Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on March 16, 2006, 03:43:47 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1269
-
Intriguing review. Although I probably won't see it.
Yes, Mr. Weaving is an excellent actor. If you've seen 'Pricilla Queen of the Desert' then you have a wider knowledge of his range as an actor ;) beyond all the violence of 'The Matrix' and primness of 'LOTR.'
-
the Portman crack is a little unfair in a way, everyone sleepwalked through the prequals, its just hard to get a lot out of an actor when you give them bad dialog and film them exclusively in front of green screens. Which is why Im not a huge fan of CGI.
-
It's also somewhat odd to use Star Wars an example of her acting, given that she's done plenty of other stuff and even been nominated for an Oscar. She is rather inescapably linked to StarWars, though, so I suppose it makes sense.
-
Well, they weren't bashing her. They were saying that she delivers much more than she did in Star Wars and that seems like a good point to compare her to since everyone saw those.
-
Yes, I believe Skar is right about the point my brother was trying to make about Natalie Portman. She wowed both of us in "Cold Mountain", and we both frequently find ourselves defending her to those who have only seen her in "Star Wars." But to the average movie goer, and even more so to the average fan of science fiction and genre films, the first image that comes to mind is Padme Amidala. I mean, how many people on this site read "Natalie Portman" and think "Oh yeah, 2005 Oscar Nominee for 'Closer'"? Personally, it makes me crazy when people refer to the great Liam Neeson as "what's his name who played Qui-Gonn Jinn", but to a lot of people, that's who he is.
Personally, I feel some actors, particularly Ewan McGregor, rose above the material and the CGI better than Portman did. She seems, to me, to be the least sincere of the leads, and her emotions seem too mannered and hollow to me (yes, even by comparison to Hayden Christensen). But when I saw her in "Cold Mountain", I knew that was not due to lack of ability on her part. Sadly, even though I am a lifelong Lucas fan, I must conclude it is largely due to inadequate direction. George is a great many things, but he is no director of actors. Whereas "Cold Mountain" director Anthony Minghella is a lot less exciting and fun, but is superb with actors.
I have not yet seen "V For Vendetta", so I don't have an opinion of her performance there.
-
I kind of got that, but just felt that I needed to comment on the fact that no one would accuse any of the actors in the prequals of turning in a stellar performance. Adequate is about as high as my dart would go.
I agree about Cold Mountain... wow she was amazing.
-
Liam Neelson is not qui-gon-jin. He is Rob Roy.
-
No, hes...well, yeah, he's Rob Roy.
-
Well, they weren't bashing her. They were saying that she delivers much more than she did in Star Wars and that seems like a good point to compare her to since everyone saw those.
Not everyone.
But I did watch her with Jon Stewart the other night and she was amazing.
-
It was a pretty good show. With a few changes it would have been awesome, too bad. I hope there is an extended version for dvd, I think it could use it.
-
Not everyone.
I cannot be held accountable for your being a Sci-Fi bumpkin.
-
Well, I just got back from seeing this. (Yes, it's 4:40 in the afternoon on a workday. Don't you wish you had my job?) Personally, I thought this movie was excellent. Not flawless, but brilliant in almost every way. Every actor was dead-on, and the characters they portrayed were just what they needed to be, with nothing more. It's a movie with a strong political slant, to be sure, and I think that'll make a lot of people not like it. But to me, the whole thing is just a metaphor. And as both a story and a metaphor, it's simply powerful.
-
I saw it as well (with Tage, in fact, imagine that), and I quite agree. It's absolutely not an action movie (there are only two fight scenes, and they're both relatively short), and in that sense I think the trailers did it a disservice--a lot of people who would appreciate a thought-provoking political movie won't bother, because they think it's all about kicking people and blowing stuff up. It's not--it's about why, and who, and whether anything should be blown up, which is far deeper and more interesting.
-
I believe V had three fights, but all of them were incredibly short. But still pretty stylish, nice change from all the Matrix imitation on fighting.
-
Well, I saw this film last night. I must say that I agree with all of you on the quality of the acting and the technical expertise of the film and storytelling.
But I have to say that the political message was ham-handedly forced down one's throat. It was so blatantly a propoganda piece I almost walked out. The only adults in the society pictured who were capable of questioning the despotic dictatorship, aside from V himself, were the gays. Apparently heteros are all sheep incapable of making decisions on their own. Had gays been portrayed as heteros were in this film there would be protesters even now lighting themselves on fire in front of theaters. Way, way over the top on that one.
And then, when describing the main bad guy, the psychotic on the big screen ordering murders and arrests, it is apparently enough to explain everything he's done to declare that he was, and I quote "a conservative and deeply religious" Not a "radical right-winger" or a "religious fanatic" merely conservative and deeply religious. I'm not kidding, it's as plain as that.
I won't even touch the hysterically one-sided take on the "American War."
If a film wants to stand-alone as a "metaphor" or an "allegory" then it can't tie itself so plainly to actual events of today.
The frustrating thing for me is that, with the same quality of acting and storytelling, I would really have enjoyed the film, if only someone hadn't used it as a very obvious soapbox.
-
I'd pay more attention to that kind of warning from Skar if he didn't make it about every film he saw.
-
Well that was part of what I ment of stuff that would have made the film better if done different, so I agree with him. I don't recall what Skar has said about other shows, but he is right in this case.
-
I'd pay more attention to that kind of warning from Skar if he didn't make it about every film he saw.
Silly and untrue blanket statements will get you nowhere, sir!
-
I knew going into it that this was a blatantly political film, so none of that bothered me. The entire purpose of a piece about civil disobedience is to make you mad, so I say mission accomplished.
I'd also like to point out that all three main characters, Evey, V, and Finch, were heterosexuals who questioned, and ultimately fought against, the dictator.
-
Actually, neither Evey nor Finch ever actually fought or even spoke against the dictator without being coerced or led by the hand. The closest either came was when Evey maced the police guy in the BTN building, and she later concluded that she did that because she felt she owed V for saving her earlier, not because she was fighting against the dictator.
V, as the protagonist, is treated as an exception to the rule, he even speaks as such when addressing the populace.
It is easy to make a film about civil disobedience without propogandizing on current events and issues. This film could certainly have been made without it. Perhaps it was true to the source material? I have never read the comic books it was based on, but if anyone has I'd like to know if the slant was added for the film or pulled straight from the text.
As I said in my earlier post, it was a well-crafted story, the medium was well utilized, the acting was quite good... My only objection was simply that it was such blatant propoganda. I can't get past that. I prefer my propoganda to be like a knife in the dark rather than a piano from the 10th floor.
-
Some of the homosexual stuff was pulled straight out of the original (such as Valerie's letter), while others were added for the film (such as the friend Evey stays with, who is actually a really nice way of adapting the original script in my opinion). I don't doubt that the film is slanted this way on purpose, given that Larry Wachowski is transexual, but honestly--it didn't bother me at the time or in retrospect, and I fail to see it in the same brutal light that you do. This is a society in which homosexuals are torn from their homes and sent into concentration camps--of course every one you meet is going to be an activist.
To be honest, though, one of the things I love about this movie is that it has so many fascinating topics to discuss--and the deption of homosexuality is far from the most interesting. This is a movie about a lovable terrorist hero, who evokes 9/11 at almost every opportunity with lines like "it's okay to blow up a building, because people don't need a building as much as they need an idea." We'll probably need a spoiler thread to get into any serious discussion of this or the movie's other themes, but I definitely think there's a ton to talk about.
-
Why do you say he is a terrorist? I didn't see him as that at all.
-
Terrorist. We had a long discussion about the definition of a terrorist on the forum months, maybe years ago and V fits one definition of terrorist in the same way eco-terrorists do, or any revolutionary for that matter. He blows up legitimate military and government targets and does not purposefully kill innocents.
However, he doesn't fit the definition of terrorist as it is used when explaining who we're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Phillippines, (who are essentially the same people the Israelis are fighting). Those are the people who brought the WTC down midmorning on a workday, who blow themselves up amid crowds of children, who target night-clubs and grocery stores etc... I call terrorists who deliberately murder innocents, "snuff terrorists." And V was definitely not a snuff terrorist. He went out of his way NOT to kill innocents and so is an apple to Al Qaeda's orange.
To respond to Fell: I agree that in a society where gays are targeted for concentration camps lots of them would be activists and thus running into a gay activist in a story set in such a society is reasonable. My problem stems from the fact that that's all there were. Non-gays were implicitly dismissed as sheep, including everyone but V. But, I admit to a bit of bias since I'm sick to death of being beaten over the head with the "be nice to gays" stick. I am as nice to them as I am to anyone else and everybody I know is as well. It's a false sense of persecution being developed for them so that political agendas can be carried forward. That's my opinion and is meant to explain why this film bugged me on that front, not start a flame war. If anyone wants to explain to me the error of my ways, start a new thread and address it.
But the other thing that bugged me is the "conservative and deeply religious" line explaining the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and everything else Sutler was guilty of. Imagine if instead it had been, "liberal, and a committed atheist." or "freethinking and prochoice" There would have been lynchings. But because of the PC double standard, I and many of the people on this forum are expected to swallow that kind of vicious prejudice against us and like it. Not I.
-
Yes it was very one-sided with liberalism. Even if you say all the good guys were not gay, all of the gays were still good and all christians were bad guys. I just watched it again with my brother and I didn't see anyone say like trust in god or something like that who wasn't evil.
Also, with the bishop... well this is kind of a common story element that the bishop is evil, ie Robin Hood, 3 Musketeers, etc. But of course the recent news was bishops sleeping with boys, however in the movie he was sleeping with young girls. Okay maybe a small detail, but after a second viewing I thought that it was such an obvious change just to show no "gay" in evil roles. (yeah that would be more like a pedophile, but that is how far the film goes to disassociate gay with evil).
Clearly it was a movie that should have a bit of this, just it would have been better if not so lop-sided. Maybe a bit more like them showing the woman begging for her life on tv basically a goofy looking Al Qaeda hostage/terrorist video. Which you could take a lot of social commentary out of but it could go a lot of different directions.
I'm not totally sure on what all you said on terrorists. Your ideas of 'snuff terrorist' that we seem to be on the same page, but I don't think V meets any type of definition of terrorist. The only people using terror for power was those who used it to set up the totalitarian government. IMO, V was performing what I consider (in a very real way) a civic DUTY. And considering nobody else had the balls to step up until he called them all cowards, more like a civic hero.
-
I just watched it again with my brother and I didn't see anyone say like trust in god or something like that who wasn't evil.
Not having seen the film, that might be because it's set in Britain. I can't think of ever hearing someone say, in person, 'trust in god'. Britain's atheist - christians are the exception here.
The only people using terror for power was those who used it to set up the totalitarian government. IMO, V was performing what I consider (in a very real way) a civic DUTY. And considering nobody else had the balls to step up until he called them all cowards, more like a civic hero.
Thats what the IRA think. Try to use those roleplaying muscles of yours and work out just what the guys in Al Queda think they are doing.
-
If you guys are going to keep along this line of discussion, then moving it to a spoiler thread is way past due.
-
Oh, I finally remembered the other person I wanted to ask about this.
Stacer - I'm assuming you haven't seen this yet since you've been recovering from surgery, BUT if you do go see it, let me know because I want to discuss Beauty and the Beast archetypes in regards to this movie.