V For Vendetta

raisedbywolves · Post by **raisedbywolves** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:55 am

I know, right? It seems like just a few weeks ago I was bitching about them charging $10.50 for IMAX, even when it was just a regular movie blown up for the big theater. A $2.50 hike in, like, a month? That's insanity!

Post by **Lunkhead** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:42 am

Erin and I saw this last night. I'd give it an A. I haven't read the graphic novel, so all I had to go on was the preview and reviews. It wasn't quite what I was expecting. I liked that it was at times fairly wordy for a Hollywood action movie. None of the dialog made me cringe. I thought all the acting was pretty good, too, even Portman's. I haven't seen her in much other than the Star Wars movies (yuck) and The Professional so I wasn't really sure she could act. I also liked that they never took V's mask off, for that cliched "masked hero reveals his deformed face to heroine" moment. I was surprised to hear the protagonist talk approvingly of how destroying a building can be an effective revolutionary act. For a Hollywood movie the themes were relatively "risky". Now I'm curious about the graphic novel, if the movie version was so off from it that Alan Moore had his name taken off the credits. Is it way more radical and anti-fascist than the movie?

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:32 pm

Lunkhead wrote:I haven't seen her [natalie] in much other than the Star Wars movies (yuck) and The Professional so I wasn't really sure she could act.

i'd recommend you see garden state; it's the best work i've ever seen her do, and it's a fairly decent movie overall. not excellent but definitely worth watching.

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:34 pm

Lunkhead wrote:Now I'm curious about the graphic novel, if the movie version was so off from it that Alan Moore had his name taken off the credits. Is it way more radical and anti-fascist than the movie?

Most reviews I've read from someone who liked the comic indicates that it has been considerably dumbed down. Most reviews I've read from non-comic fans point out the movie's comparatively radical stance. I haven't seen the movie, but I can vouch for the book being pretty radical and very intelligent.

Did the movie preserve the Aleister Crowley quote?

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:24 pm

tviyh wrote:
Lunkhead wrote:I haven't seen her [natalie] in much other than the Star Wars movies (yuck) and The Professional so I wasn't really sure she could act.
i'd recommend you see garden state; it's the best work i've ever seen her do, and it's a fairly decent movie overall. not excellent but definitely worth watching.

am i the only one who thought she sucked in garden state?

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:18 pm

No, I thought she was awful in it.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:53 pm

On a related by un-related note, I don't think movies should be compared to their source material. Anybody see I Robot? If you were an Asimov fan and you were judging it by the book you would be sorely disappointed (you may have been anyway) but Isaac himself was quite pleased with the screenplay. He didn't think screenplays should be anything like his books, because he wrote books, not movies, and they're totally different mediums. Asimov actually even adapted a movie or two to novels and used the same approach.

Post by jb » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:26 pm

Ok, in order to get a couple of people I know to maybe see this flick, but without giving too much away, tell me the following:

How much torture and rape is there in the movie?

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:21 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:On a related by un-related note, I don't think movies should be compared to their source material.

I have this T-Shirt that my sister gave me that says: "Don't judge a book by its movie." Awesome. That's the shirt I have that gets the most comments from people.
-bill

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:47 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:Anybody see I Robot? If you were an Asimov fan and you were judging it by the book you would be sorely disappointed (you may have been anyway) but Isaac himself was quite pleased with the screenplay.

Are you drunk? Isaac Asimov died 15 years ago from AIDS. The Will Smith I Robot was not based on the novel I Robot by Asimov. It was instead based on an unrelated screenplay called "Hardwired" and they just got approval to namedrop Asimov's 3 laws (and apparently named one of the characters Susan Calvin) to secure a built-in fanbase.

No I have not seen it.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:46 pm

Puce wrote:
kill_me_sarah wrote:Anybody see I Robot? If you were an Asimov fan and you were judging it by the book you would be sorely disappointed (you may have been anyway) but Isaac himself was quite pleased with the screenplay.
Are you drunk? Isaac Asimov died 15 years ago from AIDS. The Will Smith I Robot was not based on the novel I Robot by Asimov. It was instead based on an unrelated screenplay called "Hardwired" and they just got approval to namedrop Asimov's 3 laws (and apparently named one of the characters Susan Calvin) to secure a built-in fanbase.

No I have not seen it.

You got me. I did read a comment Asimov wrote about a screenplay and that was the gist of what he said. It was around the time I Robot came out but it must have either been about a different screenplay for I Robot, or for a different book altogether. The sentiment remains the same though.

Oh, and according to IMDB:

When Fox acquired the rights to Isaac Asimov's story collection, Vintar spent two years adapting Hardwired to serve as a tenth story in the Asimov canon, complete with Susan Calvin and the Three Laws of Robotics.

That's a little more than a namedrop.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:00 pm

Yep, about as little as you can get.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:49 pm

EDIT: oops, I sort of put some spoilers here in response to JB, when I probably should have responded by IM. Anyway, the gist of it is that I'm pretty squeamish and I made it through the movie intact. There are some gruesome moments, though.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:05 pm

I liked this a lot and am completely unfamiliar with the book. I could still tell where they lifted stuff from the original source, and I could tell they glossed over some of it, but I think it was best that I see this first so now when I read the book it will be like going much deeper into it. Anyway, a movie full of "oh SHIT" moments, which is what I was looking for. Also, I wish I were brilliant so I could start a revolution.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:03 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Also, I wish I were brilliant so I could start a revolution.

Word to that, yo. Also, being basically invincible would help, too.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:16 am

Just saw this yesterday. Liked it a lot; I'll second Puce's A-. Puce, go out and get From Hell right now. That's possibly the best 30 bucks you'll spend on a graphic novel anywhere. The movie is a child's scribble compared to the book.

Lunkhead wrote: I also liked that they never took V's mask off, for that cliched "masked hero reveals his deformed face to heroine" moment.

I didn't like that at all. I mean, I agree that the MHRHDFtH moment is cheesy, but it's hard to sympathize with a character in a mask. Look at Jedi. That's the defining moment in the whole series, where Luke takes off Vader's mask. All the sudden, you love him like your own dad, because you see that he's really a human being. Of course, I understand that they were arguing that V is more of an idea than a person, but I dunno.

Lunkhead wrote: I was surprised to hear the protagonist talk approvingly of how destroying a building can be an effective revolutionary act.

That surprised me too. I think that's just not cool. The last thing this world needs is more people fucking defending the idea of blowing up buildings.

Agree that the trailer made it look horrible. You guys see that remake of the trailer for the Shining? Reminded me of that.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:33 am

jb wrote:Ok, in order to get a couple of people I know to maybe see this flick, but without giving too much away, tell me the following:

How much torture and rape is there in the movie?

Not nearly enough, I'm sure.

Really though, none at all. The worst torture scene is a head-dunking. It's really not a very <i>gory</i> movie, despite some violence. The "R" is to a large extent for the nature of its content more than the violence of the actual scenes, I suspect. Plus it would've been a little annoying to sit next to a 13-year-old Anti-Flag fan for the film.

I was damned impressed. Joygasmic. I hadn't expected such intelligence of it, really, much less the self-referential "fiction is the use of lies to tell the truth" bit. It was, in the most un-subtle sort of way, really subtle.

In a bizarre and really childish way I found myself completely inspired by the film. I mean, I kind of thought I was above that sort of thing. I don't mind, though.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:16 pm

sparks wrote: In a bizarre and really childish way I found myself completely inspired by the film. I mean, I kind of thought I was above that sort of thing. I don't mind, though.

I love it when that happens. Even the stupidest film can leave you feeling like you should go do something creative or oddly inspired... neat.
Even though it was really not very good the "tomb raider" movie left me feeling this way.
-bill

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:00 pm

ME TOO! I got in so much trouble. But I have so many mummies now.

j$ · Post by j$ » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:46 pm

I saw it tonight. I really liked it. Wasn't quite right in terms of the graphic novel, and it touched on a couple of issues that it didn't really have the frame-work as an 'action pic' to answer effictively, but I came out thinking about them, rather than the wire-work or the special effects, whatever that signifies.

[spoiler]

Maybe it's because I only leave 10 minutes from the houses of parliament, but there was an extra chill when they blew up which i guess wouldn't be there for someone who doesn't see them from their bedroom window every morning.

[/spoiler]

sausage boy · Post by **sausage boy** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:16 pm

I went and saw this the other night, I really liked it.

With the blowing up the building, I think the idea was more of destroying a symbol of an oppressive regime to insite revolution, where as most of the current building blowing up of is a terrorist action.

Its interesting that V, although performing acts of what would be called terrorism, manages to keep his revolutionary status. I think it helps that any of his acts wasn't in fact an act of terror, but an act of freedom. I don't know if this should be exciting or disconcerting.

I think its a shame V didn't keep a lot of his more eccentric personality traits throughout the entire film. I am also at a loss as to where Portmans English accent went.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:20 am

sausage boy wrote:destroying a symbol of an oppressive regime to insite revolution, where as most of the current building blowing up of is a terrorist action.

I suppose that depends on your point of view, doesn't it?
-bill