I agree with Moore being upset with LXG, that was a train wreck of a film, but From Hell was actually a decent movie. At this point I think Moore disowns the movies on principal, with that 'tude no one going to go to bat for him the way Rodriguez did for Miller.

And apparently, he's bat-shit insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore

I especially love:

Moore is a practising magician, and has claimed to worship the Roman snake-deity Glycon


Last year Paul Greengrass (Bloody Sunday, The Bourne Supremacy, United 93) was going to direct it, but I think Paramount has been fucking with the story. Interview over at CHUD said he wanted to do it but has since announced that he will do The Bourne Ultimatum next instead.

It's going to happen... 5 years... maybe. I will give it 10.

Very interesting. Actually that has happened to me from time to time as well. For example, personally I strongly disliked Match Point but grew to at least appreciate it a little bit more later on after a discussion with another forum member. And that is something I like about certain films is that they generate discussion and while someone may not like a particular film on the surface, if it is one that can generate intelligent conversation I think it at least suceeds somehow.

Granted I was lukewarm on V for Vendetta. I gave it a higher grade as I feel it is timely right now. Profound? Not really. Stylistically I was impressed but it isn't a film that I think is going to be something remembered in years to come. This is definately a case of where I enjoyed a film much more as it generated conversation, first among me and the person I saw it with and then later with others.

I'm curious to know what you thought of the fear in the media angle of the film though Dolce? And also, just a nagging question...did you like The Matrix?

LXG was a disaster from the get-go.

Maybe Moore was just expecting the film to be a disaster once he found out who was in charge of production? Wachowski's are definately a case of more style then substance and that could impact the plot for his film.

Or maybe he's just a hack.

That's funny. I don't. It was too clean to be relevant to today. I think the fact that the Chancellor rose to power by creating, releasing, and withholding the cure to the virus made him just so completely and easily "evil" that his character doesn't resonate one ounce. Now, if say, some foreign power had attacked the country, or the country had been plunged in economic crisis, and the Chancellor had risen to power under well-intentioned but misguided sentiments that were already reflected in society, then it would be relevent to today. As andaroo said, Hitler wasn't suggesting ethnic cleansing out of nowehere. The Taliban's schtick on female sercurity and burkas didn't just randomly come about because against the will of a peoples who were experience one random panic act. I dunno, the fact that V is coached as true hero actually makes the topic completely not timely right now. Again, I think its just a clear cut case of hero and villain, and people are overreading it.



Felt like Phantom of the Opera to me. And the scenes with the chancellors giant head screaming at the stream lined five officers was just generic. The flashbacks to the rise to power outright unimaginative.



I'd say that had more to do with the people you were with than the movie itself. It didn't suggest barely anything that I've seen discussed in this thread. it gave answers, not proferred questions, and already packaging and delivering an answer tends to lend itself to a lack of conversation actually.



What's there to be curious about? Isn't the "fear in media angle" already the answer. The director made it quite clear how you were supposed to approach and identify with that issue. As makeshift said, "hamfisted," there's nothing more to be said as far as the movie goes in that regards. Its a simple packaged asnwer. The chancellor struck fear into the hearts of the people through televsion messages and false news reports. Not...much..more...to..say...than...that. It had a clear split from contemporary journalism by making the journalists lie (Evey said the news anckor blinked too much) rather than today, where journalists actually think they're pursuing the truth, but without an ultimate vision of where their daily rounds and coverage might be heading. I'm not a big fan of real-time, as is apparent. But V for Vendetta just makes it about them being forced to lie. More clean, easy narrative tactics. Yawn.

Now, if you want to ask what I personally think about the idea of media and information consumption, it was interesting to reflect upon an audience that believes V is a hero and revolutionary, and begging the question is this the same style and information contemporary "terrorists" are fed as well? How was that message delivered to them?

In V for Vendetta, just as in the Trade Center (for example) there is a discussion about not fearing death, because the consequent freedom allows one to pass a philosophy and movement beyond their physical selves. That bullet line doesn't kill a dream bit, I'm pretty sure alot of people say just that when they self-detonate in malls and buses, and yet I sit back in the theatre and watch people admire that line's lucidity and its adept handling of revolutionary thought, and cheer when a massive historic building gets blown up "as a symbol." As I wonder if the same people who cheered for the explosion of the Parliament building now suddenly understand why the Taliban blew up the giant historic two Buddhas (irretreivable works of art, centuries old) because of what those too *symbolized*. Bleh. None of this, by the way, is actually suggested in the film. It is suggested by someone who was so turned of by the movie they took the time to sit back and watch how the rest of the audience was responding.

"Fear" is always a primary motivation, but fear manifests in many ways. Believe it or not, some people's greatest fear is losing their rights. Others, losing their jobs, yet others dieing, and others still random conspiracies of minority take-overs. People in the suburbs simply fear appearing abnormal, heh. Vendetta had quite an obtuse representation of fear as well, and also a populace that seemed to overcome that fear in about two seconds after hearing V's lofty speech about words (though he himself tends to use bombs and knives) and self-empowerment. Yeah, cause there aren't people in Europe that still hate the Jews today. They saw through the Third Reich in a minute. It was all the government's fault, no one thought the same way before or afterwards.

As far as the media angle, if people are used to five word punch lines like the Chancellor used, I highly doubt they're even going to have the ability to grasp the vocabulary and length of V's speech. Trust me, I see this everyday, and I believe it happens in our politics too. We sit around taunting anyone who takes the time to deliver an elaborate speech "dry," and "academic." People that are used to Strength Through Unity, Unity Through Faith, aren't going to all of a sudden understand a message that is delivered to them differently. They'd probably be like, Oh news break, time to pee and get some more snacks before I miss the rest of the show!

This is all me and my theories though, cause you asked. V for Vendetta just ran like this:

Evil guy conducts experiments on beautiful loving gay and straight people.

Evil guy finds the ultimate biological weapon after testing on them Tuskegee style. His desire to find a killer weapon makes the cure-searching medicine companies of Constant Gardener look benign and well intentioned.

Evil guy discovers cure from dead people's own bodies.

One victim undergoes a spiderman like metamorphosis and survives the experience by tearing the evil test labs down.

Victim swears revenge on everyone.

Meanwhile evil guy releases biological agent on his own people, because he's not really invested in the nation-state, just in rising to power.

Evil guy then releases cure after he is in office, and everyone loves him.

He becomes a complete totalitarian while dropping all personal pretense at social health. Its all just a facade he puts on for the public via his giant monitor head. Everyone falls for it.

Evil guy is Hitler's long-lost son. Everyone still falls for it.

The Qur'an is randomly banned for profundity's sake, even though banning a Bible would have been much more insightful. As perhaps it would have indicated that people were no longer allowed to interpret their own religious coda for themselves, and could only be informed of their religious selves via the organized (and state aligned) church. But that would have required an ounce of complexity, so we'll stick with the Qur'an because that's the "hot topic" of today, so must mean its important in the movie.

Victim dawns a Phantom of the Opera mask, blows up a building.

All of a sudden, people wonder. All of a sudden people distrust the news reports of a planned demolition. All of a sudden, reporters blink nervously, as though they haven't ever recognized a suspicious story when they were handed it before.

Victim gets loving recruit.

Victim teaches loving recruit that "you cannot kill an idea..." by abusing and almost killing her.

Loving recruit learns inner strength and comes back for more.

Loving recruit has mission in life to blow up building and shed the shackles of oppression.

Victim has a dagger throwing scene that looks like the bullet scenes from the Matrix.

Loving recruit blows up building.

Officer that has been on her case lets her, because he has become jaded by his leader as well, who put him under suspicion after 27 years of service.

People all dawn halloween masks and march on the building.

The shackles of oppression have been cast off.

There will be freedom now.

That's pretty much it. :-)

As for the Matrix, I said I liked it in the opener of my review. The first one mind you, because while it had a sci-fi twist, it didn't pretend at particular political integrity. It had a smarter sense of suspense set up through the telephone portals, and I pretty much thought it was a fairly tight movie that could have done without the love story is all. Reloaded sucked, never watch Revolutions.

hmmm.V for Vendetaa has not so much to do with Hitler. I would say its general about force owns will on other people.
V is only attacking those who do that. He didnt kill innocent..he did kill only people who did help the regime to rise. (of course you can ask is it not better to forgive). So you can not compare that to the World Trade Center. (where mostly innocent where killed). I guess World Trade Center was attacked cause you get as many victims possible with only one attack and it was not that great protected. All that symbolism things about it was brought up by TV etc.
Here we deal always with a complicated topic. Would it have been better when someone would have blown up Hitler in his parliament in 1937 or someone killed on of the young roman emperors as long he wasn already emperor but you already knew he would be a tyrant????? Today most people would say yes..So only future will shown.
So bad it is history does also teach us that there is nothing like good or fair and tyrans can win and a whole generation is doomed cause none pulled the trigger. I know its bad but thats life and sometimes there are so bad forces you will come to a point where you have to decide to erase that force or open the door for the suffering of many million people.
More important here is how you came to that decision..how you did deal with alternatives..and how fast you made your decision.....Otherwise bad guys always win. And that there will always be a peaceful solution...well thats only a dream..unfortunately.

Here's a copy of my comments from "dolce's review thread":



As I mentioned, imho, in dv's case - it's all good! However, the negative part is that all the haters leverage dv's golden reputation, to make their own opinions appear valid, albeit with their own simplistic and transparent motives...

Terrorists often look at the American public as part of the problem and as "the enemy" because we theoretically put people in power and consume, consume, consume.


I don't necessarily disagree with V's course of action in principal... that was his character. He was mainly about his personal vengence and not about setting up a long term solution for the masses so even the term "freedom fighter" is a bit of a stretch.

V offered anger, and he offered violence. That's who his character is. He didn't offer leadership or a future.

True. The storyline was rather clean cut. I'm still processing a few things, but actually over time I've come to appreciate the movie less.



Sure, it was more or less The Matrix part 563, but still it was at least somewhat fun to watch. Wasn't it?



Well it had a momentary effect I guess. I guess it was just more how the media affects our lives which actually wasn't something addressed in the film so much as I used it as a springboard to discuss it.

The governmental fear tactics was perhaps the only thing I walked away with but what exactly can you do? It isn't like this is a film that presents an answer. You are correct, it sort of takes everything, oversimplifies and wraps it up in a neat little watered-down stereotypical package and presents it for mass consumption.



Ok. Wow. Yeah. Oversimplification of an overly simplified film. Great points though. Not sure how to respond just yet.

Someone pointed out to me, that John Hurt played the Winston Smith role in the movie 1984, and now in V for Vendetta he gets to play Big Brother!

Now there's a doubleplusgood double bill...

A great, mismarketed film. One of the best of the year so far.

9/10 (A-)

Interesting, this is one film that the more I think about and discuss it, the less I like it. My grade has already slipped from a B+ to B, and could end up as a B- which was my original grade until the end of the film.

Ahhh, good - the propoganda is working...

I'm using a wireless internet connection that is ridiculously slow, so I haven't had time to really read the commentary in this thread, and probably won't till I go back home this weekend. I kind of notice dolce didn't like it.

Big surprise.

I hated it.



What a gigantic waste, with such a great cast, budget, and source material. Granted I know nothing about the novels - I speak of today's world. What an allegory it could have been. But lets forget for a moment this movie wants to be intelligent and topical - which it isn't. It actually manages to fail as an action movie. Slow, slow, slow pace.

The talent in this movie really disappointed me. Rea was decent, but still inexcusably subpar. Portman was awful - clearly struggling with the lack of character those "writers" forgot to give her or anyone else. All historical references must have been thrown in to make this movie sound smart. I wasn't convinced. V as a hero or vigilante or terrorist or whatever he was didn't work with me - there wasn't a cent of emotional investment. The ONLY thing I cared for was Natasha Wightman - her scenes as the actress, however short, and the monologue were the closest thing to interesting in the whole affair.

What a mediocre mess. It gets marked lower for the fact that it SHOULD have been much better, but instead is cliched, half baked, and totally clueless as to the current events its commenting on.

They say that authors like Hemingway get away with using their own writing style (which, in his case, isn't textbook perfect - his sentence structure is one of a kind) because they understand the language. They've demonstrated much command of it, and as such, are allowed to bend the rules.

Perhaps you feel the same way about Galia's opinion. That's great that you hold her in such esteem. I do too.

However, it has become a huge pet peeve of mine to see people CONSTANTLY debase anyone else who aligns himself with her in any instance. Apparently, anyone who agrees with her is "leeching" off her respectability and what not. This could mean two things; I'm not entirely sure;

1. The person agreeing with her is a small minded fool who can't help but align himself with a developed point of view.
2. The person agreeing with her is simply doing so to suck up, essentially.

Both of these points of views I find incredibly condescending. Being a decent, but no where perfect writer, I myself find myself constantly debased by some (not you, specifically) who feel that I must be leeching. I *must* not be able to understand the movie, or I'm just looking to buddy up. In an internet world where I will most likely never meet this librarian from Brooklyn, where does buddying up really get anyone? Is it beyond the realm of possibility two people have very similar interpretations every so often? It's interesting people don't criticise andaroo's perspective, either. Yes - clearly he is another "smart person" for others to leach off.

Bradley, I admire the fact that you have consistently defended someones right to an opinion. However, it really does bother me when a person - in this case you - seems to take any such agreement with a person like dolce as a sign of weakness. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting anything, or taking this too personally - I am. I'm damn sick of it, and I'm going to speak up about it. Even if I'm sitting outside on a tiny old laptop with a terrible connection

I admire your posts, so don't think I hate you. I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone I tend to dislike. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Sorry for taking the thread off topic.

Its a good off topic discussion, as its a valid complaint and it happens around here, alot.

Although I wasn't specifically commenting on you in this case, I do appreciate your well-expressed comments, and I apologize if I seemed to be targeting you.

I have seen some people around here using "expert opinion" in positive ways, but I have also seen some using it as a hammer to bash other's opinions.

I myself am an opinionated old sod, and enjoy the lively discussions at WOKJ on my favorite pastime of movies. However, I don't enjoy the dissing of people's personal enjoyment of particular films, and will continue to speak out against it.

Since there is no angst in this thread, nobody attacking one another, one can only assume that you mean that (some of the) people who don't like the film are somehow, by pulling the film apart and discussing it, "dissing" people's personal enjoyment of the film. I am suggesting that your interpretation of the conversations may be an incorrect one.

I do not know why the more (I hate to use the word) strong-willed or strongly opinionated members of the board have to keep reinforcing the idea to people that film and issue discussion usually have nothing to do with the individual and if people feel threatened by people challenging a film's ideas then it is not an attack on another's personal enjoyment of a film. Honestly, I am more likely to talk about films which didn't work for me and are interesting than films I like and don't need feedback on.

Perhaps this conversation would best be served in another topic.

B (with a possible downwards tendency)


Time for me to chime in to the discussion. As of now, V for Vendetta stands as one of the biggest cinematic disappointments I have witnessed in a while. The movie had so much promise, so much potential and it sadly did not deliver. I am not even sure who to blame. The Wachowski's? The director? Alan Moore's source? Probably not the latter because Moore's source graphic novel was complex, whereas this film just tries oh so hard to seem complex, but it is just the opposite of that.

I don't hate this movie, certainly not. But its black & white portrayal did bother me a lot. Now I could care less if there is black 'n white portrayal in a simple entertaining film. The problem in V for Vendetta is that the movie takes itself way too seriously and that really hurts it. It wants to send out an IMPORTANT MESSAGE. Well, I'd suggest the makers to watch films like Lord of War and Munich for the 101 manual as to how send out a good message. The issues this movie tries to send a message about are way too complicated to make them as black & white as the movie does. V for Vendetta could have used some more subtlety because as it stands, the movie was trying hard to drill its message into my head for all the 130+ minutes of its overlong running time.

Basically, the movie tells us a story about "Nazis *cough* I mean religious conservatives under the leadership of Hitler *cough* *Su*tler, a religious estremist taking over Germany *cough* USA *cough* Great Britain and sending all sexual and racial minorities into concentration camps and gas chambers *cough* laboratories. Meanwhile Fox News *cough*, I mean BTN keeps everything in control by spreading fear of terrorism everywhere. Add to the mix a conspiracy that would enthrall Michael Moore. So, let's just bomb some monuments and kill some officials and overthrow the regime. " Because the regime is bad. No, really, it is. Very very very B.A.D. So let's just "liberate the people" by imposing your own world view on everyone and as a side effect, you also carry out some personal revenge against those who experimented on you. But don't call this "revenge", call this a good deed for everyone! Add some ridiculous dialogues bits with lots of V's and the Wachowski's fetish for shaven heads to the mix and you've got V for Vendetta.

Sounds harsh? Well, this is the impression the movie left on me. All of you know that I can enjoy a good effects-ladne blockbuster a whole lot. But this film just tries to hard trying to make people see it as a MOVIE WITH A MESSAGE! Don't get me wrong. The message is well-meant, I think. The execution of it just fails.

Not to say that there aren't good bits in the film. While I thought that the film dragged at some spots, it still always kept me interested. The action scenes are sadly too few and far inbetween, but they are great and well-choreographed. No Matrix-like wire-fu, but something more original. The acting is good. Natalia Portman is solid, but Hugo Weavings' gestures and voice performance are excellent and he survives the role very well despite having to work with some rather ridiculous dialogue. Stpehen Rea and Stephen Fry are both pretty good. John Hurt is over the top, but effective. There are also some excellent bits in the film, like this Stephen Fry's TV show in which Sutler is being ridiculed. That is funny and really well done. Great music, heh.

The end holds a lot of pathos, but some of it actually works. Seeing all those people marching in Guy Fawkes' masks is impressive and so are the Parliament explosions. While they were not needed whatsoever, they serve as a nice eye candy. I am also glad that they actually never unmasked V at any point, so he kept his mystery until the very end.

Overall, V for Vendetta is a decently entertaining and well-meant film which problem lies in the fact that it takes itself way too seriously for its own good and because of that forgest to entertain at times. I could have also done without some of the dumb dialogue and with some more action scenes. Moreover, I wish the movie didn't make its plot seem so complicated because I felt that the only people who did not know what was going on about 20-30 minutes into the movie were just the characters in the movie. I thought it was all rather prediactable.

Think there were big points to those "not needed points" as you called them.

* The people in the masks show that they were talking back their lives from the government and they wanted change.

* And the blowing up of Parliament was where the whole movie was always heading, it would have been stupid for that not to have happened.

The deed of blowing up the Parliament was stupid in itself. They should have stuck with how the graphic novel ended and have blown up Downing Street 10 (I think the Parliament is blown up there as well, but not as the final action, just midway).

Pretty much agree with you, Lecter. I'm far less sympathetic, though. Heh. Especially about Portman - what a terrible, terrible performance. Yet they keep throwing her roles.

Maybe Closer was a fluke.

Well, she was very good in Leon - The Professional and Closer, but I start thinking that Keira Knightley is actually the better actress of the two.

I disagree with your contention that the movie is meant to be taken seriously - to me it was a work of high-romance swirling around a dystopian fantasy theme...