V For Vendetta: The Movie

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (674 of them)
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)

V for Vendetta is the Mrs. Dalloway of utopia/dystopia films. That said, I really liked it.

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:24 (twenty years ago)

Explain, salmon.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:32 (twenty years ago)

It means Alan Moore shouldn't walk around with rocks in his pockets.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 26 March 2006 01:33 (twenty years ago)

i have no idea what that comment means. on the other hand i really live both v and mrs dalloway, so maybe there's something to it.

toby (tsg20), Sunday, 26 March 2006 11:27 (twenty years ago)

I wonder what will happen if this is successful. Are they going to turn this into a "it was always meant to be one, honest!" trilogy too?

V for Vendetta
W for Wrevenge
X for Xtremism

StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:14 (twenty years ago)

Saw this last night, enjoyed it quite a lot, with a few caveats. Here's some thoughts:

*As I expected, they downplayed the anarchist themes, which was unfortunate. It's easy to make a story where someone opposes an evil fascist government, but for better or worse I think Moore's ponderings on anarchy is what separates the comic from other similar dystopies. So the V's telly speech about how it was the people's own fault for letting their leaders guide them was toned down drastically, the monologue with the justice statue was changed, etc. The only hints of anarchism in the movie were rather subliminal, i.e. the shoplifter saying "It's anarchy in the UK!" and the fact that V's symbol is almost like an upside down anarchist "A".

*The ending with the Houses of Parliament blowing up was probably the weakest part. The comic ended with angry folks uprising against the fascists, which was a much stronger finale. In the film, the bombing carried an enormous symbolic weight, but it was symbolic of what exactly? The failings of parliamentarism? If the film would've included the comic's anarchist themes, that might've been an option, but now the symbolism was kinda weak. Of course V's speech about how bombing a building can be revolutionary act was a brave move, but still... The comic ended with the explosion of Downing Street, which was the fascist government's operational center, but I'm not sure if the movie ever implied the government resided in the Houses of Parliament.

*The scenes with the V masks and the ending with people taking them off was a very nice touch, one of the changes to the comic that I think actually played out fine.

*Another thing where I felt the film improved upon the comic was the final scenes with V and Evey. V says that he must leave the final choice to Eve, and that his work is done. This I think was a better ending than in the comic. In the film V is more of a counterforce to the fascists, a necessary monster they've created, and once the fascists are dealt with he must perish too, and leave people's fate into their own hands. Whereas in the comic Evey becomes the new V, and it feels like her job is to watch that people don't stray from the narrow path again, which is against the very idea of anarchism. Of course, a single person deciding the fate of a nation is rather anti-anarchist too, but since V is supposed to be a symbol of anarchy rather than a real person, it's sort acceptable. Evey, however is clearly a real person and not a symbol.

*Stephen Rea was very good as Finch, but he wasn't given that much to work with. The humanizing scenes with Finch that were in the comic were mostly left out. I can't say whether Natalie Portman was good or bad, since in the film he was mostly V's puppet, and had very few scenes of her own. Again, a lot of the stuff that fleshed her out in the comic was left off. Obviously they couldn't have included everything from the comic, but what I missed the most were all the subplots with characters like Rose Almond, which showed the banal side of fascism. Now, the actual analysis of the workings of fascism was kinda thin, though maybe you shouldn't expect that much from a Wachowski brothers film.

*I'm glad they kept Evey's prison scenes from the comic almost intact, since that obviously was the true climax in both versions. The scenes with Evey reading Valerie's letters actually made me cry. I like Alan Moore the idealist more than the disillusioned cynic he later turned into.

*The human dictator in the comic was more interesting than the Big Brother one in the film. John Hurt's Hitler mannerisms were okay I guess, but it felt kinda silly that he had to use them to his closest men and not just in his public appearances. It was a nice touch that we never saw him in real life until his final scene.

* The Benny Hill tribute was great!

Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:20 (twenty years ago)

hmm I don't think Moore is really a cynic. I mean have you read "Promethea"?

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:28 (twenty years ago)


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