[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by mattgoveiagt

@ Mr. 5.0

I think that holding the fact that this (or any) movie isn't groundbreaking is a little unfair. Most ideas these days have been done before, and you'd be hard pressed to think up a movie plot that hasn't. It's nothing personal, of course, it's just that Hollywod has had DECADES to squeeze every idea dry. And when there's no juice left, they squeeze some more.

While that may be true, the essence of art, for me, (I can only speak for myself) is having an original thought, not just re-hashing what's already been done before, a 'million' times. I can and do get that from television. If Hollywood expects me to spend $8. or $9.00 on 2 hours of entertainment, they could at least try to make it interesting. Unfortunately, big-budget movies today are mostly marketed at teens, and so, people unaware that '1984' is more than a date from the past think 'V' is saying something new. It is not, it just re-packages a familiar storyline. While it does this fairly well, I want more than what 'V' offers, even if other folks may think differently. I still think the plot is clever but hides a lack of story-telling creativity, despite the historical Guy Fawks connection and the relatively good acting.

I've never read the comic, but I'm guessing V's apparent invincibility and the one man against the world stuff comes from that. I honestly didn't go into this movie (yes, I saw it in theaters, but during matinee hours) expecting 100% realism. I had no problem with the ending, I thought it was done well.

I'm guessing that 'V's apparent invincibility comes from imitating Batman, Superman and every other super-hero, mortal or otherwise, that was ever created. The producers could have done something more interesting.

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that our government doesn't manufacture plots, enemies, etc as seen here. Terrorists are real and have been around for quite some time.

Someone needs to explain that reality to the hard-left folks in this country. You know, the people who claim that the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 was a 'government plot' used as an "excuse" to start a war in the middle east. Those folks.

(Side note: I find it annoying that so many Americans only notice it now that it's taken a toll on OUR country for once) Although I'm sure there are a few assclowns out there that think things like this actually happen, hopefully they'll be too busy blogging about it to reproduce.

One can always hope.

I think maybe it was "revolution is ok if you don't like your govt.", but that's a huge grey area itself.

Well, 'V' was fighting an obviously totaltarian government with suspiciously Nazi-like symbols, just in case we had any doubts as to their 'evilness', as it were. I got it.

As for terrorism tactics and the whole "sometimes you have to sacrifice innocents if you want to blow up the bad people" thing, perhaps that's just part of the new "know your enemy" thing that we've been seeing in movies and tv lately. Although I'm not exactly sure what significant uses this has against terrorists, I suppose it doesn't hurt. I can't really suggest to anyone that you learn about terrorists from a movie, though. Hell, even the U.S. military forces rack up civilian kills during bombings and other attacks, and we're TRYING not to for a variety of reasons. So yeah, there's some realism, I guess...

While the terror tactics in 'V' may have contained some 'realism', let's not forget that terrorism, at least as I understand it, is based on almost always attacking civilian 'targets' with the intention of 'terrorizing' the local populace into seeing things the terrorist's way, something the U.S. military does not do. Yet, the 'hero' of 'V' did, even though the 'civilians' usually represented the totaltarian government which was oppressing the people. It's a murky area alright and that's probably why it was used by the Wachowski brothers. The protagonist ('V') gets to kill people (with panache) and blow things up (in slow mtion) - and all for a 'righteous' cause. O.K.

Arnold Schwarzenegger (in 'True Lies', I think) once replied to his (movie) 'wife' (Jamie Lee Curtis, I think) when she finds out he has been a hands-on CIA-type agent for the past 15 years or so and she asks him if has ever killed anybody. Schwarzenegger (in character) replies: '"Yes. But they were very baaaaad people". His wife - and presumably, the movie audience, simply accepts this bit of self-justification as rational and logical. It was amusing in that film as it was generally played for laughs but not as much so in 'V', although I fully understand that 'V' was fictional (set in the near future) and cannot be taken too seriously, although some folks seem to have done so.

V doesn't change much by taking on a few thugs at a time, but if you want to quote an overused cliche, he wins hearts and minds. Apparently it's much easier in the movies. Or it's because Hugo Weaving's got a higher approval rating than G-Dub.

Hugo Weaving was 'invisible' behind the rigid Guy Fawks mask. I think the philosophy here was that if one brave, intrepid man challenges the established order (all very, baaaaad people, in this instance) and lives to fight them again and again, he 'wins', even if they outnumber him 500-to-one...or more. Sort of like Hezbollah in the recent 'war' with Israel. Hezbollah lost men big-time but as they managed to survive the 'war', they can claim 'victory', just for not being destroyed completely. Odd logic - but that's how we define 'victory' these days. 'V for Vendatta' employss the same mindset. Even if you kill 'Guy Fawkes', you cannot kill an 'idea' (freedom, from totalitarianism, of course). I get that. It's not new. The socialist-leaning Academy-Award-winning film, 'The Grapes of Wrath' used a similar concept...in 1940. I'm sure it was being done with silent films and certainly in novels, long before movies were invented.

I guess V automatically gets a 4/5 from me, since I thought it was good enough to actually buy the dvd.

You certainly have a right to spend your own money as you see fit and buying the DVD would make your point that you really liked this movie. As I stated, all move reviews are subjective and so, whether glowing, negative or just so-so, they remain one person's opinion. As none of us are 'legitimate' (paid) movie reviewers, we are simply stating our personal opinions on this film, for whatever that may be worth to anyone. Yours is as valid as mine. Well, almost.

Sorry this isn't so much a whole separate review, and more of a simple response. I just thought that I'd get carried away and give stuff away if I did that.

No problem. You have a right to your own opinion, as do we all.

Also, I hesitate to ask this in this topic, but about revolutions etc being ok blah blah blah...would it really be so bad if we let things naturally progress to civil war in Iraq? I know it sounds heartless, but we had one and look how we turned out. I know there are several differing factors between us, but I think the people there would eventually get sick of the b.s. and overthrow everyone that's screwing their country up. And yes, I know that you could say there have been civil wars there before, but our govt seems to think that the BIG one could happen if we leave. At least that's what it seems like they're saying.

What they're saying is that should an actual 'civil war' occur in Iraq and the U.S 'cuts and runs' or just stands by and does nothing, there would eventually be a power vacuum and that Iranian terrorists would fill it, destroying the relatively weak (new) civilian government. These terrorists would use Iraq as they once used Afghanistan; as a training ground and a 'safe haven' for terrorists - as well as a lauching pad for the almost-inevitable attacks on our ally, Israel, the only other country in the middle east with a democratic government. The 'outside' terrorists (mostly from Iran) have tried very hard to foment a sectarian (religious) war in Iraq in the hope of undermining the elected government and thwarting the growth of democracy in Iraq, as democracy is a grave threat to totaltarian regimes, like Iran.

The U.S. (currently represented by the Bush administration) expectation is that the Iraqi populace will get sick of the fighting (and dying) and will start to do more to help the government, it's police and military to find and jail or kill the terrorists infiltrating their country and causing all the bloodshed. 3 highly attended elections over the past 2 years in war-torn Iraq give us that hope as the Iraqi people have shown that they do want democracy and not totaltarian thugs in 'religious' robes running their country, as is the sad case in Iran, today. The U.S. has to keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future and that is obvious. So be it. We did it in Germany and Japan for over 50 years, following WWII. It's part of the price of victory, I guess.