V for Vendetta

[Young Drachma]

Saw this tonight.

It was...interesting.

I mean, Natalie Portman's character didn't necessarily have a ton of depth. And I never read the comic books. But..it was interesting, if nothing else.

You can see the obvious parallels to what's going on now, but frankly, them blowing up Parliament bothered me. I think because after 9/11, seeing that was like watching a movie. And so now, when stuff like that happens in movies..you think, "What if some nutsoid terrorist gets this idea and goes crazy."

Now mind you, he/she probably had the idea anyway. And it'd be hard to implement now. But in all, it was...an interesting flick or if nothing else, a good way to kill a few hours.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Saw this tonight.

It was...interesting.

I mean, Natalie Portman's character didn't necessarily have a ton of depth. And I never read the comic books. But..it was interesting, if nothing else.

You can see the obvious parallels to what's going on now, but frankly, them blowing up Parliament bothered me. I think because after 9/11, seeing that was like watching a movie. And so now, when stuff like that happens in movies..you think, "What if some nutsoid terrorist gets this idea and goes crazy."

Now mind you, he/she probably had the idea anyway. And it'd be hard to implement now. But in all, it was...an interesting flick or if nothing else, a good way to kill a few hours.

They already DID have the idea and tried to do it. Google "Guy Fawkes".

British Catholic in the early 17th century who was upset over the persecution of Catholics in England (there's a little more depth to it... after the oppressive rule of the previous monarch, when King James took over many thought he would show more tolerance... but he basically spat in their face and it was the same story), who was part of a "terrorist" group who stowed away 36 kegs of gunpowder in the basement of a building and planned to blow up Parliament on November 5th. Someone blew the whistle on them, and Fawkes was one of the ones caught and he was executed.


As far as the movie, I caught this one on Monday night at the premier. I agree with a preview/review of it I had read before hand -- good action scenes, strong enough story line, and at least an admirable attempt at getting a message across. I'm not sure how good a job it does in getting in delivering it's point, but at least it tries.

V really grew on me throughout the movie, and as you mentioned Evey never really hooks me. The thing I walked out of the movie thinking the most was thinking about things from the perspective of "terrorists".

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

They already DID have the idea and tried to do it. Google "Guy Fawkes".

British Catholic in the early 17th century who was upset over the persecution of Catholics in England (there's a little more depth to it... after the oppressive rule of the previous monarch, when King James took over many thought he would show more tolerance... but he basically spat in their face and it was the same story), who was part of a "terrorist" group who stowed away 36 kegs of gunpowder in the basement of a building and planned to blow up Parliament on November 5th. Someone blew the whistle on them, and Fawkes was one of the ones caught and he was executed.


As far as the movie, I caught this one on Monday night at the premier. I agree with a preview/review of it I had read before hand -- good action scenes, strong enough story line, and at least an admirable attempt at getting a message across. I'm not sure how good a job it does in getting in delivering it's point, but at least it tries.

V really grew on me throughout the movie, and as you mentioned Evey never really hooks me. The thing I walked out of the movie thinking the most was thinking about things from the perspective of "terrorists".

Yeah, V was awesome from start to finish really. I mean, I liked how as it went on, he became more and more like a character, rather than just a symbol and that was the best part.

[Coder]

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm not sure I will either.. I read the comic book years ago, and then again a few months ago. I really had a hard time following the story, as the latter half of the book really tripped out..

The main premises, however, feel very modern, despite the story being from the early eighties. The story is very Orwellesk and Brazilish , and I wonder how true the movie stays to the original story.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Coder

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm not sure I will either.. I read the comic book years ago, and then again a few months ago. I really had a hard time following the story, as the latter half of the book really tripped out..

The main premises, however, feel very modern, despite the story being from the early eighties. The story is very Orwellesk and Brazilish , and I wonder how true the movie stays to the original story.

From what I can gather the movie is more less pretty accurate to the book. At about the 60 to 90 minutes, there are some storyline twists that lose me a little bit, but for the most part I followed along nicely (and I'm that guy who's always leaning over and asking, "Is he a good guy or a bad guy???").

[Honolulu_Blue]

I am heading off to see it in a few hours. I read the comic a few years back. I liked it. I tend to love almost anything Alan Moore does. I thought it was pretty interesting and quite good, but not as good as alot of Moore's later work. As hard as it is for anyone who saw "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" movie to believe, the comic was amazing.

It sounds like this could be the best/closest movie adaptation to Moore's work, even though he's disavowed the movie. He's an angry man.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Coder

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm not sure I will either.. I read the comic book years ago, and then again a few months ago. I really had a hard time following the story, as the latter half of the book really tripped out..

The main premises, however, feel very modern, despite the story being from the early eighties. The story is very Orwellesk and Brazilish , and I wonder how true the movie stays to the original story.

Yeah, it feels very 1984-esque. I think that's probably why I enjoyed it more than I would've otherwise, since the actual 1984 movie wasn't done very well. lol...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

From what I can gather the movie is more less pretty accurate to the book. At about the 60 to 90 minutes, there are some storyline twists that lose me a little bit, but for the most part I followed along nicely (and I'm that guy who's always leaning over and asking, "Is he a good guy or a bad guy???").

*leans over to RPI-Fan*

"Yes, he's a bad guy. Mike Milbury is a bad guy.

*leans back*

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was quite good. I was very pleased with the movie. I thought it was very well-made, well-acted, and the message got across pretty clearly. Crystal, in fact. If anything, the message was even a bit heavy-handed, but it's hard to be subtle with audiences nowadays.

Like I said, I read the comic a few years ago. I am a bit fuzzy on the details. I would have re-read it prior to seeing the movie, but it's currently in storage.

I think Evey is a difficult character to really get. I don't think it had anything to do with Natalie Portman. I thought she did an excellent job with the role. It's hard to imagine this was the same actress who played Princess Amadala in those shit films. Even in the comic Evey was a bit of an odd role. She seemed a bit more of a foil/love interest for V than a fully fleshed out character.

I thought Hugo Weaving did a fantastic job with the character. Some of those lines could have been pretty stupid if not delivered perfectly and he nailed. He also did an amazing job given he was behind a mask the entire time. I remember how weak I thought Willem Defoe (who I usually like) was while playing the Green Goblin. I felt his scenes when in the outfit with the maske on just seemed... off.

It was interesting take on terrorism as a way to remove fear, rather than a tool to instill it.

All in all, I was pretty happy with the movie. I would give it 4 out of 5 stars. A solid film.

[WVUFAN]

With the exception of Watchmen, I've never liked a single thing Alan Moore has ever written. I'll catch the film on DVD, simply because he disavowed himself of it, which maybe makes me think they're eliminated enough of his inane dialogue to make it watchable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

With the exception of Watchmen, I've never liked a single thing Alan Moore has ever written. I'll catch the film on DVD, simply because he disavowed himself of it, which maybe makes me think they're eliminated enough of his inane dialogue to make it watchable.

Don't waste your time. They didn't. In fact, this is a close an adaptation of his work as there ever has been.

He disavowment of the picture had less to do with the any changes they made and a lot to do with his relationship (or lack thereof) with D.C. Comics. He is an angry man.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

I would, however, highly recommend you go see the film version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". They basically re-wrote the entire story, all of the characters, and pretty much every bit of dialogue. It's as far from the original comic as you can get and still even try to keep the title.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I would, however, highly recommend you go see the film version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".

Now that's just cruel. No one should be subjected to that...

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Now that's just cruel. No one should be subjected to that...

Actually, I did watch it, and while it's not that good of a movie, I still enjoyed it much more than the comics.

Believe me, I've TRIED to like Alan Moore's stuff. After reading Watchmen, I read everything else I could by him -- From Hell, his Swamp Thing run, LoEG -- he comes off as an overbearing psuedo-intellectual with very poor choices in artist (with Gibbons and Chris Sprouse being exceptions to the rule). Early Image comics were poorly written, but at least they had pretty pictures.

I'm more of a fan of the comic writings of Busiek, Johns, Waid, ect, than Moore. Moore has a writing voice a little too much like someone else -- the worst writer in modern comics -- Grant Morrison (shutter). Good Gawd he's awful.

[Raiders Army]

I'm sorry, but Alan Moore is totally overrated. I did not like Watchmen and I don't see what the critical acclaim is all about.

Garth Ennis is a much better writer. Preacher, Hitman, Punisher. Yeah.

[caspanky]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I thought Hugo Weaving did a fantastic job with the character. Some of those lines could have been pretty stupid if not delivered perfectly and he nailed. He also did an amazing job given he was behind a mask the entire time.

This is exactly what I thought of the performance as well. I don't think they could have picked a better actor for that role. Overall I enjoyed the whole movie, but really enjoyed his portion of it most.

[Honolulu_Blue]

While stuff like this is certainly a matter of taste, I think Alan Moore is the best comic book writer there is. I like Garth Ennis. His work on Preacher, Hellblazer, etc. It's great stuff. It's a bit one note, however. Granted, it's a great note and one I don't ever get tired of listening to (to carry the metaphor too far), but still somewhat limited.

I haven't read everything he's written. I have no real interest in Supreme, Tom Strong, Promethea, Miracleman, etc.

But when he's on, there's no better in the business.

I think Watchmen is the best graphic novel of all time. I read it once a year. I love it.

Some other Alan Moore greats include:
From Hell
V For Vendetta
Top Ten
Swamp Thing
The Killing Joke
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I & II

I also enjoy his limited work with Superman and the Green Lantern Corps.

I don't buy everything he writes, because some of it doesn't interest me and he can sort of... out there and a bit inacessible, but like I said, when he's on... it's the best stuff out there.

[jeff061]

I'm watching his on an IMAX tonight, looking forward to it.

[jeff061]

Just got back. I loved it. I'm not sure where some of the people saying it's to talk heavy are coming from. It's no Bruckheimer flick, but it's a long cry from the last two Matrix movies. I agree, Hugo Weaving was fantastic.

[chris3627]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm watching his on an IMAX tonight, looking forward to it.

Question for you Jeff, or anyone else who has seen it...is it worth seeing it on the IMAX? Some friends of mine want to go during the week, is it worth shelling out the couple of extra bucks?

[cthomer5000]

Just got back from seeing it..."good" is where I'd put it. 3 out of 5 stars.

It seems the movie's message is more general than specific, which I guess has to do with a combination of when it was written, what's transpired since then, and the imagery the movie used to get it's point across.

While it's a bit awkward to have your main character behind a mask, I thought V was pretty solid after the first 10-15 minutes of the movie.

Not as good as hoped, but certainly not a bad movie. As I said, probably 3 out of 5 stars, which still puts it a notch above 80% of movies made.

[st.cronin]

I've only seen the commercial, but that tag line "people shouldn't fear their government; the government should fear the people" strikes me as being complete gibberish. Whoever heard of a utopia based on fear?

[Front Office Midget]

I'm pretty upset that the anarchist themes and ideas were removed from the movie.

I haven't seen it yet.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by chris3627

Question for you Jeff, or anyone else who has seen it...is it worth seeing it on the IMAX? Some friends of mine want to go during the week, is it worth shelling out the couple of extra bucks?

I think so. Though the screen I saw it on was smaller than most other imax screens, the video and sound quality is still a clear step above regular theaters.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by chris3627

Question for you Jeff, or anyone else who has seen it...is it worth seeing it on the IMAX? Some friends of mine want to go during the week, is it worth shelling out the couple of extra bucks?

I recommend seeing it on Imax. Seen it on both, and the Imax version is by far better of the two.

[Front Office Midget]

Holy awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwesome movie! Definitely a new favorite of mine.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm definitely going to see it ....

(one of the first posters is correct incidentally its a modern 'take' on Guy Fawkes if I remember the interviews when the comic first came out right)

[Groundhog]

Finally saw this last week on the movie channel of a hotel I was staying in. I thought it was really quite good. Hugo Weaving did a great job as per usual and really made the movie work with his delivery.

I've never read the comics - nor did I know it was even based on a comic until the DC logo at the beginning - but all the way through I kept thinking that if the film had been based in the States it would have caused an uproar, because to me it came off as an attack on the way things are progressing over there.

A solid movie overall. I'll be interested to see what Director James McTeigue does with Logan's Run.

[Marc Vaughan]

I saw it on the flight back from holiday and thought it was very well done, bit cheesy in places - but definitely could have been a lot worse imho.