you know what i hate?

[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.

Originally Posted by Mr 5 0

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.



'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.

1984 book and movie was awesome, i studied both in highschool for media studies. then reread and rewatched after i had grown up more. it gets a big thumbs up from me.

clockwork orange is another great movie, very intresting.

scarface was ok, it had good parts where you'd kinda feel sorry for tony cause he was so pathetic.

[DeltaMustang65]

Originally Posted by Mr 5 0

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.

I laughed. Great mental picture.

What Bmxmon says is true. There are a LOT of college students that are "film snobs". For example, check out a few random profiles of college kids on myspace (speaking of things I hate ) and you'll notice a LOT of the same movies on their favorites lists. Same goes for music. Scene kids, I think they're called. "Wow, listen to a band that I've never even heard of? Congratulations on that discovery, you're so much better than me now." Nevermind the fact that it's usually a sucky emo/goth band...God I hate that website...

Oh, another thing I hate is when some ass makes a profile on MW just to peddle some phones, x-boxes, porn, etc. You should have to have a background check done or SOMEthing before you can post here, or even just to use the internet. They should have a license for that.

My physiology professor made a Rocky Horror reference today. Something along the lines of "I'm shivering with antici......pation." I haven't seen this movie either, but it DID make for an amusing Drew Carey show, so why not? Gosh, I'm so uncultured, aren't I? HAHA