage at civilians being targetted by the U.S.? Oh, you only care when it isn&#39;t one of your guys doing the killing? I see, glad we cleared that up.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Re: Shaner Jedi

    by AmirReza

    I actually was going to use the word libertarian, but that seems to be a dirty word in the current political atmosphere. I&#39;m actually watching that Jon Stewart episode in the UK now. I love the Daily Show, even if it is a bit too liberal at times, it&#39;s still damn funny, and is the only source of real criticism for the government.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Thunderballs is obviously a parody troll.

    by FluffyUnbound

    You have a lot of panache, sir. Well played.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:47 p.m. CST

    "the only source of real criticism for the government."

    by Thunderballs

    The Daily Show is the only source of real criticism for the government? Are you fucking kidding me? I think you&#39;ve been in the U.K. too long, as the U.S. government is criticized on a daily basis here.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:48 p.m. CST

    parody troll? what&#39;s that?

    by Thunderballs

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    it was the why we fight talkback thunderballs.

    by Cameron1

    people really should go check it out to see how nuts this guy is. I guess he is parody troll Fluffy, but I&#39;m not sure if HE knows it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Look, liberals have a near monopoly in Hollywood

    by cantankerous

    ...and since they are having so much difficulty persuading the general public with their ideals in the open public forum they are compelled to conceal their message in our entertainment. The only way they can get any traction these days is when they create an antagonist in the likeness of their imaginary conservative boogie-man, exaggerate all traits they perceive as bad and then righteously take down the strawman they carefully manufactured, preferably with lots of pyrotechnics and delicious irony. If they are clever, the message is subtle enough so even us right-wingers can overlook the politicizing and enjoy the spectacle. I

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Re: McTeigue didn&#8217;t really direct this

    by NuteG

    And you would know, exactly?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 2:59 p.m. CST

    V anti-Bush?

    by McCroskey

    Didn&#39;t one of the stars of V come out and say that it was a thinly-veiled attack on the Bush administration? Now I don&#39;t doubt that to a large part what one takes from it will depend on what they take into it. Certainly the idea that the people have an inherent right to rebel against their government should appeal to conservatives. But its probably a safe bet that the creative team intentionally made it so that most would take it as a shot at Bush, as was no doubt their intent. I don&#39;t see the big deal there, as its what one should expect from a far-left entity like Hollywood. That&#39;s just the way it is; movies with an overt political element are almost all going to be leftwing, while any &#39;conservative&#39; film will be a film non-political in nature, and one in which the conservative message is not put in direct political terms, and where its open to interpretation. The worst thing conservatives who don&#39;t like V should do is to make a big deal about it, and thus give free promotion to a movie that probably has very limited commercial prospects (Portman is very talented, but she is not a proven box office draw), unless it becomes embroiled in some political debate. Without it, then chances are it would die a quick box office death in the doldrums of the early spring movie season.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST


    by seppukudkurosawa

    It was just a joke, Mori said SOMEONE would say it in the review, and just to prove him right I said it...end of story. (And he didn&#39;t so... :P)

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Daily Show and John Stewart

    by McCroskey

    Stewart is clearly a leftwinger. Yes, the fact that the GOP is in power now is a legitimate reason to focus more on them, but its also just a convenient excuse to indulge in what he would rather do anyway. Yes, Stewart does take shots at Democrats, but generally not in the same way he does Republicans. To him and his show, the GOP deserve lampooning because they suck, and they suck because of inherent reasons, because of what they are and what they believe. To Stewart, the Democrats also suck, but mostly because of their electoral losses to the even suckier Republicans. His disdain for the Democrats is in their inability to beat Bush and his evil cohorts in the Congress. He doesn&#39;t really have a problem with their leftist agenda and views, because, well, he shares those beliefs. If the Democrats take back partial power this year, or all of it in 2008, then its unlikely that Stewart&#39;s satirical criticisms will be so focused on the party in power. For one thing, he would become less of a media darling, and for another, his heart just wouldn&#39;t be in it in all likelihood. Again, I don&#39;t see the big deal in admitting that Stewart is a leftie. Most entertainers are, and I hope he doesn&#39;t hold back at the Oscars this year. He should take as many shots at Bush and Republcans as his heart desires, as it would fit in well with what is already perceived by many as a political-statement year for the Oscars. Any celebrity who wants to make some wacko statement should do so, but they shouldn&#39;t bitch about it when Republicans use it and Hollywood&#39;s bond with the Democrats to paint the Dems as being out of touch with most Americans. Its all fair game.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Jon Stewart is...

    by Christopher3

    A liberal? Holy fucking shit, where was I for the past five years? Is he in this movie too? And, lastly, is there any Portman nooooooooooooooooooooooooodity?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Media Fairyland by Monbiot

    by Cod Profundity

    How did a fantasy president from a world of make believe come to govern a country whose power was built on hard-headed materialism? To find out, take a look at two squalid little stories which have been concluded over the past ten days. The first involves the broadcaster CBS. In September, its 60 Minutes programme ran an investigation into how George Bush avoided the Vietnam draft. It produced memos which appeared to show that his squadron commander in the Texas National Guard had been persuaded to

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    What about the dialogue?

    by McCroskey

    The Wachowski&#39;s wrote the screenplay, right? So what is the word on the dialogue. It was rightly panned in the Matrix movies, so I wonder if its just as bad here? I&#39;m going to see it regardless of anything I hear about it, but I find the lack of mention of this aspect interesting. Hopefully that means it isn&#39;t so bad. But if it is, then Portman should have been adept at handling it after suffering through Lucas&#39; lines.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Neo Con,

    by Shaner Jedi

    you evil globalist! LOL. I knew I&#39;d get them screwed up. Well, I thought he was nuts and Ramsey certainly fits the bill. Amir, yeah "libertarian" does conjure up some bad mojo. I consider myself a small M marketist. That&#39;s what I call it anyway.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Media ownership

    by Shaner Jedi

    Does anyone know how many corporations own the vast majority of newspapers in the U.S.? Other media(radio,TV)?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    RE: Fairyland

    by NeoCon

    You&#39;re bringing up stuff from 2004 and acting lioke it happened 10-days-ago? Rather, Mapes, and the rest were fired because they refused(and still do) to admit that the documents were bogus! The source of the documents was from a guy who literally had to be institutionalized because of his mental health. It&#39;s one thing to make a mistake and another to refuse to cop to it. They wanted to get Bush so bad that they totally blew off their fact checking. CBS lost their credibility so everyone had to go. And I don&#39;t know what you mean by the media was afraid to attack Bush after that. It has been documented that Bush received negative stories from the press over Kerry by a 3:1 margin. And nobody in the mainstream media would talk to the Swiftboat Vets. It was talk radio and cable TV that gave them a forum. And none of their assertions have been refuted. Who&#39;s the one in Fairyland?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    "Hey Cameron1, find where I said that."

    by DocPazuzu

    I&#39;ll answer that call. For the lowdown on Thunderballs&#39; views on ethnic cleansing, extermination of Muslims, and his lauding of his hero, Joe McCarthy, look no further than his own words in the Why We Fight TB: ....... The George Clooney interview TB: ....... and for extra good measure, the Apocalypto TB:

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Good comeback Cameron1!!!

    by Thunderballs

    Too fucking lazy to go look the shit up yourself? It&#39;s a good idea to not look it up, cause you&#39;d waste valuable time looking for something that does not exist. But I understand that all the Liberals seek to do is demonize and marginalize those with opposing voices. So keep demonizing me and trying to put words in my mouth. And you are one to talk, considering in that same talkback you tacitly defended the extermination of innocent Christian men, women and children. Oh wait, you want me to go find the quote? Easy, it&#39;s right under the post where I say I am okay with ethnic cleansing.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST


    by Thunderballs

    Dude, I really love all this attention you lavish on me, keep it coming. Keep playing right into my hands. I can&#39;t remember a single thing you said, you know why? Cause you are a boring person with no fucking life and no real opinions! All your posts are blather, pure blather, just repeating what you heard on the Nightly News. But please, I love the attention, keep giving me more of it.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Trying to twist Rathergate

    by cantankerous

    Oh please. Mapes and Rather got the boot because their overt liberal bias erupted from every journalistic orifice like a mad case of Montezuma

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST

    see I already said; in the why we fight talkback

    by Cameron1

    how did you miss that? it was in the subject line!!! Blimey. I see Pazuzu did all that [sarcasm]hard work[/sarcasm] for me.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    see those little numbers in the piece?

    by Cod Profundity

    they refer to EVIDENCE. Please provide counter EVIDENCE to refute them.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by NeoCon

    You refer to articles from The Nation and the NY Times as evidence? Should I quote an article from The National Review or The Weekly Standard to refute your Leftwing media source? And you can complain all you want about Armstrong Williams. The guy is a nobody. He doesn&#39;t quite have the persuasion of Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Dan Rather, Charles Scheifer, Ted Koppell,Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, George Steponopolis, ETC, ETC.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:09 p.m. CST

    I&#39;d judt like you to try and refute the specific..

    by Cod Profundity

    evidence with evidence to the contrary

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Pazuzu vs. Thunderballs

    by Jonesey1111

    I love these debates...It&#39;s like a "grown up" version of grafiti on the bathroom wall.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi is of the true faith

    by UncleEthan

    I myself am adamantly libertarian(The philosophy not the party) and see both political parties as answering to the same paymasters. They are both turning on us and taking advantage of their own followers. The corporations are taking over and it won&#39;t be some Blade Runner meets Himmler future it will be a world where the corporations run the show with a revolving dictatorship of a CEO. Bush I was the first attempt at this and now it is really on. True conservatives should oppose Bush and the Dems with every breath. Dick, Condi, and Rummy are not of the true conservative faith. Maggie Thatcher, Ron Reagan, and Sir Winston Churchill would eat their livers.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST

    witchcraft breeds strife.

    by mocky_puppet

    boycot this movie! do not fall prey to the seductive message of the witches and warlocks behind this propoganda piece.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    "I love the attention, keep giving me more of it."

    by DocPazuzu

    Don&#39;t worry, Thunderballs, you can count on it. Especially since you make it so rewarding by doing all the work yourself. All I have to do is post links to your own words.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    people hate...endings...hero dies...laced with sadness

    by DarthCorleone

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No one is a bigger fan of down endings than I am. The Matrix sequels failed for much bigger reasons. I actually liked Reloaded, but Revolutions is an abomination. Seriously, that Trinity death scene has got to be one of the worst in film history. Cool characters are squandered. Worst of all, the mythology of the Matrix itself goes in the most uninteresting, unoriginal direction it could have taken. Regardless, yes, the hero dies, but I&#39;d hardly call it a sad ending. Instead, it&#39;s the disgustingly histrionic martyr ending.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi

    by UncleEthan

    If my last post didn&#39;t go through let me dispence with any BG and detail and say Rummy, Condi, Dick, and Georgie are definately not real conservatives. Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher, and Ron Reagan would eat the livers of those corporate hacks. Same goes for the Dems. The corporations have been trying to put ina rotating dictator/ceo since Bush I...looks like they&#39;ve fooled the right people.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST

    I&#39;ll Take A Pass on "V"

    by NeoCon

    The thing that really scared me about the review was the terms "symbolism" and "Imagery". One of the thigs that was cool about the first Matrix was the very subtle religious overtones. They went crazy with it in the next two movies. Neo was Christ with Kung-Fu. They laid it on waaay too thick. If this movie fails the Waichowsi Bros. become yet another hollywood one-hit wonder.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Watch it Uncle Ethan!!!!

    by Thunderballs

    There&#39;s an obtuse piece of flotsam known as DocPazuzu that will get very mad if he sees that you said Bush et al are not real conservatives. I said the same thing and was met with ridicule and scorn for not having any idea what any political party is about. All cause I said Bush is not a real Conservative. I also said Bush is a Sixties style Liberal in many ways, that too was met with scorn and ridicule by the piece of flotsam. He thought I was making up my own definitions, mainly because he is a "moderate" with no sense of right and wrong, and with no true belief system in place. It&#39;s fine though, cause as this talkback ably demonstrates, no one listens to an obtuse piece of flotsam. I&#39;ll say it one more time....BUSH IS NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE! NEO-CONS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES!!!! THEY ARE SIXTIES ERA LIBERALS BEFORE THE WHOLE CIVIL RIGHTS/ABORTION THING STARTED. I am not saying they are hippies, but rather like the old men Liberals from the Sixties. If Kennedy were resurrected today, he&#39;d be considered a moderate neo-con. Need I say more?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    "Need I say more?"

    by DocPazuzu

    Nope, you needn&#39;t, but by all means please do. The more you write, the more TB links I can post in the future wherever you show up and attempt to sound politically rational.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Thunderballs logic is as bad as Dick Cheney&#39;s aim

    by Rant Breath

    Dude you lost all credibility when you said torture was a good thing. Why hide behind the American flag when you don&#39;t seem to understand real American values. Do you want American POW&#39;s to be tortured to death? What do you think will happen if the United States okays torturing people?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Ronnie Reagan and Thatcher were corporate puppets too

    by Rant Breath

    Who do you think all that deregulation was meant to benefit? American steel workers?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    re My lack of a moral compass.

    by DocPazuzu

    "with no sense of right and wrong, and with no true belief system in place." ....... I see. I believe all ethnic cleansing and genocide are bad things. You believe that ethnic cleansing and genocide against some people is a good thing. Tell me again how this makes me wishy-washy on the whole "good vs evil" thing, and how it makes you the epitome of morality, Thunderballs.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST


    by Lord Asriel

    Here&#39;s what Wolfowitz, Cheney et al think:counteract the perverted liberalism which contends &#39;that just to live, securely and happily, and protected and unregulated, is man&#39;s simple but supreme goal&#39; #### from Strauss, Liberalism Ancient and Modern (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989)

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:06 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    ....primarily originated with Irving Kristols magazine Commentary. At the time, Kristol was a fervent leftist committed to the Great Society of LBJ. He was also a passionate Zionist. With the mid-70&#39;s came a reorganizatiopn of the republican party post-Nixon. This reorganization brought in alot of new faces, including former democrats Ronald Reagan,Kristol, etc. These figures were more committed to social conservative causes like abortion restrictions and other moral issues;however, they remained committed to their Trumanesque foreign policy of anti-communism. Kristol&#39;s son, Bill Kristol, is a regular contributor to Fox News, a neocon haven. He&#39;s also one of the founders of the Washington DC establishment rag: The Weekly Standard. It&#39;s no accident that magazine often has articles extolling the virtues of a strong, centralized, national government that spends both domestic and foreign. That&#39;s the neocon creedo.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Rant Breath

    by Shaner Jedi

    Actrually, deregulation favours competition by making the barriers to entry costs lower. Large Corporations favour regulation because it&#39;s protection from competition. The trick is to deregulate in the right way. If it&#39;s done in an asinine fashion, like the dunderheads over the power grid in California a few years back, it&#39;s the worst of both worlds. But done correctly, deregulation can lead to more mom and pop startups being able to enter into a market previously costly due to regulations and those corporations already on the inside keeping competition out. The Big corporations favour regulation over competition because it adds costs to the entry-level business model and makes starting a small business to compete with the big boys cost-prohibitive.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:22 p.m. CST

    V For Vendetta...

    by DocPazuzu not portraying/symbolizing the current American regime per se (or 1980s Britain), but is a warning of what happens at the end of the slippery slope of gradually dismantled civil rights. A police state can arise from abuses of political power on both the left and the right. It seems to me that the only people with any reason to howl about how detrimental this film might be are those who advocate the development of a police state and see V For Vendetta as an ideological impediment to this goal. If America truly isn&#39;t on its way to becoming a police state, then why the fuss? Surely a pop cultural film which holds the idea of freedom as sacred should appeal to friends of democracy on both the left and the right. Like Mori said, it&#39;s a film about ideas. Using it as a bat by both sides in the bipolar political debate in America is cheapening the film. I haven&#39;t seen it yet, so the film might be shit, but it&#39;s sensibilities are certainly excellent.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...that I advocate anarchy, naturally.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    You people urging "caution and restraint" for V

    by Immortal_Fish

    Did any of you even bother to read the review Mori linked to over at Liberty Film Festival? Even if only half that shit is true, then how is this movie objective at all regarding liberals and conservatives?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    And about the DAILY SHOW

    by Immortal_Fish

    You people who color Stewart a moderate while in the same breath railing O&#39;Reilly as an extreme righty make me laugh. He said to the CROSSFIRE hosts that they make things worse -- this from a purveyor of *fake* news! On election night, the man looked straight into the camera and soberly asked us to make his job for the following four years as difficult as it could possibly be. This man, Jon Stewart, is *NOT* a moderate by any measure!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Shaner Jedi

    by Rant Breath

    Deregulation promotes competition in the early stages after that oligopolies develop. Deregulation takes away the rules Big Business is usually forced to play by. Aside from protectionism for a few out-dated companies, the most powerful corporations profit from deregulation. No doubt about that.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Who cares if Jon Stewart is a liberal?

    by Rant Breath

    So was Chris Rock. They get to host the oscars because they&#39;re funny. End of story.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST

    You know, I&#39;ve been monitoring this site for 4 years...

    by filmicdrummer17

    ...and I&#39;ve never seen a single Talkbacker say "You know, [insert User here], your thoughtful, unantagonistic analysis of [insert issue/movie/person here] really changed my mind." In fact, I&#39;ve never seen a single Talkback say "You know, your hateful, profanity-laden analysis really changed my mind." Hell, I&#39;ve never even seen a single Talkbacker say "You&#39;ve got a point- you really made me think." Why? Pride! We all just need to get over ourselves. People are so set in their ways; anyone who thinks that by starting or contining a flamewar about Bush, Liberals, Brokeback Mountain, Peter Jackson, Star Wars, Lost, Serenity, or even The Daily Show will change anybody&#39;s minds, you&#39;re only making a fool of yourself in front of a whole lot of people who, frankly, just don&#39;t care. I highly value writers like Moriarty who make the effort to be even-handed in reviews. I&#39;m embarassed by militant Talkbackers on all sides who reduce themselves to childish insults, thinking they&#39;re making progress in fighting some World Evil. The vast majority of successful filmmakers don&#39;t set out to complete a project thinking "Hey, this&#39;ll be sure to court controversy," so don&#39;t assign hidden agendas to those that obviously don&#39;t have one (recent example: King Kong.) As for those films whose intent it is to provoke, disturb, or simply make a strong impression about a certain idea, give them their due for making the effort, if it&#39;s deserved, but there are too many viewpoints on any given subject to just dive right into a juvenile shouting match. Come on, people. Politics is simply the determination of who gets what, when, and how much, and both Republicans and Democrats have flaws when it comes to those things. In fact, both Republicans and Democrats both have good ideas when it comes to those things, so pull your heads out of your asses and pay attention to what goes on in the world around you (no, I mean outside of your parents&#39; basement.) Ten years from now the American political climate will be markedly different, and when power shifts again, different flaws AND strengths will be made evident for both sides, but the same arguments will be made, to no result. It&#39;s part of our Constitutional rights to debate, but as hard as it is, if the human race listened a lot more than talked, we&#39;d be in a much better place. Sorry for rambling.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST

    V for Vendetta.....

    by DuncanDisorderly

    For everyone who is slating the so-called politics of this movie, for fuck&#39;s sake please read the original source material! V is not really about rebellion and a coup-de&#39;tate, it&#39;s about revenge; hence, the title....

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:52 p.m. CST

    The Religion of Peace

    by McCroskey

    The most fantastical element of this movie that I&#39;ve read about has got to be the part about Muslims being persecuted by a Christian majority, or at least by a Christian government. I mean, most people realize that Christianity is almost dead in Europe, right? Its one of the reasons that the birth rates in Europe are so dangerously low. Its too bad that someone with power in Hollywood isn&#39;t interested in basing a story around a more plausible future in Britain (or some other European nation), sometime late in this century, where the Muslims have come to dominate Europe. Then you could explore how, for example, they would treat homosexuals, and dissent. It would make the EU&#39;s current attempts to criminalize politically incorrect speech that dares criticize homosexuality and Islam seem quite foolish. I wonder, was that whole part about the Koran &#39;having beautiful imagery&#39; in the original graphic novel?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Saying V for Vendetta is only about revenge

    by Rant Breath

    is like saying Citizen Kane is only about a sled.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Remember when the Matrix trilogy was going to be good?

    by Some Dude

    Oh, thanks for the laughs.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    citizen kane IS only about a sled.

    by mocky_puppet

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    It&#39;s gonna be funny...

    by Saluki

    When this movie comes out and doesn&#39;t change the world and does OK at the boxoffice. The rightwingers are gonna be bangin their heads against the wall. &#39;Why didn&#39;t I see the light and just accept it as entertainment? I don&#39;t get it. This movie was the blueprint for liberal blahblahblah. Come on people. This movie teaches you a lesson. This is what liberal America is headed towards. See we told you Bush was Jesus Christ 2.0. You wouldn&#39;t listen. We&#39;re the right and we&#39;re smarter than those hollywood leftwingers.&#39; - Dream on, haha!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 7:17 p.m. CST

    You know...

    by Jonesey1111

    You know, filmicdrummer17, your thoughtful, unantagonistic analysis of AICN Talback really changed my mind. Some people just need to argue... [just thought you would be happy to see the post] :)

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:17 p.m. CST

    by MarlboroMan

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    On Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars.....

    by Doc_Strange

    Here&#39;s an idea, maybe they hired him because he is geniunely funny and has some great wit about him. I would have hired him after the train wreck that was Chris Rock.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    This is the biggest farce

    by MarlboroMan

    i dont believe that the wachowskis can capture the political suffocation we experience in britain. I hope that they graphically show the camps in the book, i dont need another bush rant. I want people to see how fucking stupid the government in britain is now and how they screw the people of london with extra charges on public transport but no signs of making it safer from these cunts. I just want them to know that a life isnt free!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:04 p.m. CST

    HARRY made fun of in THE ONION this week

    by George Newman


  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST

    HARRY made fun of in THE ONION this week

    by George Newman

    heh, If this is a double post I&#39;m sorry, but the talkback is acting broke&#39;d.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 9:08 p.m. CST

    So lame,

    by George Newman

    why doesnt my first post show up until i posted my second one? I exited out two windows, refreshed the page and nothing would show that my first post was received. Guhhhh..

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:17 p.m. CST

    So as long as we are not as bad as Russia under Stalin

    by hst666

    Nazi Germany, or 1984, we should raise our voices? Some of the people saying the left is overstating things appear to be making the argument that because no ones forcibly preventing us from raising our voices, we have nothing to complain about. However, this begs the question when should people complain? Many NRA members are appalled by the idea of simply REGISTERING their guns. I would argue that "hey, they are not taking them away, so what are you complaining about?" Is the country currently fascist in an objective sense? I think not. Have we been moving in that direction, I believe so. Was Maggie a fascist - Goddam Right she was. This country is headed in the wrong direction. Also, one more thought - the necessity of forcibly limiting the ability of the masses to voice their concerns is lessened in an age of big corporate media. The same people that control much of our access to information, control our leaders. Thanks to technology, the distribution channels for information are not completely in the hands of an oligopoly, but, the consolidation of media is still concerning.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Jon Stewart *is* funny!

    by Immortal_Fish

    Yes, he is. I liked his MTV show from years back even though no one else apparently did. The man can think on his feet and was born with Carson-like finesse. And he *is* very much a liberal, through and through. Why do I take time to post that he is? For pretty much the same reasons why other folks have blinded themselves into thinking that he isn&#39;t. Once people start thinking of O&#39;Reilly as an objective moderate, I will consider thinking of Stewart as an objective moderate. But by then, I should be the fifth ruler of planet Klondo in the 14th dimension, so anything will be within my grasp. MWU-ha-ha-ha-ha!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Mebbe you don&#39;t scour much TB, filmicdrummer17

    by Immortal_Fish

    I&#39;ve seen anchorite yield to Cameron1 and vice versa. You don&#39;t get much polar opposite than those two chaps. These are examples, not exceptions. Other names escapse me at the moment. And yet you&#39;re right. I&#39;ve seen nothing more than agreement to disagree here, if that. But it&#39;s just so much fun to bitch and virtually clobber others in anonymity!

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:01 p.m. CST

    nice review

    by Exterminans

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:37 p.m. CST


    by Jack Parsons

    Conservative. Liberal. Words. The WRONG words. The current situation in the US isn&#39;t about a war between the two. George Bush is not, in any way, a conservative. He&#39;s radically changing the country into something it has never been before. He is a radical right wing corporatist pretending to be a "conservative", and the problem isn&#39;t that the "left" is as bad as he is; the problem is that the world is now defined by Bush as those for him, and those against. Everyone against is a liberal by his definition. The country is divided into those who practically worship him, and the other side, the majority, is incredulously watching the worshipers on TV and next door shut down the constitutional government in favor of a personality cult. Disagree? OK, Bush people: when Hillary becomes president, will you grant her the dictatorial powers you lavish on Bush? Unitary Executive Gore? ** I didn&#39;t think so. This is a personality cult, a cult unique in that the messiah can change every eight years. Reagan provoked worship beyone anything I&#39;ve every dreaded, and I&#39;m sure Bush&#39;s people will build pyramids in his name after he&#39;s gone. Scary.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:46 p.m. CST

    What is fascism?

    by Immortal_Fish

    Is it speech codes on campus? Is it the ousting of military recruiters on state-funded campuses? Is it racial quotas? Is it banning the right to choose (to smoke) in private businesses that cater to the public? Is it one state level judiciary, in a 4 to 3 vote, deciding that because marriage isn&#39;t expressly defined as a union between one man and one woman that it should mean just about anything? Is it definition of law beyond our borders that defines how law should be practiced within our borders? Is it college funding of tuition to illegals when such funding is not provided to citizens in neighboring states?

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Rant Breath---torture works

    by Thunderballs

    It just does. I could never do it because I have too much empathy for individuals, but I would never say that it never works, because that is simpleminded and false. Torture works, yeah it sucks we have to do it, but it also sucks that there are people out there looking to kill as many Americans in the most painful way possible. I have no problem with them smearing pig blood on Muslim terrorists, in fact, I think it is brilliant. My main point though was the hypocrisy of Liberals when it comes to torture. An avowed pacifist like Harry LOVED Sin City, loved the character of Marv, who goes around the whole time torturing and killing people to find out the truth, and in the end, through torture, he does get the truth. There are a lot of Liberal fanboys that loved that movie, and to all of them I say "you&#39;re full of shit and you &#39;re not a real Liberal." A real Liberal, like my friend, either walks out or doesn&#39;t even bother going to see violent films where sadism is glorified and made into gruesome comedy. Why? BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE LIBERALS SICK!!!! It doesn&#39;t matter if it is a movie or not, it is depicting things you find reprehensible. Principles don&#39;t end at the entrance to the cinema! Like I said above, which was ignored because it was true, Libs loving a movie where torture is glorified is like a Lib loving a movie about what a great President and person George W. Bush is. It&#39;s fucking ludicrous. Like most Liberals.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Jack, "George Bush is not, in any way, a conservative"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Thank you. I&#39;ve been saying this for some time now. He&#39;s rolled over on the flat tax, illegal aliens, and social security. He&#39;s spent money like a drunken sailor. Also has never vetoed ANYTHING, Republican and Democrat initiatives alike. It&#39;s a shame you find him in the far right. His actions obviate anything but that. I blame the Dean-led attack-on-anything-Bush for your thesis. For example, were the majority aligned against him, he wouldn&#39;t have garnered over 50% of the vote necessary to establish a mandate, more than Clinton did in each of his electiuon cycles. And if you think Hellary &#39;Rodan&#39; Clinton is a non-polarizing figure that will win this thing unbfettered, well, I guess I&#39;m glad I don&#39;t go to your bank.

  • Feb. 15, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Immortal Fish---stop using facts man!!!

    by Thunderballs

    Don&#39;t you know, Liberals hate it when you recite truisms. Stop telling the truth!!! No one wants their rampant hypocrisy pointed out. Like the fact that Hitler was anti-smoking, a vegetarian, and an aspiring artist----sounds suspiciously like those who reside on the Left, funny that.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Immortal Fish---you know Bush stole the election!

    by Thunderballs

    There is no way on Earth the citizens of the United States would vote for him! NO ONE likes him, and NO ONE voted for him, because he is pure evil. The majority of Americans despise him. Bush stole the election in Ohio, and in a lot of other questionable regions. There is simply no way he was elected fairly, because me and my friends all agree what an idiot he is, and no one I know in my little circle of associates voted for him. Therefore, it is impossible that he won.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Political correctness is not fascism

    by Rant Breath

    So you can&#39;t call your classmate a nigger or fag. Big deal. There are worse things out there. Namely being CALLED a nigger or fag. I&#39;d rather be complaining about too much tolerance than complaining about too little. We&#39;ve been down that road already and it sucked the devil&#39;s dick in Hell. A hate crime seems like unreasonable legislation until you get some historical perspective.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Thunderballs, torture is un-American

    by Rant Breath

    So it isnt anymore of an option, than say, child labor or genocide. We don&#39;t do those things anymore and we&#39;re a better nation for it. As far as your prepubescent idea that liberals are hypocrites for enjoying violence in fantasy and hating it in reality, I don&#39;t believe you (or anyone for that matter) is this naive but I&#39;ll bite anyway. Lets say I watch a cartoon where Elmer Fudd shoots a quail. It might be funny to me. But when the Vice President shoots his lawyer friend in the chest it&#39;s no laughing matter. Why? Because one is a real life situation and the other is a wacky cartoon.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:32 a.m. CST

    A pedophile thinks child sex laws are oppressive...

    by Rant Breath

    A bigot thinks political correctness is fascism. Who cares if racially motivated crimes get harsher penalties? Why does it bother you so much? Do you lose sleep over pedophiles getting harsher penalties?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Jesus, you guys never learn...

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    Good Lord you righties (or people who sound righty) are blind. God, where to begin. As a rational human being, I can disagree with whatever the left is doing. There are plenty of things that I think the left is fucking up. And yes, Bush is not a Conservative. Bush is part of this new apocalyptic group. And this group is manipulating people into thinking that what they are doing is just and with God&#39;s blessing. Bush and his friends are some of the most anti-science, anti-facts humans who have ever reached ultimate power. These people want the environment to go to shit because they want to bring about the apocalpyse. These people aren&#39;t pro-Israel because they care about Jews, they are pro-Israel because they want to see "the Kingdom of David" rebuilt so that Jesus can come back and walk them to Heaven. So look, extremism is terrible on both sides, and both sides can inevitably lead to totalitarian regimes. Want to talk about Dictatorial powers? How about the ones where a President can spy on any American he likes without any real oversight, and we can all sleep tight with his assurances that he&#39;s "only spying on the terrorists." Rational thinking people, including many who are either conservative or liberal, want to fight terrorism. The idea that Liberals don&#39;t want to fight terrorism is short-sighted, ignorant, and lame. The Afghanistan war was fine. Spying on terrorists is fine. But spying without over-sight is retarded. There&#39;s a reason we have FISA, and if Bush needed more time to catch these guys and then jail them then he could have gone to Congress and gotten the FISA limit extended. And Bush has got people thinking "hey, if you&#39;re innocent, you have nothing to hide, right?" How about the administration come clean on Dick Cheney

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:46 a.m. CST

    And as for Poltical Correctness. It&#39;s about respect.

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    Look, I can sit on my ass with my friends and joke about niggers and fags and kikes and spics and dagos all I want, but you do it on your own time. You don&#39;t go up to a black guy and call him a nigger (unless you go way back and know that he&#39;s not going to get offended) because there&#39;s a certain amount of respect everyone deserves. Look, hate crimes are about hate, and usually come with more that just name-calling and are definitely not just jokes. To get your panties in a bunch over the fact that you think calling someone a fag is a hate-crime is fucking retarded. It&#39;s not a hate-crime if you keep it to yourself. Saying Hate Crime Laws are oppresive is like saying Murder or Manslaughter Laws are oppresive.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:50 a.m. CST


    by iamnicksaicnsn

    IT&#39;S EXTREMISM AGAIN! FUCKING EXTREMISM! Look, there&#39;s no guarantee terror is totally effective, so why use it if we can&#39;t guarantee? How do we know they are being truthful and they aren&#39;t just giving us what we want to hear?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:56 a.m. CST

    When did this Talkback deform into a political debate?

    by Doc_Strange

    I thought this was supposed to be about V for Vendetta.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2 a.m. CST

    Clearly the solution is Publicly Financed Elections

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    Soon as we get those, the rational people can start fixing everything. We can get rid of the extremists on both sides of the eisle. We can get rid of the pure corporatists, and the pure labor unionists, the racists, the facists, the theocrats, the gun-nuts, the gun-pussies, the anti-ACLUers, the pro-ACLUers, etc etc.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:30 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    See, this is what happens. The minute you try to discuss a bigger picture than the specifics of the current political scene, you get every idiot with an agenda out to grind their axe in public. This is modern discourse. This is all we have now. No reasoned debate. No actual conversation. Just people calling each other names from each side of the aisle, trying to demonize anyone who feels differently than they do. This is why I am repulsed equally by both parties in this country right now, and by the lunatics who have stolen away our ability to discuss anything like rational adults. Thanks, folks. Great talkback.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:35 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    You are correct in assuming that the media (on both sides) will bend over backwards to "connect the dots" for us regarding V. However, knowing that this is going to happen, does that mean movies of this type should not be made? Should the hideously bipolar politics of America be a hindrance for movies with an agenda to be made? Last time I checked Americans were allowed to watch, make, read and write any films or books they damn well pleased. So the filmmakers themselves are afraid the Bush regime is leading America towards a police state. So what? It doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s actually happening. And why would a warning about a possible future be so anathemic to you? It sounds suspiciously like an intolerance for dissent. Mori is right - modern American politics has gone right down the toilet. The political arena has become a Superbowl where the entire nation is galvanized into rooting for one of two "teams" with zero nuance or thoughtful debate allowed. Being a moderate or actually having political ideals which differ from both "teams" marks you as being either wishy-washy or without morals at best, and at worst, a traitor.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Furthermore, anchorite...

    by DocPazuzu criticize the so-called left for using terms like "fascist" much too frivolously, but then go ahead and use the same term - just as frivolously - when describing liberals. I would argue that your criticism of V is just as much in the vein of political correctness, albeit a version which stems from your side of the bipolar divide.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:27 a.m. CST

    Political Correctness can&#39;t equate to fascism..

    by Lord Asriel

    A system or belief which seeks to protect the minority from the majority, the weak from the strong CANNOT EVER be fascist because one of the fundamental tenets of fascism is "might equals right" or legitimacy through force.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:27 a.m. CST


    by NuteG

    A joke? High-larious.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Lord Asriel makes a good point.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Although, Asriel, I would think that the more exact way to phrase your point would be to say that the political philosophers of fascism [and there actually were such individuals, although they&#39;re generally a bad lot] would say that there is no such thing as legitimacy or "right", and that "might" is all there is or can ever be, anyway. So it&#39;s not a question of might making anything. It&#39;s just a question of might BEING. And the academic multiculturalism that underlies "political correctness" arises from the same premise: that there is no such thing as "right", and no priveleged position from which one can criticize or judge another culture or society or lifestyle, and that therefore achieving mutual accomodation by creating rule systems that purport to make everyone comfortable in their own skin and are the way to go. Because no one can be "wrong", everyone should be allowed to be free of the knowledge that someone else doesn&#39;t like them or finds fault with them. The problem is that, of the two conclusions based on that premise, fascism&#39;s is actually more logically consistent and respectable [and when you&#39;re less intellectually respectable than open fascism, you&#39;ve got real problems] and as a result political correctness will in all likelihood probably tend to degenerate into fascism over time. "There is no right or wrong, so let&#39;s all embrace one another" becomes "There is no right or wrong, so let&#39;s FORCE the people who don&#39;t think that to embrace people they don&#39;t like" and that eventually will become "There is no right or wrong, so force is all there is." The new right has learned its rhetorical lessons well, and is slowly taking every mistake of the academic left for the last century and a half and twisting them into elements of their program. Who do you think taught these motherfuckers to position American Christianity as an "oppressed culture"? Tick tock. Tick tock.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:36 a.m. CST


    by seppukudkurosawa

    I am a foreign yes? My humour sometime different then American you, no? I laugh myself, but I am a foreign yes?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Swine in the pig-pen

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I&#39;m glad talkbacks like this exist...because otherwise you folks would be venting your steam other ways- such as playing chicken with your neighbours (who are lefties/righties). And that&#39;s a waste of two perfectly acceptable cars. Forget what wing of the plane you&#39;re on for one second, and instead of arguing, try and keep the plane in flight. Because you righties and lefties are far more similiar to each other than people like me, who couldn&#39;t give two flying fucks about politics, so why not unite in your mutual hatred of us apolitical squanderers instead?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST

    While in essence correct...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...the "let&#39;s all embrace each other" aspect of fascism is mostly adhered to during the power-gathering stages of developing fascism, when the idea that "blood and soil" transcends class, individual rights and culture is used to win popular support in all levels of society. A critical element of fascism is the eternal struggle against "the other", whether it&#39;s a demonized domestic or foreign enemy. Fascism defines itself through ostracizing and dominating groups of people not part of that particular society&#39;s "blood and soil". Physical violence in the service of the state is not only seen as excusable, but also as desirable as it&#39;s the purest form of manifested might. The Orwellian idiocy of political correctness gone mad would indeed lead to a form of "benign" dictatorship eventually, but my feeling is that it would differ from true fascism on several points. This is not to say that a PC tyranny would be more desirable, it&#39;s just different.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Most inaccurate quote of all time...

    by Elmore Rigby

    "a movie about ideas over action, character over special effects, and emotion over action. Y

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Fluffy, that was very interesting.

    by Lord Asriel

    Although I have to take issue with your base premise; fascism believes only "might" to be right whereas the philosophy behind PC believes that strength DOESN&#39;T equal legitimacy, that the weak can be and often are just as right as the strong. You are bang on when you say: thinking there is no right or wrong in anything except force can easily degenerate into fascism. It&#39;s not about making sure someone doesn&#39;t know other people don&#39;t agree with their lifestyle or colour or whatever, it&#39;s about stopping those who don&#39;t agee with a minorities lifestyle or culture, being able to physically affect, for ill, those whose life or culture they don&#39;t agree with. BUT the point of political correctness is that eventually minorities are viewed and treated the same everyone else, therefore political correctness won&#39;t actually be an issue anymore.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:07 a.m. CST

    I wish that was what PC was about, Asriel.

    by FluffyUnbound

    "stopping those who don&#39;t agee with a minorities lifestyle or culture, being able to physically affect, for ill, those whose life or culture they don&#39;t agree with." But that&#39;s not what it&#39;s about. That&#39;s what our laws against assault are about. A good case could be made that hate crime legislation is also "about that". But the overall thrust of the various movements that get labelled "PC" collectively aren&#39;t about preventing physical harm at all. They&#39;re about attempting to protect peoples&#39; "feelings" from the threat of not being "accepted", on the basis of the theory that not feeling accepted is an actionable harm. Unfortunately, there&#39;s ultimately no way to accomplish that goal, but greater and greater levels of control are applied in the misguided attempt to accomplish it. Because although every set of rules micromanaging speech and behavior we&#39;ve had to date didn&#39;t accomplish it, the left is convinced that with just a leeetle bit more power and control and a leeetle bit more specificity in the rule set, they&#39;ll finally be able to get it done. Christianity started out as a religion of love, too, but they ultimately got around to the Inquisition - because if you&#39;re going to try to use the blunt instrument of control to make people "love" or "accept" each other [as opposed to simply leaving each party free to accept or reject each other party as they choose] you&#39;ll never get the result you want until you bring out the rack [and you won&#39;t get it then, either, but that won&#39;t stop the true believers from trying].

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST


    by Redrockmullet

    Why don&#39;t you and Quint run off together and start your OWN movie review site? At least you two can actually REVIEW a movie!

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:33 a.m. CST

    To Lord Asriel + Moriarty is Right???

    by jorson2

    Don&#39;t I know? I could probably name a few things, but you&#39;re the one says there are more bad things about Fascism than what it has in common with Communism. Surely you know? I know I probably look pretty dumb for not listing any myself, but again, I&#39;m not the one making the claim. And as for your Strauss quote, "unregulated"??? Is it that liberals like to live unregulated lives unless they happen to be corporate CEO&#39;s making a lot of money or in some big business, then, by all means, regulate them to the hilt? And to anyone that hates Bush&#39;s spying program, I have to ask: Have you ever used a credit card or the Internet? In which case, you gave up your "privacy" a long time ago. That&#39;s not defending Bush, that&#39;s just the truth. As for Moriarty being right, technically, I think he is, though what are "rational adults?" Everyone seems to have a different idea of what is rational behavior. For example, as a Conservative, I might want to ban abortion because it&#39;s murder and, as Moriarty says, confiscate issues of "High Times" because, unless I&#39;m mistaken (and I could be), the title refers to drug use which is proven to be destructive / self-destructive. Truthfully, most of us consider each other irrational in some way or another for believing anything differently. Would we be more rational if we didn&#39;t say anything at all? It&#39;s AICN&#39;s choice if they offer Talkbacks, and most of what we&#39;re doing is responding to Moriarty&#39;s piece, which uses names like "Fascist," "Hippie," "Pinky," "Liberal," "Conservative," etc. It&#39;s a piece that goes all the way through without ever really acknowleding that while the intention of V for Vendetta may be to attack Fascism, it could just as easily attack Communism at its worst. And having said that, is anyone here a Communist? If you hate McCarthy for having done what he did with the Red Scare and the blacklist, don&#39;t lash out at me for asking -- admit it. If there&#39;s nothing wrong with it, why hide it? I&#39;ve certainly seen Communist or Socialist (and I do know the differences, however subtle) viewpoints on here, just as I&#39;ve seen conservative or, what some may call "Fascist" viewpoints in the Talkbacks as well. I&#39;ve even seen people claiming to be liberals using racial epithets, and yet it&#39;s the conservatives that are the racists, right? Rational adults? Do any of us really qualify, and if so, then by who&#39;s standards?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:46 a.m. CST

    fluffy and jorson2

    by Lord Asriel

    Physical was a bad word to choose fluffy. I meant affecting them in terms of getting a job or in promotion, or getting into a college, how they treated by their peers. I agree if it&#39;s just people&#39;s feelings being protected then it&#39;s too far, but it&#39;s not about that and only that. If you want to stop gays being beaten for being gay you have to try and change people&#39;s attitudes, you can arrest someone after they have done it but prevention is always better than punishment. How do you try and alter someone&#39;s attitudes? By setting examples and using education. Yes some people will never listen to it, and they have that right, but trying to get people to understand and accept differences is no bad thing. Forcing them to do it? Yep that&#39;s bad AND pointless, suggesting they should and explaining why is very different.______ Ok jorson2 why do you want them listed? If you can name a few why do you need me to list them? It&#39;s not a claim it&#39;s common knowledge. As for the Strauss quote I was simply pointing out that neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz believe in what Strauss says, and I wanted to point out how very very different that was from normal conservatism.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Lord Asriel

    by jorson2

    Common knowledge... Kind of like you and Fluffy saying that it&#39;s wrong AND fascist to believe that "might makes right," and at the same time, you don&#39;t believe in right and wrong? I&#39;m confused here. If you don&#39;t believe in right and wrong, then why is Fascism wrong? That&#39;s essentially the question I asked to begin with. You guys accuse the conservatives of narrowly defining "right and wrong" to the exclusion or harm of certain minority groups, but you folks on the left do the exact same thing, only in the opposite way. If you don&#39;t believe in right and wrong, why oppose or support anything? As for Fascism being wrong in ways not associated with Communism, on hindsight, I don&#39;t believe I can think of any! Either I can&#39;t or don&#39;t want to out of spite. I wanted you to name them because you were the one that made the claim. I said that already and you either can&#39;t or won&#39;t acknowledge it. And for your information, BOTH have used MIGHT -- violence, military action, etc. -- to enforce an agenda, even in your beloved "minority" groups. What do you call it when racial minorities riot in the streets to oppose something. That&#39;s not violence? That&#39;s not "might?" What is it? And if that&#39;s not wrong, why is the violence associated with Fascism (or even Communism) wrong? In the end, who is determining what is "right" and "wrong" for both sides? You guys can label Fascism wrong with impunity, without doubt, but for me as a Conservative to label anything else as definitively wrong -- like abortion, per se -- well, then, that makes me a Fascist and, at the very least, harmful to the minority, which by your claim, would seem to be ALWAYS right (though you don&#39;t believe in right and wrong). If my post is confusing, look at your own -- it&#39;s a very stark reflection.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    I am one of the few...

    by tango fett

    Who enjoyed all of the Matrix movies. Was I pissed that Trinity died? Sorta. When Neo died? Hell yeah, but hey, I&#39;ll give them points for at least trying to shake things up as far as the cliches of a trilogy go. I Hope V is cool, despite the fact I haven&#39;t read it yet.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    your post wasn&#39;t confusing, jorson2

    by Lord Asriel

    I think you misunderstood me though. Where have I said I don&#39;t believe in right or wrong? I do believe in right and wrong. So I do believe that the idea of "might makes right" is wrong. I was wondering why you were feeling or could be feeling spiteful? I don&#39;t believe that being from another culture can ever be wrong or make you worthy of mistreatment. I did acknowledge what you said I just assumed that most people know why fascism is bad and that it is bad for other reasons not just associated with communism. That&#39;s not to say communism is right, merely that fascism AND communism are both wrong but in some cases for different reasons. I&#39;m aware that both communists and fascists use military power to enforce agendas. I haven&#39;t said anything differently, fascism however believes violence and military power are ends in themselves where as communism uses force to promote it&#39;s economic beliefs. I think you need to go back and look over my posts and watch for when I say I believe in something or whether it is just what others believe.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 10:55 a.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

    Yes both political parties suck ass and you get every idiot with an agenda coming here. Defending his side or rather their party. You know why though? It&#39;s the fucking critics and the way they&#39;re going about reviewing this film. Maybe not you Mori, but the majority of reviews I&#39;ve read have been using this film as propaganda. Saying how this movie will topple the current administration. How it&#39;ll change the world. Ridiculous shit like that. So of course you&#39;re gonna get these idiots. So to the critics I say - Review the damn film, but don&#39;t protest in your review. Don&#39;t turn into a leftwing commercial like Michael Moore does on his website. I&#39;ve yet to see a movie that toppled a president let alone the government. It&#39;s just a fuckin movie. So remember, critics can be idiots too. That&#39;s all I&#39;m saying.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    This was posted about a week ago...

    by Mr. Shhhh

    for a few hours, early morning. Why was it pulled?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST

    I don&#39;t know about this movie

    by quadrupletree

    But "firing off shots at the Matrix Trilogy" is always a good idea in my book. worst. sequals. ever.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Tyranny of Good Intentions.........Rant Breath

    by Shaner Jedi

    Okay, you say deregulation eventually leads to oligarchs. Right. In our current system of state capitalism it does. How so? First, through corporate personhood, which equates a corporation as a person with individual rights. Corporate personhood is what? It is a state-charter legitimized in the court system. Big corporations exist because of, not in spite of, the state. They rent-seek, they seek subsidies,they seek loopholes(which enlarges our tax code and makes it more complex). They use the state right and left to their advantage. That is corporatism defined. Jack Parson: "He is a radical right wing corporatist pretending to be a "conservative", While it may be dubious to consider him radical0right wing, he is a corporatist, and they come in all shapes and sizes from both parties. IMHO, these people, well the majority of them, are well-intentioned. They mean well and think they&#39;re only doing what has been done and to best advantage. But, their good intentions can also have dire consequences.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Rant Breath - Liberals who love ultra-violence....

    by Thunderballs

    Liberals who love ultra-violence in their films are hypocrites, plain and simple. Any Liberal who enjoys Sin City, who enjoys Marv torturing guys and cutting people&#39;s heads off is not a true Liberal. Now I understand why you&#39;d call this point of view naive, afterall, it is easier to label my theory naive than it is for you to look in the mirror and figure out what the fuck kind of person you are. If you think Denzel is a "bad ass" once he starts capturing guys and torturing them then you are not a Liberal, you are full of shit. A true honest to God Liberal would never enjoy a movie like Sin City, because it relishes in sadism and torture, things Liberals despise, or are supposed to despise. I understand this argument is a bit too esoteric for your mind to understand, but try. Call me naive all you like, but principles do not end at the cinema door! Do you want to see a movie where children are molested then killed in a graphic fashion? Why not? It&#39;s just a movie dude, so what if they&#39;re fucking little kids and chopping their heads off, it&#39;s just a movie! See how ridiculous your stand is? How could you enjoy something in a movie that you yourself in real life find reprehensible? And ity is not like the villain is the one committing the violence, it is the heroes, and you go along for the ride, laughing as Marv tortures guys and makes quips. If there&#39;s nothing funny about torture, then why laugh at that? Your example of Elmer Fudd is stupid as he is shooting an animal, and he never kills that animal, and he never tortures that animal or chops that animal&#39;s head off. Torture is not American or unAmerican, it simply IS. Torture is a necessary evil of war, and it works. You really think the terrorists are going to hate us MORE if we torture their comrades who&#39;ve been captured? How can they hate something more than wanting to exterminate it? You&#39;re a fool. And you do live in fantasy land, because in the real world shit happens, and you have to deal with it. Next time some scumbag terrorist tries to blow up a building, why don&#39;t you go out and try to negotiate with him, afterall, he is only misunderstood right?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST


    by NuteG

    Oh brother...Okay, I&#39;m sorry I laid it on a little thick with the sarcasm, though I still don&#39;t think your joke was all that funny. Anyway, I sincerely apologise. And just between you and me, I&#39;m not American.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST

    By Thunderballs&#39; logic...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...the only people who go see - and cheer - while Jason Voorhees chops people&#39;s heads off are either "true" conservatives who think chopping heads off is okay, or liberal hypocrites.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    In Thunderballs&#39; world...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...there is no difference between fact and fiction, real violence and violence for the sake of entertainment. Since he is incapable of differentiating between his own real violent impulses and the thrills he gets from watching violence on screen, he naturally assumes everyone else either suffers from the same mental affliction he does, or is just lying about it. Remember folks, this is a guy who thinks ethnic cleansing and torture is okay in the real world.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Well put anchorite!

    by Orionsangels

    Glad someone said it. Liberals seem to mask everything they do with so called good intentions, like Moore pretending to care about Rosa Parks or our troops. When the fat lard is in it for the money and fame. Michael Moore has become a brand name.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:01 p.m. CST

    What you Bush fans don&#39;t seem to realize...

    by DocPazuzu that you&#39;ve won any argument about V and it&#39;s "representation" of modern America before it even starts. All you have to do is point out the fact that a film like V couldn&#39;t possibly have been made in either a fascist or police state. With that matter laid to rest, why not engage in the debate? Why not take up the challenge rather than yell, "Haha! The left is trying to score points! But I&#39;ve exposed them!" and leave it at that? To be fair, American liberals "debate" on pretty much the same level these days. Any kind of contentious issue devolves almost immediately into a political dodgeball match. It&#39;s sad and pathetic.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Just for the record. I&#39;m not a Bush fan...

    by Orionsangels

    I&#39;m trying to stay sane. It&#39;s what has obviously become a fucking insane world!

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST

    I&#39;ve got a very cunning plan!

    by seppukudkurosawa

    Why don&#39;t we debate about which side is more justified, and then the winners of this debate can have another debate, and then the final two people remaining will partake upon a master-debate. Because this is little more than that.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:46 p.m. CST


    by admkirk

    They are inept and corrupt and can&#39;t get their act together except when it involves stealing taxpayer money. They used the Iraq War which is an absolute horror show to launder $9 billion of taxpayer money to government contractors and their own cronies. They try to privatize FEMA and name a fucking momo with no experience as it&#39;s head and as a result hundreds of people die in New Orleans. Our country is going broke with the outrageous deficits and ever increasing national debt. We&#39;re helping Iran and the Palestinians become even more far-right Islamo-fascists thanks to our stupid invasion of Iraq. But hey, if you criticize this administration you are a looney left liberal who hates America.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Conservative Love Fest

    by admkirk

    It&#39;s funny how the Dick Cheney hunting accident is the perfect metaphor for this administration and its apologists. Here&#39;s an idiot like Cheney who tries to act all tough and a bully and tries to go hunt quail. (No relation to Dan, though they seem to be smarter.) He ends up missing the quail and hits his friend in the face, causing him to have a heart attack. On top of that, they try to cover it up and play it off because nobody heard of the accident until the next day when a local reporter got a tip about the incident. Ineptitude, dishonesty and insecurity. That&#39;s what this administration is all about.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:08 p.m. CST


    by Thunderballs

    Your shit is so tired, as is your easy logic and facile conclusions. I&#39;m not going to get into it with you cause I don&#39;t like wasting my days. But if you can&#39;t see the inherent problem in avowed pacifists loving and laughing at Marv as he tortures and kills then what am I supposed to say? Obviously, from your comments, it seems you&#39;d like to see a film where children are anally raped then killed in gruesome fashion, afterall, it&#39;s only a movie right? It&#39;s make believe. So what if you enjoy watching the children get raped, it&#39;s not like you support the rape of children in real life. Get a fucking clue Buddy. Oh wait, I keep forgetting, you&#39;re a moderate. Therefore you have no opinions and no beliefs. So with no principles you have nothing to check at the cinema door. A real AMERICAN has no problem with torturing terrorists as a means to an end, therefore they will not be offended when Marv is out torturing rapists, or Man on Fire is out killing kidnappers, cause sometimes you need to do some dirty work. Fact is, torture is responsible for us not being hit since 9/11, since we have gotten a lot of info from torturing prisoners. I have an idea, why don&#39;t we lock Pazuzu in with the terrorists, after an hour of his nonsense they&#39;ll tell us anything just to get Pazuzu the fuck away from them. But that&#39;s okay, keep upholding your glorious Liberal ideals while you revel in sadism, gore, abuse, torture, and God knows what else you get off on.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Thundy, baby...

    by DocPazuzu

    As usual, you remain silent when asked pointed questions about your ideology (while accusing me of having none), and only respond when being ridiculed. How predictable. What&#39;s also predictable is your shallow and ignorant view of what a "liberal" is. See, this whole liberal "avowed pacifist" thing is just another piece of propaganda you get from your news sources (none of which you&#39;ve yet revealed despite numerous promptings). My step-grandfather and three great uncles all volunteered during WWII and all saw heavy action. A couple were even decorated for valor. Oh yeah, they were also diehard liberals, each and every one. Sorry to deflate yet another one of your odious balloons, Thunderballs. By the way, you still haven&#39;t answered how it is that I, who oppose all forms of genocide and ethnic cleansing, lack a moral compass whereas you, who defend and advocate the very same, are at the apex of the pyramid of morality and righteousness.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:39 p.m. CST


    by KurosawaDisciple

    ....can&#39;t wait for the movie. Loved the graphic novel from back in the day...Thanks for the honest review Mori.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST


    by Mr Nice Gaius

    is your brain working? Because those last couple of posts just reek of cop-outs. Seriously, can you think in more black & white terms? "A true honest to God Liberal would never enjoy a movie like Sin City, because it relishes in sadism and torture, things Liberals despise, or are supposed to despise."??? you honestly believe individuals are that frakkin&#39; incapable of having their own views, intuitions, and levels of tolerance? How grand of you. Never deceive yourself in thinking that you know what "Liberals" or "Moderates" or "Conservatives" are willing to create and enjoy for the sake of art/entertainment.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Didn&#39;t you know, Mr. Nice Gaius?

    by DocPazuzu

    In Thunderballs&#39; world, any type of nuance or any opinion you hold which doesn&#39;t cleave strictly to the dogma of ideological extremism is a sign of weakness and immorality.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Are you criticizing the movie for having a political agenda or its makers for denying it?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:19 p.m. CST


    by Mr Nice Gaius

    It is exactly that type of view or stance that has made public political discourse so ridiculous in this country today. A good pop example would be the Bruce Willis interview on CHUD yesterday. Did anyone notice how vehemently he had to explain himself when he was asked about being a conservative/Republican? Is it really so bad to be conservative? Is it really so bad to be liberal? Come on. Find the middle ground folks. It&#39;s the only thing that&#39;s gonna get this country where it needs to be.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:23 p.m. CST

    V was not liberal

    by Right Bastard

    I haven&#39;t seen the film, but in the book, V is an anarchist. A very different concept than liberalism. Liberalism is a government that implies personal freedom, while maintaining a social conscious (health care, education, etc.). Anarchist belive in abolition of all government control, and allowing individuals to self rule (not "chaos", as many misinterpret). Anyway, those are very different concepts.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    I understand your irritation. However, the problem with political debate in America today is that it never goes further than "exposing" the agendas on either side. Let&#39;s say for the sake of argument that V is a "liberal" or "democratic" film. Why is it enough to just call it that? What used to happen was that people would TAKE UP the ideological and/or philosophical aspects of the agenda put forward, see them as a challenge and DEBATE them. The impression one brings away from modern American political "discourse" is that it amounts to nothing more than trying to de-cloak political stealth missiles being launched from either side. I&#39;d rather see an arena where everyone fucking ACKNOWLEDGES that ideological challenges are being exchanged, and then actually DEBATE them. Let conservatives explain why V isn&#39;t applicable as a critique and let liberals explain why it is - or vice versa, as the case may be. The point is - fucking DISCUSS it.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:36 p.m. CST

    WWII---different type of Liberal back then

    by Thunderballs

    As usual DocPaz, your grasp of history is faulty, and your grasp of the evolution of the political parties even worse. Back in the forties, EVERYONE supported America, right and left and center, they ALL supported our country. Which is why you had guys like Jimmy Stewart and other Hollywood stars going over to fight. Hollywood made movies about how valiant our soldiers were. A Democrat back then actually cared about defending the country, and actually knew that sometimes war is necessary. Not like the pansies running around today trying to protect every goddamn terrorist we capture. Back then, Democrats were real Americans. That no longer exists today. You guys have Howard Dean leading you. Good luck. I support the extermination of every single Muslim terrorist on the planet. I guess to you that is genocide Paz, cause you must think all Muslims are terrorists. Why else would you say I support genocide when I say we should kill all the Muslim terrorists? Obviously you think every Muslim is a terrorist. That&#39;s racist. And to whomever criticized my quite factual assessment of Liberals loving violence in films, sucks to look in the mirror don&#39;t it? Sucks to have to question every value you hold dear doesn&#39;t it? I know you&#39;ll just laugh it off, say I am an idiot, but deep down you know I have a point, maybe when you get older and have a little more education you&#39;ll come around. No, probably not.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:40 p.m. CST

    The name is MR. NICE GAIUS Thunderballs

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    And I&#39;m going to do my damnest to make sure you don&#39;t fucking forget it. Per you, sir: "And to whomever criticized my quite factual assessment of Liberals loving violence in films, sucks to look in the mirror don&#39;t it? Sucks to have to question every value you hold dear doesn&#39;t it?" -- Wow, you don&#39;t even realize what you are saying do you, mouthbreather?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Nice gauisa? What?

    by Orionsangels

    I forgot

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    "different type of Liberal back then"

    by DocPazuzu

    No, they&#39;re pretty much the same liberals today. By your logic, they would have become "conservatives" during the 1960s in order to remain true to their 1940s ideals. Besides, you completely ignored my point - that you know fuck all about liberals and "avowed pacifism" on their part. I&#39;m sure you actually believe that every American man and woman who has volunteered for service in our wars since WWII is a "true conservative". As for the Muslims, it&#39;s quite clear for anyone who bothers to follow the links to earlier talkbacks that it is in fact you who believe all Muslims should be eradicated. In fact, you called the massacre at Srebrenica "breaking a few eggs" in order to make an omelette. It was a nice attempted deflection, Thundy, but your previous statements expose you for the intellectual coward and multitalented scumbag that you are.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    P.S. Thundy

    by DocPazuzu

    You still haven&#39;t explained how it is, or where I said, that I advocate the genocide of Christians. Is that why you&#39;re now shifting gears and saying that I advocate the extermination of Muslims?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Orionsangel - you were saying?

    by Mr Nice Gaius

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Give me "Abby Road"....

    by KurosawaDisciple

    ...any day of the week....

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST


    by Cameron1

    Ok I see your points, however I have to say that the way the film is marketed, is to appeal to the largest audience possible, but I think a major reason for that is the same as it for all movies, studios want their products to rake in the cash. many films are mis-marketed or even marketed to appear very different to what they are. Solaris for example was marketed as a love story a sci-fi thriller, but certainly not as a existential drama, cus, well that shit just wouldn&#39;t have gone down to well with a large audience (or so the studios seem to think), plus I think you need to look at how much control over the marketing the filmmakers have, I&#39;d wager it was a reasonable amount but I can also be fairly safe in assuming the studio had certain requirements for the trailer. Perhaps they are appealing to liberals in the trailer but so what? It&#39;s not a crime. Anyway you also said that you are irked by the filmmakers denying it has a political maessage but I&#39;ll be honest, from what I&#39;ve read they haven&#39;t shied away from the politics, how the hell can you with this film? Going back to the trailer for a second, how is the line "governments should be afraid of their people" not specifically political? Have you seen the film? I haven&#39;t so what are the makers doing which parallels the Bush government with the fascist government in the comic? What have they changed so that it specifically targets the republicans in the white house? Yes, tonnes of people will be saying this is an anti-bush film, but so what? There&#39;s nothing wring with that per se, just very aggravating if you are a Bush supporter, sure it may be inaccurate the way it does criticise the administration, but that&#39;s hard to say seeing as the film is set in a fictitious world not in our own. And it&#39;s only inaccurate if you think Bush isn&#39;t doing that, but there are plenty of people who think he is. If you believe Bush et al are fascists already then this film won&#39;t affect your political stance. If you love bush then this film won&#39;t affect your political stance and if you are in the middle then this film MIGHT affect your political stance, but what was the one film that changed your political views? I&#39;m betting there wasn&#39;t one. Why should this be any different? Going back to your point about hiding a political message in the film, well first I have to say again how on earth are they hiding it? And second do you hate Forrest Gump then? If ever there was a film with a very strong reactionary and right to centre right wing message it was that film, it&#39;s message was in the subtext. Are they filmmakers denying it&#39;s "hidden" message as they don&#39;t talk about as a political film? Is it bad for them to put a hidden message in the film? The media is palying it up as a cautionary tale about relenquishing more powers and rights to the government and what happens when it goes to far. How is that a bad thing? I assume (and I could be wrong) that you don&#39;t think America is on that particular path, but other people do and they can tell as many people as they like. I know we have debates and arguments a fair but but this isn&#39;t a rant nor an insulting post just a genuine debate.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST

    The world is not black & white, it is NUANCED!!!

    by Thunderballs

    I totally agree that the world is not black and white and that nuance is a virtue. Someone forgot to send DocPaz the memo, cause he seems to think there are many things that are black and white with no nuance at all. For instance, you are not allowed to look at Milosevic in anything but a negative light. You&#39;re not even allowed to try and see things from his perspective. He perceived a threat from Muslim terrorists in his country, and he acted. Now, whether that threat was real or perceived is up to debate, as is the way he went about it. But not to DocPaz, no, there is no nuance when it comes to Milosevic. For a moderate, you have an inimitable way of not seeing two sides to a story. Take Columbine, is one allowed to have a "nuanced" view of that situation? What about racism, sexism, affirmative action, abortion, are we allowed to have nuanced views on those things? I see, you only want nuance when it is a topic or idea you agree with, but everything else is black and white. Nice how you pick and choose what to be nuanced about. If you were truly nuanced, and a true moderate, you&#39;d see things from both sides, but you don&#39;t. You only see one side when it fits your argument, then you are nuanced when you hit back at me. I see and appreciate all sides, you only see what you want. Sad really. And yes DocPaz, you do support the extermination of innocent Christians because you supported us attacking Bosnia and the such. And no, you do not support exterminating Muslimms, rather, you implied that all Muslims are terrorists, since you took my statement of "kill all Muslim terrorists" to mean I support genocide. Obviously, you think all Muslims are terrorists if you think wanting to kill Muslim terrorists is genocide.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Mack the Knife

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I agree, Rubber Soul is a brilliant album. Despite the quality of the songwriting on the White Album, they were a lost entity by then. And I guess I prefer Rubber because I&#39;m as much as fan of their early music as their later. And Sgt Pepper&#39;s? Come on, NONE of the Beatles particularly like/d that album (except maybe McCartney an incy bit), and it&#39;s just soulless compared to some of their other stuff... Fuck it being the Obvious best. The best Beatles album is All Things Must Pass (which is George all alone). End of Talkback-Jack.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Country...

    by Thunderballs

    A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Country From Its Government. Know It, Love It, Live It.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Thundy, Thundy, Thundy...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...I repeat: links to the earlier talkbacks have been provided for anyone who wants to read your own words firsthand. Yeah, calling the massacre of seven to eight thousand civilian men and boys "breaking a few eggs" is certainly "nuanced". As is seeing the situation from Milosevic&#39;s point of view. Wow, it sure causes one to view Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Mao, Idi Amin, Franco and Emperor Bokassa in a totally different light. I like the way your "nuanced" views equate the air strikes on Serbia with Milosevic&#39;s attempted extermination of Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims. It just makes so much sense and really, really exposes me for the wishy-washy, myopic, ignorant, immoral, spineless political retard that I truly am.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST

    A Patriot Must Always Be Ready.....

    by Cameron1

    so all those Bush hating liberals who organise rallies and petitions, who campaign and get their voice heard are patriots? If you say so tballs.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:38 p.m. CST

    DocPaz---get your facts straight!

    by Thunderballs

    8,000 civilians killed by Milosevic? Please, go check your facts. Is that the same place that says we killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis? And I like the way you call what we did in Bosnia "air strikes." Makes it sound all neat and nice. We fucking rained fire upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children. But I guess it is okay when we kill thousands of civilians right? Jesus Christ dude, you are fucking bent. And I seem to remember a lot of Leftists supporting Stalin and Communism, they thought they were nuanced as well. Same with Mussolini. Same with Mao. All guys supported by the left. Hitler as well, considering the leftist rag New York Times always referred to Hitler back then as Herr Hitler, using the proper German to show respect to that piece of shit. And they continued to do that after we entered the war, and after they knew about the concentration camps. They thought they were nuanced as well. Leftists never met a totalitarian regime they did not like and support. Same with Saddam, those on the Left did not seem to care about him killing innocent people in the thousands. They only care when it is America doing the killing. And I do not equate us exterminating Christians with what Milosevic did, what we did was worse, because we&#39;re a Christian country and we attacked other Christians. I know religion makes you sick, so I&#39;ll stop here.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:38 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    I wasn&#39;t referring to you in particular. I meant the way the "debate" usually plays out in these situations.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    Nice try, Mr. Razor, but I&#39;ve never seen even one second of "Buffy" (the TV show; I liked the movie) -- &#39;though I do have a master&#39;s degree in literature. Arthur Miller&#39;s death last year was occasion to revisit his body of work, and it ain&#39;t much to write about; it should be relegated to the high school ghetto where broad and somewhat clumsy brush strokes are necessary.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    oh I know you weren&#39;t frothing at the mouth..

    by Cameron1

    I didn&#39;t want people to think I was that&#39;s why I mentioned it as that was a pretty lengthy post for me. However I think you underestimate the amount of people worried about our rights being eroded (note: not all of them totally stripped away). We aren&#39;t near the fascist government in the film, not even close, obviously anyone who says so is just exagerrating, but hell that&#39;s been going on for years from both sides. BUT there is a compelling argument (perhaps not for you) to be made that we are heading down a worrying road, not to get caught up in a non film related debate but the fact that the government is very fucking far from transparent while at the same time making our private lives much more transparent to the authorities is a situation for concern, for me and many others, and you know I&#39;m not a lunatic left wing conspiracy nut ,well I think you do at least :) ______ What I&#39;m saying is, that even a little further down that road from where we are now is troubling and I think that&#39;s what the film is warning against. Yes it&#39;s using an extreme example, but come on it&#39;s a sci-fi comic adaptation. it&#39;s bound to use extremes to make it&#39;s point, that&#39;s the whole idea of dystopia comics, films and novels. Of course you don&#39;t see it as a question of degree, because you don&#39;t think we are even near that road, and that&#39;s cool, but there&#39;s a lot of people who do so I think your criticism of the media and people making this out to be something it&#39;s not is flawed And perhaps also because you hate the message it&#39;s giving not just the way it&#39;s delivered? (honest question, not rhetorical). Lastly I wanted to say that I believe you are pretty much wrong all the way about this film trying to get people to vote Democrat, afterall the end of the comic and as I understand it the film is VERY far from what Democrats want. It may get them to dislike Bush and by default they have to vote Democrat to stand a chance of defeating republicans, but that&#39;s different, to me at least, from making a film a vote drive specifically for the Dems.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6 p.m. CST

    Oh, I see. Since you have a master&#39;s degree, I assume

    by FluffyUnbound

    that your problem is that THE CRUCIBLE is about something, and you in all likelihood prefer work that is about nothing. And if high school English classes are a ghetto, college English literature departments are Watts after the fire. Effetely twitching your nose and boasting of your love of the delicate and subtle [as opposed to the "broad and somewhat clumsy"] doesn&#39;t win you any points, pokey. You may as well wear a flashing neon Dilettante sign around your neck. Especially when you try to apply a standard like that to a midcentury PLAY, and not the dreamy introspective novels where the standard might actually have a point or a soupcon of validity.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Ah, the irony, Thunderballs...

    by DocPazuzu

    To have you question my sources after refusing, repeatedly, to name a single source for your own news and "facts". Fantastic. However, I do enjoy watching as you, as usual, with each post lose a little bit more of your composure and show what you&#39;re really made of (as if the earlier talkbacks weren&#39;t enough). If you had even the slightest knowledge of history you would know that Winston Churchill often referred to "Herr Hitler" during his speeches. I suppose he was supporting Nazi Germany as well. Also, you would know that the support offered to Hitler and Mussolini during the war from non-Germans and non-Italians was mostly from ultra-conservatives in various nations. Oh, that&#39;s right -- I forgot; you think that since fascists sought to unite all classes in their societies and believed in a strong, centralized state that they were "leftists". And as for this quote: "And I do not equate us exterminating Christians with what Milosevic did, what we did was worse, because we&#39;re a Christian country and we attacked other Christians," I&#39;ll let it speak for itself. This one, however, merits at least one small comment: "I know religion makes you sick, so I&#39;ll stop here." If I recall correctly, you claimed to be an atheist in the Why We Fight talkback. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I actually do believe in God so that argument is totally irrelevant as well as being intellectually dishonest on your part.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    anchorite a quck edit to my previous post:

    by Cameron1

    --- going from ---- "but there&#39;s a lot of people who do, so I think your criticism of the media and people making this out to be something it&#39;s not is flawed"....because while you believe the situation is not actually happening many people DO, therefore your argument that the film is inaccurate is because of your political views. If that is the case then a big part of you not liking it is because you disagree with it&#39;s message and how that message is being discussed/handled/marketed.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST

    I wonder...

    by Jonesey1111

    How much of their lives has Doc and Thunderballs wasted bickering back and forth. Give it up, fellas, neither of you will ever change your minds. Someone be the bigger man (or woman) and let the other have the last word.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Haha funny dogapeandman

    by Orionsangels

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 6:52 p.m. CST

    OK Jonesey1111

    by Thunderballs

    I&#39;ll bite since you seem to be the only one who knows what&#39;s going on here. I will say that I agree with BannedOnTheRun that Arthur Miller is a fucking hack. The Crucible was alright, but it should be relegated to high schools, for it is a facile book. You want a Miller, try reading Henry Miller. THAT guy knew how to write, and fuck.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:12 p.m. CST

    I do take offense to Thunder&#39;s assesment re: Sin City.

    by Lenny Nero

    And I also think you make horrific blanket statements. In WWII, we were attacked. In the war for whatever the fuck we call it now Iraqi freedom, there was nothing of the sort. Let&#39;s start at that surface level and perhaps advance further. As for "Sin City," I would like to think an audience member knows the difference between supporting a character in an entertainment peice and supporting a real life monster. Marv&#39;s vengeance led to the height of corruption, represented by religion. Ooooooh...Christians. And to what "side" of the country&#39;s spectrum do the loudest Christians belong? Interesting. Movies are meant exactly for the purpose of escapism (for the most part) and escapism includes watching people do what you would never do. I think you yourself are looking at this situation in extreme black-and-white, spouting absolutes, which is anything but shades of grey.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:18 p.m. CST

    the bottom line

    by frank cotton

    is that BIG BROTHER is on his way, and the hardware is already in your home - all he has to do is start recording. better be on your best behavior...

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST


    by Jonesey1111

    what if DocPazuzu and Thunderballs are the same person??? That would be great - a long, heated debate against yourself in the talkbacks. I wonder if anyone&#39;s ever done it?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Actually, Jonesey, that would be sweet.

    by Lenny Nero

    But I think that would have imploded long ago. They&#39;re both equally loud and often obnoxious, because I think the point of talkbalks is not to yell, but to discuss. And when one acts like an asshole, they probably are an asshole. Humility is a virtue, and so is admitted that something, one is wrong. Nobody is always right.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:32 p.m. CST

    *sometimes*, not "something"

    by Lenny Nero

    Yeah, I wish I could edit here, too.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    oh, hi Lenny Nero!

    by HypeEndsHere

    those "good notices" about the Pink Panther that you had special access to would&#39;ve really boosted it&#39;s Tomato rating. but hey, these days if a movie is number one for a weekend, that means it&#39;s a good movie. please tip us off to any more "good notices" that you are privy to.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Forget V, they should make a movie about this blog

    by darthflagg Scary stuff . . .

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Lenny Nero - Sin City and Torture

    by Thunderballs

    All I know is I have a very good friend who is a die-hard Liberal but not one of those idiot Liberals that you can&#39;t discuss shit with, he is not P.C. at all, but he is very much against war and violence in any form, because he thinks it is unnecessary. Therefore, he does not enjoy seeing those things in the cinema. He knows it is fake, who doesn&#39;t? That&#39;s not the point, the point is that violence in real life makes him sick, so why would he enjoy fake violence made to produce the same visceral response? Fact is he does not like violent movies where sadism is glorified, because as a peace loving Liberal that stuff makes him sick. And can anyone answer the question: Would it ever be okay to enjoy a film where the hero goes around and rapes little children then beheads them? Afterall, it&#39;s only a movie right? Just cause you enjoy seeing child rape in a fiction film does not mean you support it in real life. You wanna talk about black and white, there it is right there. If you enjoy sadism in films then there is a part of you that enjoys sadism, period, fake or not. Your civilized brain knows it is fake in a movie, but your primitive mind does not, which is why we react to visceral things the way we do. If you watch a tape of a guy getting beheaded, your rational mind knows it is an image on a television, but your primitive mind thinks it is happening right in front of you. This is why your heart will start to beat faster and you will feel the adrenaline pumping, cause your primitive mind thinks "if that guy just got beheaded in front of me, what will they do to me next?" So if you enjoy sadism in films, it means you enjoy sadism personally on some level. And why would you support Marv torturing guys anyway? Why wouldn&#39;t it make you dislike him, or look at him as a villain, the way you do those who torture in real life? It would seriously be like a Bush hater going to see a movie about what a great president W was, and coming out saying what an awesome movie. Why would he love a movie that so goes against what his beliefs are?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST


    by frank cotton

    glad to see someone here has a clue

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 9:58 p.m. CST


    by frank cotton

    you&#39;re not trying to blur the line between reality and fantasy for us are you?

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 10 p.m. CST

    holy shit.

    by HypeEndsHere

    that&#39;s funny. and a little sad... I think he may find that his anger derives from the world not conforming to his prematurely contructed beliefs. had he developed a flexible mind that allows for shades of grey, I doubt we&#39;d be seeing such anger. i.e. the liberals are inconsistant and that&#39;s their problem! means (to a rational human) people i label liberals are not consistant with my preconceived notions of a liberal and so that&#39;s a flaw of theirs! see folks, this is what happens when your contact with people is done solely through electronic means.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Political Movie???

    by McCroskey

    Its probably a safe bet that everyone of significance involved in the production of this movie, from the WB execs, to Joel Silver, to the Wachowskis, to the director, and to the stars, are all leftwingers. Its probably a safe bet that they all really dislike Bush. Its probably a decent bet that many of them indulge in the paranoid leftist fantasies about Bush and his administration being fascist and tyrannical. Considering all of this, its probably a safe bet that things were added to the movie with the sole purpose of being thinly-veiled shots at Bush and conservatives (and I do agree with those who have pointed out that Bush is hardly a full-fledged conservative). Considering when it was made, its probably a safe bet that for most involved, part of their incentive for doing the movie was to make an anti-Bush/conservative statement. In short, all creative lights involved likely see the film as an attack on Bush, as they intended all along, whether they admit to it or not. My question is; why not just admit it? What&#39;s the big deal? Noone should be surprised when a political movie from Hollywood comes down on the Left&#39;s side and attacks the Right. Don&#39;t they all? It would be refreshing if those involved would simply come out and say that they think Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to the world, and that the purpose of this movie (in addition to entertaining of coure) is to rip him a new one. Just admit that its a leftist fantasy. They might lose some potential customers in the process, but then again, they may make up for it by bringing in people who don&#39;t like Bush (including some of his conservative critics) who may not have otherwise been interested.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 11:21 p.m. CST

    That&#39;s not to say...

    by McCroskey

    that Hollywood distortions and lies about conservatives don&#39;t bother me, because to an extent they do. All I&#39;m saying is that by now, it should come as no surprise. And since there is almost no chance of politically charged conservative movies coming from Hollywood, then there isn&#39;t much reason to get too upset about it, especially since doing so can help promote that which offends you. On its own, V would probably range from being a flop to doing decent business.

  • Feb. 16, 2006, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Forrest Gump

    by McCroskey

    Cameron1 cited this as an example of movie with a conservative message, and he correctly stated that "it&#39;s message was in the subtext." Subtext is pretty much all conservatives will ever get out of a film these days. It will largely be open to interpretation, as I&#39;m sure Tom Hanks and Zemeckis would be horrified to think that "Gump" in any way pushed a conservative message. Same goes for all those involved with Lord of the Rings.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Yeah, hype, I was going to eat crow in the old TB...

    by Lenny Nero

    But nobody was there. I apologize wholeheartedly, and offer myself now. To be fair, good notices at test screenings don&#39;t always translate good reviews, as they are done by the general population. And being #1 at the weekend, you are right, does matter. One thing, though: you don&#39;t have to be mean about it. This is a gentleman&#39;s game. I preach that people stop being asses, but I&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt. And what&#39;s this about special access? It&#39;s not that special. I don&#39;t recall ever saying that it would be considered an all-around movie, but do recall defending its b.o. potential. I do this for a living...for now...

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 12:29 a.m. CST

    There are those blanket statements again.

    by Lenny Nero

    Because you&#39;re friend does something, then that must surely mean others do, too. I root for Marv because the film, which is not a political polemic, tells us to. It treats him as a superhero. As for a movie about a man raping children that can be enjoyable, I direct your attention to "Happiness," one of the most harrowing and nuanced films of the last 10 years. When it comes to the Dylan Baker character, I of course do not agree with what he does, but the movie doesn&#39;t go out of its way to judge him either. I know this isn&#39;t the same as your "glorifying violence" argument, but most of us can know the difference between reality and fantasy. If you don&#39;t like it, fine, but that doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Lenny Nero - you miss my point

    by Thunderballs

    I never said that you can&#39;t tell the difference between reality and fantasy. What I said was that it is illogical to enjoy torture in film but decry its use in real life as a way to get info. And if you&#39;re against torture and think it is reprehensible then why would you root for a character who practices it? And Dylan Baker was not the hero of Happiness, and we certainly were not rooting for him to rape more kids, but in Sin City you look forward to how Marv will torture the next victim. I&#39;m sorry if you don&#39;t see a disconnect here, but whatever. It&#39;s not the first time someone refuses to truly look at themselves in a mirror and ask themselves "why do I enjoy seeing human beings getting tortured on film?" I use my friend as an example because he is CONSISTENT in his belief system. How is that a blanket statement? I&#39;m sorry, but the Liberals here who enjoy torture on film are not consistent in their belief system. You can argue, but you&#39;d be wrong. All I ask is consistency in principles and beliefs.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    You think it&#39;s illogical, I think it&#39;s logical.

    by Lenny Nero

    And healthy. It&#39;s a blanket statement because you are using him to define other people, while you can ONLY use him for him. I won&#39;t continue, because I realize either you&#39;re a troll or suffer from the same disconnect of which you speak. If you&#39;re a good conservative, why do you constantly come to a blatantly liberal site? You can only say what you think, but you cannot say for sure that I am not consistent. If you seriously cannot comprehend the positive energy to be had playing a role as an audience--and yes, we do play a role often different than ourselves--then I&#39;m not sure why you come here. We can agree to disagree, but don&#39;t pretend you&#39;re high and mighty and have the final say on everything. Nobody does. Even God contradicts himself. People are allowed their own opinions and beliefs, and it is neither my nor your duty to definitely say what is right and wrong. Welcome to the real world of politics, where humility, grace, dignity and respect make a country whole.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 1:09 a.m. CST

    And wait, who said 100% of liberals decry torture?

    by Lenny Nero

    Direct me to a study, because otherwise, there&#39;s another one against you.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 1:55 a.m. CST

    And the US treats violence and sex differently.

    by Lenny Nero

    So the comparison between torture on film and rape on film could perhaps not be as valid as you would like.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Thunderballs likes to...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...go on about movies about child rape but refused to address the example I put forward where people go to Friday the 13th movies and cheer for Jason when he&#39;s killing teenagers. By his logic, every single one of them is either a real life sadistic pervert, a "true" conservative who thinks behavior like that is okay, or a disingenuous, hypocritical liberal. In Thunderballs&#39; world you would never see any movie which has an agenda or leaning which differs from your own. You would only see films which correspond to, and reinforce, your own world view. Anything else is hypocrisy. It&#39;s actually quite disturbing, although not surprising, to learn that Thunderballs own "visceral" reactions to fake and real beheadings on film or tape don&#39;t differ in any way.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Lenny Nero

    by DocPazuzu

    "And when one acts like an asshole, they probably are an asshole." ...... You know, coming in here and making pronouncements like that based on how this debate is being conducted rather than what is being said, especially when you can&#39;t see what a fucking monster Thunderballs is, definitely makes you sound like an asshole. And if you sound like one... "Nobody is always right" ..... Actually, when it comes to Thunderballs, I am indeed always right.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Fair enough, Doc, but this should be a fair forum.

    by Lenny Nero

    Sometimes you&#39;re right, but sometimes you bait, and that has often bothered me. Believe me, I&#39;ve seen Thunderballs&#39; stuff and don&#39;t like him much either, but I also won&#39;t turn this into something meanspirited. I apologize for the asshole comment, but I also think you both could stand to lighten up.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Lenny Nero

    by DocPazuzu

    Sure, I&#39;ll bait at times, but the targets are invariably cretins like Thunderballs, people who advocate mass murder, oppression, extremism, or the perpetuation of all manner of prejudices and idiocy . I can&#39;t find it within myself to feel bad about that. Sorry to disappoint you.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:49 a.m. CST

    True, but with them you&#39;ll never win.

    by Lenny Nero

    You&#39;ll just talk until you&#39;re red in the face. The best way is to just ignore. They won&#39;t learn, and they don&#39;t have much traction around here anyway, let alone the real world. You might as well find a more positive outlet for your opinions and your effort.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:58 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    I have no illusions about changing their minds. I&#39;m also not na

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Well, at least you know your place.

    by Lenny Nero

    Godspeed, good sir.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST

    "V" is for "Shitty"

    by Drunken Rage

    The graphic novel wasn&#39;t all that great, folks.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 8:06 a.m. CST

    sorry Lenny

    by HypeEndsHere

    I guess i was smarting from the &#39;i won&#39;t hold it against you&#39; remark. the reason i assumed you had special access was because everything i&#39;d seen in the press to that point pointed to the Pink Panther being a bonafide dog.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Doc Paz and Lenny

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I think we can all agree that we are witness to a very civil exchange between the two of you. Points made, positions defined, and a plateau reached. Now, if only Thunderbum would truly look at himself in this so-called "mirror", he may see the total lack of empathy/irony in his black & white statements.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 10:09 a.m. CST

    As a response to the outrageous July 7th bombings

    by emeraldboy

    This week the british govt won significant victories on two front, smoking and terrorism. From 2007 smoking will be banned in all places. More worringly the New Labour govt also won victories on Blairs Draconian new anti-terror legislation. One area which will effect this film is the glorification of terror act which will make outlaw anything which can be seen as glorifying terror(they recently dropped a verse from rule Britannia and Ronnie Drew fears that all of their falks will be songs maybe at risk and The Uk Conservatives Shadow AG Dominic Grieve said that if my leader Bertie Aherne was to go to the uk after the 90th anniversary of the easter rising, he could very well be arrested for glorifying terrorism because many rightwing historians call the leaders of the 1916 rising terrorist others see them as heroes or freedom fighters, this is all after 9/11. If this banns the wolfe tonnes awful songs then, in odd way i am happy.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Rebellion is cliche.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    And it has been cliche for quite awhile. More like an automatic reflex for some people than a thought out response.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Why is this film coming out in March?

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    Shouldn&#39;t it be a major summer or Christmas release instead?

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 1:27 p.m. CST

    talk about boring....

    by Thunderballs

    Lenny and DocPaz could put a cokehead in the middle of a binge to sleep. At least I am entertaining, which is what this whole talkback is about, to entertain, and I do it admirably. You guys are so full of yourselves, so full of righteousness. And you wonder why the Demoncats have been out of power so long, you all take yourselves so super seriously. And I know what bothers and perturnbs DocPaz. He disagrees with everything I say, but he knows from the way I write and put sentences together that I am educated and articulate, and that scares him. In his little black and white world, it is positively impossible for someone with an education and a vocabulary to hold views such as mine. Where is your nuance now? I understand your fear of me, for you know I give voice to many in the silent majority, and your scared that your brainwashing will be undone by people like me. That is why you keep responding. Give any reason you like, but you respond out of fear. If you truly thought I was an idiot, you would not respond, you&#39;d laugh it off. But you&#39;re scared, full of fear that the truth might come out and it might not agree with your little black and white world view. Sure, sometimes I&#39;m full of shit, but you&#39;re going to sith there with a straight face and say you are not as full of shit as I am? You constantly criticize in me what you yourselves do. I never understand that. My supposed intolerance is only matched, and exceeded, by your intolerance for dissent from the mainstream. But please, keep responding to me, and show everyone here just how alike we are. And yes, people who wholeheartedly enjoy horror movies and sadism and watch them over and over have a fucking problem, they are sick fucks. People who enjoy a movie like Hostel are sick fucks. Oh, there I go again, making a blanket statement about people who enjoy sadism and gore. Fuck, the truth hurts!!!

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    America-Hating Liberals

    by battlestone

    I&#39;m sick of hearing your garbage and I am sick of watching movies like V for Vendetta that glorify liberalism. What has liberalism ever given to America? Nothing. Name me one good democrap president this country has ever had. Liberalism is creating a permissive society where not only is it okay for races to mix and marry, but now it&#39;s okay for gays to marry. Why can&#39;t Hollywood make a pro-America movie? Passion of the Christ was an exception but you saw how much crap Mel Gibson got from the media for making that. Maybe Mel should have tried to rewrite history and have Evangliscal Christians crucify Jesus rather than the Jews.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by Mr Nice Gaius

    "Passion of the Christ" is a pro-American movie? You sir, have just uttered what may be the most ignorant statement on AICN. EVER. And as far as Liberals in history, you need to do a little homework son. Maybe get out of your homo-phobic, panic monger, I-live-in-fear-of-God closet for a day and try opening your eyes.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    And Thunderballs

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Here is some truth that will hurt: YOU ARE A CUNT.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Mr Nice Gaius, why don&#39;t u go hug a tree u lefty loon

    by battlestone

    Passion of The Christ was a pro-American movie because it celebrated Christianity and this, like it or not, is a Christian nation. In the coming judgement day we will all be judged. These secularist liberals will be judged as well. That is why we must have Christian law in this country.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:08 p.m. CST

    I already said I was done addressing Thunderballs.

    by Lenny Nero

    I will say, though, that while you spout that Democrats are not in power--which is true, but not for long--this can lead to the assumption that Conservativism is the mainstream, as they are in power. Then you say we are intolerant for "dissent of the mainstream," and yet if Conservativism is the mainstream, we are very much TOLERANT for "dissent of the mainstream." We are doing that right now. This is the last I will respond to you, because I do think you are at most an idiot, and at the least passive-aggressive. If you think you are entertaining, then all the more power to you, but I fear you may be the only one. You have an ego problem, and need to have it checked. If you&#39;re so "right," then you into politics, by all means. We&#39;ll see you there. And thusly, there will be no more Thunderballs talk.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST

    And hype, I&#39;m sorry if you were smarting...

    by Lenny Nero

    ...from anything I said earlier. It was not my intention to do so, and meant "I won&#39;t hold it against you" as a buffer so it would not turn into an argument. If this offended, I apologize.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Then *go* into politics. Ugh...distracted by Olympics.

    by Lenny Nero

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST

    I have an ego problem?

    by Thunderballs

    Must be all those Liberal educators who give kids false esteem. You know, the Liberals who put rules in place so no one wins a soccer game, or that the losers get awards also. We live in a society where every kid is told he is special, even when they are plainly not. So if I have an ego problem, it is because of Leftist educators giving me a false sense of self esteem. And when I said mainstream, I meant the news media and the way they tell you only what they want you to know. I dissent from what the newsies tell me I am supposed to think. Sorry.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    so what news media do you watch or read then, tballs?

    by Lord Asriel

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:20 p.m. CST

    "why don&#39;t u go hug a tree, u lefty loon"

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Battlestone, please don&#39;t try to paint me into one of your fear mongering corners, your illegitimate son-of-a-whore. Anyone who lives in fear of a so called "Christian Judgement Day" has neither the intelligence nor wit to lable me. You clearly are a goon, Battlefool. Because by your reasoning, only movies about Christianity can be considered "pro-American". You clearly do not understand that an increasingly more permissive society (one that is not hung up on taboos) is a more peaceful and loving society. Much like fundamentalist Islamo-fascists, you need to learn about removing the religion (Christianity) from your government and stop trying to press your way of thinking/believing upon other people. Cause I guarantee you that secularist Liberals will be quite fine come your "judgement day". You know why? They don&#39;t believe in such tripe. Seriously, how dare you? Do you have any idea who/what you sound like? Chances are you don&#39;t. Just beware of the swingback on that ignorance hammer of yours. It&#39;s a bitch.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    The Courage To Be Hated!

    by Thunderballs

    Without it, you are nothing.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Battlestone you ignorant slut.....

    by UncleEthan

    Race Mixing? Dude, I had kind of been thinking that all of the John Birch and KKK boys dicks had died out or turned into Tattooed skinheads with vegaterian girlfriends, rotten crotch, a serious meth habit. Then, of course, someone as spectaculary ignorant as yourself shows up and proves...well proves that I am mostly right. You were somehow able to pull your flaking, burned lips off of the meth pipe long enough to manage a post on NASCAR.comand here at the good &#39;ol ACIN. Am I making generalizations about poor crackers...sure. Just like the generalizations you have made about liberals and everyone one else who has no fuckng idea who Dale Earnherdt was, don&#39;t collect Coke cans as a retirement investment, and of course...need I say it...have sexual relation with immediate family. I am exhausted now. I will leave you with one thing. Please...for the love of God, Battlestone, exersize your second ammendent rights and put the barrell of a gun into your mouth quickly. Come on, hoss, take one for the team.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Wow, Thunderballs...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...that whole "fear is my ally" speech was the lamest and most toothless thing you&#39;ve posted so far. Jesus, talk about proclaiming victory while hanging on the ropes with nary a tooth left in your pummeled head. You sad, sad bitch.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 4:40 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Nice post. Glad to see you&#39;re also sensible enough to distance yourself from that ass train, Thunderballs. As I pointed out to him earlier, decent conservatives wouldn&#39;t touch him with a ten-foot pole.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 5:10 p.m. CST

    UncleEthan, this is the USA, not the USSR

    by battlestone

    And I am allowed to express my views even if they aren&#39;t part of the far-left fringe. You people try to attack me because I am a Christian yet you fail to do any background research into your own arguments. Studies have shown that the children of interracial marriage are often depressed and unhappy. That&#39;s a fact. Why should we continue to permit this practice? You lefties are so preoccupied with allowing anything in our society. God forbid Hillary gets elected in 2008 or Gay Marriage will not only be recognized, it will be required.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 5:30 p.m. CST

    oh my word, battlestone.

    by Lord Asriel

    yeh you can say whatever you want, but then be prepared to be told you are a fucking idiot. Freedom of speech afterall, eh. Did you bother to read why the children are unhappy and depressed? I have a fair idea of what your answer will be. I wonder if you can prove me right.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Politics can be so boring

    by Lovecraftfan

    I swear coming in here and seeing naturally that this has devlolved into a leftwingvs rightwing debate makes polotics seem so boring. Who cares. Whether its liberal or conservative its a film with a message. How is that a bad thing when cynical talkbackers constantly chime about how Hollywood sucks. How dare they actually have a theme! Lol

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    thunderballs accused someone ELSE of living in B&W?

    by ashhole

    this is the person who posted before that if you root for a character in a film who tortures someone else, you must condone torture in real life, right? oh, and the way you "put sentences together" has never impressed anyone. just a little reality check for you. here&#39;s another: no one has ever feared you. ever. people have been annoyed by you, amused by your ignorance, astounded by your sheer priggishness, but never frightened. i&#39;ve read posts with the same sad tatics for 10 fucking years in various online forums. it&#39;s always someone who thinks they speak for some undefined group that doesn&#39;t exist. you project your thoughts to others because you don&#39;t feel valid enough on your own. then, you use the dissent from an actual group of people to prove to yourself right in some twisted underdog fantasy. you try to have it both ways to invalidate any counter-argument while never actually countering anything yourself. you always talk out of both sides of your mouth and you&#39;re never as loquacious as you think on either side. do you see this delusion in which you live? do you see your intense need for therapy? do you recognize that you only do these things so that someone, anyone will talk to you in whatever disconnected way is possible? i urge you to seek professional help for your own sake before you start muttering on street corners and arguing with cashiers just to have human interaction.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Lincoln was a liberal.

    by HypeEndsHere

    so there you go. toodles.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST

    This isn&#39;t Russia is it?

    by UncleEthan

    Hey Battledork...the amazing and wonderful thing about this country, which I love dearly by the fucking way, is that people here have the freedom to be an ignorant cocksucker like yourself. As for claiming to be a Chirstian...don&#39;t even try it. Brother Joshua Bin Joseph was all about peace, love, and understanding...not being a racist prick. I would like to bottle the ends here by saying that I&#39;m an above average white guy. My girlfriend is a...gasp...a black girl with a white Dad...and check this out. Not only is she adorable, most "mixed" people are...she is a basically happy person who makes my morning shine. So...piss off you racist pig. Did I say that? Is this Russia? Nope. You have the God given freedom to be a blasphemous, ignorant,ass licker.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    DocPaz, I won before I even said a word....

    by Thunderballs

    And the victory was decisive. You&#39;re a moderate dude, I think we&#39;ve covered how intellectually bankrupt you are. And per Jonesey1111&#39;s request, I let you have the last word, but you kept right on attacking me, because you are a lowly person who gets off on acting superior to what you refer to as an "idiot" amongst other things. As for ashhole, what other screenname do you go by here, cause I certainly don&#39;t remember you in any of these talkbacks before. But you do make some good points, unfortunately they hold true for DocPaz, Lenny Nero, and the rest of the shitbags here. Bottom line is you guys are scared of those who can articulate a viewpoint counter to your own. Man, a lot of you guys have some serious Daddy issues. I&#39;m sorry you hate your fathers. Give &#39;em hell battlestone!!! I don&#39;t agree with you, but I love the way you piss these stupid self-righteous cocksuckers off. I really wish I could know what all you guys did in real life, like who is actually a cool, regular person, and who are the fat fucking geek shut-ins. A lot of fat geeks are big time Liberals, something about them thinking it helps with picking up girls. So sad. Which is why you enjoy torture, cause you&#39;re all fake Liberals who are only Liberals so you can get some ass. How is it working? Here is the part where everyone responds by saying how they all have pretty girlfriends who are the coolest girls in the world. Fuck, what color is the sky in your fantasyland? FYI, some bitch you talk to on some interactive porn site is not your girlfriend. I repeat, NOT your girlfriend.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 8:22 p.m. CST

    One more thing Battledick...

    by UncleEthan

    I love you and Jesus loves you too.

  • Feb. 17, 2006, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Thunderballs...for the record

    by UncleEthan

    For the record,Hoss. I am a serious anti-war, anti-globalization, pro-debt relief, anti-NAFTA activist...and dude are the chicks involved in this stuff ugly. I don&#39;t mean a little ugly...I mean Chewbacca ugly. God bless &#39;em...but damn... So if any of you out there are pretending to be left wing to get pussy.....don&#39;t. Not if you like the good shaved and washed kind. I&#39;m a bit of a radical but my girlfriend is a good christian girl I met at church..seriously...that&#39;s where the hot ass is. Oh yeah, on the political Right Wingers no longer have a lock on the Church House...we have infiltrated with Jesus&#39;s true is only a matter of time.

  • Feb. 18, 2006, 5:02 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    "Here is the part where everyone responds by saying how they all have pretty girlfriends who are the coolest girls in the world." ...... No, here is where it&#39;s pointed out to you that the unspoken rule of talkback is that whoever mentions "fat geeks" or "basements" in the same sentence as a variant of go-ahead-and-have-the-last-word automatically loses any shred of credibility left. Holy shit, that post was a beautiful piece of self-destruction, pure implod-o-rama goodness.

  • Feb. 18, 2006, 5:04 a.m. CST

    By the way...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...thanks for making this talkback another one I can add to the list of links I will provide for future reference whenever your pointy, malignant cranium shows up and spouts "politics".

  • Feb. 18, 2006, 3:57 p.m. CST

    What&#39;s up Doc?

    by Thunderballs

    For what seems like the thousandth time you&#39;ve told me I&#39;ve lost all my credibility. I wonder, how can someone lose something they don&#39;t have? And the unspoken rule of talkbacks? HUH? Cuz, please get out more, it&#39;ll do wonders for your sallow complexion. The fact that you cite an unspoken rule of talkbacks kind of determines where you&#39;re coming from my friend.

  • Feb. 19, 2006, 8:43 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Here&#39;s another unspoken rule for you: anyone who swallows bait so cheap that the words "unspoken rules" are in it, shows that all previous statements about leaving the talkback were nothing but empty posturing. As for the credibility issue, I was referring to talkbackers in general when they employ those tactics. As far as I&#39;m concerned, you never had any credibility - something which, to my ceaseless gratification, you continue to prove with post after post.

  • Feb. 19, 2006, 3:34 p.m. CST

    V for Vendetta is neither Rubber Soul nor Sgt. Pepper&#39;s

    by Almost Sexy

    V for Vendetta, is Revolver.

  • Feb. 19, 2006, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I disagree

    by seppukudkurosawa

    I&#39;d say that V For Vendetta is Help (a brilliant album in its own right) and Watchmen is Revolver. Which would make Top Ten Sgt Peppers and From Hell The White Album; with The League of Gentlemen 1+2 being The Magical Mystery Tour/Abbey Road. Plus, who the fuck are the Beatles and why isn&#39;t their name spelt right?

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Best Ad Campaign Ever

    by J.Sprinkles

    This movie has the best posters I&#39;ve ever seen. Even if it sucks I am buying one.

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST

    You&#39;ve got to love the american ego

    by purplewarrior

    It&#39;s interesting how moriarty points out that this couldn&#39;t be a jab at the bush administration; considering Alan Moore himself is British, the likelihood is that the movie is aimed more to be a vision of a British totalitarian state; not to mention that the setting is britian, the characters are a fucking clue. I also think it&#39;s interesting that everyone who&#39;s seen it and slated is american...To be blunt, alot of Brits (including myself) see the majority of the american public as stupid, oafish, warmongering hypocrites with a varying intelligence and grasp of reality that goes from small to medium. So yeah. This movie will probably do very well...In europe, because the likelihood is that we&#39;ll understand the movie in the way that it&#39;s meant to be understood, instead of gushing over the complete wank that hllywood produces and harry gets paid off to gush over these days. That&#39;s me done.

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Britain or Bush?

    by McCroskey

    One could be forgiven for daring to think that the filmmakers intended this as an F-U to Bush, seeing as how at least one of the acotrs sees it that way;

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Last time I checked, Purplewanker...

    by Lenny Nero

    Britain was fighting right alongside us in the war. Just as many Americans question their leadership as Brits are with Tony Blair.

  • Feb. 20, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Ank, "as a means to keep the colonists complacent"

    by Immortal_Fish

    Damn, man. I&#39;ve been asleep yet you carry not a torch, but a nova. Well done. I&#39;d like to agree with you most of the time, but will keep reading past this point to see if I disagree at all. Can I spawn your babies?

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    V is for Vagina

    by Itchy

    As in Natalie Portman&#39;s vagina. Which is where I would like to spend next Tuesday. Sorry - just got so sick of all this assinine political ranting, I had to point that out.

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 7:37 a.m. CST

    by purplewarrior

    @ Lenny: No...Blair is. The british public by and large think that we have no business being out there. @ Anchorite: Please don&#39;t insult my country by insinuating that we&#39;ve sunk the the level of the American norm - it&#39;s demoralising at best. What you&#39;re escaping to credit Alan Moore with is BECAUSE it was written by him, it makes the message all the more relevant to British people as opposed to americans - as I said before, this is more an attack on the (then) thatcher administration than it is about anything in america...That&#39;s why the majority of you wont understand it in the least, because by and large you&#39;re too afraid to take your head out of your asses and ackowledge that there are countries out there apart from the good ole USA. So what if this film was funded by an american what if the wachowski brothers produced this...the only thing those idiots have produced that&#39;s worthy of note to date is bound anyway. It&#39;ll be interesting to see how butchered from the original context the screenplay will be thanks to their contribution, and how it&#39;ll detract from the message Alan Moore was trying to communicate anyway. As for beer...hah. funny. We don&#39;t drink pisswater like budweiser or Miller and pass it off as beer, and we haven&#39;t had it warm in years.

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Beatles Best: Obviously Revolver!!!

    by iontyre

    "Tomorrow Never Knows" is the singularly most overlooked masterwork in rock and roll history. It was at least 25 years ahead of its time...

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Purple, so you can lump Americans together...

    by Lenny Nero

    ...but we can&#39;t do the same with British? Not that I want to do that, but please, have a little humility. The majority of the US does not want to be in the war anymore, just as, you say, the Brits don&#39;t. Warmongering is a very heavy world to loft against an entire country, when I can say it&#39;s Bush and you can say it&#39;s Blair. This is a might unfair of you, n&#39;est pas?

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    ok I concede

    by purplewarrior

    maybe I am guilty of a little generalisation, but where did you see the majority not patting the american military on the back for doing an abysmal job ad saying " mustn&#39;t kick the crap out of any more iraqi prisoners and deny them their human rights" it&#39;s all been on the european side. The UN should have gotten involved by now. Anyway. This is getting wya political. If you wish to contact me, my email is

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    V for Viagra

    by Curt Jurgens

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Bush is the irresistible target

    by McCroskey

    Yes, the original comic book was Moore&#39;s response to the evil Thatcher, but come on, who would be interested in making a politically-charged movie about a target who has been out of office for almost 15 years now? Who among the cast and crew (Brits included) could get pumped up to lambaste a presently irrelevant figure when there are much more inviting targets in Bush, and to a lesser degree, Blair (who lost a lot of the love the Left had for him by siding with the evil Bush)? How could they pass up the opportunity to indulge their paranoid beliefs about the Bush administration? Again, at least one of the actors (Stephen Rea) has admitted that he sees it as being about &#39;Bush&#39;s America.&#39; The cast and crew should just embrace it as such (afterall, Fahrenheit 911 did very well), unless of course its not...which is unlikely.

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Mori, "This is modern discourse. This is all we have no

    by Immortal_Fish

    Please define the criteria you deem worthy not to characterize as a collection of rabid weasels in a burlap sack. As a once fool, now known as a prophet, once proclaimed, "I&#39;m all ears."

  • Feb. 21, 2006, 10:43 p.m. CST

    It is disgusting...

    by Immortal_Fish weather spots of this movie during the winter olympics broadcast. Next thing you know, Hollowood will speculate the possibility of an Iraqi learning aikido from Gulf I vets... Oh, wait!!

  • Feb. 27, 2006, 12:55 p.m. CST just gave V a rave.

    by FluffyUnbound

    So much for "Fox will hate it." I&#39;m surprised, frankly.

  • March 1, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    WOW! It only took 6 years for America to wake up...

    by Col. Klink

    How many years did it take the Germans to figure out what Hitler was up to?

  • March 1, 2006, 11:34 p.m. CST

    V Is for...

    by gormenghast

    Politics aside, I have no desire to see this film. For one thing, the "V" Man looks stupid--like Zorro wearing a mask and frightwig to infiltrate a Mardi Gras parade. And Natalie Portman&#39;s bald look invokes artistic stinkers such as G-I Jane, Alien 3, and Sinead O&#39;Conner. The involvement of the Wachowski Brothers does nothing to rouse my interest, as I found Matrix 2 to be such a snooze, I didn&#39;t bother to see 3. Vendetta has dud written all over it, so I&#39;m guessing the producers are playing the political card as a last ditch effort to to attract the Michael Moore/Backbroke Mtn crowd and salvage what they can of their ill-placed investment. V is for Vomit.

  • March 2, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    V for Vendetta

    by Van Andersen

    Firstly, right-wingers need to stop being such pussies about being dissed in Hollywood or on this site. Deal with it. People who disagree with you are likely to do that. I am a liberal, (incorporating both economic & social liberalism). I am not a conservative, dont believe in conservatism. Not gonna pussyfoot about that either. Lets just stick to the movies guys. Its our love of movies that we have in common not our politics. Secondly, please stop with the communism v fascism thing. The problem with communism, (or Marxist Leninism if you are looking for the blueprint of such societies) is that its goal of stateless socieites and egalitarianism cannot be achieved through genocidal and oppressive means. You simply get more of the same in a new name, to paraphrase John Le Carre. In actuality, Marxist Leninism sought a form of peasant libertarianism through fascism. Dont beleive me, read Das Kapital. Marx wanted the end of the state as we know it. But he also believed that exterminating the middle classes and outlawing private ownership was the route to such utopia. Now I agree with any rational-thinker that such a belief is insane; but if you think that is crazy check out US foreign policy during the Cold War which argued just that: Pinochet (right wing, militarist, fascist, but pro-US) is better than Allende (left wing, socialist, believed in parliamentary democracy, pro-USSR). There are more nuances to these issues than either group of ideologues cares to admit, and I reckon we should stick to talking about movies where we are all more able. Looking forward to this one. I love films like "Starship Troopers", "Soylent Green" and such that feel like interpolations into future dilemmas. Hope it meets the standards of the quality review.

  • March 2, 2006, 9:43 a.m. CST

    V for Vendetta part 2...

    by Van Andersen

    Following on from my previous post, the aim of Fascism is total rule and oppression of the body politic. The aim of communism was peasant libertarianism through fascism. "Animal Farm" by George Orwell explores this perfectly. PS. Are they making "The Watchmen"? I am sure I heard something a while ago.