Cool News
Talkback About V FOR VENDETTA (In Theaters Today)!!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
As you’ve no doubt noticed, V FOR VENDETTA opens today.
If you see it over the weekend, share your thoughts with each other in the Talkbacks below!
Is VENDETTA really a political film? Or, does it simply force us to turn a mirror onto ourselves, and acknowledge how our actions/inactions ripple through the people, and world, around us (which is not an intrinsically political concept)? Is the movie a cry for anarchy? Or, is it a validation/reinforcement of the tenets on which the “free world” was founded? Is there really a difference? Is it a story about selfishness, or selflessness? Or, is it about both? Perhaps you think all of these assessments are off base?
These aren’t my personal comments, nor are they guidelines by any means. Just encapsulations of the diverse opinions that have been swirling around over the last few days.
Your turn…
-
+ Expand All
-
>.> Saw V last nite... suprisingly good flick.
-
And the week after that its netflix.
-
I saw V For Vendetta last night at midnight and just truly enjoyed the film. V was alot more flamboyant then I pictured (I never read the comic) at first he seems just crazy, a little gay, spouting of poetry, and acting very stereotypical but he is such a Great fucking character that first scene with him kinda threw me off at first. Overall a great movie but seriously the political shit (to Bush) is way overhyped.
-
You know when you build up a movie to a point where it can't possibly be as good as you would like it? King Kong was like that for me. But not V for Vendetta. Brilliant.
-
just like every other damn film released these days...
-
That's right. Haven't got anyhing usefull to say though cause V doesn't open till march 30th here in Holland. Really looking forward to this though. The Wachowskis are back bitches, and haters can suck a fat one.
-
St. Patrick's Day, NCAA tourney, V FOR VENDETTA and DOCTOR WHO. Mannnnnn, life is SWEET!
-
And furthermore, you don't need to remind us..."Now that you
-
And it will. Clark going for an ice fortress joyride for 5-7 years and then deciding to come back to be Superman again wiht his old job waiting for him, You can pray they have the holy shit directors edition for release while praying Smallville gets higher ratings
-
Let me just tell u all. you are in for a treat its just great. everything is wonderful from the action to the story to the performances. U will love it.
-
1984 + titanic + matrix = V4V
good...not great. generally i like the film, mostly because of the political messages; that it is the people who should wield the power of their own governance, and that personal freedoms should outweigh the "security" of a "nation", especially if its the government who put the nation's security at risk in the first place. but the trailer gives the whole damn ending away!! wtf?!
SPOILERS:
if you never saw the trailer (which i did see) then the masks would remain somewhat of a mystery...but if you see the trailer, when the first masks are seen, you imediately know; oh everyones getting masks and will assemble with them at the end. wtf!?!?!
-
Is awesome. Being a fan of the comic, the changes made for the screen were all pretty minor. The heart of the story is still very much alive, and yes, it does parallel what's going on in the US as of late, but it also parallels moments in the US throughout our history. Not to mention several other countries' histories. The whole point of this thing is that it began with Guy Fawkes...a long time ago. The ideals represented have not changed, but are simply amplified to what could be. And V represents the beauty, artistry, and anger that's neccesary to wake people up and have them face what the world (by their own hand) has become. I honestly don't get why Alan Moore walked away from this flick...now LOEG I can understand, but not this. Anyway, this is an amazing film, and aside from it's message, just entertaining as hell.
-
But doesn't joblo.com fucking suck? Not really sure why I despise that site. And WTF is up with their "talkback"? The Schmoes Strike Back? Oh and V is awesome. Saw it last night.
-
It is worth remembering that V For Vendetta was written as a blistering attack on the rise of Margaret Thatcher, whose regime, instead of leading to fascism and 1984, led to: 1) the fall of Communism; 2) the ascendancy of New Labour; 3) the end of the union-dominated economic torpor which made England so bloody miserable in the 70s; and
4) a really bitchin' art and restaurant scene. In short, V For Vendetta as a work of predictive fiction could hardly have been more wrong or idiotic, not to mention it was attacking the woman whose supposed fascism contributed to an advance of freedom on nearly every front. Maybe there's a lesson there for all the heavy-breathing Kossacks who think Bush=Hitler, man! You may not only be wrong about a thing or two... you may actively be on the wrong side of freedom and history. But we're more likely to get 10 movies like this one glorifying Osama Bin Laden than we are to ever get one acknowledging Thatcher, Reagan, Wojtyla and Havel as the sort of people who really fought for freedom and made governments afraid. Anyone who gets political insights from a comic book (or a movie based on one) is an idiot. -
"you're the newb, not us." I'd bet good money that I've been doing this for far longer than you've been reading sites like this. I mean this with an extremely knowing, very good-natured smile. Sorry you took offense at the reminder...many people who pass through the site aren't regulars, or aren't as "in the know" as regulars. As such, it's sometimes best to ere on the side of context.
-
one of the main actor wears a mask (works as an illustration, looks utterly stupid and devoided of emotion on film), the other one has a bad accent, the end is terrible. I understand why Alan Moore asked for his name to be taken out of the credits...I hope it's not because some people are so used of brainless blockbusters that a slight change of the formula makes it daring and clever...
-
from the last V talkback? This is the internet equivalent of that scene in Jaws where Brody chums the waters with fish blood. Trust me - you're gonna need a bigger talkback.
-
He comments so much in his TBs it'd be hellu easier reading his replies. Seacrest, out.
-
in a country under someone's rule is not always caused by that person. thatcher made englad a great art and restaurant scene? and i suppose we're to thank reagan and bush sr. for music in the '80s, or president bush for the recent increase in artistic, intelligent and/or politically minded cinema?
-
...but yeah, Alan Moore kinda got it a bit wrong about Maggie, didn't he? Still, damn good book though.
-
This was a perfectly great movie. I was uncomfortable with the destruction of buildings... I admit to wishing it didn't happen in the film... and it's because of 9/11... pre 9/11 Fight Club didn't bother me... otherwise, I loved the movie. I can't imagine anyone not loving it. Unless they are afraid of what it stands for. Also, as an action movie... this was top notch. Loved the fight scenes.
-
Damn dude!! You just have to kick utter ass in everything, don't you.
-
I love the part when the guy takes his face off and he is this lizard thing and then he eats this mouse and...what?..uh...oh that is not the V your talking about. Then what? oh, the movie...ok...I wanna see that too...
-
*Chum Chum*. Slow ahead...I can go slow ahead. Why don't you come down here and chum some of this shit.
-
Saw it a couple of weeks ago. It was okay, but a bit of a letdown. Tons of great ideas, good casting but it didn't really amount to much. That ending was pretty dreadful. "Caddyshack" displayed a better use of "The 1812 Overture" and explosives.
-
http://www.variety.com/VR1117939918.html Posted: Thurs., Mar. 16, 2006, 10:00pm PT Inside Move: 'South Park' feeling some celeb heat? Cable net abruptly pulls repeat of Scientology episode By MICHAEL FLEMING The battle between "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone and Scientology is escalating. The dust-up gained steam last week when Isaac Hayes, a practicing Scientologist who has long been the voice of the character Chef, quit after objecting to a "South Park" episode called "Trapped in the Closet," which lampooned both the religion and Tom Cruise. The skirmish continued this week, when Comedy Central abruptly pulled a repeat of that episode that was scheduled to air Wednesday evening. Showing instead was another memorable seg which featured Hayes's character, called "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls." Blog reports pegged the mysterious episode switch to objections raised by Cruise, who, the reports stated, threatened to not promote "Mission: Impossible 3," the summer tentpole for Viacom-owned Paramount. A spokesman for Cruise denied that Cruise had ever made such a threat. "He never said any such thing about 'Mission: Impossible 3," the spokesman said. While the "South Park" creators didn't directly comment on Comedy Central's decision to pull the episode, they issued an unusual statement to Daily Variety indicating the battle is not over. "So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!" The duo signed the statement "Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu."
-
Does Britian still celebrate guy fawkes night? I live in Newfoundland,Canada and Guy Fawkes Night is still a major hoilday here. We refer to it also as Bonfire night but mostly it is known as guy fawkes night. Every town in the province has huge bonfires and everyone drinks and celebrates. strangly not too many burn victims as of yet. I just find it kinda of funny that we have a holiday that celebrates terrorism but it is one kick ass good time.
-
If anyone looking for political insights from a comic book is an idiot why do you fault Vendetta as a piece of predictive fiction?
What's more the "advances in freedom" since the Thatcher years in Britain are all reactions against her government and its policies. Things are better now but to claim Thatcher is the person we should be thanking for this is a joke. -
Trailer up here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAkHGCuQT4&search=snakes%20on%20a%20plane? -
Er, I think you have that slightly wrong. A holiday that celebrates terrorism? No, Guy Fawkes Night (yes we still celebrate it) is a holiday celebrating the DEFEAT of a terrorist. Slightly different. That's why on top of the bonfire is a 'Guy' who gets burned to a crisp.
-
And I hate to sat it, but I was kind of let down. Whoever said that the whole movie was pretty much in the preview was right. They even gave away the ending of the movie in the preview. You know that everyone is going to wear the masks and assemble. You know Parliament will be blown up. I will admit the movie was good, but it was marketed as an action film. This isnt really an action movie. There are only really 2 major scenes of action, and the one at the end is far superior to the other. The movie was entertaining at some points, but then somewhat boring in others. The ending wasnt as powerful as I wanted it to be. Overall, the movie is pretty solid, but It didnt change my perspective on anything, or make me think about world issues that I wasnt already thinking about.
-
Yes, it is celebrated over in the UK, but a wouldn't really say it celebrates terrorism even in a vicarious way. Quite the opposite in fact as effigies of Guy Fawkes are burnt.
-
um I believe Guy Fawkes Night is a celebration of the capture and execution of Fawkes. You know, celebrating the fact that the gunpowder plot was stopped.
-
I really loved this film although its not for everyone's taste. And not necessarily because of the political over/undertones. Many scenes will just not resonate as believable for some people. There are some big jumps in plot - especially with V and Evie. There are also some scenes that are as visually "audacious" as "I'm the King Of The World" that some in my screening were outright laughing at. Still - I loved it and thought it will stay with me long after the final credits played - soundtrack blaring. Loved It.
-
instead of trolling for comments? for weeks we've had to endure items with only the most tenuous connection to the movie itself (i.e. "why i liked the matrix movies", parts 1 and 2 by a matrix fanboy with a theasurus) and merrick's review was pathetically thin. i visit this site to find out movie news and reviews from folk like moriarty, herc and harry. an actual *review* of the merits of the movie as a movie (rather than as a political statement) would be good. instead, we are given the lamest kind of political stick-poking from merrick. sort yourselves out, already.
-
I saw it at a 10:01 show last night. It was very entertaining. Even funny at times. It is also going to make some people very very angry, but I am guessing that most of those people wouldn't want to see it anyhow due to the violence. V is a combination of Batman and Wolverine, but instead of fighting small time crooks he wants to change the world, to go after the real bad guys, which in this case are the goverment. I was floored through the whole thing.
-
Was cool but still not what I would call a fantastic teaser. Not that I doubt Singer. I really hope he pulls a phenomenal film out of his ass. And the tagline - "LOOK UP IN THE SKY... IN IMAX" was what I thought was the most exciting part of the teaser.
-
is that trailer real?
-
Mar 17, 2006 10:16:15 AM CST
Fuck this shit. I'm going to see Find Me Guilty today.
by nate champion
And, if lucky, I'll make it to Ask the Dust this weekend too. Sidney Lumet and Robert Towne get the respect.
-
What's V for Vendetta? I haven't heard of it...
-
Saw it last night. The LAST WORD is that it's very good.
There are many things that have been changed from the book, and many things that are left intact. The last word is that geeks will argue over whether the changes were worthy or not.
Hugo Weaving may have been the only person capable of making V work. Natalie Portman puts in her best performance to date. She will be robbed of an Oscar next year.
Overall, it's a 3 out of 4 star movie. -
"Initially scheduled to be released in November 2005, to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, the film was delayed in the wake of the July bombing attacks in London. Since then, inevitable questions and objections have been raised about whether "V for Vendetta" turns a terrorist into a hero, which is precisely what it does do. Predictably, the filmmakers, actors and media savants have floated the familiar formulation that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, as if this actually explained anything about how terror and power (never mind movies) work. The more valid question is how anyone who isn't 14 or under could possibly mistake a corporate bread-and-circus entertainment like this for something subversive. You want radical? Wait for the next Claire Denis film."
-
Saw it last night and I was like...Wow.
I got 99 problems, and V aint one. -
It was a bit flat, unfortunately. I'm not familiar with the source material, but have heard from those who are that significant changes were made. The rather silly action film elements seemed completely out of whack with the more interesting political commentary, and the film as a whole was very short on surprises. Portman is very good, though. I doubt this does more than modest box office business, though I'd like to see it do well if for no other reason than to quiet the neo-cons who are loudly dismissing the film as "pro-terrorist" without having seen a single frame. The Brits don't even give a shit about the issue.
-
The reason Smallville ratings are low, is because it is on the WB. If it was on one of the big four, it would most certainly pull higher numbers. Just remember, SMALLVILLE WILL OWN YOUR ASS!!!DYR!!!
-
Cutting edge commentary for such an underground newspaper. Way to disregard a film just because it was studio-financed. Guess if I work for an American studio I should just be committed to making the next Teletubbies movie and cashing my check proudly.
-
The film may be a little broad and may be a little too obvious for those looking for a sublime, understated anarchist statement, but for the teens and tweens who will flock to this to see Big Ben explode and to see cool knife fights, the film packs more than enough meaning and allegory to give those brains something to chew on. A lot of people are going to walk in expecting a dumb action flick, and they are going to walk out at least thinking about something more than the set pieces.
-
...I hope this bodes well for a future Snakes on a Plane talkback!
-
Someone asked her on one of those morning shows if she felt the movie glorified terrorism. And her response was something to the meaning of being passive and holding no social responsibility in the face of tyranny or totalitarian fascism can in itself be a passive form of terrorism. There always seems to be some form of genocide going on somewhere in the world or some form of some group bullying another with hate and ignorance and fear as the forces which drive intolerable actions. I think this film just makes a point that you may be aiding unjust situations if you are too fearful to speak up. How you superimpose that notion on current political times will depend on your political POV. The human psychology explored in the films seems to be that it is a conscious choice to be motivated to act or not act because of what you fear. People will read into this movie what they will. It is a damn good movie, though... very artful cinematic storytelling and very entertaining.
-
In 1999, what seems like a million years ago, a revolutionary film was released. It was a film that mixed together philosophy, cyber-punk, Keanu Reeves, and most of all bullets. But ah yes... The bullets were slowed down and you could see them fly through the air in what commonly became known as "bullet time". The Matrix...
...And thus the revolution began...
And two brothers, Andy and Larry Wachowski became heroes to geeks and studio execs everywhere. It was only a matter of time before they, like everyone else in Hollywood, got their hands on a comic book. Only, unlike everyone else in Hollywood, they decided to do it right.
(Well of course the actual director of the film, whose name is never ever mentioned in the trailers, got it right. His name, by the way is James McTeigue. He was the Second-Unit director on The Matrix. The Wachowskis have made on mediocre trilogy and already they've got a protege? Ooooo-kaaaay?)
What the Wachowskis did was write a pretty decent adaptation of Alan Moore's (Probably the most important comic book writer of all time) graphic novel V For Vendetta.
Perhaps you've heard of this movie?
Yes its the movie where Natalie Portman is bald.
Yes its the movie with the smiley guy with knives.
Yes its supposed to be very controversial and thought provoking.
No it really isn't.
Yes its pretty fucking good.
No its not the revolutionary piece of film everyone thinks it'll be.
No its not as poignant as a Clockwork Orange.
No Alan Moore didn't have any part in the making of the film besides writing the source material.
No you never get to see Natalie Portman's rack.
All that aside now...
V For Vendetta is a finally a comic book film worth cheering for! Sure X-Men 2 came close, but with each viewing there are more and more flaws that even suspension of disbelief can't help me to forget. Sure there is The Incredibles, but that is more inspired by then actually based on.
Here we have an actual comic book movie.
Its a revenge story about a man known only as V (Hugo Weaving). In the near-distant future America has fallen and Brittain has taken its place as an Orwellian Super-power run on fear and fear alone. Gone are the liberties and freedoms people take for granted everyday. Replaced with crooked "finger-men", color coded curfews, lies, and deceit perpetrated by the men who run the country. On the eve V starts his revolution he saves a young girl, Evey (Natalie Portman), from certain doom in the form of a 3-way gang bang. And they form a connection. She sees something in him and they become wrapped up in each other while Brittain slowly crumbles under its own corruption; falling like dominos that V has pushed.
The movie does echo as a social commentary on the state of today's affairs in this here United States, but doesn't shove it down your throat in a Michael Moore-ish propaganda type way. James McTeigue obviously knows that the source material to the film is a comic book and doesn't let propaganda get in his way. In many ways he tries to imitate the dark and sinister worlds provided to us from greats like Stanley Kuebrick in A Clockwork Orange and George Lucas in THX 1138, but hasn't the talent to create as powerful works as they did.
But that is okay! Honestly. Not everyone is Einstein!
I think at some point he figures this out and decides to be playful and the movie benefits from this. From the first meeting of V and Evey to the end destruction of parliament to the 1812 Overture you realize that you can take the meaning of the film anyway you want.
(Okay. It is about destroying the rightist-totalitarian-1984ish way of life we are heading towards, but a lot of my readers are in the Red States. And I voted BUSH.)
Natalie Portman provides us with a damn fine performance. Nothing phoned in. Nothing phoney. Nothing she has shown us before. She is one of the greats actresses of our time. With one Oscar already under he belt you wonder what she has next. (Though as this years awards show us an Oscar means next to nothing!) As Evey she plays the everyman pacifist with no idea that they have the power to control their destiny and fight back until tragedy opens their eyes to the nihilistic way of life that gives a person empowerment over what's ahead of them. Her transformation is both radical, frightening, yet you cheer for her the whole way and never want her to turn back...
But she isn't the shining star...
Hugo Weaving aka Agent Smith aka Elrond aka V provides us with an awesome inspiring performance this side of Darth Vadar. For a masked man whose face never changes he sure as hell built a pretty convincing character out of mannerisms and voice. With a slight cock of a head or a swish of his cape, Hugo would change V from articulate thespian to deadly assassin and it was damn entertaining.
You also have John Hurt providing a quite intimidating performance as the corrupt Chancellor over Brittain. The man who is in control of everything and un aware of the jogger from Macintosh who is about to chuck a hammer his way.
(Ridley Scott reference! Did you find it? You get a cookie!)
So are people going to march on Congress wearing silly Guy Fawkes masks? I doubt it. People are too apathetic these days to start a revolution. If V took over our airwaves and asked for a call to arms many people would try to change the channel and when that wouldn't work they'd pop on a video or the X-Box. No one wants to care passionately about the state of things outside their door. No one wants to move past the welcoming mat. Fuck, no one wants to move past the comfort of their perfectly created ass groove on their couch. They'd all be happy if the Government did control everything and groceries could be ordered from the comfort of their PC. People don't like complications anymore. There is nothing to be romanticized about our current generation. There isn't a great uniting cause. Revolutions are dead. Rome'll knock itself over. Its people will just sit idly by.
Atleast I think so, but then again... Who am I?
Nairb Abides -
Wow....that is seriously all I have to say. Who would have thought the producer of House of Wax could help bring such a politically charged flick to life!!
More of my indepth thoughts @
http://www.movietack.net/id557.html -
Of course, according to this site, so were Hostel, King Kong, and whatever was released two weeks ago.
-
The film knocked me over. I caught an Imax screening last night. I thought it was bold and potent, and was surprised most by the fact that it came from a major studio. The action scenes were few and modest, but kicked unholy amounts of ass nonetheless. I had a feeling it would be good but it met my expectations and then some by ten-fold. And it looks like the haters are already here so it is pointless to try to convince those on the fence that is is worth their time. Whatever, I'll be seeing it again tomorrow. This film gave me hope and as "dancing-naked-in-a-field-with-daisies-in-my-hair" as that sounds, I can't remember the last time a film from a major studio made me feel that. To me, it was like 70's American cinema all over again. And I know most of you are laughing, so let the flaming begin . . .
-
He's been in Coaxial and now here, setting up a Talkback for a film, which is hardly ever done on the site. Do we have a Quint Part Deux on our hands?
-
V for Vendetta has been trashed by the British press. The Guardian, Telegraph and others have given it a big thumbs down. ABC, New York and Time magazine agree. A for Avoid!
-
Well, the point of view of an Iranian teenager who was born and bred, and now lives in England. I just saw this film at the local cinema (was hoping to see it in IMAX, but for some reason the UK doesn't seem to be showing it in IMAX), and my final thoughts on the film are "Hmmmmmmmmm." With the Spider-Man films, I was a comic fan beforehand, and I loved the films all the same. I was quite familiar with X-Men, Hulk, so on, and I enjoyed those films too. The harder thing with V, which I finally read in October, is that it's a mini-series. One story. Thus, comic fans will notice the changes more. I've noticed the films been getting rave reviews in the States, and mixed ones in the UK. That's why I believe the film will perform better across the Atlantic. Profuro is a Hannity-alike, which will have American liberals jumping with glee, but will have most English people scratching their heads. It's just not quite what we're used to. The comments Alan Moore made here about "eggy-in-a-basket" still hold true, and I was tempted to walk out numerous times during the first half hour. There were some brilliant moments, even some surprisingly decent ones (the alliterative opening speech isn't that bad, thanks to Weaving's fine performance), but after the brilliant beginning explosion there's a great slump. Shouts of "Bollocks!" and numerous shots of people with bad teeth in pubs seem artificial and forced. Natalie Portman's accent does improve as the film goes on, and by the time we enter the Shadow Gallery (a beautiful set), things peak up again. The torture scene: brilliant. The flashbacks to Larkhill were haunting. Its just the odd flaws that stop this from being downright brilliant. To a US audience, these flaws will not be so apparent. I'm not US-bashing. I am Iranian, I've been brought up in England, and I love the States as well. I have family in Virginia, and when I come to visit I'm taken aback by people's kindness and generosity, as a lot of people here have a somewhat warped view. Tangent aside, it's just that these flaws may make the film hard-going for a British audience. I love Weaving's performance, but the early TV station speech was one too many, and too soon. V has won over the populace within the first 20 mins of the film. This leaves less of an arc for the rest, but still, the film prevails. The final explosion, even the infamous V army, is proof of what Hollywood does best. A Mesmerising Climax. If you're desperate for a star rating, I'd give it 4 out of 5. Star knocked off for the artificial Britishness. Two stars for the middle slump. But an extra star each for the wonderful domino montage, and the... I was going to say explosive, but... one extra star for the ending it is. A flawed film, but one worth seeing. I just fear that Saturday the 18th will be like any other day, and that copycat criminals will give the film, and V's cause, a bad name (the shoplifter in the film may be a sign of things to come). Partly I saw the film today for fear of a Clockwork-Orange style backlash in the UK. The hairs on the back of the necks of everyone in the cinema were on end when they saw that Tube train packed with explosives. Even I, who had already read the book and countless previews of the film, was taken aback. An Uncompromising, but flawed, Vision of the Future, indeed.
-
I've flip flopped a lot these past few days: to give the W Bros my money or not... Is it true Alan Moore took his name off the project? If it's truly how she says it is, I'd definately want to check it out.
-
If this is supposed to be "British" and they were going for such a look, why choose Natalie Portman over Keira Knightly? Was she unavailable or what?
-
V's final fight, a bloody and balletic surprise. Well done.
-
even that jagoff Lucas knew that.
-
I'm a long time fan of the comic book by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. I appreciate that certain changes must be made in an adaptation, but the Wachowski's tore out the thematic spine of the book and chopped of the character's balls. This was not the same theme, not the same characters, and not the same story. No wonder Alan Moore gets pissed everytime Hollywood wanders anywhere near his work. This movie was a piece of crap. Clearly the creators had no respect for the source material.
-
Pretty damn good movie. V isn't all there in the head. They make that pretty obvious. It's not without it's faults, but it does remain interesting and captivating. Hugo Weaving did an amazing job as V, and not just in voice (he was also the actual guy in the outfit). His body language said a great deal in and of itself.
-
I remember that during my first viewing of Two Towers I was a little distracted by the differences between the movie and its source, and I'll admit I had a bit of that distraction going on here. Also, this is one of those comics I'm extremely familiar with, so I don't feel I can predict the reactions of those seeing this story for the first time.
Now, a warning (NOW a warning?): there's a news broadcast/exposition opportunity in the opening minutes that is pretty annoying, and V's introductory speech that's chock-full of v words is going to make you cringe. It's okay, just get through it. The movie never pulls anything dumb like that again. Here's the laundry list of defects: mainly that thing I just said, and the occasional hamfistery. To the unfamiliar, it may seem like there's too many flashbacks.
The director was the a.d. on the Matrix trilogy, AOTC, and some other stuff, but this was his first job in the big chair. It turns out he's pretty good with actors, which is the key thing to a character-driven story like this.
I was thinking of naming this post "Alan Moore is a Cranky Old Man," when I saw illustrator David Lloyd credited all by himself. But there's this: in the comic, V is this character of grace and speed in a world of dull brutality. David Lloyd brought out the dark, murderous vitality of the character with a keen eye for artful motion -- the motion of V's cape and wig. This was a comic with no sound effects, so all the punch is about body language and that damn cape. Even in repose, the combination of mask, hat, wig and cape make for a striking image. To my delight, that image translated perfectly to the screen. The physical presence of V was compelling to the eye, and Hugo Weaving does a marvelous job. I kept noticing that I was watching a guy in a mask talking, and that it was GREAT. The opposite experience of DeFoe's Green Goblin.
Providing a perfect counterpoint was the always welcome Natalie Portman, who, like Fanning in WOTW, plays the whole movie for us across her face. She brings her usual intelligence and poise to the role, working with much better dialogue than Lucas ever gave her. And it's fun seeing her get her hair buzzed off.
This movie does a deft job of fusing a big number of elements: you have V's plan against the goverment, Stephen Rhea investigating the mystery of V, Evey's whole journey, a backstory woven of personal histories, and some very satisfying ideas on politics. They also do a good job of getting the populace involved, cycling through the same families and pub-goers as they watch events unfold on government-run TV. There are a number of statements that deliberately resonate with where we're at in USA 2006, but they never overplay the hand.
Side note: Today's Onion headline: New Poll Finds 86 Percent Of Americans Don't Want To Have A Country Anymore.
I'm gonna have to vote no on the knife trails. There's a slomo fight scene at the end that totally captures the kinetic allure of V that I mentioned earlier, except that it includes fx trails behind the paths of the knives. It's not a complete misfire, but I found myself wishing I could see the same exact thing without them.
-
Despite what all the news media would have us all believe, this film did not glamorize terrorists. All it did was simply allow us a glimpse into a very possible future in which we the people have allowed our government to get out of hand. V's action were completely justified. When a government becomes oppressive, it is not only the right, but the responsibility of the oppressed to take back their lives. V's actions were not terroristic because he was not attempting to control the populace through fear; the government was already doing that. He was fighting for freedom, true freedom. Man, I loved this movie.
-
I wanted to thank you, Mgmax for your isightful post. Many of use don't have a very long attention span, and it is useul to take a step back and review where we have been.
-
I had a bad feeling about this movie when it was announced (I hate the Matrix movies... all of them). But the positive news that kept coming gave me hope. But all for naught, my first instinct is overwhelmingly confirmed. The NY Times review hit the nail on the head. By compressing the many narrative threads in the series down into a single story following V and E, the movie turns a work of subversion and depth into a flat bore. It has its moments, but in the end just comes off like Batman in "1984". I am now officially praying the Watchmen NEVER gets a movie.
-
I agree about the TV station segment.A lot of people in the audience seemed to be lost at this point. Still a great film though.
-
This revolution has not only been televised but it has corporate sponsors!! Join the V for Vendetta blog against the evils of Capitalism on MySpace (oh please pretend you dont know MySpace is owned by Roopy Murdoch, the Aussie that owns the evil FOXNEWS booo hisss.) Make sure you buy the Warner Brother soundtrack with corporate-sanctioned antiestablishment Rage Against the Machine! Join your friends in the uprising by donning your Che Guevara tshirt Vive la Reolucion! available exclusively at The Gap!! And make sure you are buying stock in Warner Brothers (stock ticker TWX - its down 8% over the past 6 months) and fuel that oh so trendy rebellious culture.
-
One of the best parts of the comic was Evey donning the mask and becoming V to follow him. And then she appears and shows the people that V is not dead. I'm sorry, but that ending is FAR more compelling than what we got, with that silly scene of all the people in the V masks...
-
[SPOILERS] They play up the Guy Fawkes angle WAY too much (it's just a mask in the book that V dons almost mockingly -- he was a religious fanatic not an anarchist, so it makes little sense in the film), change around things to make them more Hollywood (the destruction of Parliament? It's at the end, now, instead of the beginning for little reason other than to be able to end the film with explosions), and basically sterilize the whole affair (one example of many: Evey's not naked in the rain anymore... she still wears her prison garb, and while complaining about it may seem trite, it is thematically important, and these little white-washing details add up throughout the movie). Evey and V's relationship is completely neutered, too -- her thinking he's her father while simultaneusly falling for him gave the whole thing this weird, incestuous undertone that gave the torture and lecturing scenes real punch. Without it, it's just Phantom of the Opera. When everyone dons Guy Fawkes masks at the end I had had it. It's so completely against the character of V to want everyone to dress alike and think alike (whatever happened to "Do as thou wilt"?), that it was like the Wachowski's finally just admitted they didn't care, and gave the film a "rousing" conclusion just because. But everything had been made so broad and stupid by that time that *I* didn't even care. I just thanked God it was over.
-
Just got back from watching it. Acting was really, really great all round (forgiving Ms Portman for some ocaisional jars), visually it was superb, capturing the novels imagery perfectly at times and showing just how fantastic a design V's mask is. BUT (and it really is a massive but) the screenplay was appalling. So much was missing and twisted and watered down and taken off on a completely different tangent. I tried to watch it as a new film, but kept getting annoyed as to why they hadn't done this and that which would have been better like in the book. I can see why Alan Moore didnt want his name on this, they've changed V's intention, completely rewritten Evie's past present and almost future and missed out some fantastic sequences (prothero's original death on the train for one). Evie isn't even rersorting to prostitution at the start for f***'s sake! I'm annoyed, the cast and budget and c inematography was all there, why the heck did they have to mess it up by changing the story? And don;t get me started about the army of V's at the end.... stupid.... pointless....contrived....rubbish. :(
-
where that guy in the mask jumped around, then he threw some knives, then he blew up some stuff. Radical.
-
I just got back from seeing it and as a long time Alan Moore fan, I am not sure how I feel about it. For those that have said that this is a Wachowski Bros. film, you can tell that they didn't direct it. Throughout I was shocked at how clumsy and pedestrian the direction was. The film made it through on the strength of the source material and Hugo Weaving alone. Left to weaker stuff, McTeigue would have killed it with his lame, by the numbers directing.
The middle bit where V goes to talk to the cop just about ruined the film for me. It was pure Hollywood spoon-feeding the audience and connecting the dots for them. That segment and the segment of the masks being delivered should have been left out. At that point I was expecting the worst with a Hollywood cop-out built up to the end. However, after that, it got better. I am suprised that they didn't change the basic premice of Evy's emprisionment since that makes V pretty hard to forgive.
Finally, the very end with the removal of the masks was lame as was Evy's last lines. When asked who V was, there were many better things that she could have said. It would have been nice had she gone back to V's first lines and said something about the fact that it didn't matter who he was, but what was important is what he is. -
Keira? She can't act. Don't even put her in the same sentence as a Natalie Portman.
Right now,Keira is on the level of typical Hollywood. -
Time Magazine did not give V a bad review, wtf you talking about? Don't confuse Time Magazine with the british tabloid.
-
Not gonna say much, except that the part where a large mass of masked people (automatons?) walks somewhere past some armed people (as least specific as I can be) reminded me of the end of "Bullet in a Bible", when Billy Joe says something about not forgetting that the bastards in office don't have any power, but it is the people who have the power, or something like that. Well, I laughed almost as hard at the part in "V" as I did at that part in "BiaB"
-
"V For Vendetta" is currently the headline on the Drudge Report ("Let's blow up Parliament!")... the Right Wing media has been all a flutter with heart palpitations, pissed off about what is essentially a sci-fi film.
It's amazing to me that the Republicans are just coming right out and admitting that the totalitarian government in the film reminds them of Bush, and they don't like seeing it criticized. They don't even want to hide their intentions and goals, anymore!
-
thinking Portman looked hot dressed as Bo Peep (I imagine that what she was supposed to be)
-
http://tinyurl.com/g52yw **** Not sure what point, exactly, the journalist is trying to make, but there you go.
-
And he assured me that i was the first other than He and his kid to see it. The Wachowskis made a lot of changes from the womb version that God showed me, but the basic story is still intact. God then showed me the aftermath created by V. A series of heated debates over the film's message will escalate into brawls and eventually the end of the age. Pray for your souls.
-
It's topical and has an important point to make, but as a work of art it absolutely blows. Save your money.
-
Maybe we should. Politics does have it's effects on society and musical expression generated for a generation. For instance, one positive of having George W. Bush in office has allowed for many bands to capitalize off of their dislike for him IE: Green Day. I heard someone say shortly after GW got reelected that the next four years might be rough on the country but would probably be good years in punk and metal music because Conservative leaders always seem to piss them off. Oh, and Green Day isn't punk. Their pop. I don't want anyone to confuse me with saying Green Day is punk. Their not. Never have been, never will be. Just as Limp Biakit doesn't constitute metal. The end. Anyway, Merry Christmas.
-
She certainly can do much better than Portman did in the last two Star Wars films, thank you very much. You chaps are just a bunch of Portman fanbois who probably think her rap in the SNL Digital Short was cool.
-
long and short of it is.
-
Fair film... no where near worthy of the post butt numb-a-thon praise. I found it a bit flat, any amount of romance from the comic was missing. The guy fawks intro and references were pointless, we'd have been better off learning what was so wrong with the country to inspire an uprising from it's people, most of them, including evey, seemed quite happy, this heightened by the glossy hollywood brightness of the film. Britain is never that shiny! The current affairs stuff was overrated and doesn't add much to the film, treading old ground. I can completely see why alan moore disowned the film. The question remains; How the hell did the wachowski's fluke the matrix?!
-
One MAJOR Problem: WTF is the point of blowing up Parliament and having an Army of Vs if you've eliminated the High Chancellor and Creevey? How does the Party survive that? Doesn't make any sense. ... My other problem in terms of changes is the idea that the Party tricked the population (via its own viruses) into supporting them. I liked how in the original it was necessity that brought the party to power, and that once they had the power they abused it. The way it is in the movie, you're less sympathetic with the populace because they got tricked. ... and I still would've prefered a voice of fate, rather than a Morton Downey Jr. knockoff (which is what he was closer to than Limbaugh or O'Reilly). But kudos to them updating the technology, etc., without screwing up the plot. ... One final thought: I liked the Finch description of his visit, and how they cut all the scenes (including future ones) into it. Very reminiscent of the "plan/attack" splicing in Matrix:Reloaded. Overall I give it a B+, but the grade may move to an A- or a B depending how I feel about it after I've thought about it a bit.
-
charlesgrodinsux wrote: You know when you build up a movie to a point where it can't possibly be as good as you would like it? King Kong was like that for me. But not V for Vendetta. Brilliant.
I totally agree. This movie FLOORED me. -
so i can enjoy the film on its own merits. will be cool seeing JOHN HURT, who played Winston Smith in 1984, playing the opposite role here. have to agree with NAIRB THE MOVIE - America's revolutionary days are over. if worst comes to worst here, 99 out of 100 will just bend over and take it.
-
WTF are you smoking? The G/L community has made tons of inroads into getting existing statutes removed; do you honestly think gay marriage would even had been discussed seriously as an issue more than 10 years ago? Wake up and smell the rainbow, the G/L movement is strong and succeeding, despite your ignorance.
-
the Sue Grafton book, I mean. Reasons to avoid: 1.)Wachowski Brothers are involved. 2.)The "hero" appears to have escaped from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. 3) Yawn. Harry Knowles liked it. 4) It features a hot Hollywood actress in a futuristic role where she acts tough. 5.) In case you missed the point of #4: Aeon Flux, Catwoman, Elektra. 'nuff said.
-
Obviously we should all listen to someone who hasn't seen the movie yet imagines they know exactly how it will be based on circumstantial evidence! Whatever were we thinking in exercising independent thought?!? ... now go to bed, the adults are talking.
-
This film excelled as a sci-fi/action film. On that level, it was absolutely fantastic. But, it is a very political film, and it's politics are so fucking ridiculous, stupid, and over the top. I mean, I was angry leaving the theater. The people involved are clearly making a statement, but it's such a lame statement that only is effective because of the massive hyperbole used. The silly moments of the film are totally retarded because on minute this film is all preachy, and then it falls back on the "oh, we just wanna entertain" bandwagon. It tries to be both things, which is really fucking hypocritical. Also, the fact that V was portrayed as 100% hero really, really, really pissed me off. This flick was so one-sided it made me sick. Just because people don't like homosexuality doesn't mean they want all gays murdered, or even banished for that matter. How fucking ridiculous.
-
Using Star Wars films to prove your point. What a moron.
-
They showed the old teaser trailer; I don't remember enough of it to know if they've changed it at all but I don't think so
-
that shit was the bomb lynx...sorry to say!
-
Evey telling the Bishop that he's in trouble. Wonderful scene, well done all around, much better than what transpires in the book (Evey comes off a little naive in the book, not thinking anything's going to happen to the Bishop). Works better in leading up to Evey's imprisonment.
-
I just got back from it. what a dry, ponderous and ham fisted piece of work that was. after all the attacks on him for being elitist Alan Moore was right to disown this cheesy trash. Nothing inspires social change like Hugo Weaving in a Zorro costume. Not.
-
V is a damn good movie, let me just say that. Yeah, there is the people bitching about it not being close enough to the graphic novel, please, give me a break. Sin City was almost note for note and people bitched. To me, the changes really made the movie flow better onscreen. Anyway, lets cut to the point.
It's the best movie I've seen so far this year, and really made me a fan of Hugo Weaving. The guy steals the show behind a rigid mask with blacked out eyes, and this isn't some secondary character, this is the star. I'll let you know that Natalie Portman completely made me forget about her tepid acting in the Star Wars prequels as Evey.
As far as it being an action film, it's not a "Turn off your brain" film at all. Think a crazy mix between A Clockwork Orange, Count of Monte Cristo, and especially 1984. But it's pretty fresh and original to me.
9/10 -
I liked this movie as pure popcorn entertainment, but I must say as a whole I had a major problem with the message of the film. It seemed to be saying, "Blowing up buildings and killing people is ok if it's a political statement (i.e. You disagree with your government). It seemed very irresponsible, and anyone who cheers at the end must be fogetting about 9/11 a little too soon.
-
people is okay, when it is the only expression your gov't hears. i don't think it's suggesting that in a democracy this is a reasonable course of action. and frankly, even if it suggested otherwise, i don't think that's necessarily irresponsible, it would just be the point of view of the film. one that 99% of the world would disagree with. i think democracy only works when it has gestated within the people and explodes on the oppressive regime that preceeded it. thankfully, we had our revolution when muskets were the greatest tchnology.
-
Just did not get it. Bored the tits off me. I like Portman, Weaving and the Wachowskis but this was terrible. Oh well, thats ten bucks and two hours of my life i'll never have back again.
-
made you think.
-
I have yet to read the comic so I did not go in with any preconceived notions. It had a spare few moments that worked, but overall seemed like a shoddy amalgamation of a bunch of other, better movies.
-
I think the movie stayed pretty close to the book. Yeah, there are some differences, but the decisions make sense and don't undermine the message (unlike, say, Minority Report). I did disagree with a couple things (already noted), and I was a little concerned at the beginning that it was too 'light' (the breakfast scene, Evey's office job) .. but that quickly faded.
-
I'd give it an 8.5/10, very good, unexpectedly so. I think it's good for a film like this to be out there, alot of people will see this because it looks like a great action movie, which it is, but they'll be getting a political slap in the face as well.
-
Yeah no one ever says that. Fidel Castro is a hero right?, ask Oliver Stone and Robert Redford.
-
kind of funny... http://www.dccomics.com/media/special/V_for_Vendetta_Mask.pdf and a V Stencil... http://www.dccomics.com/media/special/V_for_Vendetta_Stencil.pdf
-
How hard can it be to adapt a fucking comic book? Answer: apparently fucking impossible. "Let's replace this bold thematic element with this boring one." And I can see why they cut out the part about how V uses gardening fertilizers to bomb Larkhill: it would have taken up about five seconds to explain. Fucking jerks. I'm all for a totalitarian government who lines up every fucking shmuck who has ever done a bad comic book adaptation and shoot them in the back of the head. I might even throw in Sam Raimi, just as a warning that any deviation from canon is unacceptable. Wachowski's are comic book fans my ass. "Oh, here's a great piece of source material we can rape." Fuckers. Alan Moore was fucking right to take his name off this piece of shite.
-
I'm lean towards the right on most issues, and I loved the movie. However, the movie wanted to addresses current issues from one viewpoint. In the movie the government thrives on peoples fears, and their reliance on the government. I saw no imagery of welfare, only images of iraq, disease, and a "conservative" pary dictator. I enjoyed this morvie, but I am very tired of people trying to tell me what to believe, and persecuting me for what I believe. Where's V when you need him?
-
I'm beginning to wonder if the plot change i.e. the Party staged the virus outbreaks was done specifically so that you COULDN'T compare the movie to the current government. Two reasons: 1, it hasn't happened. 2, I honestly don't think the government could pull something like that off in the US. Heck, they can't even break into Watergate without taking down a President, and that was before the Internet. ... I think in the end that the only people who will think the movie bears any resemblance to the current American administration are those that are already predisposed against it. I don't think any fence-sitters will be moved.
-
I really dug it, and loved the message. You could go on and on and on and on about all the things layered into this movie. I kind of wish they went all out and changed the location to America and speced out an alternate dark future for US. This was really cool. I may have to go see it again. And I love how he says you can kill a man but you can't kill an idea. Folks - esp the ones that didn't like or "get" the movie, this is what is happening now. It's happening very very slowly and it happens when drons simply repeat what they hear on Fox News when they distriube the Nazi, I mean republican, talking points. It happens when people don't think and don't raise their voice because they're afraid of being called anti-american just because they disagree with the government. This shit creeps along slowly until one day the law will say you're a terrorist for disagreeing or for asking questions or for making a joke about the people in charge. It happens slowly, with new buzz words and other emotional rhetoric. Sure, I can get on here and call bush the monkey an idiot, but to phraphrase, the price for freedom is eternal vigilance - from ememies both foreign and domestic. As I said before, everything will come out in the end... Most americans seem to forget, that this country is an experiment, not even 300 years old yet, we've done a lot, but it could still fail if we allow ourselves to to become to lazy to ask questions and to say no.
-
If you don't know the difference between the Nazi Party in German History and the Republican Party in American History and are able to confuse the two, you obviously aren't intelligent enough to be taking part in any debate. Next time, you might want to save hyperbole for when you really need it. Until then, I recommend reading "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", you might learn something from it.
-
I think it was a very good movie. And I believe it is not just my "original movie" starved brain, begging for any input that isn't a remake, I genuinely think it was a movie with just the right balance of action, emotion and situations to provoke thought. That's it, nothing else. Just a really good fucking movie that wasn't some remade bullshit from 1975 or some CGI laden puke, or another attempt to shove Jennifer Aniston down our fuckin' throats...nope..just a movie that DIDN'T make me feel like an asshole when I left the theatre for paying $10 bucks to see it (or in this case for the IMAX $15, I didn't see King Kong, Narnia or anything else in the last 8 months so I am still ahead on Hollywood! Lol). No regrets..well worth it.
-
...that Sidney Lumet and Robert Towne BOTH premiered movies this weekend and everyone at aintitcoolnews is talking about another goddamn comic book movie.
Film geeks, eh? Drop the first word and you'll have a more accurate description. -
If this site cared about Lumet or Towne, do you honestly think it would have the word "Ain't" in the title? BTW, I'll be polite and not mention the fact that you posted in the comic book movie thread too ;)
-
and am totally awed by this movie and in love with V. I just cannot, for the life of me figure out why anyone would say this movie is crap. It is beautiful. Don't be fooled by these TBers, folks! They are decoys to keep people out of the theaters so that everyone will remain clueless and eventually lose the ability to think for themselves. Nothing would please these idiots more. Do yourself a favor and see the movie yourselves. Then post to the TB!
-
thanks buddy!
-
I mean look you still have people on here who don't get the message, people who are die hard conservatives who just don't have a clue as to what's happening around them. Look at it this way, there were a bunch of people who supported the illegal war in Iraq. And now 3 years later, they're all against it. It just takes time for the common man to get up to speed.
-
Okay I didn't see it and I don't plan to, but I REALLY wanted to use that as a subject because it's so clever. I'm the first one to use it, you know.
-
I'm really jaded what I see in theaters these days, but I really liked what I saw last night. I didn't read the graphic novel so that might play a part on the impression I got. Glad they didn't make V too over the top. I can see some people getting lost at some point in the story because some things are left for interpretation. All I can say for those who didn't like this comic book movie is...you gotta lower your expectations, there is never going to be a movie that will please everyone in every single possible way.
-
This was quite good! Yeah, the beginning wasn't great and there was a small slow patch about 2/3 into the movie, but it was one of the best movies I've seen in the past year plus. Not perfect, but yes it is thought provoking, and that is rare. Plus the look, action, etc are all good. A movie that is enjoyable and intelligent...been a while.
-
Much more developed plot than mindless action, a nice surprise that the audience seemed to enjoy. Mostly like eating a good meal. A little bit of everything done well. The editing was easily the best aspect, making dialogue sound and evoke at a more intense rate than any lame CGI action scene could accomplish (this is just my dig at Ultraviolet, an already battered movie stolen from the director and cut to death). I understand the negative reviews, but they come off as a little too extreme in my tastes. Worst movie of the year my arse. Honestly the first movie worth watching at the theater for 2006. Check it out! 8.5/10
-
is make it forbidden to draw images of their lord Xanu. so faithful scientologists can freak out and protest and demand the head of it's animators in violence and bloodshed and thus fear matt and trey into ..umm...not drawing lord xanu.
V was a great damn film, I like the point where people who want power are willing to do things to their own country and people in order to achieve set goal. Do you really think this country is not capable of the same. Do you live your life ignorant to the fact that the goverment in order to maintain power and order and what's in it's best interest will not resort to such tactics? Great film for V...just great -
Yeah, but that Sidney Lumet film stars Vin "I got aas much talent, as I do hair" Diesel. Ugh.
-
I really dug this movie, but as someone already noted, the editting really stuck out as a shinning acheivement.
-
For starters- those of you who have been posting that the changes between the comic and film are minor, you're on f*cking crack. The changes are immense, and are in every facet of the film.
Now if I seperate the film itself from the memory of the comic, I could say the film was an entertaining first shot fired of the summer blockbuster season. But as an adaptation and representation of the comic the film is actually quite terrible.
I understand the need to condense, no one is going to sit through the 8 hour version of V for Vendetta, but some of the changes were absolutely baffling. It's like the Wachowski brothers bought in to the whole "Audiences are stupid, give them what they want, or else they won't get it" mentality (funnilly enough, the thing the Wachowskis were responsible for was the script.) It's almost unfathomable that this dumbed down version of V came from the same guys who wrote the Thesaurus-rex Architect dialogue in the Matrix Reloaded. I would love to write up a huge bitch list, but I'll settle for one (Spoiler)-
Evey walks out into the rain after her tourture has ended, and is "baptised" in the rain ust as V was baptised in fire (He the one who brings about Anarchy, she the one who is SUPPOSED to bring about change, and rebuild) This is the moment where she finally gets it, V has succeeded (at least in the comic), yet she up and leaves him 5 minutes later, and he throws a Phantom of the Opera hissy fit. Huh? Larry, Andy- you got some'splainin' to do... -
Who cares is Alan Moore's name is on this film? Read the graphic novel, watch the film, and enjoy BOTH on its own merit. I'm tired of all these fans of books (comic or otherwise) whining about how movies don't do justice to the source material. These people cannot understand that comic books, novels, television, and film, are all SEPARATE WAYS OF TELLING STORIES. Each has a unique way of presenting that story. A book can take longer to set up a story than a film, for instance, so CUT THE FILMMAKERS SOME SLACK. See the film as a film, not as a moving comic book. Stop this nonsense, or I'll bitch-slap you people into next November 5th.
-
just saw it tonight on IMAX in Toronto....this movie was everything i'd hoped for and more...i'll leave it at that and only add that this is precisely the movie needed for our times....something to jolt us a bit and get people talking....it certainly spoke to me.....
-
works brilliantly, which is a testament to James McTeigue and how he chose his shots. "No-no" (sounds kinda fruity) saying it "works as an illustration, looks utterly stupid and devoided of emotion on film" sounds utterly stupid in his choice of comment. It's not his fault; he just doesn't have the capacity for intelligent discourse.
-
One of my mentors from when I was younger would tell me that cursing and vulgarity make one look simple and ignorant, and that perception would prevail despite the merits behind said vulgar-statement. And I see the proof of that advice borne out all the time in AICN talkbacks. You go, El Scorcho. Fuck You!
-
First movie I've seen in theaters since The Devil's Rejects. So be nice or the MPAA will beat you for making me retreat to my home thearer system.
-
and I was going to school in NYC in the Fall of 2001. Could you stop waving your flag, get off the bandwagon and ask yourself for just one second "What if 9/11/01 hadn't resulted in any deaths?" Other than the terrorists, what if ,a la "V", it had been only the icons, the monuments to U.S. financial and military might that had been destroyed, with no casualties? I do all the time. Maybe the country could have taken a step forward culturally, intellectually, and as world leaders, which we are now on track to no longer being. (Hey, if China, Saudi Arabia, or Japan cashed in their US reserve notes tommorrow it'd be WWIII!) The rest of the world doesn't despise and mistrust the U.S. for our freedom, our resources, or our igenuity. They fucking hste us for how we're so wasteful with it all, you fast-food eating bastards!
-
online mode is so fun... Shermdawg what is your name on it?
-
Overall, I liked V. Would've liked more action (political aspects would still get through easily). Didn't like the forced "falling in love" crap near the end. Too cliche. Maybe if it had been developed more earlier (really not necessary to the movie, maybe it's more prominent in the GN). I found it strange to watch the mask when they did close ups of V as he talked. He didn't seem mysterious/ surreal enough. The movie had some great moments. Scenes I liked most: V's fight at the end, V in the doctor's bedroom. Would've been cool to have Evey slip on a V mask as she looked out over all the citizen V's and then fade to black/ end credits. Would that've helped a little with fans of the GN? The comparisons of V to a "terrorist" are unfounded. Bin Laden and the like are not oppressed citizens of the USA, Spain, or England or any other place they decide to bomb. In the film, there is no mention of civilian deaths after V blows up the Old Bailey. Surely that government would've wanted to exploit that fact to "prove" they care about their citizens and how they needed to take even further freedom reducing measures. The homosexual persecution in V is too far overblown especially in light of the tolerance movement which seems to, inexorably (ha), become as intolerant or even more intolerant than everything else. The idea of rounding them up is really, really far-fetched. Even for here in the USA and then consider how "tolerant" and accomodating Europe has become. Even so, the movie will probably become a ridiculous rallying cry. The movie should be looked at as a criticism of GOVERNMENTS in general. So of course you're going to make a correlation with yours or some other past or present gov. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-
Polarizing, oversimplifying silliness. At their best, they are both fine actresses. They are both very attractive. And - based on all the interviews I've seen - they are both exceedingly cool.
-
Which makes me yearn a little for more professional male actors of our age group as well. Jarhead, inretrospect, had some good leads. Oh, and as I said Vendetta was fun above, I have to say the random Yank and/or Brit getting up in arms about anything political in this movie is just as entertaining. These people are starting to become their own walking billboards to SEE the movie. It makes one laugh with glee in that sense.
-
And the winner is the ending of the comic. The ending of the movie, compared to the graphic novel, still irks me. I think it has to do with because, I believe, the story works better if only Evey becomes "New V". If the entire world becomes "New V", then the movie is only a big middle finger to the establishment. But I think, dramatically, the comic works better because it breaks it down to a V & Evey story. Less over the top, more character-oriented. That's a good thing. Damyn, this post is going to get lost in here, ain't it? Ah well, maybe in the @$$holes comic book post I might be able to jibba-jabba about it more...
-
Its kind of hard to follow but I did enjoy myself. It looks great. The mask was hard to get use to at first but ended up working well.
-
V for Vendetta is that and many other things, not the least of which are engaging, intelligent, inspiring, compelling, and all around brilliant. I was impressed by most everything, from the cinematography to the screenplay's pervasive wit. Much of the criticism I've heard about this film strikes me as way off the mark. I've seen people lambast it for an assortment of reasons, each more contrived and/or incomprehensible than the next. It's somewhat perplexing. But regardless, V for Vendetta has at once reignited my passion for movies and fostered hope for the future of the art form, which is presently stagnated by an unwholesome flood of formulaic rubbish. It's not every day that a film comes along which asks such important questions, or impels viewers to contemplate society, politics, themselves and their values with quite so much urgency.
-
Hey seahunter, yeah guy fawkes/bonfire night is still celebrated here in the U.K. but theirs no terrorist undertone, no left/right wing issues, no chanting, ritualistic beatings, sacrifices or the like. Instead most of us just spend the day getting absolutly shit faced, bullying younger neighbourhood kids into building fires for us and then throwing on a years supply of aerosols and car batteries that we've been saving since the last one. In fact i would like to take this opportunity to thank guy fawkes for giving his life so that we may blow shit up legally every november. THANKS GUY.
-
you don't know what you're talking about. The last thing this movie is is a cookie cutter action film. You obviously didn't see it but then lack of knowledge about a subject never stopped you before.
-
Another step in dismantling the Republican Dictatorship currently in place! Help us take back the country before it's too late! Moveon.org
-
To the talkbackers who ask why so many fans of the book don't like the movie. Yes, we understand that you must make sacrifices in order to fit as much of the material into two hours and translate the story from one medium to another. We get it. But going from Comics to film is not as difficult as going from novel to film because you start and end with a graphic medium. Meaning that your storyboards have been done for you by the original artist unless you are an egotistical ass out to tell your own story and disrespect the original creators. The problem many of us have in this particular case is that Alan Moore wrote a very smart comic book with a set of thematics based on anarchism. The movie did not so much as touch on those themes while telling a dumbed down version of the story. They tagged this film as "Uncompromising." This film is a two hour exercise in compromise and selling out. Get the graphic novel and read it and tell me the chapter called A VOCATIONAL VIEWPOINT isn't 100 times better than anything the Wachowskis have EVER done. And yet, this brilliant backbone to the work doesn't make it into the film. The Wachowskis got one thing right. The Valerie sequence. They got it right because they left Alan and Dave's work intact. That's it. I will buy the DVD so that, periodically, I can watch that one sequence. I don't care if there's nothing else on it. I am still angry that after all their claims to respect the source material, it is clear that neither the Wachowskis nor McTiegue even UNDERSTOOD the source material. Now, if Hollywood would kindly step away from Watchmen before they defile it as well, I'd be appreciative.
-
V well I went to rotten tomatoes,
they at least have 134 reviews,
mostly positive at 6.9 not quite an
eight out of ten though.That -
One of the best things about the comic was the realization of the VILLAINS, the various "organs" of the state. They aren't the deepest characters in graphic novel history, but they are at least differentiated, and it's neat the way Moore made each of their character flaws into the foundation of both their place in the power structure, AND ultimately into the weapon V uses against them. None of that is in the film. The depiction of the villains also was critical to the way the comic made it plausible that V would succeed - by using fear to set their various human foibles against each other, he made it clear that the "evil state" of the comic was a thing built of individual human beings and their weaknesses, and if you could beat those human beings you could win. None of that is in the film. There's too much 1984 and too much Fahrenheit 9/11 in the film and not enough V for Vendetta.
-
Did anyone here notice the abundance of medium shots in this film? Seriously, in a film where a major character's face is obscured throughout a film, it would really help to see the rest of his body from time to time so that one may get a better idea of what he is thinking or feeling. While Weaving's voice work was top notch, his physical performance was hindered by the fact that he was shot from the waist up throughout every part of the film besides the action scenes. The effect of so many medium shots is a feeling of claustrophobia, which is there for no reason and never goes away. I suspect that this is exactly the reason why too few 2nd unit directors are actually allowed to direct features. It looked like a TV movie, though I am sure no one will have a problem watching this on the tiny screens of their cell phones, psp's, and I-pod videos.
-
The sad fact about it taking the common man a while to get up to speed is we live in a nation of idealists because our country was founded on idealistic principals by people who were willing to risk everything to overthrow tyranny and live in freedom and democracy. It is sad that it takes the common man/woman a while to get up to speed because Americans WANT to believe our country is great. Americans WANT to believe that the President has the best interests of the majority of Americans. We have a silent agreement because we are founded on the notion and have absolute faith that certain TRUTHS are self evident (even though it has taken 300 years' and lots of mistakes to interpret Truth through Justice). Most Americans love our country so much that they don't know how to doubt or question and it seems a blasphemous to imply that our President does not care for the citizens. IMHO the current administration has totally exploited Americans' faith in America in order to propogate their own agenda and it totally breaks my heart, to see so many good people who love this country manipulated by by the spin and fear. Ultimately V is about not allowing fear or rhetoric that is contrary to experience to cloud your understanding of right and wrong or your ability to do the right thing.
-
About not just this film, but about the Wachowskis' entire oeuvre. They basically made a trilogy of films based on the work of a philosopher who claimed that a deluge of media imagery was disconnecting us from reality - and they filled that trilogy of films with iconic media images of Keanu Reeves wearing sun glasses and doing "kool" martial arts, Moss in leather outfits, Monica Bellucci, etc., and then they took that trilogy of films and added comics, computer games, MMORPG's, animated features, etc. The "problem" of media saturation was worse after the Matrix trilogy was made than it was when the philosophy it's based on was first written, and the Wachowskis did their bit to make it worse. I'm sure their next film will be about environmentalism or something, and to illustrate how important the environment is they'll have guys wearing armor made of elephant ivory fight a battle with aerosel spray weapons and in the climax they'll burn down a forest of redwoods.
-
playing itself off as art?
The Matrix duo jumped the shark when the one brother started wearing dresses. -
How can you respect someone who is ignorant enough to refer to "The Matrix" as revolutionary?
-
No I didn't see this but I read his review and something he said stuck with me. Basically he said as someone who loves London, he was upset by the ending. Whatshisname has a problem with humans, not architecture. Why not make a movie where he is an assassin? He would avoid killing innocents, which is so often the case in terrorist bombings. Plus, you would send a chilling message if you were able to kill anyone at will. That just might be more effective than some pansy ass dynamite. You aren't some thug with a bunch of bombs, you are a trained and professional killer who will strike fear in the heart of anyone who falls out of line. Guess that was over the Wachowskis head, huh? Just like the 2 matrix sequels.
-
I'm surprised how many talkbackers are just lapping this movie up. I like the guy who says that blowing up the WTC and the pentagon would have been fine if there were no casualties. When you say stupid shit like that, it makes it hard to believe that you really like America at all. I think if you did love this country, you wouldn't complain that two oppresive regimes in the Middle East have been overthrown by it in 4 years. I think you'd allow yourself to see that the only thing keeping us in Iraq are terrorists. Not "insurgents". Not "rebels". But cowardly, suicide bombing, civilian-attacking terrorists.
-
$8.8 million.
-
I think Moore's point was that governments appear powerful to the ordinary citizen in part because they are in control of powerful symbols, particularly symbols that imply continuity. After the state is stripped of those symbols it becomes possible to see it for what it really is: a bunch of frightened, imperfect men, no better than the mass of citizens and in many cases quite worse. That's why I really didn't like the depiction of the voice of fate - I pictured him sounding more like Olivier and less like Bill O'Reilly; the reason he was important was not because he was a demagogue but because he had a voice and manner that assured the people that decent men were in charge and everything was just as it had always been [when, of course, it wasn't].
-
...I left the cinema last night feeling really good about myself after seeing V. I haven't felt that good watching a movie in a long long time.
Brilliant movie all round.
I really enjoyed Hugo Weaving's performance. It would have been easy for him to leave out the emotions because of the mask but it was still all conveyed beautifully.
Can't wait to get this one into the DVD collection -
You do realize your last post was the most inane thing I have ever read, anywhere? Right? Telling me not to use foul language on an AICN talkback is like telling Teddy Kennedy he should stop drinking. Fuck YOU, doucehbag. And anyone that like this film's "message."
-
Those kids who tried to blow up Columbine High School were trying to make a political statement about the only world they knew, the oppressive system in American Public High Schools. Something happened to them in school that pushed them beyond the breaking point, where they thought only a savage act of extreme violence could make people hear their cries... and they were fucking insane. Like V. And yes, journalist and educators briefly asked the hard questions: "Is there something wrong with the system? What drove these kids to such savagery?" Etc. etc. But it was the innocent victims we felt for, not the radicals madmen. And in the end, high schools just got worse, more oppressive, more totalitarian. THis is what would happen in the real world of national politics as well, if a character like V existed. The public might briefly think about the message, but in the end, we'd give the authorities the power to smash out him and anyone else with radical viewpoints that threaten "civility". Consider... -
Woody Allen Sin City Trailer... Beats V for Vendetta... "Sinhattan" http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2711127
-
...obviously doesn't understand Baudrillard OR The Matrix movies. Which is not very suprising if'n you've read his posts before. The guy's a fuckin' idiot.
-
I thought it did a very good job of tightening the story. Originally, when I heard that Evey wasn't going to be busted for attempting prostitution, I thought it would greatly weaken the first meeting between her and V, but it was done with a reason, and that was to tie in the man she ends up living with later in the film.
The ending, with everyone in the masks, is more of an allegory than an actual event. Did everyone notice that, when the masks come off, some of the people shown are those who have died earlier in the film, like the coke-bottle-glasses girl, and the lesbian actress who wrote her story?
It would've been nice to see Evey don the mask, but I don't think Portman, with her 5'2 frame could've pulled it off. Instead, her speech at the end was perfect. "Who is V? He's my Father. My Mother, My brother. He is you. He is all of us." -
I know, I know... my subject line is redundant. Here's you: "Wah! Wah! I don't like this movie because it says that it's bad to be evil! My president is evil! I love evil!" Then we roll our eyes and laugh at you for being so damn stupid. Then you say "Larry Wachowski wears a dress!" Then we laugh at you again and say "Yup--That's all you got. Better luck next time."
-
I guess the major such so-called anti-gay statutues are the gay marriage bans that have been legislated in almost every state, and the state constitutional amendments approved overwhelmingly in all of the twenty or so states (with more on the way) that have put them to the people for a vote. Now, I can understand how the Left views these votes as more reason to despise red states, but what about liberal states like California and Oregon, and narrowly blue Michigan, who of course have otherwise enlightened (i.e. pro-Democrat) tendencies? I can see how it serves as reinforcement of their sense of superiority over Southern whites, who afterall are just a bunch of racist, redneck rubes, but what about the majority black and latino votes in favor of the marriage amendments? I mean, do those on the Left view minorities with the same contempt and disdain as whites when they dare to buck the party line on this specific issue?
-
... Match Point was great because he kept himself behind the camera. Anyways, I'm hearing some whacky things here. Assassinations are better than blowing up empty buildings? Iraqi's are terrorists? How many accounts does that Panterarocks nutcase have anyways? I was surprised half way in that I just realised V's face hadn't been moving because of the mask. Weaving's voice just gives even the most sterile of objects lots of emotion. It's funny. The Left is talking about the acting and merits as a movie. The Right talks politics. Thanks fuckers.
-
El Scorcho and FluffyUnbound could find love in each others arms--and we could put an end to all this hateration.
-
My interpretation of Baudrillard is spot-on, as is my criticism of the Wachowski brothers' Matrix trilogy as a symptom of the problem of the simulacra POSING as part of the cure for it. If you have a different interpretation, how about writing it down and letting us read it? Because I think you're full of shit and couldn't explain your point if you tried.
-
good post man. It's interesting what you said: "Americans WANT to believe our country is great." I think that makes sense, and lets say that you're right. If that's what most people think, its a sad example of how our education system has failed us. Shows just how slanted the history lessons are in this country (as are most lessons in other countries too, perhaps? Yes) It does surprise me because I sometimes assume that everyone knows that the US has done and is doing a lot of bad in the world - as well as doing a good amount of good too. Our hands are just as bloody as everyone else. I'm sure it's been talked about so many times but why is it out of the question that this administration let 9/11 happen? Look at what we have now, bases in Iraq and Afganistan. A strong foothold and a "rightous reason" to be there and we have a new boogyman who can hit at anytime during this (ahem).... "long war". Yes, it's a horrible thought, but you gotta remember, this is a capitalist country... people are cheap resoursces, they're easy to make and fun to make too. Brutal? Yeah, it is... but I ask people to think about it.
-
About the one point that the movie did not illustrate this evil being in the hands of a few individuals. I feel the climax brought it down to about two men. True, the wives were missing, but out preference, I just seemed to enjoy this stripped down edition. That's just me. Whatever.
-
Expecting intelligent discourse in a talkback IS deluding myself. Because, as el Scorcho(el flamo?) says "Telling me not to use foul language on an AICN talkback is like telling Teddy Kennedy he should stop drinking. Fuck YOU, doucehbag." Well put, flambe'. The merits of your eloquent perspective alone won me over.
-
Brought to you from the same folks who brought on the PR blitz for The Passion of the Christ and Narnia... is this weird backlash against this movie, this negative "spin" appearing in major newspapers, blogs, etc. (ex. IT isn't true to the GN, it glorifies terrorism, it is boring, the editing is bad, the camera angles are bad...) give me a f
-
Fluffy, you're asking me why I don't bother to "explain" The Matrix to you? The reason is this: I can give a calculus textbook to a chimpanzee. That chimp can scream at the calculus textbook and tear out its pages. The chimp can throw the calculus textbook against the wall and then take a shit on it. The chimp can gaze at that shit-stained, tattered calculus book forever--but that chimp ain't never gonna be able to do calculus. So... that's pretty much the reason. It'd be, like, y'know... a waste of my time. I'd rather spend my time tormenting the stupid chimps in their cage. That's more fun. The matrix has you!
-
You're the chimp in my little analogy. I just thought I'd help you out with that bit of interpretation since your analytical skills don't really seem to be up to snuff.
-
"I think if you did love this country, you wouldn't complain that two oppresive regimes in the Middle East have been overthrown by it in 4 years." Who successfully overthrew and stabilized what? Last 4 years in what dimension? Do you believe everything O'Reilly and Hannity say? I love this country, I just hate morons like you who keep the greedy in power because you're too thick to read between the lines of the rhetoric. I stand behind the above post "MattW, I cheered at the end" wholeheartedly. We're a wasteful, fat, lazy, stupid nation. Thousands of my grandfather's generation gave their lives so geniuses like Lukas McFly can watch Fox news and ship High School Seniors off to hell. Reminds me of all of the idiots with their 9 "made in china" copies of Old Glory hanging of the back of their vehicles that went on in this country in the Fall of 2001. Did the WTC buildings mean something really deep and special to you? Because it's the 3,000+ lost souls that are meaningful to me. The building was a monument of western greed and corruption. For someone to express the view that if no one had lost their lives that day it would have been just as bad, is either evil or just too stupid to live.
-
"Fuck... anyone who liked this film's 'message.'" Just wondering, what is this vile "message" that you think the movie is sending?
-
No matter how out there one's views on this movie is, there is one sacred area. The editing. Holy. Cow. Dominoes, man. Dominoes.
-
Hmmmm, I think a movie can become a favorite of 'all-time' for someone after a single viewing. Some grow on you, like Heat & Ronin, while others are clearly excellent right away, like Aliens & The Matrix. An experience is an experience, and time will only do so much to change it.
-
What has El Scorcho so upset? It says in the banner ad at the top of the page "Freedom! Forever!"
-
but got sucker punched by St. Pats, I drove by the local theater last night..hardly any people there. Seemed liked monday night.
-
Yeah, it could've been 2 million higher I guess. There were barely ANY adults at the theater last night. Add to the fact we have the biggest four days of March Madness in a decade, lots of St. Patrick's drinking, and it being rated R. It'll likely end with $25 million this weekend. The movie actually only costed $50 million, so it'll make more of it's gross back than the original Matrix did when it opened.
-
Saw the film yesterday. Loved it. Even though it echoes contemporary politics, I don
-
V OULD be gay...or multi-racial, or a Jew, or Muslim, or just some poor sod who was protesting...you don't know, and the point is that it doesn't matter. The truth of the character is left ambivilant for two reasons: First, so that his vendetta speaks not for just the reason he himself was imprisoned, but for all the persecuted. Second so that you might find a little of yourself within him. I don't post that often anymore because it seems like we can't have a talkback about a Goddamn episode of Blue's Clues withoutthe radical conservative right and the ultra liberal left jumping on eachother's ass. This movie was never going to be liked by everyone, it and its source material are based on that very idea-opinion, justification and the best way to simply exist as a society. There were always going to be those that refused to see this as anything but a personal attack on them and what they think is right. There would also be those who see this film as a flawless piece of work (which it isn't) that represents a rallying cry to arms. Neither of you is correct...but sadly I doubt that attempting to convince you of that would be a fruitless endeavor. That's the problem though, isn't it? Neither side is right or wrong, but both refuse to meet half way. I love my country, and will go to my grave defending her basic value, but I won't pretend that we are now as we should be - things can ALWAYS be better, and we should never stop attempting to make it that way. As for the film itself...I enjoyed it. I have read everything of Moore's and have read V countless times since I first picked it up over ten years ago. Are there things that should be explained better? Absolutely. Is Portman's accent always perfect? No.Would I have liked to see it end exactly like the book? I was hoping it would. All that said, is it good? Yes-it remains true to the spirit of the original story and certian things had to be changed. The dates had to be moved up so that it would still be a vision of the FUTURE, and in a film that deals with issues like society, terrorisim and change, how could they not mention 9-11? Is V true to V? I think that Weaving (I feel the need to credit Purefoy somewhat, but since it was mostly Weaving and his voice, I'll concentrate on that) gives the greatest performance that could be hoped for. He is everything I always imagined, to the point it can raise hairs. Little things like the cooking scene and the movie screening made it perfect, and he understood how to play it. Is the acting good? Yes, and the cast is excellent. I especially loved Frye, and though it was a complete cinematic creation, I damn near pissed myself over the John Hurt"interview" segment on his show.
It is not perfect, but it was never going to be, and I think there is enough right to justify it being a worthy adaptation. I am not a liberal or a conservative. I am not religious but do consider myself spiritual and open minded. I am not of any political party and have no strong voice on any pulpit that I look to. All I am is a thirty-one year old man who looks at his son and desperatly wants something better for him when he is my age. That, and my spell check doesn't work. -
I thought the performances were great, really well done movie. It should've come out on November the 5th.
-
...this is a great movie, with a story well told at a nice pace. A+
-
If you were hoping people would see this and then immediatly jump up and revolt, the people next to me would have you cry. "I thought this was a Matrix movie, what's up with all of the poetry bullshit? It was lame, too much talking and not enough blood, dude."
-
The critics are finding fault with the particulars on the movie. I know it's utterly ridiculous that V could do all the things he does (not talking about the combat) but I didn't care. As an allegory/fable/ whatever it was incredible. It hit the same points a few more times then it needed too (that montage toward the end kind of played like a "Previously on..." catch-up for slower viewers) and all the government officials were completely evil with no shades of gray, but aside from those quibbles it was excellent. I just wish the damn TV ads had not built their campaign around the single most pivotal moment in the whole movie.
-
I thought it was average; that's all. And I thought they dropped the ball in a couple places. In the movie, they never explain about V's roses (he grew them while in the detention center, and used the fertilizer chemicals to make bombs). Shipping out a couple hundred thousand masks was just ri-goddamn-diculous. And what happens to the chancellor was silly, the equivalent of a general executing George W in order to capture Ossama. That said, this director seemed to have a real appreciation for Natalie Portman's body, and that was nice to see.
-
Have been waiting for this film since August, saw it in December at BNAT, I just love the whole look and story of this movie. I plan to see it at least 1 more time. I am probably a lot older than most TBers and have seen a LOT of movies. I have read the Graphic Novel of V for Vendetta. The movie simply takes my breath away. Yeah my top 10 movies might shift. But the top 25 have only added or subtracted at about 1 or 2 every 5 or 6 years. And most bonafide film geeks have a list of 50-100 favs for each year. Frankly, I think it is thrilling to imagine my movie- going experiences getting better and better and filmmakers were outdoing each other with a constant stream of GREAT movies. Would it make me a MORON to be happy if people enjoyed going to the movies again, if the movies released were really that good or at least that entertaining on a big screen? Right now I know a lot of my favs will never show up on other people's lists. But V4V movie succeeds on a lot of levels and I find it hard to believe that my POV of the movie is so off. What IS moronic is to not see a movie or to see a movie because you are influenced by someone else's opinion. Feelings and opinions do not make someone a moron. Choosing to live vicariously and make decisions based on the fears or ignorance propogated by others is another matter. My point was simply that, if you enjoy movies, don't be disuaded from seeing this movie by some of the reviews and some of these TBs. Don't take sides...see the damn movie and make up your own mind.
-
"Remember remember the Midterm Elections in November..." (heh heh)
-
It was an above average flick, but not amazing. Had I not read the comic, I may have said the latter. My two favorite scenes from the graphic novel (The vicious cabaret song, and the wya he tortres the one concentratino type guy with the fire and the dolls) were missing, but I guess things always need to be removed. Natalie Portman's best performance? Sure, she was good. But fucking re-watch Closer, every performance in that film is PERFECT.
-
The Wachoski's should do Watchmen.
-
Keep hating.
"While abortion shit up behind the desk it costs billions
To blast humans in half, into captured arms
Only one side is allowed to have bombs
It's like making a soldier drop his weapon
Shooting him, and telling him to get to steppin'"
Word of mouth seems very good. So many of the obvious haters are neocon trolls. The rest are aight.
-
i didn't like the tacked on love-story between evey and v, nor their handling of v's life in and escape from the detention center. otherwise, f'in great time.
-
In the book, there was a war which led to Britain being left isolated. From this followed a period of disorder and an extremist government took power with popular support. In the movie, America is decimated by a war which Britain wasn't dragged into. The war seems to have involved viral outbreaks. There is also a viral outbreak in Britain (engineered by homegrown extremists) which leads to a fearful population that turns to an extremist party for security. So I would like to know about the order of events in the movie. Did the war happen first and then the viral outbreak happen in Britain? Or did Norsefire unleash the virus, only letting Britain have the vaccine, so that the rest of the world was infected and leading to wars? Which came first - the war that decimated America or the St Mary's outbreak?
-
Mar 18, 2006 5:50:39 PM CST
Yeah, I thought you'd say something like that, Jar Jar.
by fluffyunbound
The simple fact of the matter is this: if someone thinks that what Baudrillard had to say is important or valid, the LAST FUCKING THING YOU SHOULD DO is making a major motion picture or a series of such major motion pictures. This just is beyond dispute. You simply can't see it, because you have bought in to the proposition that it's possible to have a mass-marketed media product that opposes the system of mass-marketed media products. In other words, you are a chump. If hyperreality is a problem, bullet time and cool shades is not and can not possibly be a solution, because it's a SECOND FUCKING HELPING of the problem. If they really believed the philosophy behind the Matrix sequels, they should have never taken a single photograph, filmed a single scene, animated a single cell, or created a single image again at any point in their lives, because part of the point of Baudrillard is that avalanche of product is dehumanizing and debilitating. Pretty much the worst, lowest sort of human being, to B., is an American teenager playing a video game based on a movie surrounded by posters from that movie and engaging in fantasies of power and heroism. In addition, if the Wachowskis thought that what Lyotard and the other postmodernists had to say was important or valid, the last thing they should have done was try to tell an epic story, because part of the point of postmodernism is that normative epic narratives are always lies, and that they move us farther from the truth, not closer to it. The story of "The Matrix" cannot therefore supply insight into the way things actually are [the central conceit of the entire exercise] because the nature of its form is itself a mini-matrix of falsehood. As I said in an earlier talkback, the only thing you ultimately need to know about the Matrix sequels is this: when the Wachowskis set out to film a scene that shows human beings trying to return to authentic humanity, the best they can come up with is the rave scene, which is nothing more and nothing less than a Lenny Kravitz video or a Benetton ad. Since MTV videos and counterculture-themed advertising are just about the most horrifically inauthentic image sets possible, using the system of analysis the Wachowskis are supposedly bringing to bear here, it seems to me that this is a fundamental problem. If when you try to depict authenticity you end up with the most inauthentic images imaginable, you might want to rethink your whole approach. This core contradiction is expressed everywhere else in the films, because the Wachowskis [and their target audience] are too in love with "cool images" to do without them, even though "cool images" are supposedly an instrument of our "enslavement".
-
Hmmm, this is starting to sound about right. They're the only pair in the biz that could get adult material like that down. Many don't want a Watchmen movie, but I think it would be a fantastic thing to share with the cinema world myself. With the Brother's likely staying as producer's from now on... Who would you like to be the Director? Anyways, all of my friends are wanting to see Vendetta AGAIN this weekend. Scarrryyy. Hehehehe.
-
You're a Medusa. And you simplify everything to an extent that it becomes idiotic. Everything you write ceases to exist.
-
Read the Transparency of Evil/
-
Dude you are a serious twat!
You have hang-ups that right wing politics arent "vogue". Tough titty! Go make your own right wing V. And by the way, Thatcher and Reagan both supported teh aparthied regime in Southg Africa and Pinochet's Chilean regime. Fight freedom? Bulklshit! They fought for Western interests, (as they perceived them). Members of The Reagan Administration gave money the money from arm sales to Iran (yes Iran who we are now recognising as a paraih nation) and gave the money to terrorists (dont beleive me, listen to Dewey Claridge, ex CIA talk about their tactics in Nicaragua or Milt Brearden's in Africa). Whatever you may think, western governemtns ahve committed atrocities against their own citizens and against innocent foreign peoples. Dont like? Bury your head in the sand.
PS. Saw the movie today, Great. It does pose an interesting question. Now that Post 9/11 all forms of terrorism are seen as bad, how should one view the German officer who tried to blow up Hitler? Or the Palestinian Arabs and Jews attacks on The British up to 1949? Answers arent as simple as they may first appear. -
That's O.K. Maybe I've been too harsh. So, philosophy and calculus may be out of reach--but there should be bottom rungs to the ladder. Let's start with spelling some simple words. Here's the first one: S - E - R - V - E - D. Here's the second: O - W - N - E - D. You're gonna need to get to know both of those words really well, because they're probably gonna happen to you a lot.
-
I am calling shennanigans on all of you foolish folks. All of your political ideas and ideals are all wrong.
-
Africa united.
-
I am praising you all of you well versed individuals. All of your political ideas and ideals are right in their own merrit.
-
Anyone who takes the Alan Moore book seriously knows that it's a hell of a lot more complicated than the movie was. I think the movie was pretty good, but the overall meaning of the story was simplified and it looses it's impact in the film. The book is NOT a simple left vs right/anarchy vs fascism argument. The fascists aren't even portrayed in a particularly bad light. The chancellor, for example, states that after ww3, citizens were left only with "the freedom to starve", and this forced the creation of a fascist government. The chancellor (and many of his assocaites) are portrayed as sad, sympathetic characters. Compare this to the chancellor in the film, who is about as subtle as Emperor Palpatine. The book is challenging because it asks questions such as: Is fascism appropriate in extreme circumstances? Is anarchy really the right answer when a government becomes too corrupt? These are questions that the movie was too afraid to ask. Like I said, the movie is good, but it's a diluted version of the real thing.
-
It takes my breath away when the framing of the scene simply includes V's boots stepping forward and the lower part of his cape swishing slightly. I loved the lighting and angles on the mask and the tilts of Vs head. V's body language combined with the inflection of Weavings dramatic, voice conveyed nuances I thought were astounding. I personally, liked the color palette Black, red, gray and cobalt blue because it represents the world in which the colors have been drained, but the colors chosen to replace are strong enough to hold up the frame and symbolize power. By contrast when in the safety and privacy of the Shadow Gallery or in people's homes (maybe inner lives) the lighting and colors are warm and soft. Someone before mentioned the dominoes, touche! I loved the way the Knives twirl around V's fingers. I loved the story and what I loved the most about the story is the loneliness and courage of dissent against a powerful wrong and the revelation of truth connecting hearts like resonating harmonics. I liked that V was both bad and good, did good things for bad reasons and bad things for good reasons. I liked that this story is an allegory for why people like Hitler come into and stay in power. I liked it because it was an entertaining movie because the story is revealed with a good pace for suspense and in such a way that we find out as Finch uncovers it... nothing is given away too soon or too fast and some things are left unknown. I liked the "dramatics" of everything both true to the GN in spirit and true to the Character of V. I have hesitated to enumerate the things I loved about the movie because I could go on and on, it would be too spoiler laden and still only be my opinion, for which you clearly lack any respect anyway. What good would it do to tell anyone my reasons for loving V for Vendetta? My point was that it felt like most of the people with the heaviest negative comments didn't even appear to have seen the movie at all. There were a few people with, IMO, some legitimate TB comments as to why they found the movie flawed, but most of those people liked it. Yes, I make stupid comments sometimes, don't we all? Oh, I guess some people are above that as my hateful friend seems to be the proof using words like moron and idiot and retarded to make his/her point, what a clever and eloquent way to make a point. I do not value my own opinions above others, but like most folks here, I do enjoy sharing it. But the point actually was that I would rather have people see this movie than not because I think it is worthwhile for people who hang out at this site to see. If they hate it, at least they can say something more than they hate the "idea" of something or they hate the past work of the writers, the director, the cinematographer, etc. There is one point I would agree with you and that is I found the background music (excluding the highlighted jukebox music) in the soundtrack was slightly annoying but not distracting (and Portman's accent was weak but her performance was excellent as were the performances of all the actors).
-
It's impossible to serve or own anyone or anything until you actually say something. And Greatniss, it most certainly is not a "simplistic" interpretation of Baudrillard. There is literally nothing else there. You can't tell me not to read the man's best known work. Unless he at some point specifically renounced S&S, he doesn't get to hide from the inescapable conclusions one MUST draw if one accepts the premises of that book are true. I will concede that my interpretation is an extremely unsympathetic one, though. And I note with interest that you, too, do not offer any ACTUAL EXPLANATION of the most nuanced and subtle interpretation you think would be appropriate. I conclude, reasonably, that this is because no such explanation exists. It's not your fault, though - once you get your mind around them, Baudrillard's concepts are not really that complex at all: Does he, or does he not, identify a concept called hyperreality? Can we not apply EVERY LAST WORD that he says about Disneyland to every last product of Hollywood [as Baudrillard implicitly does himself] including the Matrix films? Does he not say, "Today what we are experiencing is the absorption of all virtual modes of expression into that of advertising" - and is that not the BEST, the most apt, the most perfect description of the process of making and releasing the Matrix films and their marketing tie-in's?
-
Seriously, dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Try to see things from another perspective. Let's say another country, one with a big military and nukes to back them up (China? India?) trumps up some charges about the US. Outright lies to the UN. Doesn't verify "intelligence" that backs their position. And then they invade us. The power is out, the water supply is spotty, a curfew is put in place... and oh, by the way, they're lobbing bombs all over the country. Your mom gets blown up. Your baby sister gets horribly burned. Your business gets destroyed. "Oops, sorry, collateral damage", they say. This is *exactly* what we're doing to the people of Iraq, and this is exactly why they are out in the streets, shooting our soldiers and firing off homemade bombs. If it happened here, we'd all be out in the streets doing the same thing, trying to fight the invaders out of our country. Sad to say, the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam; if they wanted him gone, it should have been left up to them to get rid of him. You cannot impose freedom on people, they have to want it and go after it themselves. We should not be there, and our troops are paying a heavy price for our government's folly.
-
She is one of the best actresses in Hollywood and the fact that she makes a movie based on a graphic novel speaks volumes about where her priorities lie. She is interested in the material first, and we are lucky to have someone so talented that is making genre films. She is easily the best part of a really good and important film. When she's not on screen we as a viewer miss her. Can't wait to see what's next.
-
Based upon what I read from this site and people's comments, I went into V For Vendetta expecting wince-worthy moments of a Constantine-like nature (like casting Keanu "Woah" Reeves in a role that should have gone to Tim Roth).
Imagine my surprise to see a well made film that stayed remarkably faithful to the original story. Sure there were differences, but those differences -
I still have trouble seeing why so many people who claim to be familair with the original story say that the movie's story is, more or less, the same as the book. As a huge fan of the book, I had trouble finding many similarities. Evey, for example, is a low-life prostitue in the book. Whereas the book is left open-ended, the movie gets the "hollywood ending", in which anarchy seems to have taken over and the politicians are all either dead or incapacitated. An army of V's goes against the individualism of the character. In the book, Evey is the ONLY other character to wear the mask, and this is when she takes over after his death. She's just about the only character in the movie that doesn't wear the thing. The constant focus on homosexuality is an obvious concession to the current times. The book is a timeless work that comments on fascism and anarchy in general. The movie feels like a blatant partisan attack on the current issues at hand.
With all that said, I liked the movie somewhat. The few scenes that were taken directly from the book are enoguh to propel it in front of the rest of the Hollywood blockbuster crop. Still, it could have been an incredible, smart, and truly great movie. What we are left with his merely good. -
Natalie is certainly the best actress of her generation and can't wait to see what becomes of her.
-
V's call has gone out across the world! Parisians have heard the voice of V, their master, and so obey! I think they enjoyed the film on most technical merits but were pissed when they found out that some Brit had stolen all of their Mardi Gras masks.
-
V For Vendetta was an excellent and FluffyUnbound doesn't understand Baudrillard.
-
Well, the U.S. just bombed the living hell out of another piece of Iraq kyesterday. How many people were killed, and why? Why is this not as terroristic as what V does? Why can no one connect the two? At least V has a goal, and a worthy one. We just murdered an unknown number of people, and it turns out we have absolutely nothing to show for it. Why again is V wrong? And if he is, why aren't all of you protesting what Bush is doing?
-
What more could you want out of a movie?
-
I almost thought that Natlie Portman's character was "projecting" V when I first read the graphic novel. Simular themes between Jack (yes, I know his real name is never used) and Portman hitting bottom while V interogates her. Then starting over. Anyone else see that?
-
If you follow the logic of this film then the US government had a hand in either the planning or execution of the NYC attacks. I remember when I was young it was well known that FDR allowed the events at Pearl Harbour to get public support for the Second World War. If such a beloved liberal can do it, why cant a conservative? I mean, who would gain the most from an attack of that magnitude? Gotta put that out there. I know the context in which the graphic novel was written (ie British forces in Northern Ireland bombing pubs in London to justify military control in Ireland), and that it had a definitive anti-Thatcher bias. And I know that it does have some symbolism for today. As much has been stated by the films own people. So, using their own allegorical logic then it would be safe to bring up the 9 11 possibility outside the context of a raving nutjop conspiracy theory, as it pertains to this movie. Just a thought. Flame away, Im just putting it out there for discussion.
-
I tihnk all this talk about the original being about Thatcher is ridiculous. Yes, the book was written in response to the dominance of right wing politics in Britain. But to say that Moore was "wrong"??? The book isn't supposed to be a predicition of the future. It's an intelligent study about fascism and anarchy, and it refuses to say either one is "right" or "wrong" in extreme circumstances. If done right, the story and "message" are timeless...it has little to do with 1980's Britain. I get the feeling a lot of people are assuming they know more about the book than they actually do. I HATE biased, partisan politics in literature and movies, and I love Moore's story because that isn't what it tries to do. Alan Moore's book is far deeper than an attack on conservatives.
-
...a woman with protruding breasts, for starters... :) Now a film with say, Monica Bellucci or Rosario Dawson with hot lesbians, that would be a thing of beauty...
-
He'll regail you with stories about his recent heart surgery (too many Cheetos) and how he was at the show where Dimebag got shot, just like every single other Pantera fan.
-
Ever occur to you that maybe the wachowski'd would have stuck to comics, maybe even moved on to novels, if anyone ever read anything in this country? Unless you write something as accessible as Harry Potter, you're not going to get tens of millions in audience members for a novel or independent comic. But hey, you read Simulacra & Simulation once, so you've got it all figured out.
-
I mean, I don't see where the Wachowski brothers promised the audience a faithful, and straitjacketed presentation of Baudrillard's ideas, and only Baudrillard's ideas. Can't the movie's ADDRESS his ideas, or go beyond them even? Sure, Neo opens a book labeled "Simulacra and Simulacrum" by Baudrillard (mind you, I haven't read it myself) but it's hollowed out .... Neo isn't exactly using it as a holy text, so what makes you think the Wachowski brothers are using it as holy text? I am not sure I know what "hyperreallity is" (though I guess it means the artificial world of product-laden media) but what makes that media incapable (completely) of puncturing it's own effect, bypassing it? I don't see how the second and third movies FAIL to do this, as they focus EXTREMELY on the unglamorous "reality" of Zion, and, in fact, try to paint that reality, and heroism IN that reality, as preferable to artificial triumphs in Sunglasses. And I don't get your objection to the Rave because it reminds YOU of a Benetton ad. A Benneton ad is an ad because, after you see the images, you see "Benneton" written across the images. But the images are, largely, borrowed from real life. Is it the fault of the Wachowskis that you find the "rave" scene inauthentic, or the fault of other media who have associated such scenes with inauthenticity? If you encountered such a rave scen in real life, without knowing of such images in mass media, would you accept it as real or immediately recognize it's "fake" nature? Not to mention the fact that Humans are, by their very nature, "simulacra" producers, whenever they tell eachother stories about "reality", their own brains taking information fed to them by other humans and recreating a "simulated" reality based on that information fed to them by other human beings. And, although I recognize product placement in the Matrix movies it seems to me it was more blatant in the first one than in the sequels (that fucking Duracell ad when Morpheus shoves a Duracell battery in the camera, along with the "coppertop" insult) because in the sequels none of it was shoved in our faces .... we got a "Powerade" ad in the subway when they chase the Trainman, but you practically have to pause the video to really be bothered by it (and real subways to have ads in them) and stuff like the sunglasses and cell phones do NOT have obvious mentions of the manufacturers on them. Sure, mass media can lie to you, but so can your best friend. The "authentic" life is FULL of "false realities". So I don't see the huge crime in the Wachowski's making a movie about False Realities, and allowing the audience to question whether or not the False Reality might not actually have a positive purpose. People have engaged in the "false" realities of Myths, Fairy Stories, Religion for as long as they have been human ... it seems to have served an evolutionarily positive function in keeping them happy at doing whatever humans do. So the Wachowskis may suggest that the "false realities" may not be that bad, may in fact be necessary, that "uncovering the lie" isn't going to give you superpowers, make you happy, necessarily. So they don't just parrot Baudrillard and his successors point for point so that Online Philosophers can recognize the point-for-point parallels and sit back smugly satisfied with their cleverness for doing so. The film's actually encourage personal meditation on the situation, encourage the viewers to, maybe, come up with some conclusion that perhaps might be different from what Baudrillard or others might have concluded. But they've still been encouraged to question realities they have been fed, and this is in fact, ultimately, empowering. How undermined has this effect been by a few bucks wasted on a poster of Neo wearing cool sunglasses? Does it undermine it's own marketing more or less than other movies, like, say, the Terminator flicks? I see ALL sorts of hints in the films that product is to be seen as artificial ... the first movie mentioned the "residual self image" in the clothes that appear on people in a simulation, and in the second movie Neo, when trying to trust, to be "real" and authentic, removes his sunglasses. The third movie places Neo, performing his most important act of heroism, in stark, plain, unglamorous reality, his eyes burnt away, his beloved girlfriend skewered, wearing ugly potato-sack clothes. So the medium lends itself ot selling sunglasses. The message still exists, just as human language lends itself to lying sometimes, but it's utility to human beings is undisputed.
-
He's a mark.
-
Because there IS a REAL difference between the way the brain processes the "simulated" reality provided by language based storytelling, and the way the brain processes raw reality, actual experience. We may hear someone tell us about a Lion, but we have the option of taking it with a grain of salt, but when we actually SEE one ... the critical faculties tend to be bypassed, and visual mass media does bypass the language-interpreting faculty, not allowing the brain to differentiate between the "story" about reality and reality itself. Which was Fluffy's point, I guess, and maybe Baudrillard's as well. However, I have to say that, visually, the Wachowskis seem to have, visually, encouraged people to doubt the Visually Convincing reality of their own films, in contrasting the unglamorous Zion lifestyle to the more glamorous Matrix hijinks. If the medium of film is a Lie by it's very nature, the Matrix movies are big Lies screaming and yelling "I'm a Lie" at every opportunity, and if that isn't worth a round of applause, even if the effort is futile, I don't know what is.
-
V did not know if blowing up the buildings would actually change the world for the better. He in fact did not make the choice himself to blow up the building, he left it for others to choose that path, in which they then figured out for themselves what V was trying to do. Blowing up the buildings was a symbol, of change. He could have just killed the 2 leaders and that would have been enough, but he said people needed a symbol of hope.
I was real careful cheering for this film myself because nothing ...nothing justifies murder , even of innocents, but something in the movie stuck with me. He admitted he became a monster. He lost touch to when he was seeking out change for the right reasons and just figured people who died were just part of a bigger picture. In the end , the movie wasn't preachy. It left it for the audience to decide. Was V right for what he did , it seemed with that kind of totalitarian goverment, and under that regine, There was no choice...How did it get that bad? through fear people were willing to give up their rights and freedoms for peace and security. You think that CAN'T happen to this country? Why because we are protected by a constitution? A constitution that can be ammended in a second for national security. marshal law can be declared if enough terrorists attacked new york again, making it impossible to take the bus or trains. People would be so scared public transportation would stand still and people wouldn't even want to go outside and would give up their rights, like the patriot act, and allow the goverment to monitor their every move, and every keystroke, and every phone call,cuz they feel "well they will catch terrorists that way" . then see V, and remind yourselves what power you are giving the goverment. -
I didn't call you a moron, you fucking moron. I called you a nutcase. You likely are called everything last shit for brains title in the damned book, vomited out whatever came into your crack ridden brain, and then went on to talk about Einstein. In other threads I was sure to call you a madman. Your beyond a troll, for sure. You have issues, and they are becoming deep. Oh, and quit trying to hide your pathetic conservative past around here now. You stepped in shit, and saying 'well, well, I just don't like the creators' is a load of shit that even a press secretary couldn't say without cracking up laughing.
-
I liked it. I sort of felt that it wasn't always as deep as it wanted to be, though. It brought alot of stuff, and explored some of it really well, but other parts I felt it missed the mark a bit. Still, some memorable sequences and overall a very enjoyable film.
-
I really liked the domino scene, even though, if you think about it, the entire concept of that moment is ridiculous. Why build a giant symbol with dominos only to knock it down inside your secret hideout where no one will see it? I dunno, but i thought it was cool shit anyway.
-
I can't think of a moment that we see one of his explosions hurting innocent people, only government soldiers. Showing him racking up some collateral damage and his attitude towards it would have been a nice, complicated route to go down, but we never get there.
-
but it seems to me that not seeing a movie you admittedly want to see, a movie that's getting pretty solid reviews, just because you happen to not like the writer is a little silly. Who's really losing here? I doubt the Wachovskis' are going to miss your $8.50, but you're gonna miss out on a pretty decent flick.
-
Might I suggest "Failure to Launch" as your decoy movie?
-
Are you watching the O'Reilly Factor while you're typing? Well, I don't think you would've liked "Revolutions" either. Narrow-minded idiots seem to have a problem with broad, expansive narratives. Oh, and the heart problem could've been avoided if you'd do something other than obsess over the internet and watch TV.
-
Whoever suggested that the Wachowski's should do WATCHMEN better be joking, or at least smoking crack. WATCHMEN should be done perfectly right, or not at all. V FOR VENDETTA was good as an entertainment with some meaning mixed in, but it did not have much of the weight and depth of Moore's original work. So, the movie was good as a movie, but not great as an adaptation. It was a good action thriller with some interesting political ideas thgreatrown in. Hugo Weaving did a great job creating a masked anti-hero, as others have noted. Natalie Portman was also strong in the film. But, just because the Wachowskis made a decent film out of V FOR VENDETTA does not recommend them for the difficult task of adapting WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN is the Holy Grail of graphic novels. A less than excellent adaptation will not do. I enjoyed V FOR VENDETTA as a film, but this was often in spite of the adaptations of the filmmakers rather than because of them. A middling adaptation of an excellent work can still yield good results. But, a middling adaptation of the WATCHMEN would be a travesty. It is the CITIZEN KANE of superheros and graphic novels. It needs to be done just right, or not at all. The Wachowskis should not be anywhere near the project. Sure, V FOR VENDETTA beats out junk like THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, but WATCHMEN is arguably Moore's most important work. A merely decent adaptation will not do.
-
You really hated "Revolutions" because of all the talking, and not enough gunfire? Oh, and the arc of the story required some applied thought on your part? Well, now I understand completely.
-
Most of what passes for political thinking on these boards is just such utter shite, but that was the best and most concise description of the Iraq War that I have seen here, or in many other places. Keep the faith. We should bring back our troops as soon as is humanly possible. There is no reason for one more American to die over there, in my own opinion.
-
I'm utterly repulsed and turned off by what you think and how you express yourself. You sound like a very unhappy and spiteful person. I'd never have sex with someone like you, much less even be your friend. Sorry.
-
It makes you sad, doesn't it, that I'm sitting here killing time at work, while this is your idea of a good Saturday night. That frozen burrito you're sucking down through your fat fingers isn't going to make you feel as good as the hummer that's waiting for me when I get home. And yes, I understand that when you didn't really understand "Revolutions" you adopted the (seemingly) mainstream populist view of "the herd". Like Cbabbitt, the idiot whose article got posted by Moriarty last week. It's like you want to watch Lost and the West Wing, but it's so far over your head you stick with safe, mindless 24. When's the next Michael Bay flick coming out?
-
Wachowski's shoving lesbian kissing scenes down my throat left a bad taste in my mouth, an otherwise great and though provoking movie sold out and became a propoganda movie.
The movie depicted chrisitan conservatives as one dimensional haters, while depicting homosexuals as misunderstood heroes. The biggest joke was depicting the pedophile priest as a heterosexual who liked young girls, in complete denial of real life, where there is hundreds of cases of homosexual molestors in the priesthood but rarely if ever heterosexual examples....this is clearly a propanda spin by gayobsessed hollywood, not satisfied with shoving brokeback down our throat. -
You sure told me. Uh-huh.
-
It'd be hard to get at your throat with your head so far up your ass.
-
But that movie just didn't do a thing for me. As a moderate conservative who can actually see the points of views of liberals from time to time...that movie started out o.k. but then was just over the top ridiculous. And what the hell was that domino sequence in there for? I guess because it looked "cool"...you lost me on this one boys.
-
Imagine V for Vendetta done by the director of Brazil and The Fisher King. For me the direction in this movie seemed a little bit stuffy and only really cut loose in the fight scenes, even the most theatrical scenes (the conducting of the first explosion for example) seemed clumsily directed. I guess the true problem was despite the film claiming to have a dangerous message, it doesn't have a dangerous, daring feel. Watching a film like A Clockwork Orange, or even something like Fightclub, the camerawork and the sound and the direction feel fresh and daring. I just didn't get that with this film.
Re:- The hetrosexual paedophile bishop, that's how it was in the comic, it's the only way V and Evey could have actually carried that plot device off. Not propaganda, sticking to the source material and they should be credited for that, not criticised. -
The domino thing is what is commonly referred to aa a "forced down your throat metaphor" referring to a "domino effect" that would occur on V's destruction of the houses of parliament. It's clever in a very limited way. Also it did look cool.
-
"I mean, I don't see where the Wachowski brothers promised the audience a faithful, and straitjacketed presentation of Baudrillard's ideas, and only Baudrillard's ideas." They don't. But those ideas are embedded in central themes and events of the films. And I'm just not willing to let someone get away with pushing stoner philosophy that says that "the corporations and the government and the media, man, they've built this prison for your mind, man, and they keep you in line with image saturation, man" and then turn around and dial up the image saturation by another order of magnitude so that they can sell their media products. This goes a level beyond hypocrisy. Every reasonable thing you put in your post about how sometimes language is good and sometimes stories are good, etc., the Wachowskis lost the right to claim in their defense the moment they wrote the architect's speech. And hyperreality doesn't only mean product placement; it means the use of images to create a fantasy image of the self that the subject believes can be obtained if he goes along with the message conveyed by the images; "If you buy this light beer beautiful women will fall into your lap" being the most straightforward example. And it would be hard to think of a most perfect exercise in this than the Matrix films, which transform Neo from an everyman into a hero and near god who can transform reality, accomplish any physical feat, bang Carrie Ann Moss, feel up Monica Bellucci, travel to a magical realm where there's an ongoing Lenny Kravitz video instead of life, and look really cool while wearing shades - all because he bought in to the philosophical message of the films as communicated by Morpheus. And a certain segment of the audience ABSOLUTELY bought into the package, and proceeded to sit around watching the movie they were sold, buying the DVD they were sold, playing the video game they were sold, putting up the posters they were sold, and obsessively going over the films frame by frame to try to absorb as much of the "message" as they possibly could - so that they could go online and tell ME that I am "trapped by the system, man...the Matrix really has you, man". "Is it the fault of the Wachowskis that you find the 'rave' scene inauthentic, or the fault of other media who have associated such scenes with inauthenticity?" No, but too fucking bad. The philosophy the films are based on holds that one can "critically analyze" any and all "texts" and prove that they are "complicit in late capitalism", regardless of the intent of the creator of the text or the creator's sincerity. One you buy into that so-called "critical theory", and push it on people in your films, you don't get to backtrack. I get to "critically analyze" THEIR images and texts, too, and if they look like a Lenny Kravitz video I get to fucking crucify them for it. "I don't see how the second and third movies FAIL to do this, as they focus EXTREMELY on the unglamorous "reality" of Zion, and, in fact, try to paint that reality, and heroism IN that reality, as preferable to artificial triumphs in Sunglasses." I have to disagree. The world of Zion looks even more like the inside of a video game fantasy than anything that takes place in the Matrix world of the films, other than the burly brawl. The entire battle for Zion is one big video game. Neo's actions in the Zion world are very much a fantasy of heroism and martyrdom. And since the Architect explicitly says that the world of Zion is part of the system of control, it seems like he agrees with me. And that's part of postmodern theory, too - the notion that counterculture rebellion is just part of the system of control. [The counterculture rebels go to Urban Outfitters to buy their rebel wear, and buy CD's of their rebel music at the mall, and the entire game is just designed to make people feel like they are rebelling, while they are still consuming.] And hey, this may or may not be a good theory, but if that's your theory by definition when you make a movie about it you are COMPLICIT in it. By giving a bunch of delusional stoners and computer nerds the Matrix world to explore, by packaging the message of "freeing one's mind" into films, games, and DVD's, the Wachowskis are acting out the very process of enslavement they claim to be defying, even according to the terms of their own stated theory. And you don't get to say, "But they've still been encouraged to question realities they have been fed, and this is in fact, ultimately, empowering." Wrong. Postmodern theory doesn't grant that concession to any of its opponents, so I'm not going to grant that concession to postmodern theory. The Enlightenment was about questioning also, but that doesn't matter to postmodern's critical theorists, who find domination and oppression in even the best-intentioned enlightenment "text". If they can play that game, so can I. Fuck them and their "good intentions".
-
I've seen better movies than this. yes, some of the stuff in the movie was great, but overall it was quite boring. I mean...I never felt a connection with the characters, I never felt angered and to the point of wanting the kind of revenge they did. It was too long in some points, and just didn't work that well for me. Maybe it was too overhyped by AICN folk.
-
Seriously, haven't any of you ever taken a cultural studies unit? Late Capitalist Post-Modernism is like the first thing they teach you. So-called "rebellion" is now a virtual impossibility thanks to consumerism's utter saturation into all aspects of life. Nowadays to "rebel" is to pay 20 bucks for a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
-
I think you don't like The Matrix movies because they're about the power of transcendental love giving meaning to life and knowing thyself. Two things that you will, most likely, never have or experience. It's sad really. But--Here's to hoping that your hatred of great art can keep you warm at night. Have you been studying your spelling?
-
I was really surprised by this film. I thought it would take itself so deadly, gaggingly serious but it actually had a fair amount of humor for it's subject matter. All of this political talk is complete nonsense. The Bush/America stuff is nothing more than anything that you'd hear on the news or politalk shows. Overall, great and completely surprised and great use of The Rolling Stones for the end credits.
-
Not a bad flick....not the same "wow" feeling I got from the 1st Matrix.....Harry heaped waaay to much praise for this however...I seen a handful of better films last year...
-
If you knew anything past your bigotry, you'd know that in the world at large, the MAJORITY of pedophiles who molest young males consider themselves to be heterosexuals. The relationships they have with children are based more on power and control than on sexuality. The priests who molested children did so because of the years of repression they subjected themselves to by taking vows of chastity, not because of their orientation. Besides the fact that pedohpilia is a disease and a crime and non-consentual, and homosexuality is simply something that exists between two consenting adults. Let's not pretend they're even remotely the same thing.
-
The majority of MALE pedophiles...
-
When the "voice of london" and the priest both were killed, their white vomit had colored pools of disolved substances in it. Red and Green. I noticed that the "voice" guy (his name escapes me, P something) had red and green pills in his medicine cabinet. Were these drugs that all these people were on or am I reading too much into it and it was merely weird colored vomit? It's a pretty insignificant point, I was just curious.
-
is so full of know-it-all blowhards that it's fucking ridiculous. Why doesn't everybody just stop trying to outdo each other with terms and philosophies that are only being quoted to show how fucking smart you are. Just articulate your points and stop trying to sound like dictionaries and encyclopedias.
-
the ending where they blow up the houses of parliament left me feeling slightly repulsed. I was actually surprised by how i felt, maybe it's too soon after the tube bombings last year, but i never felt that this was something that was awe-inspiring or daring. It felt too much like it's something that actually COULD happen for me to distance myself from it.
I also felt that actually, what was the POINT of blowing up parliament? It's a symbol of democracy which surely the totalitarian govt of the future does not stand for? why then blow up something which represents the very ideal you are trying to bring back? what is the connection between the govt and parliament? we never see them there, they never say what it means to them, it just seems a convenient way to wrap things up. After all, Guy Fawkes was not trying to blow up parliament in and of itself - he was trying to kill the King. Blowing up parliament will do what? mobilise the people? they already have been. strike a blow to the govt? V already did that by killing the chancellor and that other bloke.
I also never got a sense of exactly how restricitve this govt is - after all those people in the pub can say the news and all the govt spin is a "load of bloody bollox" without seemingly any fear. Stephen Fry's character can do that bit where he calls the chancellor a terrorist, but there is no expectation from him that he will be arrested and made to disappear because of it (even though he is). To publicly ridicule the govt without any fear of doing so doesn't say to me that this govt is totalitarian, or using fear to keep people in check.
which is ulitmately why i never cared for the uprising. It never spoke of what our (British) govt might become, it felt too 1980's (particularly the visual feel - a reflection of when the book was written yes but still off-putting for me) and it brought up issues surrounding the legitimacy of terrorism without ever tackling them head on. Why does no-one at all who watches the TV footage have anything negative to say about explosions? only the nasty govt question V, never the ordinary people.
I think there is great worth in a film which asks the question "can terrorism ever be justified"? but this isn't it, its more of a revenge film than a call to arms for all those oppressed by their govts. a wasted opportunity in my opinion. -
It was like two different movies that worked against each other. The philosphical aspect was so weighty it drained the action sequences of any fun, and the action was shot with such a bombastic, heavy hand (as was the rest of the film) that it annihilated any nuance in the philosiphy. It was like someone shot A Clockwork Orange using the vernacular of modern action movies. Odd film, and about a subtle as a kick in the nuts. I also thought it was a rehash of 1985, Brave New World and aspects of Farenheit 451. Governments use fear to control their people? That's old news to me. The most impressive thing about it was that it actually got made in the hollywood studio system, but I guess after you make a studio gajillions of dollars like the Wachowski's did, you get a free pass.
-
Whimper quietly, please.
-
The bit about the drugs...hmmm interesting observation. The corrupt development of the phamaceuticals could mean that they died by the sword they lived by or that the drugs they took were exclusive and elitist to keep top members of the "The Body" immune to any form of biological attacks which they, themselves, have actually instigated. Anyone else?
-
The masks were an illustration of the anonymity that a mass protest grants its participants. I'd been hoping the spoilers in that baneful script review (id=20348) were all lies, but it turns out the dude just didn't appreciate the point of a few things. I was also afraid of the speech full of v-words, but that worked in that it discharged Evey's panic, and endeared V to the audience a little by making him seem kind and clownish. One thing tho, I thought the back-and-forth between scenes of V and Evey, and scenes with Finch at his desk working on the case, seemed a little... lazy, for a bit there.
-
I don't understand this movie it's are so simplistic I mine muslims don't support homosexuality, and yet this movie try's to put them together as if they do>
-
There are Muslim homosexuals just as there are Jewish and Christian homosexuals. The movie's politics is against Fundamentalism which prohibit any other views. Stephen Fry's character keeps a copy of the Qur'an because it has been outlawed and the book contains far more words on forgiveness and compassion than anything else. Of course in the same way that Islamic fundamentalist twist the words of the Qu'ran, the Christian based government in V's world have convinced people that a Christian society is a white only, heterosexual society that only allows one form of religeous expression. The film isn't supporting anything per se, it's opposing the restriction of freedom.
-
Before anyone jumps that should read "the book contains far more words on forgiveness and compassion than anything else that is picked out from the text to promote hatred"
-
I agree with some of the posters that the real complexity of V wasnt explored. It was hinted at when Every was tortured. V is so convinced of his "rightness" that he pretty much feels anything is justified in his righteous quest. Also, once you are compromised by the morality of terrorism, is there a slippery slope down to the very despotism you vanquish? The Soviet Union tells you all about that. I guess I believe that all power corrupts, so there are a couple of things teh citizenry can do. You can go the Libertarian route, where government does very little indeed except defend property rights, or you can have real seperation of powers and an active citizenry who monitor those who govern us? Not sure myself, but the one thing I thought the movie hints at is that we as citiznes must question always. I like that sort of active citizenry. But it is ideal.
V for Vendetta isnt perfect. It could do with tightening in the script and more focused direction. -
he's the guy with the dozens of screen names in pre-prep of getting banned. The guy who claims to be a bodybuilder and pulls his car over on the highway to run straight at the other offending car in a roid rage. The same homophobic, retarded guy who went on and on about prolapsed colons and tossing salads. He's one note. A one trick pony troll. He'll take ANY attention he can get. So sad.
-
...Because their society is based on authority of the males in the society , homosexuality destroys that and I don't think we should try and push are values on muslims. If I were a muslim I'd be laughing at the stupidity of this movie's claims.
-
not, like, brilliant but certainly the best i've ever seen her do - and i was genuinely moved at times. this from a Brit (her accent wasn't too bad, in fact) who never rated her before. haters can suck it - i say good performance, well done.
-
I mean let me say I am politically in the middle, so I am not partisian, but from what I am hearing people don't understand anything about revolutions. I mean when was the last true revolution in history that you replaced a dictator in a country and all the people got was another dictator ,that was even more crazy or just as crazy. Oh and when I mean revolution not a CIA supported revolution...I mean real revolution that lead to true change that had a positive impact on it's people.
-
Homosexuality is sexual contact between same sex. It is illogical to believe that pedophiles who molest young boys are heterosexuals, despite what they claim.
Untill recent political pressure, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality a disease (based on science) and many "heretic" pscyhologists still do, but the majority won't due to political totalitarianism from the radical left.
Lets not pretend that homosexuality and molestation of boys by priest's arent the same thing. A heterosexual male would not have the desire to sodomize a boy, that is a purely homosexual desire.
Anyway, how do you justify inserting the brokeback mountain-esque lesbian romance and hitting the audience over the head with it repeatedly, and of course Stephen Fry's heroic closeting.
V for Vendetta is a brillaint propaganda peice, it is desgined to appear to be revolutionary and against totalitarian government, but with a subversive twist, while purporting to support freedom, it equates homosexuality with freedom and smears Christian Conservatives as being nazi's.
This is in opposition to real life, in countries such as Canada, "hate speech" ie a preacher reading from the bible opposing homosexuality is subject to criminal penalty. The real totalitarianism is practiced by the entrenched liberal totalitarian governments in ultra liberal countries, not in Christian countries.
Wake up haters and realize the facts, V for Vendetta is a propaganda peice designed to attack Bush while simaltaneously ignoring the reality of totalitarian tactics employed by homosexual "rights" activists in power.
Support Bush, oppose the ultraliberal nazi's. -
Mar 19, 2006 4:45:45 PM CST
inserting the brokeback mountain-esque lesbian romance
by templeton peck
Because it's in the Comic!!! Again it's called being faithful to the source material. It's nice that a movie doesn't remove all these tangents that add to the background of a movie. It's not a modern addition, it originates from the 80's. Therefore it really can't be part of the Hollywood liberal conspiracy. By the way if Homosexuals were forcibly sodomising people in the street as a policy employed by a government, that would be homosexual fascism, asking for a right and a choice is not. Support the ultraliberals, sodomise Bush.
-
So I'll concede that point.
By the way, if you support ultraliberal policies that give special rights for homosexuals and subject everyone else to penalties just for practicising their religion, how is that freedom? How is that equal? And its not enough that people accept that homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else, but we HAVE to accept and condone their lifestyles as well as give them special rights, and non-compliance results in oppression.
My point is, this movie and apparently its source material, is a propaganda peice. Its quite amusing that all you liberal nerds watch it and enjoy all the supposed insight like how the govt. in the film spins stories and puts out false news..and then fail to realize that the homosexual propaganda is also spin intended to demonise Christianity and push a subverise homosexual agenda, which is the real totalitarianism in the world today, Bush and the Christian COnservatives are not trying to oppress homosexuals, they are merely defening religion adn the family, refusing to give special rights to homosexuals is not oppression. But look what happens when they do get those special rights, the religious people are persecuted. The liberals are the true totalitarian dictators and this movie is designed to make them look like victims in a brilliant bait and switch. -
Finally saw this today. I can take the is-he-freedom-fighter vs. is-he-terrorist angle poised to the viewer. I can take the bashing of extreme christianity. I can take (yet more) sympathy for homosexuality expressed in the film's subtext. There's more, and I could take all of that too, but I simply could not take how islam was eliminated in this world. Granted, one would suspect a christian driven fascist state would do this, but this WAS NOT IN THE COMIC. It was 'creative license' added into the movie adaptation and UNNECESSARY. All the other points were enough to drive the point home. The comic made its point well enough without exploring the ban on islam. Enough already! I have absolutely had it with Hollowood's love affair with islam coupled with their disdain for christianity. It's too extreme and much too much. Every time, all the time. Enough! And I write this as a fence sitting agnostic.
-
1-Batman Begins___2-Spider-Man 2___3-A History of Violence___4-Spider-Man___5-Road to Perdition___6-The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, Rock'n'Roll Detective___7-V for Vendetta___>>of course I'm kidding about Ford Fairlane!!! It WAS a fairly faithful adaptation, though. And don't nobody start with Donner's 'Superman'! It was good, very good, in fact, but never GREAT.
-
You would have ranked GHOST WORLD as number 1 comic movie. Although campy and low-budget, SWAMP THING should also register as utterly faithful. It should even earn bonus points since it is a Craven movie.
-
I am just not a true comics fan. Didn't hear your mom complainin' though. Yeah, 'Ghost World' was a hell of a lot of fun, but I'm narrowing shit down, see? Anyway, if you're talking Clowes, then it's 'Like a Velvet Glove Cast in Iron' that I REALLY want to see on the big screen. You would too, if you weren't just posing. And fuck Craven. Besides 'Scream', 'Music of the Heart' and maybe 'The Serpent & the Rainbow', the fuck has he done? Oh yeah, 'Shocker'! Oops, that shut me up.
-
The best of his work has passed, like Carpenter, yet he has brought much to the table. Both men are seeing remakes of their filoms that still resonate. *You* may not be a fan of present day Craven (I'm not either), but there should be no denying his accomplishments. I'd write somehting about your mother, but I just remembbered that I'm way above that shit.
-
...I might just start talking down to strange talkbackers for no reason like I'm something they're not. If you want to pull this big boy shit, plan ahead. And, this is simply my humble and below-yours opinion, Craven's rep is all hype, glorified from now having gray hair. Carpenter's work, however, DOES deserve more attention.
-
versus why did Evey pull the lever and carry out V's plan to blow up Parliament: compare and contrast
-
And who's just talking smack? Both men are guilty of having accomplished much as well as being past their prime. So what? Likely, you and I would both envy having a fraction of their history under our belts. Oh, wait... I'm identifying when I should be bashing. Your turn!
-
So just fucking stop already. Then shoot yourself in the head.
-
Easy enough. It was done to showcase the difference between someone maintaining status quo vs. thinking for themselves. That you ask garners even more questions. Was the contrast so marginally reduced by the reek of liberal propaganda that it didn't even resonate with the audience?
-
I like it. Kid, if you've ever caught some of my posts, or even a prolonged discussion with another poster, you should know I'm for peace. And love. However, and this might just be me and my strange mind, I don't consider "If you were a true comics fan..." to be a polite and/or smart and/or inviting introduction, whoever it's from. In all fairness, I am not a true comics fan. I WAS a true comics fan, circa 1984-1995. Since then, I only get the occasional paperback. However, I know what I like, and I like many things, and will occasionally share my OPINIONS regarding some of these things, especially, this being AICN, when they're being transposed on the big screen. When I do that, I also sometimes enjoy people to come by and start an interesting discussion about the subject at hand. I'm just not sure this is what's taking place right now. Anyways, peace with you, sweet child. My mom raised me right. And I didn't mean that about yours.
-
If so, you are scary. So is your country for producing individuals like you. Yeesh. There's one thing you're right about, though... Pantera rocks.
-
(Keeping in mind that THE NEW WORLD was technically released in 2005.) HOLY ZEITGEIST, BATMAN! V is a remarkably good and thought provoking (if sloppy) agit-prop pop "statement" that hits all the right buttons with a ham-fist. Yes, yes the commentary is heavy handed and hyperbolic; but it is a comic-book movie after all. And try as you might to get away from it, this film has a truth at its core that makes it more than another penny dreadful -- that only when people get organized and get involved do things change. Oh, and btw, "Remember, remember the Midterm Elections in November..."
-
Of course I went in with lowered expectations becuase it is the Wachowskis afterall, but given that I thought it was excelent. My biggest beef, and something that really pissed me off, was Alan Moore not wanting his name on it. I think he came off looking like a real ass, what's wrong with "BASED on a story by Alan Moor"? It certainly stayed true to the spirity of the comic. Really solid adaptation, I was happy. Well worth the price of admission.
-
"If you were a true comics fan..." rightfully warranted your assault on what you presume to be my mother's sexuality? Dude, if you only had a passing understanding of her medical details, you'd have just begun to glimpse on the magnitude of what you wrote. And I continued to counter that rubbish with reasonable dialog. Now you preach how you're all about peace. Right. I'd have left this alone were it not for that bullshit. If I got off on the wrong foot, you got off on the entirely wrong anatomy. Were I a betting man, I'd color you a "tolerant" liberal, which is likely redundant considering where 'my man' is from. But you're correct that this is AICN. And our banter is testimony how there's no need to engage in constructive discourse here. The criticism is true. We're just a bunch of rabid weasels in a burlap sack after all.
-
Excuse me if I oversimplify this in some people's minds, but I think that the movie has achieved its point. I don't believe that the film was supposed to make a direct correlation between the film's England and the current US, but was set up to show some similar aspects, and to get people to talk about government and what is going on not only in the US but the world. With the Patriot Act, government spying, and the WMD war in Iraq, the US is on a slippery slope that could lead us to a similar political state as in the film. Do I think that will happen? No. I don't approve of the current administration's decisions, but I don't believe that they or anyone else in this country would attempt to start a Fascist Dictatorial government. But I do believe, with the current political climate, that the end of the Bush administration and the election and term of the next President will be one of the most critical times in the History of the US in determining the direction of this nation, and the world, considering the major impact that the US has and tries to exert. So with that in mind, I believe that this movie is doing an excellent job of making people think about our world, and where we will go from here. And the film was highly entertaing, and lived up to the hype. But that's just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong.
-
Source material written during the 80's? Aimed at the Thatcher era? Centered on Britain? Your post is reason enough why anyone is justified in criticizing this film for being the disgusting hamfisted leftist propagana aimed at current politics that it is.
-
Should find reason to uphold the 2nd ammedment. And if not, why not?
-
Panterarocks reveals himself yet again. You're a blithering idiot. You don't even know what you're talking about. You're a liar. Go ahead, cut and paste one sentence of mine to back up your feeble accusations. There's a reason you're here and we all know it. someone said it before: Dimebag would have thought you were a loser. Stop trying to use his death to make you look cool. You're pathetic, but hey, you don't need me to tell you that. You're lonely, you don't have any real relationships with anybody, maybe with your parents, but they're ashamed of you and count the minutes til you leave when they do have to be around you. You're simply one of a impotent million, a dime a dozen. The best you can do is to replace letters in people's screen name to make them look like obscene words and you hurl ridiculous, baseless insults and that's the best you've got.
-
*****I saw
-
You had me going for a while, there. Keep up the good work.
-
google 'larry wachowski rolling stone'
Is it possible that Larry's own transvestism influenced the film? Is V the lesbian actress from the letter that evey read? Perhaps V is one of the two lesbians in the story. The reason I say this is that the woman who wrote the letter to Evy said something about loving roses and what does V leave with every one of his victims? Answer: a rose. I would say V is what became left of Valerie Page, the lesbian actress, after months or years of continuous experimentation on the part of the government in Larkhill.
Why? Because V is so into film and acting that you could tell that the person that is now V used to act (look at the mask of William R in the hideout). And did you hear the statement that "Artists use lies to tell the truth"... That certainly applied to Evey's "imprisonment" and the toilet paper story underneath the rat hole. I think V knew that Evey wouldn't be as sympathetic to the story unless she went through something similar so that's why V arranged for that.
Other clues I picked up on included excerpts of the doctor's diary and the fact that the subject in "Room V" could not remember anything. Besides those drugs used by the doctors might have altered the body of the person in question. And the last one would be V telling Evey how "I never thought I could love again"... and it fit the story that was written in the toilet paper that Evey read... -
Oh my God! Hold on, hold on, time out... How can I have any sort of an UNDERSTANDING of your mom's medical details when I haven't the slightest idea who you are, even less so who your mom is, and WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY MEDICAL DETAILS TO KNOW ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE and, if there are, of what nature they might be? Seriously, what are you talking about, buddy? Here is what happened from my end, and I trust you will find it simple enough: I found what you wrote in the subject line to your post mildly rude and sounding somewhat self-important. Having had a so-so day until then, this prompted me to react in a mildly rude and somewhat self-important fashion myself and opt for harmlessly (or so I thought) insulting you by invoking one of the most universally-recognised and embraced category of clich
-
I've got one last beef. On the day I turned four years old, my father shot himself in the head right in front of me. This had many consequences, but the two most important, for me, are that he died from it, and that I was left severely traumatized, understandably. Now, do you know why my father shot himself that beautiful autumn day? It was because he had become terribly depressed from being constantly told by co-workers (he worked in a comic book specialty shop) that he "wasn't a true comics fan". I trust that if you had known about that, you would have chosen your words with more care.
-
I am so sick and fucking tired of all of these critics and conservatives bashing this movie as being PRO terrorism.
IT IS A FUCKING SATIRE- pure and simple-satire that equals a critique of the status quo. And there is nothing wrong with that-at all.
Remember-it takes a revolution to incite change- that is the point (doesnt neccessarily mean a violent revolution) of this film
Look how our country began- we revolted and claimed our independence over a regime -
1) Research pedophilia statistics and reports, and you'll find that the majority are indeed heterosexual. I realize you want a scapegoat because your precious church is hurting from it's scandal, but it's not as simple as blaming the gays.
2)Homosexuals are not asking to be allowed to marry in the church, and the church does not have to recognize their marriages. The state, however, does. It is that simple. 3) And what the hell are you talking about religious persecution in the United States. Are you kidding? This country is moving closer and closer to a theocracy every day. You're trying to martyr yourself here, and no one's buying it. -
Booya! 2 points for you!
-
They were in the cell next to V. He had no reason to lie, besides the fact that when he's naked in the fire you can see he's obviously a man, not a woman and no where near the same body type as valerie the lesbian. They were doing viral testing, not hormone testing. And the film isn't an attack on George Bush seeing as how it's based on a book that was written back in the 1980's.
-
The other one was taken much earlier.
-
That film was a piece of crap. The only good scene was the dominoes.
-
states don't have to acknowledge homosexual marriages, since not all do.
Saw Capote Saturday. Go see that instead. -
in the sense that they are being forced, they "have to" in the sense that it's the right thing to do.
-
I expected a lot of things going into the theater tonight (all realized in terms of the experience, thank you very much)but what I did not expect was the reaction the audience had. They were so much more involved in the film than I thought they would be. People CRIED during the autobigraphy reading and the tube encounter. The woman next to me was visably SHAKEN. And when it was over, most people just sat in silence as the credits rolled. And then the murmurs began. Political murmurs. Word of mouth on this is going to be interesting...
-
The 'coalition of the willing' poster was a little heavy handed. Seeing that poster took me right out of my suspension of disbelief as sure as if I'd been hit over the head with a hammer.
-
The coalition of the willing poster would likely be something someone would make once a government is hunting down people group by group by group. After reading a few other comments above, I find it funny that those that dismiss this movie can't elaborate. Tit for tat, gentlemen.
-
I'd say that if you go expecting anything as well crafted as the Matrix movies, you will be too. It's not. For me, the most emotion I felt during the whole thing was in the opening segment flashing back to Guy Fawkes trying to blow up Parliament back in the day, and his execution, but the film never touched another emotional moment for me. I never really cared about anyone in the film more than I did for Guy Fawkes, and that's a bad thing. Portman can obviously act, but if you want to see her really acting, you need to see Garden State, because her character isn't given a hell of a lot to do ... in fact, she's given LESS to do than she was in the comic book ... no wonder Portman seemed bored in the cast/crew interview at Chud.com ... there's nothing much for her to say about the whole thing. Those people complaining about lesbianism being shoved down the audience's throats ... yes, it was, very crudely and repetetively. After the third lingering lip-locking I was screaming "Yeah, I get it, they love eachother and kiss eachother!" It wasn't even fun to watch (like that scene in Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit). This movie was really tame, and since the comic it was based on was kinda bad (in my opinion ...I did a lot of skimming when I looked at it in B&N) this movie really needed to amp things up to be worth looking at. As it is, it's really rather boring, and the changes from the comic are actually a step down, and make the story seem DUMBER than the comic book (which was pretty dumb itself). My advice is, if you are curious, wait for a dollar rental, Netflix, the library ... I don't see the potential for Matrix - style meditation in this one, and it lacks the Wachowski style and pacing and acting that makes those films fun to rewatch. I'll never want to see this again.
-
so take my comments on V with a grain of salt. I still think Matrix isn't that great, though I really like the sequels.
-
I read the graphic novel a while ago but don't remember much of it.... But I did enjoy it alot. Mainly because I really like Alan Moore's work. I want to know if this film is an utter abomimnation like previous attempts at his work.
-
Even if you don't like it, just in terms of it being a perfect representation of the zeitgeist, you have to see it. Keeping in mind, of course, that if you are a Theocratic NeoFascist (er, i mean) NeoCon, you probably won't like it very much. I think it has something to do with hitting the nail on the head with an ultracool cartoonish sledgehammer of hyperbolic righteousness; although it may be hamfisted, you know in your hearts that its right; you can FEEL that its right. Aside from all else, you know, In your heart, you know, what the film says about the Bush Regime (or any neo-fascist administration throughout history) is true. Moreover, what it says about the inevitable populist uprising against such criminal terrorst governments is also true. Oh, and a final note, "Remember, remember the Midterm Elections in Novembe..."
-
smart of the Wachowski's and McTeigue to make him the hero this time around, akin to Michael Ironside going from Total Recall to Starship Troopers.
-
First of all, I saw
-
It's twice now that I've seen a movie with an English cast plus one American. Though Natalie Portman is Isreali born, she is essentialyl an American trained actress and, as Scarlet Johanssen in "Match Point", she compares unfavorably to her English compatriots. English actors, I don't know, they just seem, with every small inflection, to LIVE in their characters in a way American actors just don't. They have this funny way of striking a balance between naturalism and theatricality that is just amazing. Oh well.
-
Okay, now for my political diatribe. But actually, it really isn
-
Same thing with abortion. The partial birth abortion law would have PASSED unchallenged by Dems if it had included a caveat whent he mother's health was in danger. Very few lefties are down with late term abortion. It is very seldom performed and I find it personally awful and would onyl decide with my wife to have it done should her health be in real danger. But the NC's left it out. And even my extreme right wing untla Catholic mother in law had to stop and go "what they hey?" Becuase it's not about resolving this issue for the NC's. It's to keep the fight going because I know, even though they won't admit it (and heck I could be wrong), my inlaws are NC's onyl because of abortion. They just go along with everything else. Abortion, for many, is an incontraverible moral issue and they will not abide a party that will allow it. Which means they will give the party that is apparanlty fighting abortion a pass on EVERYTHING else. I almost wish sometimes the Dems would just be anti-abortion too so that they could level the playing field. But they can't. And the Reps will never actually put together abortion legislation that actually has a chance to pass. Because they don't want to.
-
Okay, I wanted to give this movie a chance and it failed to impress me. I've never fallen asleep during any movie, but I did at the middle of this flick. Hugo Weaving did an impressive job of spouting poetry and chopping up bad guys, but that was the only exciting part of this film. Everything else was just crap. From Natalie's god-awful performance to the lackluster ending. And let's talk about Ms Portman for a moment: Not only did she lose her fake British accent halfway through the movie, but she didn't do ANYTHING to advance the plot. She screamed...she cried...she ran...she got her head shaved...and then she pulled a lever. She was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY to the plot. V would have done everything in this movie without her. I'm sorry, but this film was a waste of time, so rent it if you must, but don't spend good money on this wretched waste of two hours.
-
...was greatly disappointed. The whole thing felt clumsy...especially the first act. But the purpose and the ideas behind everything were so obvious that it left the film with virtually no dramatic or emotional tension. Don't get me wrong: the movie has legit ideas...they're just not executed very well. So, as a film, it was a bit of a let down. However, I have no doubt that certain political minded folks will rally to it because of the message they feel is contained in the film. All I can say to that is, "Be careful what you wish for".
-
I just shot myself in the head. Your turn!
-
If you're waiting for conservatives to understand stuff like satire or irony--then you're gonna be waitin' a damn long time. They just don't get it.
-
...and all these people saying that V for Vendetta is "boring" better not like the LOTR movies! Those were the most boring blockbusters I've seen in my life.
-
Those are funny words comin' from a guy who betrayed the entire human race to the Cylons by blowing up a planet. But, hey, at least you're not that crazy Laura Rosalind... who thinks that she's Jesus and has a mandate from God. She's as crazy as Dubya!
-
I really did shoot myself in the head a few posts ago. Don't forget our agreement.
-
Mar 20, 2006 10:07:59 AM CST
"Those were the most boring blockbusters I've seen..."
by mr nice gaius
LOTR boring? Well, just look at your TalkBack handle Jar Jar. Nuff' said.
-
Say what you will. I am the President of the 12 Colonies. Actually, it's funny you should bring that up Jar Jar. BSG has had better commentary, and execution of similar ideas than "V for Vendetta".
-
V is far better than Spiderman, X-men, Batman, AND Superman. Who knew that this James McTeigue guy would turn out to be a better comic director than Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer, Richard Donner, AND Chris Nolan! The musical score was the most memorable series of notes I've heard since Star Wars. And dont even get me started on the jaw-dropping choreography and thoroughly engrossing dialogue. Anyone who thinks less of this movie is simply not a comic book fan!
-
Wrong on both counts. Peter Jackson could've taken some cues from Lucas on how to pace a movie and have an actual climax (in each one!). Star Wars movies are the antithesis of boring. That third LOTR movie was the most boring bullshit ever, and took about 45 minutes to go through 5 or 6 different endings. Somehow, the farting character from the Phantom Menace is worse than the hobbit musical that was Return of the King? I think not. I like V for Vendetta and Battlestar Galactica. The differece is this: A conservative asshole can watch Battlestar Galactica and like it. Not so much with V for Vendetta. But... maybe not. I suppose I've met conservative assholes who liked The Matrix... It's because they don't really have the critical faculties to understand what their watching.
-
...and liked it, of course for (apparently) far more juvenile reasons than are discussed (discussed?) in this talkback. Watching and listening to Weaving create a character with nothing to accentuate his performance other than motion was fascinating. An all black costume, and a grotesque, grinning mask? It was the spirit and intensity of kabuki theatre in a mainstream hollywood movie.
-
Those are some pretty wide sweeping comments there amigo. First, I suggest you go look up the true meaning of conservatism. Next, I would submit to you that a "conservative asshole" could watch "V", enjoy it, and understand it. The irony here, Jar Jar, is that the movie is not that good. -- As for LOTR vs. Star Wars...don't even get me started. The Star Wars prequels are the "antithesis" of good. I will take the Ride of the Rohirrim scene from "Return Of The King" over the entire SW prequel trilogy ANYDAY. You clearly do not understand the story of LOTR and therefore are unable to deal with its unconventionalism.
-
Based on my recollections of the graphic novel, V4V seemed to be one of the better comic book adaptions. Alan Moore should be proud when filmmakers adapt his work this well. I'm not sure what his deal is. I love his work but he's become the diva of the comic book world. If V4V had turned out as atrocious as LXG, I'd understand but it didn't. Let's hope Watchmen is handled this well when it finally gets its adaptation to the screen.
-
Nice guius, I'm totally with you on the smackdown of Jar Jar concerning his "star wars better than LOTR" argument. However, I will chime in on one problem with Peter Jackson that I had in TT and ROTK. Slow motion shots! Goodness gracious, that is such a hackneyed way to browbeat an audience into thinking something is important or emotionally resonant. Say what you will, but you have to agree that you dont need slow mo--just film the scene depicting the actors actually ACTING. Anywho, that is my biggest problem with the LOTR trilogy. Other than that, its perfect (when viewed as a whole). If you viewed them sepperately, however, TT was ultimitely the most boring of the movie trilogy. I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and I dont recall TT being that boring when I read it about 100 times or so. I dont know how PJ did it, but he succeeded in making TT boring. Maybe it was his interpretation of Fangorn, maybe it was the depiction of Theoden as someone swimming in melancholy, or maybe it was the generally grey color pallete of the movie. For whatever reason, I nearly fell asleep in TT when I watched it opening night. It was good, at home on a dvd, but it seemed too much like a Bakshi retread set to slow motion at the theater.
-
She's all about pro-choice.
-
A bunch of talking about a ring? A hero that isn't really a hero at all? The synthespian Golum being the most realistic, fleshed-out and believable character in all the movies? The extremely poor pacing and editing? The drama that isn't compelling? The jokes that aren't funny? The bad special effects? The complete and utter lack of characterization? The singing hobbits? The Hollywood cop-out at the end where they marry Samwise off TO A FEMALE HOBBIT instead of letting him live happily ever after with Frodo? I think I understand all that stuff. As far as dealing with "unconventionalism"--What exactly is unconventional (or even the slightest bit original) about LOTR? Gandalf is Merlin. There are elves and dwarves and dragons. It's totally trite. The environmental message? Is that it? There are lots of works of art that have done it way better. I would take Jar Jar farting on your head over the entire LOTR trilogy any day. I think that you're the one who has a problem with "unconventionalism" not me. I understand the LOTR perfectly. Finally, if there is a conservative asshole out there that actually understood AND enjoyed V for Vendetta, then he isn't really a conservative asshole--is he? You're obviously a conservative asshole yourself, and you didn't like it. My challenge: Find one. Find one conservative asshole who both understands the movie and likes it. One single, conservative asshole that has something to say other than "Larry Wachowski wears a dress!" You can't do it, because their heads are empty. My comments are sweeping and TRUE.
-
It's like you're not even watching the show. She TOOK AWAY the people's choice in the abortion episode and has said that she doesn't need to explain herself because she's the president. Sounds like Dubya to me. Also the "mandate from god"--don't forget that.
-
I also wanted to say: I like how you put "antithesis" in quotes. Yes, it's probably a bigger word than you're used to. Sorry.
-
I'm a conservative asshole. I voted for bush twice, his father twice, and Reagan twice. I also happen to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Guess what? I also understood V and felt the movie was very, very good. A bit hammy in areas, but then the main character does wear a mask, doesnt he? Wanna know how I do it? Because being open minded means respecting others' views and applauding them when they express their views in an original and captivating fashion. You remember that word, Jar Jar, dont you? Open mindedness? How about patience? Tact, perhaps?
-
Well, at least that you're self-aware enough to know that you're an asshole. That's a sort-of silver lining, I guess. If I saw a movie that glorified Hitler, I still wouldn't like it. I'm not open-minded enough. You do realize that Hitler and the villains in V for Vendetta are on your side of the fence right? Maybe you'll start disliking the movie once you start understanding it better. You HAVE to be open-minded, because we create all the great art/movies. If it were up to your conservative heroes, we would live in an art-free world just like in V for Vendetta. I have no patience or tact for republican retards on AICN talkbacks. You're right about that.
-
I read the Dubya comment. I thought it was relevant so I commented on it. I know she took them away, but 1) she hated it and 2) she gave the girl who wanted the abortion asylum on Galactica 3) really it was because the race was going extinct. I'm pro-choice and even I would agree with her decision in that situation. You can be pro-choice and still recognize situations in which choice is a luxory people can not be afforded. "An extreme decision in extreme times". George is pro-life, she most certainly is not. And as for mandate from God, the show has gone out of it's way to show that there is something "higher power" going on with Laura Roslin. I see no prophecies, visions or mythologies surrounding George W.
-
Laura is trying to use her mandate to save the human race. George is using it to force his beliefs/morality on other people. Oh, and I forgot- Laura isn't a real person, too... There's always that little point.
-
George thinks he's saving the world, too. Interesting, however, the way the world of Galactica is presented, we, the audience, know Roselin is one of the good guys. We have no such assurances about GWB.
-
To quote the banner ad above: Freedom! Forever! I don't see choice as a "luxory" [sic] that can be taken away whenever the government deems necessary. You sound like a closet republican. Free will wins in my book. Dubya has outright claimed to have a "mandate from god"--exactly the same as Madam President on Battlestar Galactica. They're cut from the same cloth. Maybe you should focus your attention on the show instead of reading talkbacks while you're watching and then you'll be able to undertand and interpret it better. That's my advice.
-
You're naive to think that there aren't times when sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. Are you that blinded by your liberalism that you can't even recognize that? None of these issues are that cut and dried. Ideally, yes, freedom forever that's all well and good. But in the FICTIONAL world of BSG, when every aborted fetus could grow up to contribute to the declining population, enter the work force working on ships or in the military, contributing to a society that is in desperate need of any help it can get, I can absolutely see the logic behind the decision to outlaw it for the TIME BEING (not forever, just until the situation improves). I'm not talking about outlawing it in America, I'm talking about outlawing it on the last fleet of ships of human survivors that are being hunted to extinction by a mechanical enemy in the future. And about me being a closeted republican, that's interesting, seeing as how I am: pro-choice, pro-environmentalism, pro-gay marriage and homosexual rights, anti-censorship, anti-iraq war, anti-privitized social security, anti-corporations involved in government, anti-religious influencing the state and government, and I voted against bush and republicans on every ballot in the last election (and the only one I voted in, having just turned 18 a couple years prior). But you're right, just because I disagree with you on this one issue, we can't both be liberals... I just HAVE to be a republican.
-
How can something that exists and comes from nature be wrong? A certain percentage of every complex species engages in homosexual acts. If that's the way soemone is wired, they should shoot themselves to make you comfortable?
-
that "Greater good" line before in regards to stuff they have been doing with the patriot act and tapping (both of which I'm also against), but there's a difference between it being the truth (like in BSG) and bullshit (like in America). And thanks, but I think I'll get along just fine without BSG interpretation advice from you.
-
Laura Roslin is, or at least it is suggested that she is, actually MANDATED by the gods in BSG. We have no such evidence on GWB. Can you not see that distinction? Or are you so liberal that even fictional portrayals of religion offends you?
-
Bush is getting fist-shakingly flustered in Cleveland.
-
I must point out that Bush has many times discussed how he has prayed and i quote, "Spoken to God" about his decisions. I'm not saying that he actually believes it.
-
Spare me the elementary argument that Hitler came from my side of the fence. Wanna know something? This might actually surprise you, but extremists come from every political argument/notion known to man, including liberalism. Stalin? Marx? How about Castro? See, nutcases are EVERYWHERE. Oh, and when you grow up, Jar Jar, maybe you'll realize that extremism in any political camp has the exact same results. What's the lesson here? Dont debase yourself, and the freedoms you claim to cherish, by making wild exagerations of political theory--its that sort of ham-handed lambasting that shuts people up and makes them afraid to think and decide on their own.
-
I was also going to say that when you start name calling every tom, dick, and harry that comes in here with a different point of view, the only thing you are doing is supressing opinion. Anywho, I doubt you'll listen and just keep right on thinking you have the "morally right and just position" and assume everyone else is a moron for not thinking, speaking, acting your way. Again, like my position on homosexuality, its okay to feel if something someone does is wrong. But as long as they arent hurting anyone, are of the age of consent, then its their own damn business. Maybe you ought to take a page on that and stop name calling people who honestly think different than yourself.
-
However, the difference between the two characters (Laura and GWB) is that the narrative of BSG suggests that Laura is chosen, and she proves it multiple times (the visions of the snakes and the cylon, the map of kobold, the tomb of athena and finding the map to Earth. Not to mention the fact that she was dying while doing all this, another point mentioned in the prophecies. Personally, if I was there when this was going on, I think that might have made me a believer in her, too. George has fulfilled no prophecies (none exist I don't think, though people like to reference nostradamus sometimes), and has touted his religious affiliation from day one. Laura only played the religion card when her and Adama came to a standoff because he refused to go back for the arrow. In a way her hand was forced, and she realized it was underhanded and manipulative, but she was obsessed with finding the map to earth. I personally hate it when the republicans (I say them because they do it a hell of a lot more than the democrats) appeal to the religious masses by saying things like "I have spoken to god" and referencing the bible, because religion should have no place of power in our government. It also seems like the religious are more likely to follow a leader who uses religion without asking the questions they would of a non-religious leader, which is dangerous as well. Also, thanks for the respect - don't see that enough around here.
-
I agree with you on Jackson's use of slow-mo shots in LOTR. There are a few that are effective and there are a few that are gratuitous. And those in particular became distracting. (Unfortunately, they were horrendously used in "King Kong") The films are not perfect, no film really is. But they are incredible adaptions of a monumental piece of 20th century literature. For that, I take my hat off to Jackson.
-
Your call for "Freedom! Forever!" which addresses one of the main problems I had with the film. You (and the film) make it seem so simple: That we should fight for freedom, whatever cost, whatever the means, and that's an interesting idea, however real life is not that simple. Good vs Evil isn't quite right. There are shades of both in every single issue. There were alot of times when they could have gone into the darker side of what V was doing. The man tortured Evy, blew up buildings, killed guards who were probably forced into those positions by fear, and alot of other stuff that was questionable morally speaking. The film missed opportunities to talk about things like when fighting for freedom becomes to destructive to society, when the means don't justify the ends, or how much collateral damage is acceptable in the fight for peace. None of this was addressed with anything more than a few words, if at all. V tortured Evy for weeks, and she's mad at him for only a couple of minutes! I know, I know, she had a "revelation", but I didn't buy it as much as I should have. Like your (Jar Jar's) view on the BSG abortion thing, the world of V's view on freedom and revolution is just too black and white. There is much more to consider there, and there's certainly alot more gray area than you're willing to admit.
-
The film was weak at best. It looked and felt small, cheap. There should have been scenes where a tank drives down a city street and passes a real London monument. Instead we get small, disembodied shots of close-up shots of soldiers marching. The acting was all pretty good (for this kind of film), but the writing was weak. The detective's investigation was all done from a computer. He went to an IRS office. The second act went nowhere. The big mystery was solved in the first 40 minutes and then the rest of the movie was spent re-explaining what the audience already knew. If you want to see a movie in which a better investigation and pay-off occur re-watch "L.A. Confidential". The camera work was poor. And I really liked the camera work in most of "The Matrix" movies. I don't get it. Why did it look so cheap? So badly done? I had been looking forward to this film. I am a fan of the comic. Yes, I still call comic books "comic books". None of this "novel" bullshit. However, I did also see "Thank You For Smoking" as well this weekend and thorougly enjoyed it.
-
I'd say that you like this movie so much because you see it as an attack on the conservatism which you are so against yourself. To appreciate a film because you believe it has ideals similar to your own is fine, but don't be blind to it's flaws as a film because of it (and I liked V well enough). And certainly don't think that just because V for Vendetta says it, it's true. Too many people did that with the load of crap that was Farenheit 9/11, prancing around like a documentary. That film completely blew any legitimacy it had when it resorted to candid camera-like set ups and rumor mill grinding. That one hurt, too because a legitmate film on the flaws of the Bush administration would have gone a long way in opening some minds. And I think Moore is probably similar to you, Jar, in that you're both a little too obsessed with your beliefs to see the world clearly and unbiasedly anymore.
-
I read somewhere last week that V for Vendetta (the movie) is not a metaphor for what is going on today and it is not an attempt to shine a mirror in the face of our troubled times, simply because it(the comic) was published in 1989 and the film was in development hell for years, and it was finally made now. I haven't laughed so hard since my fourth grade teacher fell flat on her ass in the middle of a class while she was on her way to the blackboard, and took the whole desk, chair, books, etc. with her on her way down. How a person can't see our times reflected in that film, and that this is the precise reason why it was made now is beyond my comprehension. My 10.50 dollars? I liked the first Matrix, although I'm not a big fan. I disliked the other two. I think V for Vendetta is the best work the Wachowski brothers have done so far, and it has more depht and spirit than can be found in any big-budget, FX-heavy, popcorn movie in at least the past, um, let's say seven years...And with that, the rest is silence.
-
That is my one problem with this movie. Well, more like the makers of this movie. They seem to want it both ways, no? To those of like minded ideals, the director seemed to wink and nod when doing the publicity circuit. When it was to those of opposing views, the makers played it safe and said, "oh, its merely an allegory about what might happen to any regime--no one specific." Then it went right down the line with conservative dictators, the results of us's terror wars, and the sanction of certain acts of terrorism (mainly the building bombing). Now personally, I think that is all well and good to have a movie with those points. But I think its somewhat hypocritical to produce a movie that says stand up to your opressors while you are straddling the fence in promoting your message. but hey, thats just me.
-
Not since the days of Ringbearer9 have I seen such STUPID statements made on a AICN TalkBack. Boy, you really got it all figured out don't you Jar Jerk? What a buffoon. The unconventionalism stems from the story's theme (death) and the fact that is doesn't end on a big ol' happy note. That's just one facet for starters. But your comment about Samwise marrying a "FEMALE HOBBIT" being a "Hollywood cop-out" is so goddamn ignorant, it makes YOU sound homophobic. You never read the book did you, Jargles? Anyway, I could give a shit less what you think of LOTR. It's your loss on that one, son. -- As for your statements regarding conservatives and "V", I love how you try to label me as a conservative because I didn't find the FILM to be a good one. How flaccid you are in your perceptions Jar Jar Foolio. Because, what you are admitting to here is political bigotry and ignorance. Your idea that a conservative could not think for himself beyond the party-line puts you into that very same empty mindset as those which you seek to blacklist. It makes me wonder who the real fear mongers are these days. It's the use of that same twisted "McCarthy-style" logic that does a great disservice to the progressive movement in general. You are truly an evangelist of your own political dogma, Jar Jar Dickhead. Again, I implore you to look up the definitions of true conservatism...and liberalism while your at it. It's obvious that you would rather apply political labels to people who simply did not enjoy the film, "V". You would rather spew blanket statements than believe for just a moment that individuals can make up their own minds based upon what they believe to be the real truth. After all, isn't that what the message of "V" is supposed to be?
-
Really Jar Jar? Thanks. Because I was quoting your statement which utilized the word "antithesis". Yeah, I know what the word means, too. If you look it up on dictionary.com, it says that you are a cunt.
-
I AM SORRY I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS, I WOULD NOT DO THIS BUT MY MESSAGE IS IMPORTANT. I HAVE TO SAY I AM VERY DISSAPOINTED AND ANGRY, MAD, SAD AND VERY PISSED OFF. OFF COURSE THIS IS A GREAT STORY AND IT HAS ALOT OF THINKING AND A GREAT MESSAGE, BUT THE MATRIX TEAM AND THE WRITERS ARENT ANY GENIOUSES, THE REASON THE MOVIE IS SO GOOD IS BECAUSE THE BOOK IS EXCELLENT GREAT AND IS REALLY GOOD, BUT THE The Wachowskis took a great, well-developed story, and turned into a cramped, silly one.
The look of the film is sharp and Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman give performances that elevate the whole thing into a league it probably doesn't deserve to be in. First time director James McTeigue shows some impressive skills. The problems (and there are many) are 100% in the screenplay.
Hey all. Last night I went to see V for Vendetta (hereinafter "VfV"). As a longtime fan of Alan Moore's series (and all of his works), I was dismayed that he took his name off of it, and have to admit that I was expecting the worst. That being said, I have a hard time deciding whether I liked this film. The audience seemed to react very well (it even got applause at the end). And my friend, who has never read the comic book also loved it. But personally, I couldn't stop thinking about how watered-down (and downright different) the story felt. It was more like "VfV-Lite" than "VfV".
The look of the film is sharp and Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman give performances that elevate the whole thing into a league it probably doesn't deserve to be in. First time director James McTeigue shows some impressive skills. The problems (and there are many) are 100% in the screenplay.
The Wachowskis took a great, well-developed story, and turned into a cramped, silly one. I know screenwriters often have to cut and manipulate material when adapting to a new medium, but I feel the Wachowskis made some bad choices (e.g. the masks on the crowd at the end, the alliterative V monologue in the initial meeting with Evey). The story also has a completely different tone. The screenwriters have "updated" the material, and in doing so, filtered it through an (unfortunately) very Matrix-like mold. A great deal of scope was also lost in the translation. It's like they read "Lord of the Rings" and adapted it into the movie "Willow". The world V inhabits here is relatively small, whereas in the comic books, it seems huge by comparison. And V himself has lost some edge; his character, not being given sufficient time to develop, comes off with far less dimension than the comic book which inspired it (again, no knock to Hugo Weaving... it was the material).
Most comic books that we see jump to the screen are ages old, having been drawn by hundreds of artists and written by dozens of writers (think Supes, Bats, Spidey, X-Men, etc). So when they get to the screen and seem a bit a different than what we're used to, it might not bother us so much (it's as if a new creative team took over the series... that's how I usually see it anyway). A movie about Spiderman can tell any of 1000 stories, or one we've never seen before and still leave us perfectly satisfied. But "V for Vendetta" is itself an entire story, and not merely a vehicle for a superhero tale (it's more like a Dumas novel than a Batman title). It exists only in one incarnation and only one story. So the Wachowskis' version feels.... tampered with. Wrong.
I LOVED THE MATRIX AND I LOVED THE SECOND AND THIRD MATRIX, I DID, BUT THIS MOVIE WAS CHANGED REALLY BAD, HOW THE F*CK DO THEY PUT V TO GO ON TV RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING, THAT HAPPENS AT THE MIDDLE OF THE STORY,
(WARNING SPOILER)
WHY THE F*CK THEY DIDNT DRESS EVEY AS V IN THE END, LIKE IT WOULD HAD MADE SENCE, ALSO AT THE END THE PEOPLE WITH MASKS WAS GREAT!!! BUT WITHOUT THE RIOT AND CHAOS THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL BEGINNING EVERYONE ENDED UP JUST LOOKING LIKE IDIOTS IN CUSTOMS, LIKE DUMB PEOPLE, AND FINCH, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, FINCH WENT TROUGHT SO MUCH IN THE BOOK, HERE HE JUST HAS A ""FEELING" WHAT THE F*CK, FINCH DIDNT SHOOT V, LIKE OH MY GOD WHAT THE F8CK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE, AND V AND EVEY LOVING EACH OTHER, DIDNT SHE FREAKED OUT THINKING IT COULD BE HER DAD, I FELT SICK SEEING THAT END, THE MOVIE IS GREAT OF COURSE, BECAUSE IT COMES FROM A GREAT BOOK, EVERY CHARACTER WAS GREAT, THE MESSAGE WAS GREAT BUT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOOK THE STORY AND "MADE A SEX CHANGE OPERATION TO IT" METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, I LOVE THE BOOK I LOVE THE WAKOSKIS, BUTWHAT THE F8CK WAS IN THE MINDS, AT THE END OF THE MOVIE I KEPT WATING FOR EVEY TO DRESS AS V AND THE RIOT OF THE PEOPLE, FINCH WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TROUGHT THE EFFECTS OF THE CHEMICALS,NOT TO MENTION THEY TOOK SOME KEY CHARACTERS OUT OF THE STORY LIKE MRS. HEYER AND THE FACT THAT EVEY WAS A PROSTITUTE AT THE BEGINING, S1TH I DONT KNOW IM SAD JUST SAD, IM GLAD THIS WAS MADE A MOVIE, I DIDNT EXPECTED A PAGE BY PAGE THE SAME TAKEN FROM THE BOOK MOVIE, NO, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA STAY TRUE TO THE SPIRIT, I WISH I NEVER READ THE BOOK SO I COULD HAVE THE JOY THAT EVERYONE THAT JUST MET V HAS NOW,
GOOD BYE FOR NOW -
The scene where Stephen Rea gives his monologue about seeing the connection between the events of the past and as a result getting a glimpse of how things would ultimately end, all told over flashbacks and flash-forwards, was sublime cinema.
-
I have real sympathy for your point of view, but this is one of those cases where you just have to get used to the idea that 200+ page books are not going to be adapted wholly and intact into film. It's just not going to happen. You need to let go of your need for the familiar and try to enjoy film adaptations as what they are: adaptations and judge them on their own merits. The book isn;t ruined, it's right their on the bookshelf in your home or the library or your local bookstore (I refused to lump all bookstores under the quickly-becoming-generic-term B&N). Douglas Adams always tried to put some new elements in every permutation of his HGTTG, and well done for him. It gives me something to look forward to. Seriously, what's the pleasure in going to a movie and seeing a story unfold just as you read? And reverse it. What's the point of seeing a movie and then reading the book when it's essentially the same thing? I disagree with your feeling that the spirit of the thing is different, because it's isn't. Within a the limitations of a Hollywood film meant for a mass audience (and no matter what anyone says, this is still a Hollywood film), this is a subversive poem that puts a terrorist firmly in the role of hero, with no apologies for his murderous ways.
-
This site won't filter the word fuck. So stop censoring yourself, you fuck.
-
...and non-consentual, and homosexuality is simply something that exists between two consenting adults." Let's hope it stays that way... after all, homosexuality was also once a disease and a crime... and children can be tricked into consensual sex... that's one of the reasons family groups are pushing so hard for raising the age of consent in Canada up from 14, because assholes are taking advantage of that. In Canada, it is gay groups like EGALE that are calling for the age of consent to be lowered for something they like to term 'intergenerational love'
-
"1) Research pedophilia statistics and reports, and you'll find that the majority are indeed heterosexual" It is also true that percentage wise even if the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, the remaining percentage who are homosexual compared with the total population of homosexuals altogether comprises a disturbing number proportionally... not that I'm out to suddenly blame homos here as we can't say for sure, just saying and that it should be looked into... and as for recognizing marraige, if it allworked out peachy it would be fine, but unfortunately this doesn't work out so well for religous people with jobs in marriage regestration offices, or with the lawsuits levied by homosexual couples wanting rooms from Churches or other religous run facilities. and redifining a word creates problems for religous people who want to raise their kids etc. all sorts of problems arise, things will fuck up for certain... let em have their civil unions... you're not going to fool religous people into accepting you by playing with words... and as for Bush and America becoming a theocracy... well I'm not American, but as far as I can see Bush has been criticized for some dubiousness about his ethics even thoguh he calls himself Christian, but that's another topic and I have not real idea what exactly the hell is going on with the States and War these days... so many conflicts, but if anything I really hate how Bush and co keep trying to tie Christianity with the war... like they're trying to sabotage it on purpose through 'guilt by association'...
-
In nature, animals eat their runts and do all sorts of shit so we can't just say let whatever's in our genes take over... by that resoning, retardation is okay and we should let retards be retards instead of trying to stop retardation... It is a fact that people are wired to have sex for reproduction, which is what religious people argue in favor of... well Catholics for the most part as we also don't support contraception... And I'd advise looking into the 'gay animal' examples http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
-
Was hoping the homosexuality wouldn't be as prominent but loooks like it is... ah well, never read the graphic novel, but i suppose the fact that those themes are present is really more to do with Alan Moore and not the Wachowskis... I tihnk some talkbacker awhile back mentioned that Moor doesn't try to hide his anti-Christian bias or something like that? Anyway I'm going to check out Hugo Weaving and his knife tossin abilities... and I'm sure there'll be some nice eye candy effects and scenes...
-
Indeed, that scene with Stephen Rea was the highlight of the movie. As you can tell by my previous post, "V" was a disappointment for me. However, that scene was the most profound moment/idea in the film.
-
As for the pedophilia arguement, lets look at it this way for a moment: Homosexuals do indeed have a smaller percentage in the pedophilic population, as well as a smaller population in the overall human population. This seems to be a relatively consistent corrolation. I understand the part about the disturbing proportion but i actually don't think it's as high as you think it is. After all, if it's 10% gays in the world and only 10% of pedophiles are gay, that's relatively consistant. What really needs to be done is a conclusive study on this, I wonder if anyone is. Even if homosexuals had a higher proclivity towards pedophilia, there could be alot of reasons for it that aren't exclusively "because they're gay" such as a result of severe of repression which often goes hand in hand with being gay in our societies, which is a big part of this whole church fiasco. Or it could be that homosexuals have a higher predisposition to such behavior, just as alcoholism can run in families. It wouldn't be justification, of course. Also, while, we're assuming that the homosexual population is small, a number like 10% doesn't include those who are still "in the closet" or "bisexual" either, so the actual number might be significantly higher. I'm not saying anything conclusively because I have absolutely no authority to make such claims, but I do think it's far too easy to jump on the gays molest little boys band wagon. Science HAS proven that pedophilia is a mental disorder. They have NOT proven that homosexuality is.
-
I can tell you that the massive majority of Gays are not trying to force churches to accept them. They merely want to be allowed to be married by the state. These lawsuits for rooms at churches are rare if they even exist at all (I've never heard of one here in the U.S. but we sue for everything over here so I wouldn't necessarily be surprised). Thing is, that's like a minute amount of homosexuals doing that. Most recognize that the church disagrees with homosexuality. As for the troubles of redefining a word, that argument is a cop out. Are adult humans really that ridiculously stupid that they can't get it in their minds to expand the definition of marriage to any two people who are married? Remember, interracial couples weren't allowed to marry at first either. We've gotten over that "redefinition" just fine. "you're not going to fool religous people into accepting you by playing with words" Do you see anything wrong with that sentence? People shouldn't have to be tricked into accepting other people's difference.
-
I AM an American and I can assure you that religion plays a larger part in our government today than it should. The dubious ethics criticism are just part of the hypocrisy which has been synonomous with our leaders lately as well. Things like ammendments on gay marriages, bans on abortions, these are things clearly driven by religious morals that really have no place in a democracy. The fact that Bush invokes God every chance he gets, doesn't help anything either. A large portion of America is very religious, and many respond to all of this, which is why our country keeps moving further and further towards religion in government. Now, I'm not one of those people calling for the removal of "in God we trust" on the money or "Under god" in the pledge, those are part of our history. I do think, however, that as we continue to change and grow as a society, we need to have a law system that changes and grows as well, and religion is something that is notoriously unchanging.
-
Many organized religions, specifically Catholicism is hypocritcal itself, calling for morality and loving of thy neighbor, and yet filled with condemnations and sometimes outright hate for anything that they don't agree with. Ever seen an anti-abortion or anti-gay rally? That is some enraged, vicious opposition about issues that don't even outrightly affect them in the least! Where's the peace, open-mindedness, compromise, tolerance? So really, Bush being hypocritcal about his actions versus his words really fits right in with him acting as a conduit for religion in our country. And this is coming from someone who doesn't even hate religion. I think that there's alot of great history in the different religions and I think the basic moral systems are fine, it's just when people try imposing their beliefs on others, through physical actions or legislation, that I start to get pissed.
-
Hi Mom! Your screen name is what we in the business would call "ironical." Ronald Reagan is a dead asshole!
-
"...it's just when people try imposing their beliefs on others, through physical actions or legislation, that I start to get pissed." Unless it's on BSG or under extreme circumstances--Then it's O.K. It's alright for President Rosalin to be "underhanded and manipulative" as long as she's obsessed and sure that God is speaking to her through visions. You dumb republican ass just talks in fuckin' circles, don't it?
-
And what the fuck does that have to do with anything Jars? And the correct grammatical usage is "ironic" not "ironical". And it's ironic that you take my name at face value. Once again, you ASSUME! But that's OK Jar Tard, mommy says it's time for you to put the keyboard down, take your meds, and go to bed.
-
Ok so I saw V last night. Some thoughts... (I've read as much of the Talkback as I could) ...Evey (or more importantly Natalie) should have had the scene where she dons the mask. Evey should not have left after the "rain scene". Vocational Viewpoint should have been left intact. We sheep do have some responsibility for the rulers of the world. I've read the graphic novel and while its' ending works I am afraid in a theater it might have resulted in a lot of WTF. The change of ending (noting that the crowd also contained many of the "passed away") worked for me in the same way that it did in F 451. It's also my impression that the Parliament Buildings were no longer being used for anything resembling democracy and being kept as comforting symbols. When buildings of this sort are not being used for their intended purpose it is time to be done with them. I now find that I can enjoy Natalie Portman if I don't watch too many of her interviews. Hugo Weaving is sooooo fine. Hyper reality is the world we see through the media and commercials, everything is beautiful and over sexed with energy. Reality is tired people trying to get home on the subway after the film. Just about anything that alerts one of the possibility of one or the others' falseness is likely to be a product of one or both realities. Go see the film. I have copies of a lot of things that make me feel better when I am ill. This is a film that will outlast whatever it does at the box. It is one that I want to have on whatever format that comes out next. Oh yeah the dominoes - What does V do for fun? V paints dominoes read and black and then sets them up and knocks them down strictly for his own enjoyment. I would. Seriously - go see it.
-
One thing that was kind of funny in the movie, the United States is shown to be very chaotic and sliding into anarchy; but the police in the movie are using Dell Computer equipment. I guess Dell was able to withstand all of that (unless they've relocated to the UK in the future).
-
Or maybe it simply remains lost, whichever. I told you I'm not republican in the least, but as usual you choose to blindly believe whatever you want, despite proof to the contrary. In the world of BSG we know what Roslin is doing is the right course because we have the benefit of that omniscient knowledge (via her visions, prophecies, etc), so it is acceptable that she does what she does. Also, if you paid any attention to the show, you'd know that Roslin didn't impose her beliefs on anyone in that sequence. She simply played the "religion card" as she calls it. She gives everyone a choice. She tells them this is what she's doing, and those who want to follow her, can. She's not forcing anyone to believe the prophecy. And yes, in "extreme times" things are allowable which might be questionable during times of peace. This is common sense, one would think. You're so extremely to the left that any thought of giving up any shred of civil liberty for the common good, even in times of crisis, is unfathomable to you. Take your head out of your ass and look at the bigger picture for a second. Nothing I have said here today contradicts itself, but as in life, you just see whatever you want, and twist the truth to fit your world. You may not be a republican, but your way of thinking is just as dangerous.
-
Though I believe the actual number of homosexuals comprise 1-2% of the total population (though I feel the number might grow over the years, but not due to an inaccuracy in the 1-2% estimate) But I agree that even if there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia it isn't right to condemn all homosexuals because of it... while it is said that most pedophilia cases involve same sex, there appears to be confusion over the specific orientation of the adult. It's quite a confusing issue and researchers seem reluctant to go into it more... what is conclusive at the moment is that regardless of their orientation, pedophiles are fixated on children... As far as the mental disorder issue, many will argue that the American Psychiatric Association dropped Homosexuality from it's list of disorders because of strong protests against it and not factual data. As well homosexuality has many environmental factors that can be shown to influence a person's sexual orientation and organizations as NARTH and PFOX testify to the fact that many homosexuals, if they choose to, can change their orientation through therapy... One scary thing thoguh is that right at this moment, some intellectuals and organizations are trying to get pedophilia dropped from the list of disorders as well and attempt to 'legitimize' themselves using a similar strategy that homosexuals have in order to get recognition for themselves...
-
There obviously is an enormous factor separating any kind of normal adult relationship from pedophilia: Consent. How anyone could be attempting to legitimize a non-consentual sexual practice is beyond me.
-
someone said that you are a bodybuilder earlier. Is that true? Amateur or professional?
-
Ultraviolet owned this pathetic Vendetta movie.
I had such high hopes for V for Vendetta, ever since the first trailers were released, it looked amazing. After seeing the reviews I was sure it was going to thrill. Simaltaneously, ever since Equillibrum I had been long awaiting Ultraviolet, and after the terrible reviews I had extremely low expectations.
Then something unexpected happened...I went and saw Ultraviolet, and it blew me away. Wimmer has done it again. Meanwhile, V for Vendetta (should be V for Violated) violated me with extreme atheist anti-religious hate. Contrast this to the clearly pro-God anti-abortion Ultraviolet, and it becomes clear why Wimmer gets only small budgets and terrible reviews, while liberal homosexual dominated hollywood gives massive funding to transvestites like Wachowskis to make gay propaganda movies. Alan Moore, in annotations for the collected V for Vendetta, claimed that he had difficulty getting a story printed that featured a "transexual terrorist", implying that V may have been a woman, possibly Valerie, a lesbian actress who was also experimented upon in the same camp as the man from room five. It is also possible that Valerie and the 'man' from room five are one and the same. Though Moore has never clarified either way who V supposedly was, he does point out that V's identity is never revealed in the book. He has however explicitly stated that V is not Evey's father. Meanwhile, Wimmer's film pro-family, focusing on the pain of a woman who's child was forcibly adopted, and her healing by adopting another child who is also under threat of death, while affirming the existence of God and the concept that justice will prevail over totalitarianism. Ultraviolet is also free from any subversive anti-religious bias as displayed in the transsexual propaganda movie V for Vendetta.
ALL HAIL WIMMER AND HIS EPIC ULTRAVIOLET. Nuff said. -
Meanwhile, Wimmer's film is pro-family, focusing on the pain of a woman who's child was forcibly *ABORTED (not adopted)
-
That you like the (supposed) piece of crap that is ultraviolet, simply because it echoes your beliefs, and you hate vendetta because you think it's anti-religion? Oh, that's good. Lets not take into account the merits of the filmmaking or story of either piece, and lets just judge them based on an assumed message that may or may not be in either film, but that you just happen to be "violated" by because you're beyond biased. Man, Passion of the Christ must have made you cream your pants, you sheep.
-
Failed. Because it's creators simply coasted along knowing that it would be embraced by millions of people like you the world over simply because it was about Jesus, and not because it was a good film. And so while it looked and sounded nice, it was hollow and soul-less. Yet, surprise surprise, people screamed it's praises and it made 400 kazillion dollars at the box office. You wanna talk about biases? Lets talk about how if that film wasn't about Jesus, it wouldn't have made squat.
-
[the following was posted at http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#celeb10 on 3/21/06]--- Moore: "I Want Nothing To Do with 'Vendetta' Film" --- V For Vendetta creator Alan Moore is desperate to be disassociated from the screen adaptation of his classic comic strip - and is begging the producers not to credit him for his work. The cartoonist, who also conceived From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hates seeing his work diluted by movie-makers, and refuses to put his name to the result. He says, "I want them to say, 'We're not going to give you any money for your work, you're not going to get any credit for it and we're not going to put your name on it.' To see a line of dialogue or a character that I have poured that much emotional involvement into, to see them casually travestied and watered down and distorted... it's kind of painful. It's much better just to avoid them altogether." ---- I re-assert my contention that Alan Moore has become the comic world's biggest diva.
-
In so many ways. First the action, Wimmer has a sense of style and flair for visuals, such as the rooftop Chinois scene one of the best scenes in a movie ever. Its a better paced film, Vendetta got tedious quite quickly. Dialogue, Wimmers hilarious one-liners were better. Story...well the stories were very similar, with a totalitarian government using a virus to control the populace by controlling the antidote...the difference was in the themes used, Violet had a positive uplifting theme with emotioanl resonance, quite different from any other futuristic sci-fi action flick, and very different from Vendetta's dark atheism and ham fisted in your face propaganda slant.
SO your assumption is wrong, I don't like a movie based on a perceived message solely, I like a movie based on if its a good movie that thrils me, as Equilibrium and Ultraviolet have done, whereas V for Vendetta, while having some great sequences and scenes, ultimately collapsed upon itself and failed.
Oh and btw I never saw Passion of the Christ and I don't care to. -
To all the sheeps who blindly follow the reviewers who claim that Ultraviolet and Equilibrium is a Matrix clone.
Kurt Wimmer says: No, I don't even remotely agree with The Matrix comparisons. In my opinion, they are made by action philistines who cannot distinguish between bullet-time and the lack of it, between wire-fu and the absence of it, between slow-motion and the lack of it. It is a dull mathematics to simply say, science fiction plus action equals The Matrix.
Ironically enough, the action sequences in Ultraviolet far out passed The Matrix or any other action film to date. Violet kicks so much ass so fast, its breathtaking and inherently satisfying, without resorting to any bullet time gayness. -
And while I'll eventually see Ultraviolet on DVD or something, I've heard NOTHING but bad things thus far, whereas V is getting pretty consistent good reviews. V was not perfect, but I can't imagine it's worse than UV... I actualy never found it boring or tedious, despite the fact there were only 3 or so action sequences. I enjoyed alot of the ideas and style, and while i felt it glossed over some stuff it should have explored, it was well done over all. I also don't see how you don't see V as devoid of emotional resonance. "Valerie's biography scene" alone was extremely well done and pretty touching.
-
It has always been my take that V was Violet, but I love that it's left open to debate. more here: (including some words from Alan Moore about audience's bloodlust)
http://www.971talk.com/movie/index.aspx -
You do, of course, realize that this dialog would be quite opposite had I been the first to write that for disagreeing with me your father should have killed himself before you were born, yes? This is, of course, presuming that your "history" is factual to begin with (hint: mine ain't). Let's cut through this left/right bullshit and get to brass. You were the first to get oversensitive. Do not fault me for being guilty of the same in reaction to it. Or, if you prefer brevity, fuck you too.
-
"are on your side of the fence" -- LOL! Which party, exactly, engages in 'groupthink' more than the other? Which party, exactly, is more guilty is stripping away civil liberties more than the other? Please weigh before you reply.
-
because when I heard hugo spitting out his first lines so rapid fire as he did.. I was afraid that V was going to be this smartmouthed fast talking fool, the audience started to chuckle at how he was babbling his first few lines. but thankfully it settled down. My favorite part of the book is the scene with the female doctor and I thought it translated over to movie perfectly, I wish she would have asked to see his face like in the comic though.
-
gel mounds?
-
A nazi and a commie are basically the same in the sense that they're both authoritarian bastards. You defend asshole republicans because you ARE ONE. I don't hate asshole republicans because I'm a democrat... I hate asshole republicans because I know how to read. You're Bill O'Reilly's little bitch. A puppet who cannot think for himself.
-
How does V eat?
-
Hence, I laff and laff, and laff when you libbies paint with the broad brush. Which you often do. Funnier (and sadder) still, is when you equate fascism with communism. A display in ignorance only equalled by pretty much of anything that spills forth from the mouth of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore. Or any of the Sheen family if you're looing for a movie reference given this site's "alleged" objective. Now, to directly answer your allegation (as if what I have done here hasn't already), I defend "asshole republicans" (your words) only because the are the closest to conservative beliefs that I cherish. You do realize that that conservative/liberal dogma doesn't yield to the party line, yes? For example, Lieberman is a conservative Democrat while McCain is a liberal Republican. And ghet this -- Bush is the most liberal Republican we've haqd since, like, ever. This is why conservatives find any criticism against Bush to be anticlimatic. He is everything they could hope for, if only he was one of them. Trust me, NO conservatives are all dumb and happy when it comes to Bush.
-
Imagine that I'm on welfare, and you'd feel much better, Jar Jar. I promise. Anyhow, why run from what you responded to? "Authoritarian bastards" can also be defined as folks otherwise known as "parents" you know. Or maybe even "Bosses" or "Dean of Students." I mean, you must realize this, yes? Why no answer to what I wrote instead of deploy blank criticism? Liberals enforce speech protocols, enforce racial quotas, enforce gender quotas... yet you find me guilty of being O'Reilly's "little bitch." Okay. WHY?!? If that's true, and I am indeed a puppet, then at least grant me the privelege of knowing WHY?!?
-
Because you're fucking retarded and illiterate. That's why.
-
Gonna take Trazadone's cue and watch the film again and see what I think. I re-read the comic after seeing the film, and noticed that despite some of the big changes, the Wachowki's at least kept the minor details: Storm Saxon, the "Strength" posters (an improvement in the film: "Unity" for "Purity"), the "I killed you 10 minutes ago" line. Still, I cracked up when re-reading at the Old Bailey scene. I don't hold a grudge against the Wachowkis for not including this scene, it's just a little favourite of mine, with V's cry of "Liar! Slut Whore!" Still, looking forward to seeing it again (and not drinking so much beforehand so I'm dying to take a piss throughout).
-
No, really, Jar Jar 4 Prez! We need more tolerant liberals like him in the white house. YEEEAAARRRGH!!!
-
Watched V 2nd time. Was a lot better now that I wasn't nitpicking at discrepancies. Yes, a lot of my criticisms hold true, but some great moments of pure cinema. Will buy soundtrack too.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts