V For Vendetta out this week!

M

Montez

So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The Vault Dweller suggested I make a thread about this a few weeks ago, and since the movie is coming out this week I thought it was about time I got around to it.

For those who don't know what it is, here is a brief (and badly written!) description from Wikipedia:
V for Vendetta is a ten-issue comic book limited series, later collected as a graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated mostly by David Lloyd, set in a dystopian future Britain where a mysterious anarchist works to destroy the fascist government and profoundly affects the people he encounters.
Click to expand...
The series is set in an alternative-future Britain where nuclear weapons had been removed from the country following a victory for Labour in 1983, sparing it from nuclear attack in a limited nuclear war that left the country mostly physically intact, a extreme right-wing fascist single-party state has arisen, called Norsefire, using its control on food during the nuclear winter, with government-controlled media, secret police, a planned economy and concentration camps for racial and sexual minorities with an emphasis on technology, especially closed-circuit television monitoring in the mode of George Orwell's 1984. (Closed-circuit television had not yet become common in the UK at the time Moore wrote the series. Today, London has the world's highest concentration of CCTV.) When the series begins, political conflict has ended, the death camps have finished their work and have been closed, and the public is largely complacent, until "V" — a terrorist and self-proclaimed anarchist dressed as Guy Fawkes, mask and all, with an improbable array of abilities and resources — begins an elaborate, violent, and theatrical campaign to bring down the government.
Click to expand...
Vendetta.jpg


Rotten Tomatoes: 77%

Official website with trailers: http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Same as with all comic book based movies, Moore's comics in particular, I'm pretty sceptical about this movie - they have a long trend of leaving out vital elements, adding goofy and uneccesary elements, and just generally missing the mark. Most people don't care really - it's just a comic book, right? But to me it just puts right in my face how shitty hollywood movies are, relying near completely on lowest-common-denominator appeal, hack writers, and marketing studies. V For Vendetta has gotten good reviews so far from alleged fans of the comic, and the trailers I've seen have given me some hope that this will be the first good adaption of Moore's work, but since precedent with this sort of movie has already been set I'm not too excited about it. I like the comic too much not to see it, but I'm not really expecting much.

Beyond the appeal to us comic book geeks, it's going to be interesting to see the reaction from the world at large since it's basically about a terrorist blowing up buildings and assasinating officials in an attempt to bring down a government. Will people find justification in his acts since it is an oppressive fascist government he's taking down, and has parallels to the US/Great Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will people just decry it because there is "terrorism" involved and ignore the issues of right and wrong? Will the press and politicians just ignore it completely since it's just a movie? Who knows.

I also wonder if it's just a coincidence that it's being released on St. Patrick's Day. Probably is, but I'm willing to bet that more than a few Irish people will be cheering on the fall of England.
 
OH FUCK YES.

Graphics novel is great. It's great in all-over. One of teh best.

I'm so excited over this. I do hope they did not OVERDO it, but I already know better.
 
Thank you Montez. Who is "Guy Fawkes" though and why does the character wear a mask? Is it vitally important enough to not mention it for fear of spoiling the story?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Guy Fawkes was a member of a group of Catholics that tried to assasinate King James I and parliment in 1605 - Catholics were persecuted under James and Fawkes' group wanted to get rid of the entire Protestant aristocracy; king, lords, politicians, etc. They planted 2.5 tons of gunpowder beneath parliment planning to set it off when everyone was under one roof, and since Fawkes had military experience he was in charge of planning and setting it off. Through the group's ineptitude (snitching on itself then going ahead with the plan anyway) he was caught alone on November 5 while checking on the gunpowder, and after being tortured for days gave up the names of a few of the co-consipirators, and together they were hung, drawn and quatered. After that England would celebrate November 5 as Guy Fawkes day and burn him in effigy.

As to why V wears the mask, it's mainly because he is a modern-day Guy Fawkes and seeks to do the same thing except successfully, as well as him wanting to be seen as a symbol rather than as an individual person. Plus the mask is pretty creepy. It's hinted at in the book that V is ugly in a beautiful and fascinating way, but it's left to your imagination as to whether it happened naturally or unaturally. He doesn't wear the mask because he's ugly though - he's not haunted by low self-esteem or anything like that - it's just for symbolic purposes.
 
TVD, you have never heard of the Gunpowder Plot (or Guy Fawkes day)? Funny how Montez talks about it but still avoids the name.
 
Kotario said:
TVD, you have never heard of the Gunpowder Plot (or Guy Fawkes day)? Funny how Montez talks about it but still avoids the name.
Click to expand...

I knew I was forgetting something.

"Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot;
I know of no reason, why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot."

I'd heard of it before I read the comic, but my only real interest in it comes through the comic. Well, that and the fact that I think it's pretty bizarre that they still burn him in effigy.
 
Well, it has a great cast, save for Portman. I think it could be really good. I'm quite excited to see Stephen Fry killed by a cutlass through a door, at least.
 
John Uskglass said:
Well, it has a great cast, save for Portman.
Click to expand...

Good to see that there's at least one other person out there who thinks that. She was great in The Professional, but every performance I've seen since then has been pretty.... wooden? mediocre? off? I don't know what the best word is. She has screen presence, no denying that, but her acting is pretty bad. I'm starting to think that The Professional was the same, only since she was really young her acting got much more credit than it should have.

John - do you think this movie is going to cause any controversy at all? (Assuming it turns out to be above a "B" movie level, of course)

Edit: I should add since I didn't state it explicitly and some people might not know - the mask V wears is a Guy Fawkes mask.
 
Could cause? Already is. Look at the Newsweek article.

I kind of hope they take out the molestor priest short story. I thought that was probably the weakest part of the story, and not just because I am a fanatic. Kind of a cliche. Though V was religious in a really, really weird way.
 
John Uskglass said:
Could cause? Already is. Look at the Newsweek article.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this article? Please, in the future, link to something if you want to discuss it. Having to glance over all the articles concerned primarily with Portman shaving her head is something that makes me wish for the death of all writers involved.

And gone with the Worker and Parasite avatar so quickly? Ai.

Montez, do you actually know people who insist that Portman has always been a good actress? Every conversation I can remember about her goes along the same lines you outlined: great in The Professional, lackluster since.

I suppose it looks interesting enough to waste eight dollars on. Might even pick up the original, which I have yet to read.
 
Wait, are we talking about this movie as if it might actually be any good?

Have we all gone mad? This'll suck so many ways the whole world will be covered in a vacuum.

A half-witted director-rooky directs the movie written by his two teachers, who haven't made a half-decent movie in quite a few years and have shown there one excellent movie to be a definite fluke.

Not to mention Hugo Weaving is, contrary to popular belief, a terrible actor.

Now maybe if Scarlett Johansson had been Evey. But no...
 
Kotario said:
Montez, do you actually know people who insist that Portman has always been a good actress? Every conversation I can remember about her goes along the same lines you outlined: great in The Professional, lackluster since.
Click to expand...

In real life I know a few. In print reviews and wherever I go all over the internet though people seem to unanimously think she's the greatest. When "Garden State" and "Closer" came about all I seemed to read were good reviews of her, and my friends thought she was great too. Strangely enough I think she was actually good in The Phantom Menace, though maybe that's because everyone else was awful. Except McGregor, I guess.

Kharn, you've pretty much said what I've been trying not to think. I'm trying to hold off forming an opinion until Friday, but "Constantine" and "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" keep coming to mind.
 
Montez said:
In real life I know a few. In print reviews and wherever I go all over the internet though people seem to unanimously think she's the greatest. When "Garden State" and "Closer" came about all I seemed to read were good reviews of her, and my friends thought she was great too. Strangely enough I think she was actually good in The Phantom Menace, though maybe that's because everyone else was awful. Except McGregor, I guess.
Click to expand...
No, she sucked in the Phantom Menace as well, as I discovered when I saw it for a second time. Really, she was good in Leon, but her acting in the Star Wars movies amounts to reading her lines.

As for V, I have some hopes. There were some decent comic movies, although they were all standard hero-movies and not the darker and much more serious V.
 
And gone with the Worker and Parasite avatar so quickly?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised someone got it, though I guess in hindsight if anybody it would have to be you.

I had it for a while by my standards. And I love this avatar, from one of my favorite books.
 
Kotario said:
TVD, you have never heard of the Gunpowder Plot (or Guy Fawkes day)? Funny how Montez talks about it but still avoids the name.
Click to expand...

Only very vaguely and I never remembered the guy who did it.

By the way John I recognized your avatar as well, but I figured everyone else did too.

Also I'm gonna add this graphic novel to my birthday list since my birthday is coming up.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Ok assholes, who's a good actor. I mean honestly, I don't think Portman or Weaving are great or some shit...but what I mean is, tho they are not great they are quite good on screen. Hugo, just has an aura.

Now give me a few examples of well known, good actors. Then get another guy to bash them, following your reply....bah
 
Kharn likes Scarlet J. a lot. I can't say I know why, I've never seen her give a fantastic performance. Peter O'Toole I think as well.
 
Kamikaze said:
Ok assholes, who's a good actor. I mean honestly, I don't think Portman or Weaving are great or some shit...but what I mean is, tho they are not great they are quite good on screen. Hugo, just has an aura.

Now give me a few examples of well known, good actors. Then get another guy to bash them, following your reply....bah
Click to expand...

Bob Hoskins.

Weaving has screen presence. So does Arnold Schwarzenegger. And Sylvester Stallone. Yet I would call none of them great, and Weaving is barely good.

Weaving is just a character actor. In every single movie he plays in he is a mirror of whatever he was before. There is no significant difference in how he plays Smith or an Elf and considering how different the characters are that is pretty flawed.

Diversity is the key to being great and even to being good. A total lack of diversity but sufficient screen presence means your carreer will be poor and most people recognise your acting for what it is, poor. Think John Wayne, Charles Bronson, Hugo Weaving, Keanu Reeves, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Morgan Freeman, Samual L Jackson. All plenty of screen presence, but all character actors, set to play only one thing.

Opposite to them are diversified and great actors. Anthony Hopkins, Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Toshirô Mifune, Oleg Menshikov, John Turturro. Unequalled in skill, but most important also in diversity.

Kharn likes Scarlet J. a lot. I can't say I know why, I've never seen her give a fantastic performance.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that she is beautiful in a more unique way than most Hollywood types can aspire too, she is a very accomplished actor at her age. Shockingly so, in fact, the number of emotions she is capable of conveying without resorting to overacting shadow the performance of many of her contemporaries greatly her age.

Also, diversity.

See Lost in Translation, Ghost World and Girl with a Pearl Earring for reference. Hell, she was even good in Eight-Legged Freaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top