Black and white attack on Bush
Added 11/19/2009
The original Graphic novel this was based on is one of the smartest and best stories written last century. It's ig iea stuff examining the extremes of government and policies. It has no 2D characters but instead flushes out and makes you understand even if you don't like) all of them. It's timeless and never needs to be "updated" because it's about ideas that are still there today and were there long before the book was written.
This film claims to be an update on said story. But aparently update means they must skew a balanced look at polotics as a concept into an onslaught on the bush campaign. On top of that they took all these full developed characters and turned them into the very black and white nazi liek characters Alan Moore intentionally didn't write in the book.
This is a terrible movie that degrades everything the book stands for.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Alan Moore was probably right
Added 11/11/2009
For a lot of people, tell them a film is based on a graphic novel -- a "comic book" -- and they immediately write it off as juvenile. Some of us know better, though. The fact that the story a movie came from appeared first in another graphic medium has very little to do with anything. You have to evaluate the film on its own merits. This one is a combination of adventure fantasy -- bigger-than-life hero vs. superbad villains -- and political cautionary tale. It's a couple of decades in the future, the U.S. has collapsed economically and politically and is mired in civil war, and England has fallen into an authoritarian, fascist nightmare, largely with the acquiescence of its own people. Into all this steps a man in a Guy Fawkes mask with a vendetta against those in power for what they did to him in his earlier life. In the book, V's cause is anarchy; in the film, it's English freedom. (Alan Moore loathed the change in theme as "Americanization," but revolution plays better in Hollywood if it's in support of democracy.) Though we never see the real, damaged face of V, the voice behind the mask is that of Hugo Weaving -- and a great voice it is, too. Natalie Portman plays Evey, the only survivor of a family that was wiped out piecemeal by the fascists, and the story also is about her climb up from constant fear. John Hurt is excellent as Sutler, the frothingly menacing Head Chancellor who glares out from an oversize TV screen like Big Brother in "1984." There are plenty of plot holes, mostly having to do with the ease with which V gets in and out of very high-security places to commit his executions. On the other hand, the Wachowski brothers also were responsible for the "Matrix" films, so you know the sfx are going to be above average -- especially the final shoot-out in the tube station and the destruction of the Houses of Parliament as witnessed by thousands of Londoners in Guy Fawkes masks. Not a bad flick, and it's obviously destined to be a cult film, but it would have been interesting to see what the Wachowskis could have done by sticking closer to the themes and details of the book.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Guy Fawkes Day Sci-Fi Wachowski Drama
Added 11/6/2009
With the feel of the graphic novel the film looks fantastic and has a story to match. I have watched it 5 times and it feels fresh! 5.1 sound is strong in dolbyhd as pic looks great. Review and screening on the 5th of November on Sony Denon Energy
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
STOP! GO BACK! ITS 2006
Added 10/20/2009
Accidentally it happens that an innocent and unsuspecting young woman is abducted by a masked terrorist who holds the nation's capital in his grip. That's it.
And this screenplay was written almost ten years before its release. The Warchawski brothers created THE MATRIX films first. And in them all, Hugo Weaving; quite a step up, here, in my opinion, from those interminable, overwrought English pixie movies in elfin-babble starring Elija Wood and everybody else but him.
No, I don't need to have read any of the Lloyd/Moore graphic novels, I think. There are so many of these masterpieces of literary comics around nowadays, and everybody's doing them. But, a movie is still just a shadowplay. Nevertheless, it is always an event to see John Hurt in anything: The inquisitive First Officer from ALIEN, or THE ELEPHANT MAN, or the distinguished seducer from LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND, or HELLBOY's adoptive earth-father from the movie of the same name, or as the victim/narrator from 1984. That man's got something hardly any actor has; he can absolutely grip you and convince you of what he's doing within five minutes of any story. And you absolutely cannot forget him. Not even remotely attractive, but fascinating.
The movie V has (English) political and even historical overtones, based as it is on Guy Fawkes Day -- that's the annual holiday the English celebrate the attempted destruction of Parliament -- but the dotty Baroness Thatcher is gone, nonetheless, though not forgotten, and Britain is now Labor and the flow of cash out of England to Enron in Texas has ceased. One hopes. But nobody need be aware of any of that on first watching. V is very skillfully written, in that regard, so that whatever might slow things down to political mud wrestling is avoided, and the action is allowed to move at a brisk pace. All the elements of the story; the Dictator and his cronies; the police; the constabulary SWAT goons; the unintended female hostage/victim/accomplice (the sympathetic, winsome Natalie Portman) and her abductor/guru/hero (velvet-voiced Hugo, always in disguise) are in evidence and work as a team to reveal the story as it tightens and coils toward its inevitable end.
V is very easy to watch and understand. Exciting to look at, the story, it seems to me, is a meditation on this proposition: Cromwell liberated England from its Monarch and its aristocracy, but the Parliament, once it was free to do so sold the people to the nobility which has kept them enslaved ever since. The pertinent question is, what a nation would England be were the English people free to work for their benefit alone? And that causes us to wonder what a nation the United States of America would be, were this nation allowed to prosper for the benefit of all its citizens, equally?
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Awsome movie!
Added 10/15/2009
I love everything about this film except the overblown homosexual agenda. I don't take offence to it but I do have some problems with the militant issues implied. This aside, I found it patriotic and moving. Who ARE the terrorists really?
Definatly see this film...Very well done.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Black and white attack on Bush
Added 11/19/2009
The original Graphic novel this was based on is one of the smartest and best stories written last century. It's ig iea stuff examining the extremes of government and policies. It has no 2D characters but instead flushes out and makes you understand even if you don't like) all of them. It's timeless and never needs to be "updated" because it's about ideas that are still there today and were there long before the book was written.
This film claims to be an update on said story. But aparently update means they must skew a balanced look at polotics as a concept into an onslaught on the bush campaign. On top of that they took all these full developed characters and turned them into the very black and white nazi liek characters Alan Moore intentionally didn't write in the book.
This is a terrible movie that degrades everything the book stands for.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Alan Moore was probably right
Added 11/11/2009
For a lot of people, tell them a film is based on a graphic novel -- a "comic book" -- and they immediately write it off as juvenile. Some of us know better, though. The fact that the story a movie came from appeared first in another graphic medium has very little to do with anything. You have to evaluate the film on its own merits. This one is a combination of adventure fantasy -- bigger-than-life hero vs. superbad villains -- and political cautionary tale. It's a couple of decades in the future, the U.S. has collapsed economically and politically and is mired in civil war, and England has fallen into an authoritarian, fascist nightmare, largely with the acquiescence of its own people. Into all this steps a man in a Guy Fawkes mask with a vendetta against those in power for what they did to him in his earlier life. In the book, V's cause is anarchy; in the film, it's English freedom. (Alan Moore loathed the change in theme as "Americanization," but revolution plays better in Hollywood if it's in support of democracy.) Though we never see the real, damaged face of V, the voice behind the mask is that of Hugo Weaving -- and a great voice it is, too. Natalie Portman plays Evey, the only survivor of a family that was wiped out piecemeal by the fascists, and the story also is about her climb up from constant fear. John Hurt is excellent as Sutler, the frothingly menacing Head Chancellor who glares out from an oversize TV screen like Big Brother in "1984." There are plenty of plot holes, mostly having to do with the ease with which V gets in and out of very high-security places to commit his executions. On the other hand, the Wachowski brothers also were responsible for the "Matrix" films, so you know the sfx are going to be above average -- especially the final shoot-out in the tube station and the destruction of the Houses of Parliament as witnessed by thousands of Londoners in Guy Fawkes masks. Not a bad flick, and it's obviously destined to be a cult film, but it would have been interesting to see what the Wachowskis could have done by sticking closer to the themes and details of the book.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Guy Fawkes Day Sci-Fi Wachowski Drama
Added 11/6/2009
With the feel of the graphic novel the film looks fantastic and has a story to match. I have watched it 5 times and it feels fresh! 5.1 sound is strong in dolbyhd as pic looks great. Review and screening on the 5th of November on Sony Denon Energy
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
