posted
I liked it. I wish I knew more about the comic/graphic novel or whatever it is...but the movie didn't really leave me with any questions. Again, I liked it. Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. Psuedo contraversy then? Like anything that mainstream, a controversy where you know exactly what both sides are going to say, and it won't matter either way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saw it. I have to give it credit for having the guts to be blatantly and unapologeticly pro-terrorist. Frankly, it's a perspective that needs to be presented. I can imagine bin Laden seeing himself as being something like V.
At the same time, the contrast between comic book terrorism and real terrorism is clear. In comic books, the terrorist can be a hero fighting a Hitler-esque supervillian, and blowing up buildings can be spectacular celebrations to save the common man. In reality, as we have seen, people die and little positive is accomplished.
It's good a comic book movie - and somewhat thought provoking. It's not winning any Oscars though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. It's well acted and directed. I enjoyed it a lot. Lots of action and interesting dialog. I'd actually see it again.
I imagine it will ruffle quite a few feathers for many different reasons. I'm interested in seeing what the commentary on the movie is like.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: people die and little positive is accomplished.
Well, that all depends on your perspective, I guess. Although you and I abhor the tragedy of 911, I think it's safe to say it isn't viewed universally as a negative.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw it. As we were leaving someone mentioned the reference to the Boston Tea Party that was made in the movie. That was an act of terrorism. However, since we won, it's patriotism. All depends on which side you're on, I guess. I thought it was really good.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I wouldn't be too tempted to call the Boston Tea Party attack an act of terrorism. Presumably our thuggish Sons of Liberty didn't kill anyone in that Party - however there are records of Torys (Loyalists) being tarred and feathered, i.e. executed - for following the british tax laws and not boycotting british goods and generally being loyal to england when things got nasty. So the big event, far as I can tell, wasn't terrorism, it was the small, not quite so flashy ones where we 'enforced' our boycott of British goods in more violent, even murderous ways - as if it was so important that we not pay a tax on paper that we should kill people who try to.
but, then again, all's well now, and we won, and even though we've been jerks sometimes, we've managed to build a republic that stood for the natural rights of man that's lasted over 200 years and even survived a terribly bloody Civil War. so, I guess the message is that even mobster thugs from the 1700s could help change the world for the better :-].
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
and I'm sorry I got way off topic. oh, and is V a Terrorist, really, the way we think of Terrorists today? I got the impression that since he made so many plans blowing up these buildings, he wouldn't let people just die in them, unless of course they were on his list for torturing him in that camp. so is he a terrorist or an Ideologue who happens to be really good at getting away with plain old murder? after the comics, and after the movies, I figured it was the latter.
Oh, and the kiss between Natalie Portman 'n Hugo Weaving. I think I gagged worse than I would have if they'd taken the mask off, and that was even with my understanding that that's exactly the sort of messed up romance Evey was headed towards.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help thinking of OSC's recent World Watch essay after seeing this movie.
The Wachowsky brothers come off as being so ultra subversive and radical, and yet, is there anything in the movie that was really that unique? By my estimation, this movie simply legitimizes the pro liberal, anti-Bush rhetoric that is so pervasive anymore. It paints conservatives in such an evil light its quite laughable.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Terrorism is a tricky word. Does it always have to involve civilian death? Is it just using fear to bring about your desired goals? If that's true, then having a "police presence" is engaging in terrorism.
In my book, V wasn't a terrorist, at least in the suicide bomber sense, because he wanted to liberate the people from their fear, not bring down another nation through fear. He did not want to scare the people of Britain; he wanted to scare politicians, and they are fair game. Now V may have been a terrorist in the insurgent sense, but even that was mild compared to what we've seen in the media. The last episode of Battlestar Galactica looked like a scene straight out of Iraq.
That said, I'm in a place where I'm not anarchist. I like institutions, even if that means that we have to suffer some bad ones, but I don't have enough vested in our American institutions to get weepy over a building being destroyed.
I did think it was interesting, him executing all of the other participants. I mean, we did the same thing at Nuremburg, and again with Eichmann, except we clothed the whole business in a trial. V was just a person who believed in the dealth penalty. He cut to the quick. And unlike most of the cowards who support the death penalty here, he doesn't any qualms about injecting the victim himself. I don't agree with the death penalty, but the difference between V with a syringe and state licensed executioner with a syringe for the same crimes isn't as far as is popular imagined.
For the most part, I didn't disagree with V's methods. I just have deep problems with his politics.
He was definitely portrayed in a heroic light, for a psycho. Another reviewer said it well, when the character gets and keeps the pretty girl, he is a hero.
posted
I haven't seen to movie yet, but the graphic novel was one of my favorites.
Aryei, V is a terrorist in the old-fashiondy 19th-century-anarchist sense of the word. In the graphic novel, first you're led to believe that V has his vendetta against the people that tortured him at the concentration camp. Then you slowly realize that his vendetta wasn't so much against them as it was against the government that allowed there to BE concentration camps.
OSC wrote an essay not so long ago comparing our modern terrorists to the anarchists of the 19th-century and wondering if we'd have to go through the same straits to remove them (i.e., two world wars). Worth a read, but I can't find a link.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and thoroughly recommend it. That said, there were several plot holes that were so obvious I wonder why they weren't addressed, but leave it to the Wachowski brothers, I guess.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By my estimation, this movie simply legitimizes the pro liberal, anti-Bush rhetoric that is so pervasive anymore.
A cartoonist who occasionally lurks at this forum has observed that the film appears to be the sort that will reinforce whatever existing bias you bring to it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, it also reinforces the pro-conservative, anti-Bush rhetoric that's becoming more and more pervasive these days.
The government in this movie is oppressive and overpowering. Maintaining a "we know what's best for you" policy, it spies on its citizens, disappears undesirables to secret locations without due process, tortures them in concentration camps, and seeks to control subversive writing, music, and thought. When Bush-supporters complain about this being a slam on the current administration, I have to wonder why they're so quick on the defensive... Remember when right-wing pundits complained about Anakin's "with me or against me" line in the last Star Wars movie? If you really think the cheesy, cliched words of a badly written, power-mad meglomaniac are a reference to something your leader said, maybe instead of complaining about liberal Hollywood you should be wondering why your leader sounds like a badly written, power-mad meglomaniac.
I loved the movie. But, as with just about every movie I've ever seen, I have nitpicks, so the Armchair Directory flies again!
**MAJOR SPOILERS!!**
Dunno if it was the movie or our theater, but several times the music was so loud I couldn't make out the dialogue. As this movie was mostly dialogue, this was a problem. Seeing V on screen was a visceral thrill. This remains one of my favorite books and Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman were perfect. And Stephen Fry! Loved all of the casting, come to that. Liked the mention, first thing, of the Boston Tea Party. A reminder that terrorist acts are in the eyes of the beholder. Great explosion. But damn, I miss his "spurned lover" soliloquy with Lady Justice. Could have done without the slow-mo knives, but what the heck. Evey's change from a young-girl-turned-amateur-prosititute to a slightly older BNTV intern worked for me. I thought the little girl with glasses was great. I missed her writing "Bollocks" on the street and giggling at the security cameras, though, but the grafitti was a nice touch and more focused on the story, I suppose. Missed the train assault on Prospero. ("Is anyone there?" "Hello.") and really missed the transubstantiation comment about the bishop, but oh well. But damn it, I was looking forward to his appearance in the bishop's chambers. "Please allow me to introduce myself..." Not enough pop culture references. "I'm waiting for the man." The loss of the party member subplots didn't bother me much. Didn't fit, would have slowed down an already concept-heavy film. Except for the disposition of the leader and Creedy, more on that later. Evey's reaction to V's casual murders was good, as was the "created a monster" line. Whatever his reasons V was a murderer, and it helped to have it acknowledged so the audience could empathize with the confusion of rooting for a terrorist. Evey's torture was handled just right. OK, so she was naked at the end in the comic, but on the big scrfeen that would have been distracting from the emotional moment. V's burns? Unnecessary, I thought, and his Vader-like yell bothered me. No mention of how he blew the place up, either. I really missed Finch's acid-trip investigation, especially his visions. "I'd forgotten how rich the color of your skin was, a thousand special blends of coffee." There were no blacks visible at any time in the movie, making the same point, but there were none in the camps, either. Racism would have been overdoing it? Or there just aren't many black people in England? Also missed his duplication of V's escape, and his discovery of the Victoria line. It was mentioned that bombing by train was a possibility and Finch favored it, but it was never explained why or how it was suggested. It was also mentioned that V must have had an inside man. I wanted the scene of V taking over the computers.
I'm torn on the ending. I really, really liked V putting the choice of the bomb into the people's, i.e. Evey's, hands, and from the moment the leader started his announcement and we saw all the rooms and bars empty, my heart was pounding. Thousands of Vs, marching. Not at all in the comic, but true to it nonetheless. V did not mean to fight the war alone, and a revolution without the people (or dancing) is hardly worth doing. However, the "deal" with Creedy and final fight scene didn't work for me and I can't really say why. Possibly just because it's such a departure from a comic I love, because as part of the movie it probably works, but I had the strong feeling that the W brothers had subdued their Matrixy urges all this time and finally had to cut loose. Didn't like the romantic subplot between V and Evey. Too Hollywood. In the comic he told her he loved her as he died, but it seemed to me to be more like Valerie's note saying "I love you" to whomever found it. He respected her, he admired her, but I never had the slightest impression he was ready to shuck the mask and run away with her. And dammit, why wasn't the train painted? Evey at the end. I still don't know why they left out V's dying line, "First, you must discover whose face lies behind this mask, but you must never know my face. Is this quite clear?" I thought his line about muscles and bones was much less powerful. But I wanted to see her put on the mask and cloak and take over. In the movie, she makes the decision as a person, not as a symbol, and that works -- and the scenes of the people of London becoming V thrilled me -- but I still missed it. I also didn't get the feeling she would carry on as V afterwards. Maybe in this version, V was no longer needed.
Nit-picking aside, this was a great movie and the best adaption yet of Alan Moore's work, even if he disagrees, and I'd better see little gold statues next year.
[ March 19, 2006, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: V's burns? Unnecessary, I thought, and his Vader-like yell bothered me. No mention of how he blew the place up, either.
You know, I originally found myself wondering how he blew up the facility, too, until I realized that there is nothing in the backstory that indicates he did blow it up. It stopped bothering me after that.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having now seen the movie: I didn't interpret those as burns. I thought his body had been ravaged by the virus they were concocting, and he was the only one that lived through the initial experiments.
That said, the demolition of the Larkhill camp was glossed over in the movie more than I'd like, given how they made it central to the plot. I would have liked some exploration of how V destroyed the camp when he left. It would really have deepened his character, and taken maybe five more minutes.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aryei: I don't know, I wouldn't be too tempted to call the Boston Tea Party attack an act of terrorism. Presumably our thuggish Sons of Liberty didn't kill anyone in that Party - however there are records of Torys (Loyalists) being tarred and feathered, i.e. executed . . .
I very much enjoyed the movie. Two things I missed the most, though, were his little chats with Lady Justice and his 'fireside chats' with the British people, going over how hard they've been working but if they can't just do better, they're fired . I think they did a pretty good job of him 'conducting' the Old Bailey's destruction-the bit of him laughing while it goes up is good, too.
As for how he escaped Larkhill, in the comic it's explained. Since he was the only one to survive the horrible biological testing they're performing on all those people, they give him some...leeway. They want to study him, try to understand how he behaves and thinks after the tests, to try and understand the changes better.
So they let him do strange things with chemicals and earth and gardening (I think gardening), and for quite awhile nothing is wrong. He's making these incredibly bizarre (to the scientists) designs all over his cell, but they can make nothing of it. There's some meaning just beyond the edge of their ability to grasp. Then there is a massive explosion and it turns out that all of these independantly benign chemicals when all put together in this incredibly intricate way form an explosive, and that's how he escaped. Presumably that's an indicator of V's genius, because certainly they wouldn't give him styff when put together (they thought) would explode.
Also thought the Party member sub-plots were good removed. Was a bit strained at the Creedy subterfuge, I think it could have been handled better though of course in the comic V did play Party members off one another.
-------------
As for all the talk about pro-Bush or anti-Bush, it just goes to show that people really strain to link things that are important to them when no real connection exists at all. At the most you can say there is a connection because, if Bush had his way, he would be an awful mustache-twirling villainous dictator who would like nothing better than to fire up a totalitarian regime, but as you can imagine I think that's pretty stupid.
It seems to me the message of the film is one discussing fear and responses to repressive governments. Overthrowing tyrannical governments is, well, what America is about in a big way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I managed to link the Chronicles of Riddick to US politics...
It's really not THAT much of a stretch.
Anyways, when did the comic come out, anyway? I mean, I'd be more inclined to believe that a movie based on a comic had something to do with the political climate of when it was written as opposed to when the movie came out.
posted
Oh, and incidentally...comparisons between V and OBL are, frankly, stupid. V makes it his business to go about killed authority figures. Party members, military personnel, police. Some civilians get hurt, but they're not his targets. Furthermore, his goals are different as well as his means. His intent is to liberate the British people from an evil governemtn and then let them pick their own. A society in which one can be Muslim, Christian, Jew, homosexual, heterosexual, Communist or fundamentalist with freedom to choose. Now in what way is that similar to OBL? In that he blows things up?
Please.
I didn't view the film as pro-terrorist at all. While the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," has a lot of truth to it, does anyone really argue that V isn't the freedom fighter of that particular saying? And that the only people who would call him a terrorist are the ones supporting the dictatorial regime?
Using violence to overthrow a dictatorship isn't really a concept Americans are uncomfortable with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Published as a trade paperback in 1988, but if I recall correctly it was written over a six year period from 1982 to 1988. (The Thatcher government was inspiration, pH.)
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LSM's comment makes a good point; since Thatcher's government was the inspiration for the comic, it shouldn't be a stretch at all to compare the movie to politics at any time, really. Since it was written before Osama bin Laden made his name, so to speak, I really don't think that there was meant to be a comparison between him and V, Rakeesh. That's my interpretation, at least.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that was a good movie. My friends were kind of freaked out in the beginning because of the eirie similarities to me and V. I'm a verbocious book lover who is a huge fan of "The Count of Monte Cristo". I'm also tall, deep voiced, a big fan of black, and a hopeless romantic.
But as to the actual movie, I thought it was wonderfully done. I knew nothing about it at all going into it, so it was a brand new experience, and definately one that I hope to replicate. The whole thing about him being an idea, a concept ... I thought that was brilliantly done. I reconciled that cheesy kiss that way, by thinking that she really is kissing the concept, loving the idea. And the shot's where it showed alllll the masked people flooding down the streets ... gave me goosebumps. And then all of them taking off the masks was very poignant.
I really really just thought it was a brilliant movie that appealed greatly to my intellectual/moral nature.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since it was written before Osama bin Laden made his name, so to speak, I really don't think that there was meant to be a comparison between him and V, Rakeesh.
That's true about the comic. But that movie was written and produced after 9/11, and is being viewed in an era focused on the spectacle of terrorism. I have difficulty imagining that the Wachowski brothers didn't consider Osama bin Laden when writing and producing it. And you all can correct me if I'm wrong, but so far everyone I've spoken to who saw it made the connection between V and our current War on Terror immediately. The movie really is extremely in your face about how V is a terrorist.
And yes - the similarity is that both blow up buildings. If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
What I didn't like about the movie is how, even though it questioned V's actions, it simply decided to assume he was right in the end. I would have preferred they left the question more open-ended. I also would have preferred it if they showed the civilians and innocents who must have been killed in his attacks. The movie presents V in a way that makes it easy to accept that he is only attacking bad guys. One could easily make a film about 9/11 in the same manner, and paint the attackers as merely out to unite the world against a corrupt power through a symbolic attack on a great landmark - this is what Al Qaeda itself has claimed they were doing on 9/11. But in reality, civilians die in these attacks. And in reality, most governments that are thought corrupt by some are also thought valid by many others. Those elements are not even hinted at in the movie. But this is a comic book movie, so I am probably a bit off base expecting realism.
Incidently, it IS a stretch to consider this movie pro- or anti-Bush. The government in power is not really in any way like the Bush administration, except that they are supposedly conservative. It does paint a pretty negative picture of biased political talk show hosts (O'Reilly) though. You could call it anti-conservative, although more from a libertarian perspective than a liberal one.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As political commentary, it was superficial at best.
As a dystopian rebellion fantasy, top notch.
BTW, as anti-Bush rhetoric, it utterly fails, to such an extent that I can't believe it was intended to be anti-Bush rhetoric. Even if it was the W. brothers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As a dystopian rebellion fantasy, top notch.
Yes! Dystopian rebellion fantasy. Exactly my type of movie. That's one of the reason's I liked it. While it did contain some politically charged issues, I didn't feel like that was the purpose of the movie. I think that the purpose of the movie was for me to enjoy it, and enjoy it I did. If the purpose was to make some big political statement or something like that, for me at least, it was a failure. A wonderful failure. Those types of movies tend to annoy me.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Triple that. Dystopian rebellion fantasy. The message seemed to be (as the comic): fasism bad, don't go willingly. Which is pretty obvious.
For me, I liked many of the more "poetic" tangeants like Vallerie and Monte Cristo. And the symbolism between V and Evey (like V, but different. One born of fire, one born of water), though I wish [SPOILER]Evey had been in V getup at the end, and that Finch had killed V[END SPOILER].
And the movie also had Stephen Fry in it. I mean, A Fish Called Wanda is automatically a good movie for having about ten seconds of Stephen Fry, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy got a pass on Stephen Fry, and you're telling me not to like a movie in which he gets a fully fleshed out supporting role?
Edit: For what it's worth discussion wise, the W brothers (brother/sister now?) wrote their original treatment of V before The Matrix.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the OBL and V comparison, I don't really think Bin Laden's intentions were to liberate the American people, like V's intentions were to liberate the British. While the actions were similar, I think the intentions were completely different. If V is like Bin Laden, then so was Timothy McVeigh.
Awesome movie, by the way.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While it did contain some politically charged issues, I didn't feel like that was the purpose of the movie. I think that the purpose of the movie was for me to enjoy it, and enjoy it I did. If the purpose was to make some big political statement or something like that, for me at least, it was a failure.
I think that like most good movies or stories, it has no single purpose - it's an interesting world and set of characters than can be looked at from a whole bunch of different perspectives. I'm inclined to view it first as a parable about what can happen when a person becomes the embodiment of an ideal. Despite V's abilities, he could not change the world through his own actions alone - but he could change the world by inspiring others to believe in the ideals he represented. That's how one domino can knock down so many others.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes - the similarity is that both blow up buildings. If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
Frankly, yes there is lots of doubt. If someone attempted to blow up Parliament in the dead of night when very few if anyone was actually in it, they would be called a terrorist but not placed in the same category as OBL, who prioritizes for maximum civilian death.
quote:One could easily make a film about 9/11 in the same manner, and paint the attackers as merely out to unite the world against a corrupt power through a symbolic attack on a great landmark - this is what Al Qaeda itself has claimed they were doing on 9/11.
Yes, one could, but such a film would be obviously lying, no matter how many times you say they're similar. Because the al Qaeda attack was not solely on a landmark. It was also on a ton of civilians, deliberately. Such a film would have to ignore that little tidbit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just sick of women in movies falling in love with their abusers. The last movie I saw, King Kong, had that too.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, yes there is lots of doubt. If someone attempted to blow up Parliament in the dead of night when very few if anyone was actually in it, they would be called a terrorist but not placed in the same category as OBL, who prioritizes for maximum civilian death.
So do you also think that if Osama bin Laden blew up the Trade Centers late at night when there were fewer people there, he wouldn't be viewed as such a bad guy? Or if he had merely sent planes into Congress instead? I think he'd be viewed as just as much a horrible terrorist either way.
V had to have known there would be civilian deaths when he targeted Parliament. The film did ignore that tidbit. V can claim he was targeting the landmark and not the civilians inside, but it is likely the government and its supporters would claim the exact opposite, and use the media to enforce that view.
And frankly, I'd have to disagree with V if he made such a claim: You can't blow up a building with people inside and then claim "I was just targeting the building, not the people." You're still knowingly murdering those people if you knew they'd be there when you blew it up. Even if you give them a year's warning.
quote:I'm just sick of women in movies falling in love with their abusers.
I think it happened the other way around though. She seemed to fall in love first - and then afterwards he ended up abusing her. Although, I guess you could make the argument that she didn't really love him until after those events caused her to. I got the impression she was in love when she first stayed with him - he certainly was.
A good lesson though - try to avoid having people who wear masks 24 hours a day fall in love with you.
posted
Yes, Tresopax, I do think OBL would not be viewed as badly by Americans had he targeted WTC at night to minimize civilian murder. We'd still be infuriated and at war, but c'mon, you know as well as I do how much the number 3,000 has been played.
As for abuse...well, was it really abuse? By some definitions it obviously was, yes. In fact by most standard definitions it was, yes. But defining it solely as abuse misses some points, I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The abuse of Evey seems to be a parellel almost exactly to his abuse of the nation. They both involved pain, lots of pain, but they both were done out of a genuine concern for the nation in one case, the girl in the other case. He abused Evey to free her from fear, he terrorized Britain to free it from tyranny. Paradoxes both.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no, OBL would not be viewed as badly. He would still be viewed as a terrorist, because our ideals do not align, therefore we label his act of destruction as terrorism. But if he had deliberately not aimed at civilians, and publicly stated so, then he would not be nearly as villified. If he had attacked the ideal of America without specifically targeting the people, I might even hold a grain of respect for him. I would still hate him, because I love America. But my love for America is not as vehement as my love for my family. I had an aunt in NYC. She was alright, but the fact that OBL targeted her seriously ticks me off. If his actions and words were such that I believed he sincerely only targeted the ideal, I would hate him for what he did to something I love, but not as much as I hate him now for potentially hurting people I love.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What civillian would remain inside of Parliament when they know an attempt was going to be made on the building? It wasn't only the midnight timing that ensured nobody would be there.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're referring here to the Old Bailey, actually. On the second Nov. 5th, fair warning would be considered given, I think. The Old Bailey was different, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't really think any connection between the government in "V" and the american government, or any connection between V and OBL was intended. it was a movie about a fascist government that was overthrown. to me it was what 1984 would have been if it had a super hero in it. well, maybe not that far, but pretty close.
There were only two times in the movie when i saw a link to todays political climate, and they were the same link. twice they said that the catalyst for the war that gave way to the fascist government was "America's war." i believe one of the exact quotes was "America's war spread to Europe" and it showed a very brief clip of what looked suspiciously like american desert combat gear. apparantly the war on iraq spread to europe, and the british gov't used chemical warfare on itself to scare it's citizens into accepting a facist gov't. so there is your bush bashing, and i thought it was quite humurous. outlandish and unlikely, but humurous none-the-less.
also, i laughed aloud at the look on Evey's face when her captor left her alone in the jail at the end of her imprisonment.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
The difference, in my mind, is that V didn't blow up Parliament tomorrow. He waited until a repressive dystopian government enslaved a nation, then he blew it up.
As has been said, there are big differences between V's goals and Osama's, and the fact that tactics were similar does not change that. V was willing to give his life to put power in the hands of the people. Osama is willing to give the lives of countless subordinates while he hides in a cave like a little bitch, with the ultimate goal of putting power into his own hands. Osama would like nothing more than to be the entity that V died fighting.
posted
I don't know if I'm the only one, but this movie reminded me of nothing so much as The Professional.
Both were advertised as adrenaline-fuled action extravaganzas. Both had a short scene in the beginning that allowed the hero to show off what a bad ass he was. Then the hero meets Natalie Portman, and basically the entire rest of the movie is a plot-heavy exploration of the nature of the title character and his blossoming relationship with Ms Portman. Then, at the very end, the hero gets one short scene where he kills a bunch of bad guys just before he gets capped, and Natalie gets the denouement all to herself.
The main difference was that the mostly action-free plot in this movie was actually interesting. If it weren't for that, I'd have called them on plagarism. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Possible spoilers in this post, read at your own risk...
V is no terrorist. The Old Bailey was destroyed past curfew, wasn't it? I don't think he purposefully killed any civilians. Actually, was there any evidence that even one innocent civilian was killed during the whole movie by V?
The people of the government were the terrorists. They were the ones using fear to control the populace. They were the ones that killed almost 100,000 people in that wave of attacks.
V only caused terror for other terrorists, the people were almost jumping out of their seats watching V's broadcast... I would almost call him an anti-terrorist.
Am I missing something here? Maybe I have to watch the movie again, or at least give it time to sink in, as I just got home from the theater.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was one thing I didn't buy about the film. They seem to have vastly underestimated the power of propaganda. I don't have nearly enough faith in the public to believe that they'd hear one speech and a year of media saturation later would be ready to march on a machine-gun bearing military encampment unarmed. We're talking about people who can't consistenly decide which American Idol contestant to get behind from one week to the next, and whose opinions on political leaders are as likely to come from a Saturday Night Live sketch or a forwarded email as actual research and critical analysis.
I might have believed it if it were a few hundred organized rebels, but seeing all of London come out in their masks at the same time was a little too much for me.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. I think they did a pretty good job of him 'conducting' the Old Bailey's destruction-the bit of him laughing while it goes up is good, too.
