Just got back from seeing this at an IMAX, and I’m gonna have to give it my very rarely dispensed 2 thumbs up.
Great writing, great storyline, great action, great acting.
Although I am quite partial to movies dealing with totalitarian governments, as I find the concept fascinating, I do believe this movie will be well received by anyone who appreciates a good movie.
Like I said, a recommendation like this from me doesn’t come often. Also, if you have a chance to see it at an IMAX, I strongly recommend you do so.
[quote]vermilion wrote:
I’m sure Alan Moore hated it. He’s probably sitting at home right now, weeping into huge piles of cash…
I’ll wait for DVD as, my Moore jibe aside, there’s just no way it can live up to the book. [/quote]
Indeed, it’s always tough to see a movie after you’ve read the book upon which it is based, due to the fact that you form your own images in your mind as you read the book, and it’s odd to see your images contradicted with someone else’s onscreen.
That stated, however, I think this movie does just about as good a job as putting powerful images to a novel as I’ve seen, besides maybe Lord of The Rings.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
vermilion wrote:
I’m sure Alan Moore hated it. He’s probably sitting at home right now, weeping into huge piles of cash…
I’ll wait for DVD as, my Moore jibe aside, there’s just no way it can live up to the book.
Indeed, it’s always tough to see a movie after you’ve read the book upon which it is based, due to the fact that you form your own images in your mind as you read the book, and it’s odd to see your images contradicted with someone else’s onscreen.
That stated, however, I think this movie does just about as good a job as putting powerful images to a novel as I’ve seen, besides maybe Lord of The Rings.[/quote]
Exactly. A 25 year old graphic novel which is why I love hearing that it is “liberal propoganda” considering the events at the time that sparked the story.
I thought it was pretty weak. Over the top drama-wise, and a bit too weepy for me. I liked the idea and overall message, but just thought everything was a bit too contrived.
As a caveat, I’ll never look at Natalie Portman the same with that shaved head, she looked like a little boy…slap a sailor suit on her and I’d be all over her.
Alan Moore might not have hated this movie, but we’ll never know because he’ll never watch it. Essentially DC tricked him when they negotiated the deal to rerun the comics in America and they ended up owning the rights to the story outright, he no longer owned his own stories, in that deal he lost League of Extrodinary Gentleman, Constantine and V for Vendetta. He does not blame anyone but himself for this and he’s not whining about it but he did ask DC to remove his name from the reprints of the books and from the films along with any advertising for it. He figured it didn’t belong to him, he had no control over how it was used so he didn’t want his name on it and he refused any compensation, he asked that his portion of any royalites go to the artists.
And of course this movie has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism, it’s about an anarchist (Moore himself is an anarchist) fighting a Facist regime… and getting some revenge along the way. If you read the books you know that V wasn’t presented as a hero, he did what he did, he killed people and it was left purposefully vague as to whether or not they deserved or he was just insane. The movie trys to clear that up and make him more of an anti-hero, I’m sure Moore would have been annoyed by that aspect of it.
I liked the movie, it was slow in some parts and if you don’t know what’s going on it can be hard to follow, there are elements that look like plot holes, if you read the books, they’re not but in the context of the film a lot is left unexplained. The Wachowski Brothers did the best they could with material that they loved and that they understand, at least there’s that, the guys who wrote the screenplay and produced the movie were fans of the comic who ‘got it’ even if they couldn’t fully translate that onto the screen.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Also, if you have a chance to see it at an IMAX, I strongly recommend you do so.[/quote]
I was thinking of seeing this tonight…what exactly does an IMAX have to offer that a regular theatre doesn’t?
(I’ve never been to an IMAX before…the one here costs $5 more, is it really worth the extra money?).
[quote]Jerome wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Also, if you have a chance to see it at an IMAX, I strongly recommend you do so.
I was thinking of seeing this tonight…what exactly does an IMAX have to offer that a regular theatre doesn’t?
(I’ve never been to an IMAX before…the one here costs $5 more, is it really worth the extra money?). [/quote]
A movie screen the size of a large house and a sound system to knock that house down. Spend the 5 bucks for it.
[quote]Prod wrote:
Jerome wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Also, if you have a chance to see it at an IMAX, I strongly recommend you do so.
I was thinking of seeing this tonight…what exactly does an IMAX have to offer that a regular theatre doesn’t?
(I’ve never been to an IMAX before…the one here costs $5 more, is it really worth the extra money?).
A movie screen the size of a large house and a sound system to knock that house down. Spend the 5 bucks for it.[/quote]
Indeed. It’s very few movies that are released in IMAX format, so I go to pretty much all of them. Unfortunately, not even IMAX could salvage that horrendous Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake…
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Indeed. It’s very few movies that are released in IMAX format, so I go to pretty much all of them. Unfortunately, not even IMAX could salvage that horrendous Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake…[/quote]
There was a remake? I thought they made it following the book this time…
Well, no IMAX here, but I figured I’d go catch it this afternoon.
I’d never seen the original material, so I wasn’t sure how the mask would go over, but once it was explained, I got over that aspect of it.
While some will claim it is propaganda, the fact it is much older than current events may suggest that the issues raised are in fact worthy of consideration.
However, I strongly suspect half the population will be forced to hate this while the other half splits down the middle based on what they like in a movie.
All that aside, the odd twist and satisfying explanation added a lot to what otherwise may have been a bit slow at times.
As a person who just plain likes to hit the movies, I’d say go see it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
While some will claim it is propaganda, the fact it is much older than current events may suggest that the issues raised are in fact worthy of consideration.
However, I strongly suspect half the population will be forced to hate this while the other half splits down the middle based on what they like in a movie.[/quote]
Ah, yes, these are the days when one’s view of the world and even interpretation of scientific facts depend on their political affiliation.
It’s called the New Dark Ages. It’s the reason I find it harder and harder to have at least respect for mankind.
Excellent movie, saw it last night. It is also a criticism on current trends of controlling populations through fear. As such, it’s more than just an action movie. Same message, though from a different perspective, as “State of Fear”, Michael Crichton’s latest book.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
vermilion wrote:
I’m sure Alan Moore hated it. He’s probably sitting at home right now, weeping into huge piles of cash…
I’ll wait for DVD as, my Moore jibe aside, there’s just no way it can live up to the book.
Indeed, it’s always tough to see a movie after you’ve read the book upon which it is based, due to the fact that you form your own images in your mind as you read the book, and it’s odd to see your images contradicted with someone else’s onscreen.
That stated, however, I think this movie does just about as good a job as putting powerful images to a novel as I’ve seen, besides maybe Lord of The Rings.
It’s a comic book. [/quote]
What does the fact that it’s a comic book mean?
A work of fiction’s medium doesn’t have any bearing upon its relevance/worth.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Alan Moore might not have hated this movie, but we’ll never know because he’ll never watch it. Essentially DC tricked him when they negotiated the deal to rerun the comics in America and they ended up owning the rights to the story outright, he no longer owned his own stories, in that deal he lost League of Extrodinary Gentleman, Constantine and V for Vendetta. He does not blame anyone but himself for this and he’s not whining about it but he did ask DC to remove his name from the reprints of the books and from the films along with any advertising for it. He figured it didn’t belong to him, he had no control over how it was used so he didn’t want his name on it and he refused any compensation, he asked that his portion of any royalites go to the artists.
[/quote]
Hey sport, where are you getting your intel?
Moore used John Constantine as a guest character in the Swamp Thing series. When Constantine got his own comic, Hellblazer, Moore was not part of it, nor has he been for the last 220 issues or so. It hasn’t been “his” character for a long, long time.
Furthermore, the story goes that Moore came up with J.C. only because the Swamp Thing artists wanted to draw some guy that looked like Sting…I doubt he has ANY emotional ties to the character.
League was done for Dark Horse Comics, so how DC could possibly screw him on this is beyond me…
