V for Vendetta

Saw the film today and liked it. When I heard it was written by the Wachowski brothers/siblings or whatever they are calling themselves these days, I thought for sure I would hate it. Not a fan of the Matrix or its sequels.

The cinematography was great.

Bad part: Portmans accent and Antony and the Johnsons included on the soundtrack.

I can't wait to see it in the movies. Maybe when I get back to school from Spring Break.

Read the graphic novel a few years back. Really liked it.

Film ought to be good.

i'm looking forward to seeing this. it's probably the only film that interests me at the moment.

Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

All the reviews have either said its good, or its a complete turkey, i.e. no middle ground. One US Reviewer living in England did say that the subtle undertones of the film are fascinating re: Bush n' Blair, so when ya see it, look out for them, as i will.

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

it's a bit of an updated guy fawkes from what i've heard. i haven't read any reviews of it, though.

There was a TV experiment last year, to see if the amount of gunpowder found under the Houses of Parliament would have done the job if ignited.

A mock concrete 'Houses' was built, and hell, it was blown for miles.

Guy was close, apart from his treacherous mates.:rip:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

All the reviews have either said its good, or its a complete turkey, i.e. no middle ground. One US Reviewer living in England did say that the subtle undertones of the film are fascinating re: Bush n' Blair, so when ya see it, look out for them, as i will.

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

I read a review of this in Entertainment Weekly and they compared it to the Bush administration, not Bush and Blair. Some character represents Bush, another Cheyney, something symbolizes WMD...

I guess it's best not to take movies so literally. I just want to be entertained no matter what.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

That'd be Alan Moore, comic book legend. You might recall the Pop Will Eat Itself hit Can U Dig It?

Alan MooreKnows the score

He's had significant 'creative differences' with Hollywood's adaptations of all his graphic novels. LoEG, From Hell, Constantine, etc.

I'm interested to see VfV and more so for the upcoming adaptation of his seminal Watchmen epic. It's been 'in the works' for years now.

:\pimp3:

[orange]depthcharge[/orange] wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..

That'd be Alan Moore, comic book legend. You might recall the Pop Will Eat Itself hit Can U Dig It?Alan Moore/Knows the score------I'm interested to seeV f V and more so for the upcoming adaptation of his seminal Watchmen epic. It's been 'in the works' for years now. :\pimp3:

see it just for thinking of it being called V f V. nicely fits.. there certainly has been so much hype - surrounding these projects. the trailers were out months ago.

what they did with league of extraordinary gentlemen was a travesty. two hours (if that) of filler--hollywood blockbuster action film.

this one looks more meaty, what with the 'what is a terrorist?' underlying message.

I think it looks quality gonna go see it ASAP. Get in free in Odeon, mint

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

All the reviews have either said its good, or its a complete turkey, i.e. no middle ground. One US Reviewer living in England did say that the subtle undertones of the film are fascinating re: Bush n' Blair, so when ya see it, look out for them, as i will.

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

I read a review of this in Entertainment Weekly and they compared it to the Bush administration, not Bush and Blair. Some character represents Bush, another Cheyney, something symbolizes WMD...

These undertones in movies turn me off. Do the movie as it was intended, no matter the politics of today. I plan on seeing the movie, but purposefully NOT looking for political undertones.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

All the reviews have either said its good, or its a complete turkey, i.e. no middle ground. One US Reviewer living in England did say that the subtle undertones of the film are fascinating re: Bush n' Blair, so when ya see it, look out for them, as i will.

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

I read a review of this in Entertainment Weekly and they compared it to the Bush administration, not Bush and Blair. Some character represents Bush, another Cheyney, something symbolizes WMD...

These undertones in movies turn me off. Do the movie as it was intended, no matter the politics of today. I plan on seeing the movie, but purposefully NOT looking for political undertones.

JHC

There are more Nazi undertones than there are Bush/Cheney.

) filmakker did not make movie like before sensuality,silence between plans,beautifull shadows,are lost)URL : Protocole HyperText Transfer (HTTP)

V for Virtuous Velvet

V for Velvet Voice

68 Pontiac wrote:

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Its odd, cos the original comic book writer has disowned it entirely..( I cant remember his name, but he wrote 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and is a tad eccentric with a beard).

All the reviews have either said its good, or its a complete turkey, i.e. no middle ground. One US Reviewer living in England did say that the subtle undertones of the film are fascinating re: Bush n' Blair, so when ya see it, look out for them, as i will.

Any film that blows up the Houses of Parliament is cool in my eyes though.

I read a review of this in Entertainment Weekly and they compared it to the Bush administration, not Bush and Blair. Some character represents Bush, another Cheyney, something symbolizes WMD...

These undertones in movies turn me off. Do the movie as it was intended, no matter the politics of today. I plan on seeing the movie, but purposefully NOT looking for political undertones.

JHC

What are you talking about, "Do the movie as it was intended"? Who do you think is "doing the movie" anyway-- do you think some NOOL hijacker got hold of the mvie after the filmmaker was through with it and added some "undertone"?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What are you talking about, "Do the movie as it was intended"? Who do you think is "doing the movie" anyway-- do you think some NOOL hijacker got hold of the mvie after the filmmaker was through with it and added some "undertone"?

??????????????

A film is *supposed to be* a work of art. The artist (read: filmmaker) often comments on social conditions through the subtext (read: undertone) of the film's *story.* One example is the science fiction films of the 1950s that had an undertone of commentary on the "red scare."

When you say "why don't they do the movie as intended," you're suggesting the filmmaker didn't do the film as he/she intended. When you say you ignore the undertone, you're saying you're ignoring crucial aspects of the work of art you're viewing. Bit like listening to NO with Hooky's bass cut out, and asking why NO didn't record the song "as intended" (i.e., without Hooky's bass).

I see your point, and agree in many aspects, however it is a comic series that already has it's own storyline. Adding present political feelings of the director skews the film. If the comic book originally had these undertones, then they should stay there, but if they were not, the director really shouldn't put his "own" undertones into themovie.

JHC

I've often been disappointed when a film strays from the book it was based on. However, the fact is the film is an art form separate from its literary source, and it is not the filmmaker's job to faithfully recreate the literary source.

Agreed, but there are lines that "shouldn't" be crossed. Adding own political feelings is one of them I believe.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote: Agreed, but there are lines that "shouldn't" be crossed. Adding own political feelings is one of them I believe.

JHC

But in doing so, the director makes it his own work. However, as I said, I've often been disappointed with a book's translation to film.

V for VELVEETA!!!

i'll keep an eye out for that one. it sounds interesting.

aye, i read this one when it came out (& still have my autographed copy of the watchmen) alan moore hasn't been best treated & i really can't see that improving if they ever do make watchmen

do quite fancy seeing v though just the same.

MOORE must be getting seriously pissed off,because LoEG,Constantine and From Hell were shite.This one looks good though.