Fingernail on 27/3/2006 at 19:25
It was just about alright but came close to utter ruination in Natalie Portman's wasteland of a British accent. South African, anyone?
Also the dagger scene was LOL SUPERHERO.
Stephen Fry lifted it a fair way, to be honest.
ok, that's your :british: review. I haven't read the comics, mind.
Dia on 27/3/2006 at 19:56
I do agree that Stephen Rea was great (as always) & wish he had a larger part. He probably could have added a depth to the movie that was a bit lacking. Entertaining, but not a movie I'd pay to go see again.
RE: Natalie's accent; so that's what a South African accent sounds like (personally I thought her accent was all over the place during the movie)? Reminded me (sometimes) of Nicole Kidman's accent in 'The Interpreter' with Sean Penn.
Tocky on 28/3/2006 at 03:07
So the hero is an anarchist without the ability to see society as anything other than a smoking pile of rubble? Delightful. No doubt the villain is a characature of Bush in the most evil rights stealing cartoonish sense. I suppose it is custom made for creaming the jeans of placard waving protesters who want to eat granola with lions or something. FREE TRACER TONG! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are those who speak for the rights of IRA bombers and such, but to make a hero of an anarchist?
I get this image of the unibomber sitting in his jail cell going, "finally, somebody gets me!"
I could be totally wrong as I am speaking directly from my ass, not having seen the movie. Feel free to enlighten me as that is what my provacation was designed to elicit.
DaBeast on 28/3/2006 at 04:44
I know nothing of the comics, nor am I really a comics fan. I do like a good action flick based on a comic...as long as it's good.
So please fill in a few details here, wtf is this movie about. I get the anti establishment evil government thing, but is he supposed to look like Guy Fawkes or is it just a coincedence. Was the author saying he believed in fawkes' cause (which tbh wasnt totally unjust)
When I see the trailers all I see is some shit acting, a ridiculous mask and an even worse setting.
I'd say I'm fair when it comes to movies, Firefly/Serenity looked like a pile of shit, but I gave it a chance...was still utter shite though. Is this just another "oh look a comic that hasnt been movied yet, lets do it"?
Also, can people get off the Wachy bros case regarding The Matrix 2 & 3. It's clear the first was awesome, they just tried something new (to the west,live action movies) borrowing too heavily from anime. It didn't work out right for some folks.
Sypha Nadon on 28/3/2006 at 05:48
Actually, I think it's good that there's a film portraying a terrorist as a hero. Anything to beat the tedium of most movies these days. There's something about a major landmark being blown up set to Beethoven that never fails to get one's blood pumping, mmm...
The dictator guy, Adam Suttler (Adam Susan in the comic... kinda a weird last name, maybe that's why they changed it) was a bit one-note, but what the hell, I like John Hurt. Loved the huge TV screen of his face. The dictator was much more fleshed out in the comic though... He wasn't too much like Bush, though.
Loved the pervert priest too.
Nic-o-tin-fiend on 28/3/2006 at 06:25
I have watched V for Vendetta and i was honestly disappointed in it. It was a decent movie, alot better than The Hills Have Eyes remake,but I feel that it did not do the comic justice. Instead of trying to represent the source mat. accuratly they chose to make it a Hollywood Blockbuster. When that happens, most of the time, the audience is given the short end of the stick.
Gingerbread Man on 28/3/2006 at 06:59
Okay, now I'm sure you don't read the things you link to. That's a particularly well-written (if a bit thin on the ground) article about dystopian fiction. What did you do, just see the words "V for Vendetta", giggle over the word "masturbatory", skim the rest, and assume it was a humorous article about the movie?
You're making me dumber just by breathing the same atmosphere as me. :(
Fafhrd on 28/3/2006 at 08:04
I wonder if Udolpho has read the book, either. It seems that a pretty major part of his definition for "NAP fiction" is minute attention to detail in the policies of the evil government, and in the personality of the dictator. The film is actually quite broad about the government (the only thing anyone would be able to figure out about Norsefire from the film is that criticizing the government = bad, and non-christian ethnicities and gays = bad), and doesn't really go into the personality of the dictator at all.
That said, I quite liked the film, and think Alan Moore's a bit of a nutter for hating it as much as he does, and his hate is based entirely on an early script, and in an interview he said
Quote:
When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years... It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.
Because any idiot can see that there are NO PARALLELS between Thatcher's Britain and GWB's United States. AT ALL.
Anonymous on 28/3/2006 at 14:21
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I wonder if Udolpho has read the book, either. It seems that a pretty major part of his definition for "NAP fiction" is minute attention to detail in the policies of the evil government, and in the personality of the dictator..
I wonder if you read the post. Nowhere is detail about government policies mentioned.
