flats ([info]flatspunk) wrote,
@ 2006-03-28 22:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
v is for valor , s is for sheep
I just got back from seeing V for Vendetta. In one word: beautiful. I walked out of the movie almost speechless. It was quite an emotional ride presenting scenes of love, beauty, anger, fear, revenge, compassion, and many more. There was a build up of intensity through the entire movie, even though the ending was obvious -- the ride was well worth it.

The politics in the movie are apparent, but not as thick as the anti-authority/control/power/corruption themes. The "violence is sometimes necessary" theme is always an interesting one (viewed from both sides). Of course I *love* vigilante movies (death wish, count of monte cristo, boondock saints, darkman) -- always a treat. The violence was cool. And the wonderful dialog and wit was highly entertaining. I could rant on about what I loved, what could have been different, the themes...blahblahblah, it rocked. It's already in the imdb top 250, which is cool...I hope it stays up there.

I was very sad to see this post (the one by author Chance): http://p078.ezboard.com/f550undergroundfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=8237.topic&start=1&stop=20


This guy felt as though V was an anti-Republican film -- I think that's very telling of one's politics. When the film depicts obviously corrupt authoritarians in power, suppressing the freedom of the government's subjects -- and his thought is "this is Hollywood leftist anti-Republican garbage" I have to fucking laugh at how pathetic and sad this person is. What would this guy think if he saw Julius Ceasar turned into a movie???? If your politics are narrow-minded enough to not question authority (especially) when you know it's corrupt, I generally feel sorry for you.

Thatleads back to last night's post, and I'll close on this: if you do something you feel is wrong and continue to do so out of obedience -- you have no dignity and need a punch in the groin.


(Post a new comment)

Hrm.
[info]trestle
2006-03-29 09:44 am UTC (link)
I really didn't enjoy the movie. They borrowed a tad too much from current events, but some people do enjoy, so I'm glad you at least go your money's worth. For me, it was like watching a sick, twisted version of the news. The point was to invoke thought, point well taken.

I think Will and I found all but one of the parallels listed on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29

BTW Psst...

Republicans are the confirmed minority in the entertainment industry: ;)

Source 1:

http://www.demos.org/pub436.cfm
the entertainment industry made nearly $40 million in 2000 campaign donations, with 64 percent going to Democrats. (By comparison, Democrats got 68 percent of donations in 2004 and 62 percent in 1996.)

Source 2:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3482546
Hollywood topped the list in overall contributions to the 2004 presidential election, with a total of $4.5 million; $3.1 million of it went to the Kerry campaign, and the remaining $1.3 million went to Bush.


Cheerio- back to bed. 'ni'ni!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Hrm.
[info]flatspunk
2006-03-29 02:38 pm UTC (link)
So you think it was an anti-republican movie too?

*shakes head in shame*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Hrm.
[info]trestle
2006-03-29 04:33 pm UTC (link)
;)

s/but some people do enjoy/which some people do enjoy (3am posts bad)

PS. I'm a libertarian hawk. *b'aaa*

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]quantum80
2006-03-29 05:18 pm UTC (link)
This is another odd occasion where everyone loves this movie, and I just don't get the excitement. Things that killed it for me:

1. The implication of massive government tyranny and oppression were only exhibited through a midnight curfew and two black baggings that were shown. The rest was all vaguely implied through speeches to a 'high council' which was in charge. Meh. That's a dictatorship, not tyranny.

2. The love story was very out of place. He tortures her, abuses her, kidnaps her, and all of a sudden she falls in love? This seems much more like a twisted case of Stockholm Syndrome.

3. The revolution was pushed on the people. Was there a massive outcry or rebellion before the one cataclysmic event? Kids tagging on the walls is hardly the foundation of a rebellion. I just felt like with all the time and filler they dumped into this movie, they could have put in a lot more focusing on the overall frustration of the population, the tyranny being forced on them, and the widespread oppression. Leaving that out, it seemed to give the message that blowing up buildings was okay if YOU knew it was for the greater good. (Timothy McVeigh?)

4. God it draaaaaaaaaagged. About two hours into the movie I was looking at my watch wondering when the big climax would come. Like I said above, I really felt like they could have paced it better by focusing on more than the two story lines.

Those being said ...

I really liked the imagery of the people who were resisting and keeping things they weren't supposed to have. The sets were amazing, the color themes in the movie were brilliant and tasty.

Natalie Portman definitely showed an incredible range in her acting.

I could see the parallels that the ultra-defensive right would draw, but that seems more like a guilty conscious than anything else. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]flatspunk
2006-03-29 08:04 pm UTC (link)
quick reply

1. It was more or less a dictatorship (which is still a govt) that controlled media as well -- plus the virus, supression of art and music, supression of information (the cop story line), and even more was implied but it was very obvious that the people lived in fear and that people went along with it because they felt powerless -- this was expresed in all the people who watched tv -- and it was part of Natalie's dynamic. Only exibited through curfew? Did we watch the same movie?

2. The love story was spawned at least 2 times before the jail scene -- first at the beginning second when Natalie reminded V what love is (and their conversation about the count of monte cristo) -- I thought it was an important part of the story, she reminded him that revenge is not enough of a cause. She was pissed at him because she already loved him.

3. Part of this goes back to the old debate of "are you oppressed if you are ignorant of your own oppression". But the people felt powerless against the govt. -- with the news video V gave them the opportunity to rise against the govt. The people had no underground leader before that time.

4. You must have not liked the good dialog. =P I thought there was a lot of intensity throughout the entire movie, various buildups with splashes of action every 10-15 mins or so. I thought it was very well-paced.

Did we watch the same movie ?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]trestle
2006-03-30 12:28 am UTC (link)
=Everyone= eh? ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…