V For Vendetta: The Movie

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (674 of them)

View Previous Page...

i didn't notice that... it might have been your theatre y'know

(xp)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 20 March 2006 18:48 (twenty years ago)

Alan Moore has gone mad... I don't see how you could move such an anglo-centric story to the USA.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 20 March 2006 19:00 (twenty years ago)

uh, that's Moore's point. He sees the Wachowski version as attempting to do just that (and then, just for good measure, way throws out a story idea that would have been better suited to their aims).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 March 2006 19:05 (twenty years ago)

i didn't notice that... it might have been your theatre y'know

y'know, that's entire possible. hmmm.

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 20 March 2006 19:06 (twenty years ago)

The street cops were part of the working class schematic. The cops in black were government agents. So of course the street cops would stand down.

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Monday, 20 March 2006 21:54 (twenty years ago)

I didn't notice problems with Evey, but it was hard to understand V's first speech.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Monday, 20 March 2006 21:56 (twenty years ago)

(A female friend who loved the film and is a total Moore fan commented upon Moore's hippie-Gandlaf look, "Man, that's a sure-fire way to live in a pussy-free zone."

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:09 (twenty years ago)

She might want to read the interview and note how he lives with his girlfriend.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:16 (twenty years ago)

Can you really call a tube sock your girlfriend?

― Dan (Cum In Packs Of Twelve) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:17 (twenty years ago)

(also just finished doing an epic porn comic with her)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:18 (twenty years ago)

Can you really call a tube sock your girlfriend?

http://www.najical.com/s-o/season2/sno/conv_intdec3.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:20 (twenty years ago)

should i go see this or 16 blocks?

xpost wtf is that?

― kephm (kephm), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:24 (twenty years ago)

wtf is that?

You don't know? Dude.

http://www.sifl-n-olly.com/

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:25 (twenty years ago)

SEE BOTH

― Dan (Hahaha Ned!) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 20 March 2006 22:27 (twenty years ago)

They should totally remake the movie for the U.S., with Bruce Willis as the Stephen Rea character.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 20 March 2006 23:24 (twenty years ago)

Enjoyable fluff, better than Batman Begins, but since it's based on a graphic novel, why should we take this hokum seriously? Hugo Weaving (David Denby: "doing an imitation of James Mason in his most hyper-civilized and elocutionary roles, though Mason was acidly witty, and Weaving is merely formal and condescending") in a Guy Fawkes mask wants to blow up Parliament. I mean, geez: we're supposed to clap along? Parliament represents everything the Chancellor's regime destroyed!

Stephen Fry was fine, but I'm not sure the director told him what kind of movie he was starring in; nor was he introduced to the rest of the cast. The always-terrific Stephen Rea was more convincing as a man of pained conscience than Natalie-as-Falconetti. No one's mentioned Rupert Graves, veteran of lots of Merchant Ivory films, as Rea's assistant.

Anyone else think the guy playing the ranting TV journalist had modelled his look and mannerisms rather closely on Christopher Hitchens?

So OTM. I said so to my companion: "He's Hitchens turned into what his leftist critics always suspected he was."

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:33 (twenty years ago)

Enjoyable fluff, better than Batman Begins, but since it's based on a graphic novel, why should we take this hokum seriously?

i don't get what you mean... are you saying that we should take it less seriously just because it's based on a GN?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:40 (twenty years ago)

I mean, geez: we're supposed to clap along? Parliament represents everything the Chancellor's regime destroyed!

haha excellent point.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:41 (twenty years ago)

we could have nipped that whole hitler thing in the bud if somebody had just thought to burn down the reichstag before things got really bad!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:43 (twenty years ago)

"He's Hitchens turned into what his leftist critics always suspected he was."

There's this fellow called Peter Hitchens...

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:45 (twenty years ago)

But Parliament as a body was never destroyed - the Chancellor literally took power through it, getting a silly percentage of the vote after the school massacre. And then continued to use it as a symbol of his power and relation to the Empire of yore.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

With materal this pulpy a serious discussion about The Contemporary Parallels is laughable. Weaving's character was, if anything, even more sinister than John Hurt's Chancellor: his strained allusions to Macbeth, falling in love with Portman, the roses, and the rather sadistic mind-fuck he gives Portman.

This is a film whose intentions are seriously misguided. Of course, in case we missed the point the director soaks us in violence done by the purported hero that's no different than what the totalitarian state does: the execution of the police in the final third is slowed down so that we don't miss any evisceration, laceration, or spurt of blood.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

"pulpy" stuff tends to have more recognizable contempo "parallels" than high-brow stuff y'know

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:54 (twenty years ago)

With material this pulpy

Oh yeah draw that line reeeeeeeeeeeeeeal thick.

[blast you slicko]

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)

it's based on a graphic novel, why should we take this hokum seriously?

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 21:58 (twenty years ago)

oboy

― Yawn (Wintermute), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:00 (twenty years ago)

This is the thread where ILC opens up a can of whupass.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:00 (twenty years ago)

Sure thing, Rusty Brown. Oh wait.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:01 (twenty years ago)

"Many critics will doubtless admire McInerney's pompous literary efforts, in the same way that Stone's 'serious' movie will probably attract a degree of earnest respect. Personally, I feel more at home with the honest exploitation of V for Vendetta, which proves once again the radical power of trash."

Mark Kermode on V for Vendetta

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:02 (twenty years ago)

Superhero with mask and knives, baddies wearing Third Reich-esque uniforms of red and black, allusions to escapist-romantic classic (The Count of Monte Christo), falls in love with heroine and is "redeemed" = El Pulpo.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:03 (twenty years ago)

Exactly, Alfred - folks are disagreeing w/ your definition of pulp & not your condescending dismissal of it.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:06 (twenty years ago)

"since it's based on a graphic novel, why should we take this hokum seriously?"

arggghhhhhhhhh - way to dismiss an entire medium out of hand. very astute of you.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:09 (twenty years ago)

I thought I made it quite clear that it's this film I disliked -- how it garnished a series of pulp totems with a sprinkle of high thought -- and not the source material itself

Now I'm going to reread The Watchmen.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

You're a glutton for punishment.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:47 (twenty years ago)

if you don't like the pulp, maybe you should read a graphic novel that isn't about superheroes.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:50 (twenty years ago)

points to kv_nol for finding this amusing review

Time Warner promotes terrorism and anti-Christian bigotry in new leftist movie, 'V for Vendetta'

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 23:02 (twenty years ago)

Hunting for rightwinger reviews is entertaining:

Gospelcom.net: One gets the distinct impression from this film that the true threats to the freedom of man are the adherence to Christian and conservative philosophies..

MensNewsDaily: Too many great quotes from this one to count. Moore was not really writing about Thatcher, Nazis are really Socialists, etc etc

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 23:23 (twenty years ago)

that last review is truly weird, and yet, not entirely wrong about how Moore developed the story/character in the book.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 00:45 (twenty years ago)

WND: While sitting through this cacophony of neo-Marxist, homosexual-promoting pagan gibberish, I could not help being struck by how entertaining it all was: at least at a certain level. The characters were good, the acting and dialogue were sound, and the visuals were simply stunning.

WND: Ironically, points out Baehr, a homosexual character who owns homosexual pornography also owns a banned copy of the Quran.

IRONY!

Plugged In: Nevertheless, V makes blowing up buildings look very cool and very justifiable. It's hard to measure or predict the impact such images and ideas might have in today's culture, where blasting buildings to make political statements has become a raw reality.

(tho the last one is a bit more even-handed/level-headed)

― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)

...

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:20 (twenty years ago)

on I Love Comics someone said it was unwise to link to that review.

I say BRING ON THE MENTALISTS!

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:21 (twenty years ago)

are any of these reviews surprising or particularly outrageous? right-wing people don't like a left-wing movie! how shocking! i wonder what they think of michael moore!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

this movie is so toothless. they should have gone further!

honestly the idea he tosses off in the last paragraph about a US-centric story sounds 100% better than whatever the Wachowskis have come up with

otm!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:36 (twenty years ago)

if the filmmakers had real balls they'd extrapolate from now and set a story in that.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

this movie is not marxist its hegelian. and stupid.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:52 (twenty years ago)

saw this the other night, it seemed weirdly claustrophobic to me. like, all the outdoor scenes seem real fake. i guess a lot of it was actually shot in germany?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:53 (twenty years ago)

right-wing people don't like a left-wing movie! how shocking! i wonder what they think of michael moore!

i'm not posting these due to them surprising anyone, i'm linking them b/c they tend to be funny, revealing, and in the case of that MND one, really weird. It's like documenting the batshit War on Christmas stuff; watching these guys get themselves into a froth over a not-too-sublte cultural jibe holds a bizarre fascination for me.

Also, the one from Plugged In(the movie review site linked up to Focus on the Family, is surprisingly charitable.

― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 23 March 2006 18:04 (twenty years ago)

The best part of the WND review is how they get Fry's character's name completely wrong. I don't think there's ANYONE named "Baehr" in the movie.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:04 (twenty years ago)

They probably walked into The Hills Have Eyes by mistake.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:15 (twenty years ago)

wow. best film i've seen in a long, long time. i knew next to nothing about it in advance, which i'm glad of, but... wow.

― toby (tsg20), Sunday, 26 March 2006 00:44 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 574 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.