Yeah, total surprise. I was thinking it was going to be your typical action flick, so I wasn't very interested. My girl begged me to go, so I did, and I'm glad. Very very awesome movie indeed.
I just got back. It was just average as a stand alone film, and pretty crummy as an adaptation of the comic. True to big budget Hollywood style, there were no gray areas, it was very black and white compared to the comic. The greatest evidence of this was in the ending, which resembled more a Levi's commercial or something than anything the comic produced.
It was disappointing it was not truly an 'uncompromising glimpse of the future' as it was touted ad nauseum.
Even still, V is a very magnetic character and it was entertaining to see him and some of his escapades on the screen.
I enjoyed it... I felt they added a few silly hollywood things that didn't need to be there, but otherwise they stuck pretty close to the book...especially in look and "feel".
saw it last night. i loved almost everything about it EXCEPT crappily portman. man she stinks at acting. i wanted to punch her in the face.
she should stick to movies like garden state, ones i will never see.
i'll not see it until it receives Rorshach's imprimatur. which somehow i doubt it will, but who knows. moore himself has washed his hands of the whole thing and is even trying to get his names off of the original book, too.
i'm not a huge fan of moore (though Watchmen will of course, remain a giant for a very long time), but i'm very much not a fan of the wachowskis and company. and they didn't even direct this movie, a second unit director on the matrix sequels did. not the most encouraging pedigree...
I'm still undecided as I will go and see it as usually when I watched a british story simplified into american terms I find it disappointing and annoying.
I'm meant to be going to see it this weekend with friends after going to the pub but I don't know if I can consume enough alcohol to dull my senses enough to cut myself off from the literature snob in me!
they kept the brit aspect pretty well.. as far as that goes, and as far as how 'brit' the book was. They DO go through a 'prologue' and explain that the mask is of guy fawkes...since that's not exactly American common-knowledge.
well, you've got red states and then you've got the Villages, if I hear someone mention "the homosexual agenda" in omenous tones one more time I'm going to crack.
I have to agree, that movie rocked! It was much better than i had hoped. So many good points in it. The ending had me all misty eyed because of how powerfull it was.
My girlfriends brother asked me when we said we wre going to see it, "isn't that the movie that all proterrorism?" So i'll me making him go see it.
I saw the movie with my girlfriend last thursday and liked it quite a lot. I think of it as a mass-market version of 1984. It went into the same direction as Equilibrium. The resistance is real and powerful, the revolution is working and everything is less depressing and disenchanting than in the book. And it has more action of course Does anyone know the comic? How close is the comic to 1984?
i enjoyed the movie, much better tha the matrix sequels. over all a decent film,, it could definately be considered pro terrorism, v was definately a terrorist. the thing that makes him feel like a good guy is that we consider his government to be bad enough that its ok to be a terrorist. also we feel sorry for his sad past gettin burned and experimented on and all that jazz. the thing that really comes to mind, is how bad does a government have to be , before terrorist become heroes, wheres the line.
i was glad they kept most the hip mtv hollywood out of the movie, cept for the verry end withthe slow mo fight and the knife trails. i coulda done without that.
the chancelor was great, tho john hurt has etched himself into my brains movie greats section by being both the first person to ever have a chest burster pop out of them on film, and to a lesser extent, being hellboys pop.
i think they shoulda shown more of how corupt the government was. everyone looked like they had decent homes, jobs, the city looked nice,, no homeless people running around on the streets, the governmetn looked controlling, but it looked like most of the opresion was gearred at gays and alternitive religions in the film.
rhinokey, I think the point of the comics/movie was to make you ask that question.. where is the line?
I think the extent of the corruption was evident enough in the first scene where two police officers were about to rape a woman for catching her past curfew..
I think of a terrorist as a person who attacks civilians in order to cause terror. Calling everyone who attacks legitimate government targets a terrorist would mean that George Washinton and the rest of the founding fathers would be terrorists also. I think a better word to describe people who attack their own government would be revolutionaries, freedom fighters or anarchists.
Of course, governments in general now want to call anyone they don't like terrorists. Now in the US some people are trying to pass laws so that gang members qualify as terrorists too. This goes along the same lines as the government waging a "war" on drugs, or creationists calling their theories "scientific". This is a ruse that these groups use to trick stupid people who don't understand their own language. Don't be fooled.
I support the government too by paying taxes. So what? That doesn't mean I love it. Rather that I don't want to go to prison.
About freedom fighters; Often terrorists call themselves freedom fighters, but that does not make it so. Some people are both terrorists and freedom fighters, but not all freedom fighters are terrorists.
I think it is pretty clear cut in most places who is employed by the government and who isn't.
The reason the movie was so powerfull to me is that i see the same ideas being put in place here. I belive very strongly that you should never have to live in fear your government. Even more so for being diffrent. It is our diffrences that make us strong.
The movie was in no way proterroism, it's antiterroism. The government was using terror of the unknown to keep the people just scared enough not to ask questions. He killed those with power who used it only to serve the agenda of keeping up the peoples terror.
The movie shows that people will give up almost everything for the false sense of being safe. If you feed people a lie for long enough they start to forget what truth is. Thats what governments do they sell lies of the greatest order to make you feel safe at night, but scared enough that you will do what ever they ask of you with out question.
To me the line of what consatutes a governemt as being evil enough to make actions against it ok if not heroic, is simple. Any time a government stops listening to the people and starts telling them what they need, thats when. When you have to question wether their actions are for the good of the people or for their own good.
rooster, i odn't see how 2 police officers raping a girl is a sign of bad government,, its a sign of 2 bad police officers. i guarantee you theres police running around in the USA just as corrupt as those
My sister with PHD in sociology said that before any society is at the point of a revolution, it must have food shortages/starvation. Which translates to keep the peoples basic needs well fullfulled.
I haven't seen the movie, but what Rhino is striking on why this is true. Many people wont complain or more, just deal with the fear if they can have their basic daily sustenance.
[ QUOTE ]
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
rhino, well the incident was mentioned by the government guys and they all understood the circumstances- but they just brushed it under the carpet instead of mounting a full scale investigation into the incident. It does imply that it was an occurance not out-of-the ordinary
[ QUOTE ]
My sister with PHD in sociology said that before any society is at the point of a revolution, it must have food shortages/starvation. Which translates to keep the peoples basic needs well fullfulled.
[/ QUOTE ]
The American colonies had food shortages and starvation? I don't know that I ever heard Thomas Jefferson had trouble putting food on the table at Monticello prior to the Revolutionary War. Where'd your sister get her diploma from?
Ok I just saw the movie, and I think it was pretty good. Definitly a lot better that almost everything I have seen in the movietheater lately.
It had a lot of plot holes and goof-ups though, but while usually that annoys me greatly, this time it didn't; which speaks for itself I guess
But there is one thing that where this movie fell short and that was it's own ambition. It wants to be up there with 1984 or Fahrenheit451, but utterly fails at that since the makers obviously didn't understand what these masterpieces are really about.
They build up the setting of a totalitarian regime with all the tricks in the book, up to the point where it was almost to much of a cliche (very strong analogy to Hitlers size of power) and also made a 'rich' enemy in the person of V (who is nowhere even close to the (sinister) idea of a 'Emanuel Goldstein' but it works).
But all this carefully build up system than collapses as they fail to explain the foundation on what is system bases its power on after the size of power.
There is no large proportion of the population that activly supports any of the ideals of the dictator (after all he doesn't have any) as in the case of Hitler, nor is there a clever system of though control like it is described in 1984. And there isn't the totalitarian conformaty (which is maybe the most sinister vision of all the genre) Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit451.
It thus feels hollow in its most interior and left me with a bitter aftertaste of a bad copy.
But maybe I am just an interlectional wanker, who even finds something to nitpick on an otherwise great movie
Edit: But maybe the original work is better in that aspect (I haven't read it yet).
Replies
Hugo Weaving did a great job playing V.
Marcus Dublin
The movie had it's weak points but it was worth my $6.50. I would give it a 7/10, with 5 being an average movie.
It was disappointing it was not truly an 'uncompromising glimpse of the future' as it was touted ad nauseum.
Even still, V is a very magnetic character and it was entertaining to see him and some of his escapades on the screen.
Two cents.
Portman's acting was extremly good I thought as well.
she should stick to movies like garden state, ones i will never see.
interesting interview:
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html
http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_2_the_further_ad.html
i'm not a huge fan of moore (though Watchmen will of course, remain a giant for a very long time), but i'm very much not a fan of the wachowskis and company. and they didn't even direct this movie, a second unit director on the matrix sequels did. not the most encouraging pedigree...
I'm meant to be going to see it this weekend with friends after going to the pub but I don't know if I can consume enough alcohol to dull my senses enough to cut myself off from the literature snob in me!
r.
It seems the audience got the most upset during the flashbacks to Victoria's life (the lesbianism). Angry head shakings, people leaving, etc.
Thanks for the link gauss, that was definitely an interesting read. I wasn't before but Im curious to see the movie now.
*Aims Video Camera..*
Scott
My girlfriends brother asked me when we said we wre going to see it, "isn't that the movie that all proterrorism?" So i'll me making him go see it.
Great movie!
i was glad they kept most the hip mtv hollywood out of the movie, cept for the verry end withthe slow mo fight and the knife trails. i coulda done without that.
the chancelor was great, tho john hurt has etched himself into my brains movie greats section by being both the first person to ever have a chest burster pop out of them on film, and to a lesser extent, being hellboys pop.
i think they shoulda shown more of how corupt the government was. everyone looked like they had decent homes, jobs, the city looked nice,, no homeless people running around on the streets, the governmetn looked controlling, but it looked like most of the opresion was gearred at gays and alternitive religions in the film.
I think the extent of the corruption was evident enough in the first scene where two police officers were about to rape a woman for catching her past curfew..
Of course, governments in general now want to call anyone they don't like terrorists. Now in the US some people are trying to pass laws so that gang members qualify as terrorists too. This goes along the same lines as the government waging a "war" on drugs, or creationists calling their theories "scientific". This is a ruse that these groups use to trick stupid people who don't understand their own language. Don't be fooled.
About freedom fighters; Often terrorists call themselves freedom fighters, but that does not make it so. Some people are both terrorists and freedom fighters, but not all freedom fighters are terrorists.
I think it is pretty clear cut in most places who is employed by the government and who isn't.
The movie was in no way proterroism, it's antiterroism. The government was using terror of the unknown to keep the people just scared enough not to ask questions. He killed those with power who used it only to serve the agenda of keeping up the peoples terror.
The movie shows that people will give up almost everything for the false sense of being safe. If you feed people a lie for long enough they start to forget what truth is. Thats what governments do they sell lies of the greatest order to make you feel safe at night, but scared enough that you will do what ever they ask of you with out question.
To me the line of what consatutes a governemt as being evil enough to make actions against it ok if not heroic, is simple. Any time a government stops listening to the people and starts telling them what they need, thats when. When you have to question wether their actions are for the good of the people or for their own good.
I haven't seen the movie, but what Rhino is striking on why this is true. Many people wont complain or more, just deal with the fear if they can have their basic daily sustenance.
[ QUOTE ]
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
[/ QUOTE ]
-Thomas Jefferson
My sister with PHD in sociology said that before any society is at the point of a revolution, it must have food shortages/starvation. Which translates to keep the peoples basic needs well fullfulled.
[/ QUOTE ]
The American colonies had food shortages and starvation? I don't know that I ever heard Thomas Jefferson had trouble putting food on the table at Monticello prior to the Revolutionary War. Where'd your sister get her diploma from?
It had a lot of plot holes and goof-ups though, but while usually that annoys me greatly, this time it didn't; which speaks for itself I guess
But there is one thing that where this movie fell short and that was it's own ambition. It wants to be up there with 1984 or Fahrenheit451, but utterly fails at that since the makers obviously didn't understand what these masterpieces are really about.
They build up the setting of a totalitarian regime with all the tricks in the book, up to the point where it was almost to much of a cliche (very strong analogy to Hitlers size of power) and also made a 'rich' enemy in the person of V (who is nowhere even close to the (sinister) idea of a 'Emanuel Goldstein' but it works).
But all this carefully build up system than collapses as they fail to explain the foundation on what is system bases its power on after the size of power.
There is no large proportion of the population that activly supports any of the ideals of the dictator (after all he doesn't have any) as in the case of Hitler, nor is there a clever system of though control like it is described in 1984. And there isn't the totalitarian conformaty (which is maybe the most sinister vision of all the genre) Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit451.
It thus feels hollow in its most interior and left me with a bitter aftertaste of a bad copy.
But maybe I am just an interlectional wanker, who even finds something to nitpick on an otherwise great movie
Edit: But maybe the original work is better in that aspect (I haven't read it yet).