you know what i hate?

[Fat0eknee]

yeah v for vendetta is a good movie ...my most recent favorite

[89llx]

and to think in the begining someone was worried about posting dumb questions

[DeltaMustang65]

^I think you may have missed the point.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by mattgoveiagt

You should see V For Vendetta, Mr. 5.0. It's a pretty interesting little movie. I'm sure a lot of the people here must have thought so too, seeing as how it has a lot to do with politics, government, and corruption. There are a few parts that are kinda funny, but I should stop before I spoil everything.

I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD. How's that?

With movies prices getting so ridiculous, ($9.00 - or the equivalent of a bit more than 3 gallons of gas or a decent lunch) I only patronize a movie theater occasionally, these days. Let's even talk about the theater prices on popcorn and soda.

I have to tell you that the 'one-man-against-the-totaltarian-government' theme is an old one that I've seen many times before. Like many, I've read (and studied) '1984' which I believe is a masterpiece of this genre. 'Batman' and many other recent films based on supposed 'superheros' are all part of the genre, too. Although I realize that 'V' is not an anime or cartoon - it is based on a 'graphic novel', which is really just a step 'above' a comic book. Also, watching the seemingly invincible protagonist using terrorist tactics for his 'cause' (something the Islamofascists are doing, today...for their 'cause'...which they also - mistakenly - believe is 'righteous') in a rigid plastic mask (of Guy Fawkes) and seeing cute Natalie Portman in a buzz cut for 2 hours isn't all that tempting as 'entertainment. Still, 'V' does sound worth a look - and I'll give it one, soon.

I guess Fat0eknee's comparison of myself and the 'hero' of "V' was a compliment, after all. I'm surprised - but gratified.


UPDATE (9/02/06): I just rented 'V' and will watch it tonight. I'll post my 'review' on this thread sometime next week. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Mr 5 0]

'V' for Vendatta

Not bad but not really groundbreaking, either. It moved a bit slow and, like all these 'one man against the (totalitarian) state' films, the protagonist ('the self-named 'V' of the title) seemed a tad too invincible. A whole nation of police and military lackeys could't find him and or beat him when they found him? O.K., it's a movie. I get it. Suspension of disbelief and all that. Very well. Literate dialogue and some pretty fine acting by Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman and a host of British actors in lesser roles made the film worthwhile renting although, had I spent $8. or $9. in a theatre to see it, I would not have been pleased. Natalie Portman, even with a shaved head, manages to come off as cute and vulnerable but never as a bimbo or a prop for a guy. Good for her. I thought the big scene at the end (which I won't describe here) was almost anticlimatic and took too long to accomplish.

I didn't care for veiled references to the 'government' (presumably, considering the current state of things, the British Blair and American Bush administrations) as 'manufacturing 'enemies' and faking 'threats to national security' when any rational person here or in England should realize by now that Islamofascist terrorism is quite real and hardly 'manufactured'. 9/11 happened. It was not an government 'plot'. Islamofascist nuts such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have made public vows - many times - to 'destroy' the U.S. and 'western culture'. They are very serious and have the money (from oil sales) and, more importantly, the will to do so, and are trying all the time, as the recent British arrests of terrorist wannabe's demonstrate. Yet, few British or American citizens have had any of their freedoms curtailed. So much for the 'totaltarianism' aspects of either the current U.S. or British government.

'V' is set only less than a few decades from now (2020) and anything is possible in the unknowable future, but the Nazi-ish British government (presumable elected) the film portrayed (in a very recognizable London - not 'sci-fi looking' at all) seemed to be pushing 'security for freedom', which is a favorite canard against actually fighting terrorism, domestic or foreign, of the anti-war left, making me a bit skeptical of what the writers/producer were trying to say. Terrorism is O.K. if you don't like your government? Government lies to you and every announced threat is just a government scam to take away your freedom? Who believes that nonsense beside the hard-left loons that populate some 'liberal' political websites? Still, the 'political' aspect of 'V' seems to have captured some people's imagination. That's not so bad, I guess, but I'm just not one of them.

The hero of 'V' seemed to be awfully good as using terrorism tactics, which bothered me. Yes, I know, his cause was pure and just, yada, yada, yada but the idea that you can blow up large buildings and only kill the 'bad guys' inside is ridiculous and 'V's ability to change much by taking on the police-state thugs a few at a time, in alleyways, always in the night, is also one of those script ideas that play well on film, as 'V' decapitates and kills numerous bad guys with his quick moves, swords and knives, a la Jackie Chan, but I found that tactic hard to take seriously as a realistic way to overthrow a well-armed rogue government. But that's just me.

Maybe I'm too analytical but I didn't see much in 'V for Vendatta' that I haven't seen before in some other movie...only the actors and the just-slightly-in-the-future London setting change. Sometimes the villians are murderers/drug dealers or 'the mob' and the heros are cops (one older, one young and either a hunky guy or pretty woman) or a 'freelance private detective' but it's always good against evil, the basic plot of most adventure stories and 'action' films. That's fine and as 'V' is a high class production, so, if you haven't seen many examples of this film genre before, you may be impressed, as there is something for almost everyone within the plot - and it's farily well executed.

As I stated earlier, 'V' is a decent rental but nothing terribly new, except that a lot of folks will be learning something about 17th century British history - and Guy Fawkes. That's not a bad thing. Natalie Portman has finally put her phoned-in 'performance' in Star Wars' out of most people's minds. Hopefully, for good. She can act. Props to Natalie Portman, too, for going almost hairless for a movie role. That takes guts for an attractive actress in her mid-20's (actually, Natalie is 25). Not too much vanity there, which is rare in Hollywood, where your appearance is often your ticket to fame

My favorite line: When 'Evey' (Natalie Portman) asks 'V' (Hugo Weaving) who he is and 'V' replies: "Isn't that a rather foolish question to ask a man wearing a mask?" It was, and I like droll humor. BTW: 'Evey' replied: "I guess so". Perfect!


I give 'V' 2½ 'Mr. 5.0 stars'. Worth a rental.

[Fat0eknee]

2.5 ..rather harsh ...what would get a 4 or 5 on your scale then?

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Fat0eknee

2.5 ..rather harsh ...what would get a 4 or 5 on your scale then?

Not 'harsh', just middling. A 1 would be 'harsh' and would mean 'stinker'. 'V' was nowhere near being a stinker.

For really groundbreaking modern film, I would give '2001' and 'A Clockwork Orange' 4 stars. I would also give 'Five Easy Pieces' (1971) a '4'. Alfred Hitchcock's 'Vertigo' (1957) and 'Psycho' (1960) are a four in my 'book'. So is 'The Graduate', (1967) and 'The Godfather' series. Every decade has it's winners. I like catching the silent films Sunday at midnight on TCM. However, in any era, few flims rate a '5'.

Remember, all film reviews, no matter who writes them, are ultimately subjective - that is, one person's opinion. You take them as a guide, not the final word. Even mine.

[bmxmon]

Alot of those films you listed were on the AFI top 100 films of all time. I really like V for Vendatta, its a sweet movie. I "own" it (I rented it and burned it, im in college, i cant afford to buy movies!) and i've watched it many times. Mr 5.0, very good choice of a line. There are some other good lines, i just have a horrible memory and cant recall them off the top of my head. (though i've watched it many times now)

[DeltaMustang65]

@ 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.

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 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. (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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

[DeltaMustang65]

^Yeah, in that case, I suppose the govt should be warning us that we'll have forces in Iraq for decades, not years... I really do hope that the civilians there realize their situation and start doing things (big or small) to help us help them, rather than helping the terrorists that don't truly have their interests in mind.

Concerning the "civilian kills" comment I made, I never meant to imply that our military does anything close to terrorism, I probably should have worded my post better. I guess my mind is focused a bit too much on my classes. Speaking of...

I'm probably on the young end of the regulars here, and thus I've never seen 1984 or Clockwork Orange, etc, but I plan to. I can never find them at the rental places around here. I did get the Godfather boxed set at Best Buy a while back, and I thought it was really good. Even the 2nd and 3rd one that everyone seems to have a problem with. It's MUCH better than Scarface, which every thug wannabe in California seems to emulate these days. I swear, if I see another one of those shirts... Is wearing a Scarface shirt supposed to give you some sort of instant street cred or something?

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by mattgoveiagt

Yeah, in that case, I suppose the govt should be warning us that we'll have forces in Iraq for decades, not years...

Yes, but not in the high numbers we have now. I think that at this juncture, most Americans understand that we'll have to keep at least some military forces in Iraq almost indefinitely following any large-scale 'withdrawal'. This happens following every war. We still have soldiers in South Korea, 53 years after an 'armistice' (agreed to by all parties involved but never actually signed) went into effect, back in 1953.

I really do hope that the civilians there realize their situation and start doing things (big or small) to help us help them, rather than helping the terrorists that don't truly have their interests in mind.

So do I but Iraqis are a people that were raised under totaltarian rule (dictators) and I think they have a hard time adjusting to freedom. The Fear Factor is also a harsh reality, not a TV show, for Iraqis, many of whom live with the threat of being blown up or shot by terrorists at any time - for no real reason - except to 'terrorize' civilians. That tends to have an inhibiting effect on the locals turning in terrorists - but that can change - which is what the terrorists fear. If Iraqis' ever stop being afraid of the thugs (terrorists) that are infesting their country, Iraq will be (relatively) peaceful.

Concerning the "civilian kills" comment I made, I never meant to imply that our military does anything close to terrorism, I probably should have worded my post better. I guess my mind is focused a bit too much on my classes.

O.K. No harm, no foul.

I just wanted to point out that the U.S. military targets terrorists, not ordinary Iraqi civilians. Sometimes it's difficult to separate the two, but the U.S. military does so on a regular basis, which is remarkable. Someday, military historians will look back on our early 21st century experience in Iraq with great admiration for the skill and determination of the U.S. military and what they were able to accomplish in a few short years, under very adverse conditions.

Speaking of...

I'm probably on the young end of the regulars here, and thus I've never seen 1984 or Clockwork Orange, etc, but I plan to. I can never find them at the rental places around here.

Keep trying. Ask the manager to order either movie for you. I would strongly suggest you rent the 1984 version of '1984'. There was a 1954 version - and it stinks. Meanwhile, read the novel. It's a classic. the protagonist, Winston Smith, is a lot more compelling (and relatable) than 'V' ever was.

'A Clockwork Orange' (released back in 1971) is set in a near-future England (now run by a fascist-like government) has a sadistic psychopath ('Alex') as it's protagonist. 'Alex' is totally unlikable. However, 'Alex' is also portrayed as a (young) necessarily tough 'rugged individualist' fighting the imposed regimentation of an oppressive police state. The film is definitely flawed (on hindsight, 'Alex' - a very young Malcolm McDowell - is basically a vicious thug with no real redeeming qualities) but very well done (directed by Stanley KUbrick of '2001' fame) with lots of classical music by Beethoven on the soundtrack that - against all logic - seems to compliment the vicious violence in the movie. It's not my all-time favorite film but it's worth a rental and is very compelling. By the end, you're rooting for 'Alex' - and, as I said, he's a sadistic sociopath, at best. Interesting film for all that.

I did get the Godfather boxed set at Best Buy a while back, and I thought it was really good. Even the 2nd and 3rd one that everyone seems to have a problem with. It's MUCH better than Scarface, which every thug wannabe in California seems to emulate these days. I swear, if I see another one of those shirts... Is wearing a Scarface shirt supposed to give you some sort of instant street cred or something?

'Scarface' is a very violent crime drama (yet, also, well done) and 'Tony Montana' (played by the talented Al Pacino) is a hardened criminal. That younger people seem to find the character (a cocaine dealer, in the movie) someone worthy of 'respect' is ridiculous but then, I would guess that some of the T-shirt wearers you mention never even saw the movie (that came out back in 1983, before some of them were born). It's likely just a stupid fad. Next year, they'll be wearing T-shirts with the 'Guy Fawkes' facemask imprinted on them. Go figure.

[bmxmon]

I read 1984 in High School, and I agree it is a great novel. I truthfully cant remember if i have seen the Clockwork Orange in its entirerty, was a kinda "Hey, look at me i know of this cool old movie" thing (doest that make sense to anyone?) my first year of college, so i avoided it.