Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kie99 on March 19, 2006, 03:56:28 pm
-
Went to see it yesterday, ****ing awesome film. Hugo Weaving played a blinder. I highly recommend it.
-
It was bad. Don't trust this person.
-
From what I saw on the promos, it is pure ****, pretty much what I could expect from the Matrix Stoned Brothers.
More impressions?
-
Not quite sure what to expect having just seen the trailers. Everyones opinion on it seems to be split fairly 50/50 in a love/hate pattern. Guess I'll hold off judgement untill I see it for myself.
-
****ing great. I loved it, and I loved the graphic novel. I've been waiting for this movie since last summer.
-
I loved the novel and just saw the movie. I didn't hate it, nor did I love it. It was good, but not great - too many chances for subtlety and finess wasted, sacrificed on the altar of heavy underlining and banal simplifications, in times dwelling in it's self-indulgent massive epic scale which defied the brown tones of the comic.
V is cool superhuman. He does not kiss girls.
-
It was terrible. Some of the things were just plain stupid.
-
Is it anything like D00M?
-
I'm curious about it, but from the trailers it looks kind of silly. However a friend of mine had the same initial impression from the trailer, but when he saw the movie he thought it was quite good. I guess it really depends on what kind of movie watcher you are though...
Is it anything like D00M?
From what I have heard, this is not like Doom.
-
no, DOOM is a vile piece of....well we know how bad it is.
V however was decent. while not mindblowing, or overly deep and even delves into moments of minor cheese, it is entertaining, and carries you along and its 2 hour length doesn't feel so bad. Plus they blow things up.
Best moment: the final overture
Worst moment: cheesy bullettime knife fight. Joel Silver must be banned from this technology.
Sadest Moment: having to watch the second half of the movie with a bald Portman...GI Jane she is not
Coolest part: actually pulling off having the hero spend the enitre movie in a mask.
so if you want to watch a film with things blowing up, and faschist england causing trouble, then you won't be disapointed. if your looking for a movie that is as mind blowing as Matrix 1, then go watch Matrix 1. If your afraid its like MAtrix 2 and 3, its better. solid performances and some good effects make this movie quite enjoyable. 7.5/10
coulda used more explosions though...Bring on the BOOM!
-
V's a Frenchmen no? *shrugs*
-
I thought it was fabulous. The trailers were entirely misleading and made it look like a total piece of **** but the movie itself was definitely worth going to.
-
I have returned from the viewing of this film. I have only one thing to say.
Wow.
Judge for yourselves.
-
V's a Frenchmen no? *shrugs*
he was always quite english
-
V's a Frenchmen no? *shrugs*
he was always quite english
My mistake.
-
Natalie Portman....do you really need any other reason to watch it?
-
Looked good from the trailers - I want to go see it. In the interim...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looked good from the trailers - I want to go see it. In the interim...
:lol: :p
-
:lol:
-
Just got back from seeing it and I loved it. Haven't read the graphic novels but I'll probably look into them now :)
But what marks V out from its Moore-ish predecessors is that it’s been far less compromised by bottom-line concerns.
So much so that the result is decidedly uncommercial. Despite the trailer’s promise of slo-mo action scenes with swooshing knives pirouetting through the air while bullet casings bounce artfully off concrete, this is no teen-pleasing slam-banger. Rather it’s a very talky, deliberately paced political thriller
That's what Empire magazine said about the film and it was that which convinced me that it was worth watching.
-
Just got back from seeing it and I loved it. Haven't read the graphic novels but I'll probably look into them now :)
In comics, V is much more unpleasant and interesting character. He is really distant and cold, a ruthless killer actually. He is not a man making speeches how populace should rise up; he is a man berating them for not having done so already. He is anarchist to a point of being complete chaos instead of democracy.
-
I think that V for Volition would have been a MUCH better movie... :lol:
-
Yep. I'd heard that he was more of an anarchist in the original.
BTW Loved the irony of having John Hurt playing the Big Brother role :)
-
BTW Loved the irony of having John Hurt playing the Big Brother role :)
Indeed, those Hitler-esque speeches were bloody well done.
Can't wait to see the movie... damn late Aussie release date :ick:
-
Great movie. Well worth the admission ticket; there were some really epic and/or moving scenes in there. Not one for the history books, but a very, very decent film nevertheless. I'm glad to see that the pungent stench of Hollywood is barely noticeable.
Though for the comics...I'm as much a comic fan as you're likely to get around here, and after looking at the graphic novel I have to say that the artwork is too 60s Batman-ish for me to really get into it.
-
One thing that sticks out is that when Eavy is being held "prisoner" by V, there are clearly others who act as guards and so on. That either means V has henchmen or that he's a completely normal middle-aged guy with glasses, as seen here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Eveytortured.JPG)
-
You know, I just went and saw it for the second time and I have to say... it got even better.
And, most badass line ever: "No, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I am no longer standing, because if I am... you'll all be dead before you've reloaded."
-
Loved the movie. Smart and funny, made you think.
-
I saw it.
What exactly about it was thought provoking? People keep saying that.
Anyway, my impressions:
Skillfull editing.
Great costumes.
Abysmal story (especially when it starts nearing the end, when it turns to fantasy more than anything, and the overly predictable course it takes).
Abysmal script (right from the get-go when he utters his first soliloquy, I see that old habits of Matrix 3 die hard when you need to find complex words as to try and obtuse the viewer - Mission:Failed... "Insipid").
Good acting execution, the actors squeezed the most out of it, especially Portman, she could play anything with a good amount of credibility. Skillfull.
Special Effects were as per usual predictable, although I believe they stole the knife thing from somewhere (I guess D&D games - not exactly proficient in the whole "blue halo around blade", but that's where it screams from - like in the Lord of the Rings 1 with Frodo's auto-detecting sword)
And that's it.
Rather... not worth my time. I didn't need to see the movie to know that Hitler is bad and that Homosexuality is good. I can see that whenever I turn on regular television.
My final review:
**** this ****.
-
The "weapon trail" is mostly used in games (fighers and 3rd person action-adventure). Yeah, it's a cheap effect but so what. If that's the film major failing point then you're overly picky. As for the story....look, you knew going in that it wasn't going to be War and Peace. For an action flick, not only is it far more entertaining and more masterfully done that Mission Impossible 9 or The Transporter 4 but it offers an engaging setting and plot to follow along. The sad fact is that whenever Hollywood gets their paws on an intellectual property, they always, always lean towards explosions and elaborate fight sequences.
And for the love of God, Frodo's "auto-detect sword" as you so eloquently described it, was concieved of half a century ago.
In conclusion: you're wrong, the film is great, Hitler rocks and homosexuals are bad.
-
The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.
As for the script's terminology, it was meant to establish him as the archetypal rogue; not original but still somewhat nuanced, as is the case with the film as a whole. It's not meant to be subtle-- it's pure, unadulterated political rage.
-
It got to the point where I kind of felt bad for America, the film was bashing them so much. And coming from me, that's saying quite a bit.
-
I'd like to know how he found the time to purchase a ton of masks (or make them?) without drawing suspicion. Haul them into a newsroom (again without drawing suspicion) and then have the time to put them on every person in there by himself.
-
They were sent in in boxes of paper. Evey opened one of them and saw the mask then left in shock, just before V came in.
-
The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.
As for the script's terminology, it was meant to establish him as the archetypal rogue; not original but still somewhat nuanced, as is the case with the film as a whole. It's not meant to be subtle-- it's pure, unadulterated political rage.
Why is it about America and not about power-mad dictators and totalitarian states? Please tell me.
-
The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.
Actually it was comparing Bush to Hitler, but going into that is retarded as the plot itself.
-
It did nothing of the sort. America was barely mentioned in the plot. The only comments were that America had bankrupted itself with the war against terror.
If you see Bush being reflected in the movie you need to think long and hard about why.
-
C'mon. Avian flu, colour-coded alerts, cracking down on Muslims, the government fabricating an attack on the country. Even the Voice of London guy was clearly created in such a way as to allude to the right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly. The comic may have been created with Thatcher in mind, but many of the same themes are relevant with Bush, and the film version clearly pointed the finger at America.
-
Exactly. The signals were so explicit it was almost funny. It was just screaming that the social and political trends in America are characteristic of what leads to a totalitarian state. Obviously they weren't saying that this is America now; they were saying that this is what we're allowing America to become, and that totalitarianism isn't just something that happens to other people. The only reason it was set in England is because the comic book was set in England. And the comparison to Hitler was not supposed to be concrete or one-to-one. They were using images associated with Hitler because Nazi Germany is commonly viewed as the archetypal totalitarian state, and thus the symbolism would be sufficiently overt to resonate with a large audience. (And we know the Wachowski brothers have no reason to take any interest in Margaret Thatcher, as horrible as she might have been.)
-
See that's the thing. You watch the film from an American viewpoint and see it as attacking America. But if you're from the UK you notice that many of those things are in fact attacks against the UK government far more than than you've noticed.
Avian flu for instance is a bigger story over here. The Television company is obviously based on the BBC rather than Fox (which would be the logical choice if they were taking a stab at America). Britain has had it's own clamping down on muslims even going so far as to imprison several without trial. You see Bill O'Reilly in the Voice of London but Brits are more likely to see Enoch Powell.
You see it as an attack on Bush but Brits will see it as New Labour getting its way.
As I said before if you see America in that there are reasons for it but it's not as cut and dried as you may believe.
-
I'm going to stick my neck out and say; this is Hollywood. It's the Wackhow....Waksho....Wankso...Matrix producers. If they wanted it to reference Bush in particular, surely it'd be set in Washington and be blatantly obvious in it?
-
No, because that would be an ugly departure from the canon. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't apply the film to the UK as well-- especially since that's what the graphic novel was about-- but it's a film made by Americans who have already established themselves as anti-authoritarian social critics, so I have to believe that the intention of this film was to attack the American neoconservatives, as well as the population allows itself to be face****ed by them. I don't live in the UK so I can't very well attest to the film's pertinence over there, but all I can tell you is that over here, the satire was so incredibly blatant I was laughing out loud in the theater.
-
No, because that would be an ugly departure from the canon.
When has that ever stopped Hollywood?
-
Hollywood isn't entirely monolithic; it contains individuals who do occasionally make decisions. The Wachowski brothers made an artistic decision not to change the setting of the work in the adaptation process, and obviously the powers that be had no objection to that. I mean, these are the guys who did The Matrix; they're enthusiasts of animation and graphic novels. They probably had a great deal of respect for the original work. (Even though the creator didn't like the idea of a film.)
-
Err, the whole message of that movie didn't have anything to do with the UK. At all. Nobody gives a **** about the UK.
-
You should be a literature professor with that thoroughness and insight.
-
Now now, everyone is entitled to an opinion - even if it is misguided.
-
You should be a literature professor with that thoroughness and insight.
Indeed.
-
Let me ask you this. Do you really see a movie that doesn't give a **** about the UK having a character suggesting that we hold a reverse Boston Tea Party?
I'm not saying that the movie isn't referencing America. I'm saying that it has lots of references to the UK as well. Only those who have come to believe that any attack on totalitarianism is an attack on the US would claim that it was a blatant attack on the US.
If you want some purely British points.
1) The Norsefire party is an obvious reference to the National Front.
2) Sutler is a reference to Oswald Mosley rather than any particular American president.
3) The Fingermen are obviously a reference to Mosley's Blackshirts.
4) The heavy use of CCTV is more of a reference to the UK than the US as the UK has a much higher CCTV camera presence.
5) The fact that BTN has been turned into a propoganda arm of the goverment is a reference to the governments attempts to stifle the BBC every chance it gets.
6) The film references the actual 7th July Tube bombings rather than using a more general case of terrorist activity to have the tube network closed.
To claim that it's a direct attack on America is simply wrong. It's an attack on totalitarianism. It includes elements from several fascist governments. Anyone who would claim otherwise would probably claim the same thing about 1984 if they watched it for the first time today.
-
I understand what you're saying. I just think it's significant that Americans-- and the ones who created The Matrix, no less-- took an interest in this and marketed it to the American audience. I mean, of course it applies to Britain; it was a British graphic novel and it's set in Britain. But Hollywood cares first and foremost about its American audience, and I think we can be quite certain that they didn't make this film to have Americans saying, "Wow, this is exactly what's happening in the UK right now." And a lot of the references you mention couldn't very well be changed without changing the setting, which would require a departure from the graphic novel so radical it could hardly be called "V For Vendetta" anymore. In America, the film's depiction of the BTN and its reactionary pundits screamed "FOX" to us. Now, I fully understand that this may very well be, factually, a closer equivalent to the UK media than that of the US, but its effect on Americans is the same regardless, and my assertion is that this is not accidental. I don't want you to think that I'm trying to "claim" this work for America; it's just that when I look at who made this film and where it was made, combined with some references in the film, such as the color-coded alert system, that set off mental alarms for Americans, I have to read certain intentions into it. Maybe that's too postmodernist of me, I don't know.
-
Of course the American audience are going to identify with the movie. I'm not denying that they've put things in to trigger a response in the American audience. It's just that many people act like that was all they put in. They put in just as many things designed to do that for a UK audience.
My point is that anyone who screams that it's an attack on America has missed the point. It's an attack on totalitarianism.
-
Rather than the movie mirroring the United States, I believe it is the United States that is mirroring the world of V...
-
My point is that anyone who screams that it's an attack on America has missed the point. It's an attack on totalitarianism.
No.
The fact that America is equated to totalitariansim (these days) helps your point, but the movie was released at this point in time SOLELY because it was a good jab at the US. The people who wrote it, starred in it, produced it, edited it and released it to the public never gave a **** about Totalitarianism. That's why nobody made a movie of the comic book BEFORE Bush was acting President, and it is also why it wasn't released after he left the presidency.
I'll agree, of course, that you are right and the movie is of course sending a message regarding textbook Totalitarianism, but we can equally say that it is also sending a message to the people of the UK, which was, again, not the purpose of the message they were trying to convey. To reiterate: Nobody gives a **** about the UK.
This message was directed to Americans. Not totalitarians. It's why you see people saying it's "thought provoking". They put two and two together. Something woke up in the stagnant cerebrum that associated the movie with real life. The bad thing is however, that adding two and two isn't complex mathematics, which is why the movie could have equally been marketed to a donkey and a monkey. They'd get the connection too, and I'm equally sure it would've been a raving success with that audience as well.
-
Seems you're not making a distinction between the US and the way the US has been conducting its affairs recently.
It could be seen as a jab at any country that has been acting this way. The fact that the US seems to be the largest and most powerful of these is circumstantial. Were Australia acting in such a way - to you it'd be a good jab at Australia. You're taking it personally and you shouldn't be... you're not even in America.
-
The fact that America is equated to totalitariansim (these days) helps your point, but the movie was released at this point in time SOLELY because it was a good jab at the US. The people who wrote it, starred in it, produced it, edited it and released it to the public never gave a **** about Totalitarianism. That's why nobody made a movie of the comic book BEFORE Bush was acting President, and it is also why it wasn't released after he left the presidency.
As I said before you'd probably claim the exact same thing were 1984 to be released right now. Or Animal Farm for that matter.
-
Seems you're not making a distinction between the US and the way the US has been conducting its affairs recently.
I would argue that the way in which a nation conducts its affairs are what define that nation. America's actions, not its abstract principles, have the greatest effect on the course of human events.
-
My point is that anyone who screams that it's an attack on America has missed the point. It's an attack on totalitarianism.
No.
The fact that America is equated to totalitariansim (these days) helps your point, but the movie was released at this point in time SOLELY because it was a good jab at the US. The people who wrote it, starred in it, produced it, edited it and released it to the public never gave a **** about Totalitarianism. That's why nobody made a movie of the comic book BEFORE Bush was acting President, and it is also why it wasn't released after he left the presidency.
Hmmmm:
The Wachowski brothers were known to be huge fans of the graphic novel V for Vendetta, and first wrote a draft for the script in the 1990s before they worked on The Matrix, with which V for Vendetta shares some thematic elements.
HMMMMMM
I'll agree, of course, that you are right and the movie is of course sending a message regarding textbook Totalitarianism, but we can equally say that it is also sending a message to the people of the UK, which was, again, not the purpose of the message they were trying to convey. To reiterate: Nobody gives a **** about the UK.
:doubt: Thank you for this awesome insight
This message was directed to Americans. Not totalitarians. It's why you see people saying it's "thought provoking". They put two and two together. Something woke up in the stagnant cerebrum that associated the movie with real life. The bad thing is however, that adding two and two isn't complex mathematics, which is why the movie could have equally been marketed to a donkey and a monkey. They'd get the connection too, and I'm equally sure it would've been a raving success with that audience as well.
we
are
not
all
americans
goddamnit
And if you manage to equal mass graves, symbols resembling crosses, human testing, concentration camps, nightly raids, killing minorities, NSDAPesque colour schemes and corrupt security forces with George Bush then oh good God
-
The point of such works is not to say "This is our society". It's extrapolating on the current situation by taking it to one possible end. Like I said, everyone believes that totalitarianism happens to other people, but films like this are written to remind us that there are no chosen people, and that we are always in danger of allowing it to happen to us. All groups of people contain the potential for all the same patterns.
-
Mein Gott, people! You're really, really up in arms about this, aren't you?
I just saw the movie last night.
It's not an attack on ANYthing or ANYone. It classically pulls off what we love about Freespace; it asks dozens of questions and leaves it up to the player/viewer to answer them. That's it. If you want to get down to specifics, sure, it villifies totallitarian governments. But in the same breath, it also villifies proactive security measures. And yet on the other hand, it portrays an out-and-out terrorist as a poetic madman, who nevertheless does have plenty cause to be mad. Even Evee is not left innocent, since she after all is the one who pulls the lever. Heck, I'd have to say that the most innocent people there are the detectives, who are genuinely trying to do their jobs, and yet are willing to realize that they had it wrong when faced with certain facts.
Anyway, the best line in the movie, IMO, was when the detectives were going over the service record of what's-his-face, and they read "...Afghanistan, Syria, pre- and post-, ..." - awesome. :p
-
Pre- and post- what? Ruinous heap? :nervous:
-
Well, a lot of people seem to be in agreement that the movie is definitely attacking something, whether it be the US or the UK.
Actually, it could be just about any country. The movie clearly shows that totalitarian dictatorships rise because of the peoples' trust in one individual to pull them through a crisis, and through fear of outside threat, they grant the leader more and more power to the point that the leader is a dictator.
This really could be a reference to anyone: the Germans post-WWI, WWI-era Russia, post-9/11 America, the UK after the 7/7 bombings, and (to some extent) Spain after the Madrid bombings. The fact is that the movie is more centered on the UK and the US because those two nations are at the most risk for giving a leader too much power as a response to fear.
-
The fact is that the movie is more centered on the UK and the US because those two nations are at the most risk for giving a leader too much power as a response to fear.
Precisely. It's not enough just to look at the film itself. You have to look at the real-world context.
-
For me, the line that really cinched it was something like:
"Who do you think did this? We did, we decided to sit back in the comfort of our homes, giving more and more power to to be safe" or something like that.
Anyone who says that the movie is about Totalitarianism and not about the UK or the US is burying their head in the sand and missing the whole point of the movie. Cinema is good cinema only if it makes a connection with viewers, and in a movie where politics figures so prominently, MUST either make a political connection, and/or use politics as some sort of symbolism for something else. Otherwise nobody will get it or even care.
What the movie is doing is taking the demons of the past and saying "Hey...these can happen again if you're not careful." Hence why it's set in the future.
-
Anyone who says that the movie is about Totalitarianism and not about the UK or the US is burying their head in the sand and missing the whole point of the movie.
As Janos posted the draft of the movie dates back from before Bush came to power so it's unlikely that the entire point of the movie was changed when the Wachowski finally got to make the movie.
I'd say that the movie is about Totalitarianism and the dangers of allowing to happen again but used current and past events in order to emphasise that point. Making a movie about totalitarianism is always going to have a stronger effect if you can make it resonate with the audience. Lets face it, the audience who goes to see this movie are going to be people who don't like the current direction the US and UK are going in. Having the movie link into this fear and distrust is going to have strong effect on the audience so it makes sense to play into that even if you aren't trying to make a specific point against the US or UK.
The movie did that pretty well actually. All the Brits are identifying and latching onto echoes of Blair, Americans see Bush. I wonder what Germans will make of it too. Will they see more of the Nazi stuff than we do? I'd say the fact that people are identifying the movie more strongly with one country than the other shows that it wasn't just a general attack on both. Had that been the case more people would have seen it that way.
-
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
That's from Benjamin Franklin. I'm sure some people might find the name familiar, though today I'm sure he would be called a terrorist for uttering something like that. Seems that that's something today's societies would do well to heed, though, if people feel this movie so well mirrors what might one day be...
-
Old. Very old. That saying's been thrown around on countless forums more times than I can count. It really doesn't make all that much of a point anymore, and is now simply a tired arguement that serves only to nausiate when it arises.
-
You're right. My best guess would be it's about 230 years old. And often used, yes, that is also true... but I happen to agree with it, regardless. And for a country like the USA especially, it does boggle my mind that they're willing to compromise so significantly with many of the principles the country is supposed to stand for.
Anyway, I'm gonna leave it at that, no reason to drag this topic away from discussing a perfectly good movie... I should have known better than posting that in the first place I guess.
-
Old. Very old. That saying's been thrown around on countless forums more times than I can count. It really doesn't make all that much of a point anymore, and is now simply a tired arguement that serves only to nausiate when it arises.
I don't think age or frequency or usage impinges on the validity of a statement. You don't hear people throwing out centuries of philosophy or literature because it's old and has been read a lot, do you? History is possibly the best judge we have of human nature, where we can truly weigh the words and wisdom of men by their actions, and acknowledge our own fragilities and strengths. To use another old quote; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-
I don't think age or frequency or usage impinges on the validity of a statement. You don't hear people throwing out centuries of philosophy or literature because it's old and has been read a lot, do you? History is possibly the best judge we have of human nature, where we can truly weigh the words and wisdom of men by their actions, and acknowledge our own fragilities and strengths.
I didn't mean old in the capacity of the age of said quote, I meant it in the context of 'here we go again', as i've seen that quote trotted out on multiple forums - including this one - to be used in the absense of an actual arguement. So much so that it gets on my nerves. Anyway, it's not so much the usage of the quote that ticked me off per se, it's the tone Shade used in writing it, as if to say 'look at this unique quote i've found that i'm assuming none of you have ever seen, aren't I intelligent for finding it and using it as a quip against all you damned facists'.
To use another old quote; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Indeed, but those who dwell on the past are doomed never to grow from it.
-
I didn't mean old in the capacity of the age of said quote, I meant it in the context of 'here we go again', as i've seen that quote trotted out on multiple forums - including this one - to be used in the absense of an actual arguement. So much so that it gets on my nerves. Anyway, it's not so much the usage of the quote that ticked me off per se, it's the tone Shade used in writing it, as if to say 'look at this unique quote i've found that i'm assuming none of you have ever seen, aren't I intelligent for finding it and using it as a quip against all you damned facists'.
The quote is an arguement, and one from a tried, tested and proven source. Can you think of any other arguement against facism or totalitarianism that doesn't say exactly that? Except, of course, it isn't as succinct and from such an inherently respected/regarded/known source if it comes in my own words.
Indeed, but those who dwell on the past are doomed never to grow from it.
Everyones future is someone elses past.
-
Everyones future is someone elses past.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
-
One mans rug is another mans....Linoleum? :nervous:
-
One mans rug is another mans....Linoleum? :nervous:
Then why can't I slide across it in my socks?
-
For every Ying there must be a Yang, you need Linoleum socks ;)
-
For every Ying there must be a Yang, you need Linoleum socks ;)
Ah, of course!
-
La la la... Linoleum!
:nervous: