Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/25/2006 4:26:46 PM EDT
looks very arfkommy, no?

something about 'the government should fear the people' and 'from the matrix people' in the preview.

Think I should go see the hottest jew alive?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 7:35:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 7:35:49 PM EDT by Beefypeanut]
I might check it out if its good. I want to see Ultraviolet more than I want to see V for Vendetta, though
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 3:10:11 AM EDT

I've been looking forward to it since I saw the first preview. I even purchased the graphic novel as well, but it was not quite as good as I had hoped.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 3:29:40 AM EDT
That mask makes the movie gay!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:21:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stangleonthedangle:
That mask makes the movie gay!!!!!!!!!



Dou you have any clue what the mask is about?
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 8:50:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stangleonthedangle:
That mask makes the movie gay!!!!!!!!!



Your user name makes you sound gay, but I'm willing to let you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt first.

Why wouldn't someone like that use a less Super-styled mask/outfit? The less obnoxious he looks the better imo...
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 12:25:18 PM EDT
I think it looks stupid. But that's just me.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 4:04:16 PM EDT
After watching the trailer I think it looks P for Predictable.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:47:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil:

Originally Posted By stangleonthedangle:
That mask makes the movie gay!!!!!!!!!



Your user name makes you sound gay, but I'm willing to let you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt first.

Why wouldn't someone like that use a less Super-styled mask/outfit? The less obnoxious he looks the better imo...



It is a Guy Fawkes mask which are commonly sold in GB. If you don't know who Guy Fawkes was, look it up. You will understand why the character wears the Fawkes mask.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:49:11 AM EDT
I recall studying about Guy Fawkes in school, but "Guy" isn't pronounced guy IIRC.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:51:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil:

Originally Posted By stangleonthedangle:
That mask makes the movie gay!!!!!!!!!



Your user name makes you sound gay, but I'm willing to let you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt first.

Why wouldn't someone like that use a less Super-styled mask/outfit? The less obnoxious he looks the better imo...



I'm looking forward to this flick, but the main character, Guy Fawkes mask and all, does look rather...poofty. Like a big gay cartoon pimp.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:16:12 AM EDT
Lord Elrond / Agent Smith plays the main character.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 9:40:32 AM EDT
I didn't know for the longest time what you guys were talking about. Then this past weekend I saw a trailer.

I do believe I'll hit this one in the threatre rather than wait for DVD.




Originally Posted By metroplex:
I recall studying about Guy Fawkes in school, but "Guy" isn't pronounced guy IIRC.




You're right. I'd forgotten that. I think the proper pronounciation for the time period was "Gee" with a hard G sound. At least that's how it was pronounced during the movie "Kingdom of Heaven." The one about the crusades.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 2:12:43 PM EDT
Fox Loved it,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186146,00.html


'Matrix' Moviemakers Have Hit With 'V'

“V” is for very good, a little “violent” and very much like “Batman.”

That’s James McTeigue’s “V for Vendetta.” Or should I say the Wachowski brothers’ “V for Vendetta.”

I don’t care what they say: there’s no way that first-time filmmaker McTeigue made “Vendetta” on his own. It’s simply too good, too well done, too complete a vision.

Even though McTeigue downplayed it last night at a Q&A session, the fact is that Matrix filmmakers Larry and Andy Wachowski not only wrote and produced “V,” but they are the nominal directors. It’s got their fingerprints all over it.

This isn’t to discount McTeigue’s participation. He was the second unit director on all the “Matrix” films and on one of the “Star Wars” sequels. Listening to him last night, he’s obviously a smart man. But “V” is too just too complex. Let’s just say he had around-the-clock and up-the-wazoo assistance from the strange Wachowskis.

“V for Vendetta” is based on a graphic novel, but as the movie turns out, its themes are all about acceptance and not conforming to society’s pressures. It doesn’t take a Hollywood shrink to see why the Wachowskis would be interested in this material.

Luckily, they’ve made a visually stunning, well-cast, action-packed and sensationally crafted film from the original work. A combination of “Batman” and “1984,” “Vendetta” should have a clear field for a hit on opening day, March 17.

But here’s a warning: there’s still some concern about the main plot point: the blowing up of Parliament by placing explosives on a subway train running below the British houses of government. This movie was supposed to be released last fall, but had to be postponed after the London subway explosions. Though this is a movie based on 25-year-old story, “V” still pushes a few uncomfortable post-9/11 buttons.

It also doesn’t completely make sense, but I’ll leave that problem to those familiar with the graphic novel.

The story in a nutshell: set a few years in the future, the world seems to have been taken over by fascist leaders. In Britain, a masked, impassioned and dissident madman who resembles The Joker has identified with Guy Fawkes, the historical figure who attempted to blow up Parliament with about a dozen others on Nov. 5, 1605.

Fawkes and his friends were low-level terrorists, attempting to show their unhappiness with Protestant rule. The plot was foiled, but King James — who escaped being murdered — decreed November 5 Guy Fawkes Day.

Hugo Weaving, wearing the Joker-esque mask, is splendid as the cape-wearing, Fawkes-emulating “V.” He’s joined by Natalie Portman (resembling Sinead O'Connor with a shaved head and sporting an inconsistent English accent) and a bunch of very good players from Britain and Ireland: Stephen Rea, John Hurt, Stephen Fry, Sinead Cusack, Tim Pigott-Smith and Rupert Graves (who should be in more American films).

There are a lot of good stories about the making of “V,” including the one about Weaving replacing actor James Purefoy after shooting had begun (the Wachowskis preferred Weaving’s voice).

Then there’s the whole thing with Alan Moore, who wrote the graphic novel but had his name taken off of the movie. Illustrator David Lloyd left his name on the credits, which seems right. Why Moore didn’t want a “based on” credit beats me. After all, a lot of his dialogue survived. I think he’ll regret that move.

So it’s six months late, but “V for Vendetta” looks solid, especially at a time when the box office is dull and this year’s Oscar movies are well over and done with. And for once, it’s a film based on a DC Comic, not a Marvel one.


Link Posted: 2/27/2006 2:23:49 PM EDT
Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:25:35 PM EDT
But Guy Fawkes wasn't a patriot or fighting a tyranny, he was a religious fanatic little different than the terrorists today.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:25:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
But Guy Fawkes wasn't a patriot or fighting a tyranny, he was a religious fanatic little different than the terrorists today.



Not true at all.

The modern islamo-facists promote terror in attempt to force their faith on others. Fawkes, on the other hand, attempted to use terroristic tactics to fight for his right to practice his religion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In 1605 England, Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs and their were several laws in place to prevent Catholics from practicing their faith. The monarchy supported these laws and refused to address the discrimination.

The fact is that Fawkes was fighting religious based tyranny.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:32:13 PM EDT
It is probably a mix of 1984/Alex Jones documentary just my guess. I also bet the villain is a conservative party right-winger just a hunch. Hollywierd at thier shittiest I'm sure.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 10:32:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By raven:
But Guy Fawkes wasn't a patriot or fighting a tyranny, he was a religious fanatic little different than the terrorists today.



Not true at all.

The modern islamo-facists promote terror in attempt to force their faith on others. Fawkes, on the other hand, attempted to use terroristic tactics to fight for his right to practice his religion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In 1605 England, Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs and their were several laws in place to prevent Catholics from practicing their faith. The monarchy supported these laws and refused to address the discrimination.

The fact is that Fawkes was fighting religious based tyranny.



OK, thanks for edifying me.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:57:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By raven:
But Guy Fawkes wasn't a patriot or fighting a tyranny, he was a religious fanatic little different than the terrorists today.



Not true at all.

The modern islamo-facists promote terror in attempt to force their faith on others. Fawkes, on the other hand, attempted to use terroristic tactics to fight for his right to practice his religion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In 1605 England, Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs and their were several laws in place to prevent Catholics from practicing their faith. The monarchy supported these laws and refused to address the discrimination.

The fact is that Fawkes was fighting religious based tyranny.



OK, thanks for edifying me.



Except that "V" isn't Fawkes. Sure, he drawes upon the symbolism of Fawkes by using the mask, but V is a twisted, evil imitation of what Fawkes was. This is a movie about a bad guy fighting against a bad guy government.

Fawkes was trying to fight religious-based tyranny for the purpose of defending Catholics from persecution, as stated above. Ironically, the effect of Fawkes' plot was the opposite of what he wanted.

V, on the other hand, isn't fighting to defend anyone, really. V is an insane sadistic vigilante (imagine Batman going completely insane and murderous) who is primarily fighting for anarchy.

In V's mind, complete destruction of the government (any government, really) should lead to an idealistic utopia where people, free from all authority, choose to live in harmony together forever. In simplist terms, V is a violent hippie.

V, who is a murdering, torturing, brainwashing monster, is justified in the movie and books because the government in power happens to be neo-nazi fascist. By my description of V I'm not trying to justify fascist governments at all. I'm just pointing out that V is a bad guy, and I personally find him as repulsive as the fascist government he fights against.

I find his usage of the mask of Fawkes to be a mockery of the nobler cause Fawkes was fighting for. My concern is that the movie "V is for Vendetta" is a vehicle/method to paint conservative/religious USA and right-leaning English legislators as evil institutions that need to be violently torn down and destroyed.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:59:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
It is probably a mix of 1984/Alex Jones documentary just my guess. I also bet the villain is a conservative party right-winger just a hunch. Hollywierd at thier shittiest I'm sure.



You nailed it. Conservatives = fascists according to this movie.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:34:20 AM EDT
I'm planning on a double feature of this and Ultraviolet.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:13:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
You nailed it. Conservatives = fascists according to this movie.



Considering it hasn't been released yet, how do you KNOW this?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 11:32:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 11:41:31 AM EDT by Shane333]

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By Shane333:
You nailed it. Conservatives = fascists according to this movie.



Considering it hasn't been released yet, how do you KNOW this?



Warning, the following links have lots of spoilers (since the graphic novel has been around a long time).

From Wikipedia:
"V for Vendetta is a ten-issue comic book limited series or maxiseries, later collected as a graphic novel, written by Alan Moore and illustrated mostly by David Lloyd, set in a dystopian future Britain where a mysterious anarchist works to destroy the fascist government and profoundly affects the people he encounters."

"The series is set in a future Britain where, in the chaos following a limited nuclear war that left the country mostly physically intact, a fascist single-party state has arisen. It resembles the Nazi regime—including government-controlled media, secret police, a planned economy and concentration camps for racial and sexual minorities—but with a British cultural flavour"

Another very good explanation about V:
www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/vterrorist.html

"V is a terrorist. It's easy to gloss over at first. After all, Norsefire is the pseduo-Nazi regime oppressing people and forcing them to do what they wanted; the ones torturing and killing people they consider unfit or undesirable. V is the only person who dares take them on, to say that they're wrong, and to free an entire populace that has been enslaved. In the opening chapters of the book, there is an enjoyable irony felt when Norsefire calls V a terrorist. After all, V is the good guy.
But V is a terrorist. He blows up populated buildings, undoubtedly killing dozens if not hundreds of civilians. He refuses to accept anyone else's point of view--he fanatically believes his view is the only way to see things. He murders, not just cold-bloodedly, but also deliberately torturing people to insanity and death. He manipulates people to be his unwitting accomplices, regardless of their feelings."

How about a quote from the creators of the books:
'Creators Moore and Lloyd were influenced by the times in which they lived. "Our attitude towards Margaret Thatcher's ultra-conservative government was one of the driving forces behind the fascist British police state we created in Vendetta," Lloyd explains. "The destruction of this system was V's primary reason for existence."'
www.rottentomatoes.com/m/v_for_vendetta/about.php
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:15:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
looks very arfkommy, no?

something about 'the government should fear the people' and 'from the matrix people' in the preview.

Think I should go see the hottest jew alive?



I would suggest "No"

"V" for Propaganda
By Debbie Schlussel

[Note: You may perceive some of this column as a "spoiler".]

If you liked the politics of last weekend's Oscar nominees, you'll love "V for Vendetta."

It's an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.

But if you're like the rest of mainstream America--you support our troops, believe in firmly responding to terrorists on our own shores, and/or respect Christianity--then, don't waste your time at this piece of garbage masquerading as a superhero movie. It is anything but.

If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, "V" clocks you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of extreme leftism. It doesn't arrive in theaters until March 17, but already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.


"V for Vendetta":
Natalie Portman, Guy Fawkes Mask-wearing "V" Are Terrorist Heroes
Based on the graphic novel series of the same name, "V" comes complete with all the bogeymen the far left loves to hate: NSA spying and wiretaps; government renditions and torture complete with Abu Ghraib hood fashions; lecherous, elderly Christian clerics in collars raping young girls; Islam, gay rights, and free speech under attack; and even a Bill O'Reilly-esque evil cable talk show host/wicked pharmaceutical billionaire/heinous military officer combo rolled into one character.

Oh, and by the way, the hero of the movie: He's a terrorist in a Guy Fawkes mask, who blows up important government buildings. Sound familiar? His mask might as well be a kefiyeh wrapped around his head in a Nick Berg video.

The movie takes place in futuristic England, and there is only one American star (Natalie Portman, who plays the terrorist's protege). But it's quite clear to whom the "commentary" is directed: Joe and Jane American. When this movie takes place, "the United States of America" doesn't exist anymore. America is in the midst of a civil war.

And America and the war on Iraq are the enemies--along with Christians and the right--in this movie. We are treated to newscasts about how "America's War [on terror] spread to England." One character--a gay, British Jay Leno type who hosts a latenight show--keeps a secret vault of prohibited items, including a giant poster of "the Coalition of the Willing," depicting the American and British flags surrounding a swastika. Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are Nazis?

Also in the secret vault of sacred prohibited items: a Koran. Portman, whose Evie is the "heroine" of "V," asks, why the Koran? "Are you a Muslim?" she asks the late-night host. "No, but its [the Koran's] images are beautiful." Then he comments about how he can be executed for possessing the Koran. (Not a peep in this film about the thousands who've been executed in the name of the Koran and "its beautiful images.")

Puh-leeze. If anything, both Britain and the U.S. have bent over backwards not only for the Koran, but for its extremist Muslim followers. Where Christian displays are absolutely forbidden in any schools, despite so-called "freedom of speech"; where Ten Commandments are removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, despite their being the basis for our legal system; children are required to learn about Islam, read from the Koran, and behave as Muslims in elementary schools, in the name of "tolerance" and "education."

In "V", while Islam and the Koran are treasured but prohibited, Christianity is pure evil. Nice juxtaposition, when in real life, the 19 hijackers, the '93 WTC, U.S. Embassy, U.S.S. Cole, and British subway bombers were hardly Christians. Hmmm . . . what religion were they? We don't recall Mohammed Taheri-Azar, saying on Friday in his post attempted-murder 911 call, that he tried to use his jeep to kill Americans in the name of Jesus. No, he mentioned someone else's name, another religion . . . which are both nowhere blasphemed in "V."

We've already mentioned the high-ranking Christian priest, who regularly rapes young girls procured for him through an "agency." Before the priesthood, he was an evil military officer at a hospital where politically dissident youth had experiments conducted on them for the government (complete with Abu Ghraib-style hoods).

Then, there's the government. It's run by a religious Christian zealot. But not just any Christian zealot.

No. Chancellor Sutler is the supreme evil Christian. In order to get elected, he and the Bill O'Reilly-esque character (remember, before he became a cable host, he was a pharmaceutical CEO and made billions) arranged for hundreds of Brits to die from chemically poisoned water. The government said that terrorists did it, a story which became accepted fact and the conventional wisdom in media coverage. The fear that ensued garnered Sutler the chance to rule England, along with the Marshal law powers the English parliament gave him.

It's no coincidence that the symbol used for his government is some sort of Cross-come-Swastika combo. Not offended yet?

Under religious Christian zealot Sutler, gays are rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ditto for any dissidents, any left-wing activists, anyone who dares speak out against or flout the Chancellor's actions. Tell that to the ACLU, which seems to be running legal policy in our country, these days, and its partner in crime, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the wealthiest "public interest" group in the U.S., to the tune of hundreds of millions. We don't see any prospect of them being rounded up by the government anytime soon, unfortunately.

Under the religious Christian Chancellor, "unjust" Gitmo-style military tribunals and absurd NSA-style wiretapping is going on at every corner. Throughout the movie, we are shown vans of law enforcement personnel listening in to every home. As if that's what NSA wiretapping was about. It isn't, but "V" drills it into you the way the ACLU wants you to see it: every conversation in every kitchen, etc., secretly being listened in on and laughed at by guys in sweaty, rumpled shirts and ties.

The evil government law enforcement chief, Creedy, runs a meticulously ubiquitous surveillance program nationwide. If only our FBI's Robert Mueller were so competent, we'd be safe. Instead, he's cavorting with extremist Muslims and testified in depositions to ignorance of the most basic newspaper facts about Al-Qaeda.

Overall, the most outrageous thing about "V" is the ending. Instead of vanquishing terror, all of Britain sides with the terrorist hero of this movie. They celebrate his murder of all the top officials in government, his blowing up of the Houses of Parliament and other government buildings.

Terrorists and terrorism are the heroes, the government fighting them and trying to keep us safe are the enemy.

This is the glorious revolution? Osama Bin Laden must be very proud.

Posted by Debbie at 06:23 AM
| Comments (32) | TrackBack (0) | Printer Friendly

March 07, 2006
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:27:36 AM EDT

Damn. It sounded good at first, too.

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 2:17:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
Damn. It sounded good at first, too.




+1

Guess I won't be seeing it afterall.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 3:16:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
Damn. It sounded good at first, too.




+1

Guess I won't be seeing it afterall.



So you aren't going to see it because some elitist snob read way too much into it? Everyone sees what they want to see, and I will go see it for the nice shiny Beretta.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:03:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 7:04:00 PM EDT by raven]
It's weird how in order for Leftists' beliefs to resonate and convince, they have to turn truth and reality on its head. This movie sounds like the most outrageous, manipulative pile of bullshit since Fahrenheit 9/11.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 7:16:00 PM EDT by Alien]

Originally Posted By toepopper:

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
Damn. It sounded good at first, too.




+1

Guess I won't be seeing it afterall.



So you aren't going to see it because some elitist snob read way too much into it? Everyone sees what they want to see, and I will go see it for the nice shiny Beretta.



I knew somebody would say that. Actually I was going to see it till I read the creator's comments about PM Margaret Thatcher.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:05:26 PM EDT
I think the author failed to realize that the movie was produced before the wire taps and the story was written before the war on terror? Some movies have conspiracy in them, and hyperbole is not a crime. I vote for elitist snob reading too much into it.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:22:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bad_Aim:
I think the author failed to realize that the movie was produced before the wire taps and the story was written before the war on terror? Some movies have conspiracy in them, and hyperbole is not a crime. I vote for elitist snob reading too much into it.



True, the wiretap aspect may have been coincidence. The creators' quote, however, removes all doubt in regards to their motives. No elitist snobery was needed to understand their own words
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 11:21:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/13/2006 11:23:03 PM EDT by kythri]
So they've changed the locale of the movie from a Totalitarian Britain to a Totalitarian United States?

Hopefully the overall message isn't diminished.

I'll post a couple complaints before I even see the thing.

#1, they've assigned a character name of "William Rookwood" to V, i.e. V's secret identity. This is lame. In the comic series, you never learn the identity of V, nor do you see his face. It's not required.

Evey, (played by Natalie Portman in the movie), toys with the idea of unmasking V, but decides not to, as she concludes, the identify of V is insignificant, compared to the idea of V, and revealing that identity would diminish the idea.

If they show V's face, or someone identifies V in the movie, I'm going to be a bit upset.

#2

vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/img/pto_OS_evey_12.jpg

Evey is supposed to be naked in this scene. Natalie Portman is not naked in this scene. This is a crocketh of shit, and it stinketh.

Now, in response to Shane333's comments, I've got to disagree that V is an anarchist, who wants nothing more than chaos.

I won't say that V's motives are all pure and noble - there most definitely is his Vendetta, which is a large part of things, but, to quote the original comic series, near the end, V says:


This country is not saved...do not think that...but all it's old beliefs have come to rubble, and from rubble may we build...

That is their task: To rule themselves; Their lives and loves and land...

With this achieved, THEN let them talk of salvation. Without it, they are surely carrion.

By turn of the century, they'll know their fate: Either a rose midst rubble bloom, or else has bloomed too late.



The man sows the seeds of rebellion against a tyrannical and fascist government, to give the people, who would otherwise not have had the balls to stand up, a kick in the ass.

He didn't do everything he did just because he was a crazy loon and wanted to see the world on fire.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:41:15 AM EDT
kythri,

No, they haven't changed the locale of the movie (as far as I know). It still takes place in Britain. They do apparently add several indications that the fascist state of Britain is the fault of conservative USA and the war in Iraq.

Also, perhaps I need to re-clarify something again. I don't condone fascism. Many of my ancestors took part in the war against fascism (ship builders, sailors, bomber pilots, etc.)

The point I was making is that the creators of V are suggesting that modern day USA and the 1980's Margaret Thatcher conservative government were the root causes for the creation of a fascist state in 2020. The movie suggests that Christians are evil intollerant people who suppress the noble Muslim (watch the movie and see if I'm wrong), that Christian clergy rape girls to teach them a lesson, and that in a few years the Christians in Britain are going to use the symbol of the cross to justify themselves as they create death camps to weed out homosexuals and other "undesireables".

If you want to see the movie, please do and report back how close I am to hitting the nail on the head.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:53:25 AM EDT
This is a pretty good response to an opinion article by Chicago film critic Richard Roeper, who writes that people who believe the movie's dangerous and sends terrible messages are just being silly. "It's just a movie! Get over it!"

Imagine: I've just written a script. In my script, the hero is a vigilante-terrorist hunter. Like the Punisher, I guess, with real-world weapons and only slightly superhuman abilities, except he hunts not organized crime figures but... Muslim terrorists in America, hiding as "sleepers," that is, pretending to be normal law-abiding American Muslims. But my hero knows better; he has "sources" and finds "clues" proving that each one of these suburban Muslims is actually a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda.

Now, in this script, the Muslim terrorists he hunts really are vicious terrorists. They are not innocent Muslims he is murdering out of insanity or xenophobia; they really are terrorists which the government "can't touch" for some reason, either because the government is incompetent, overly restricted by Evil Liberals, or has been cowed into dhimmitude by outside Muslim extremist violence.

So, in the moral universe this hypothetical script establishes, it is pefectly justified that the hero should stalk and kill Muslim terrorists by his own authority. He must kill them, because no one else will, and they're planning some truly spectacular violence -- say, the full destruction of New York City by five or six small nuclear bombs carefully placed in the city to insure its full and complete destruction, and the deaths of six or seven million souls.

Would Richard Roeper defend me were I to produce this as a movie? Would he offer he same defense as he offers for V -- that in the moral universe I have created, the acts of vigilante violence perpetrated against Muslims are wholly justified?

No, he would not. He would call it a viciously irresponsible film, a film glorifying the murders of Muslims in the real world by giving people the idea that what the hero does in the fantasy-universe is justified as well in the real one. By suggesting that the moral universe of the movie is actually pretty similar to the real world's moral universe, the movie would be suggesting, to the dangerously suggestible, it's okay to go hang a Muslim if you suspect "he's up to something."

He would excoriate such a movie as racist, dangerous, xenophobic, and likely to incite murder.

So, why the difference in defending V? V similarly constructs a fake universe in which horrific violence is in fact morally justified, and also suggests strong similarities between that fictive universe and our own world. People who think that we now live in a fascist nation -- and there are many such folks; just read the Daily Kos' commenters -- will receive the intended message that, if the situation is dire enough, it's quite justified to blow up a building filled with innocent civlillans.

And so will foreign Mulsim extremists, who hardly need Hollywood adding to their rage and determination to vindicate Islam through murder.

If the question about a film's irresponsibility or propensity to cause real-world violence is, as Roeper dishonestly claims, answered simply by whether a hero's actions are justified in the context of the movie's moral universe, then Death Wish is quite responsible too, as Paul Keasy was justified (in the movie) in just about every goddamned thing he did.

And a hypothetical script about a Bernie Goetz-like putz, constantly harrassed and mugged by black thugs, who then goes on a shooting rampage killing all "black muggers" he finds, is also quite responsible and justifiable. After all, in the fantasy morality of the film world he inhabits, he too is justified in his actions. And of course Richard Roeper would scream "dangerously irresponsible racist murder-bait," because he would comprehend that there may be some who take the film's universe to be sufficiently similar to the real one to justify going on a similar real-world "black mugger" hunt.

But Richard Roeper knows all this. He is not very smart, but he is hardly retarded. He recognizes that some films are irresponsible because they suggest that certain actions are justified, not just in the made-up world of the film, but in the actual real world we all live in.

He has advanced an argument he knows to be false to justify a film whose politics he admires.

The only way to defend V for Vendetta is to claim that sometimes terrorism -- the murder of innocent civilians -- really is justified on occasion, and that V is therefore "guilty" of only revealing the truth.

So either Roeper believes this, or he's just willing to countenance a deeply irresponsible and terrorist-promoting film if he simply admires the filmmaker's left-wing politics enough.

Fuck you, Richard Roeper, you dishonest, smug, terrorist-apologist hack.


blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=163437
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 7:03:29 AM EDT
I admit that if any Arfcomers would choose to see this movie, I would appreciate a report on it.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 7:39:32 AM EDT
With so many opposing views I still will see it this weekend, it should be interesting
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:59:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By raven:
But Guy Fawkes wasn't a patriot or fighting a tyranny, he was a religious fanatic little different than the terrorists today.


Not true at all.
The modern islamo-facists promote terror in attempt to force their faith on others. Fawkes, on the other hand, attempted to use terroristic tactics to fight for his right to practice his religion. BIG DIFFERENCE.
In 1605 England, Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs and their were several laws in place to prevent Catholics from practicing their faith. The monarchy supported these laws and refused to address the discrimination.

The fact is that Fawkes was fighting religious based tyranny.



OK, thanks for edifying me.



Except that "V" isn't Fawkes. Sure, he drawes upon the symbolism of Fawkes by using the mask, but V is a twisted, evil imitation of what Fawkes was. This is a movie about a bad guy fighting against a bad guy government.

Fawkes was trying to fight religious-based tyranny for the purpose of defending Catholics from persecution, as stated above. Ironically, the effect of Fawkes' plot was the opposite of what he wanted.

V, on the other hand, isn't fighting to defend anyone, really. V is an insane sadistic vigilante (imagine Batman going completely insane and murderous) who is primarily fighting for anarchy.

In V's mind, complete destruction of the government (any government, really) should lead to an idealistic utopia where people, free from all authority, choose to live in harmony together forever. In simplist terms, V is a violent hippie.


V, who is a murdering, torturing, brainwashing monster, is justified in the movie and books because the government in power happens to be neo-nazi fascist. By my description of V I'm not trying to justify fascist governments at all. I'm just pointing out that V is a bad guy, and I personally find him as repulsive as the fascist government he fights against.

I find his usage of the mask of Fawkes to be a mockery of the nobler cause Fawkes was fighting for. My concern is that the movie "V is for Vendetta" is a vehicle/method to paint conservative/religious USA and right-leaning English legislators as evil institutions that need to be violently torn down and destroyed.



Fight Club
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 1:49:33 AM EDT
Going to see it tonight, 9:30PM.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:59:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Burley:
Going to see it tonight, 9:30PM.



Please come back and report on it.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 11:17:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
I admit that if any Arfcomers would choose to see this movie, I would appreciate a report on it.


I was planning on it but now have decided against it.

maybe a rental
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 11:45:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
I recall studying about Guy Fawkes in school, but "Guy" isn't pronounced guy IIRC.



It was was pronounced something like "ghee" at the time, being a Frenchie name and all. But pronunciations change over time. Kaiser is much closer to the way Julius would have pronounced his name that Caesar, but if you order a Kaiser salad, peoiple won't know what you're talking about.

Besides, the "Guy" in Guy Fawkes is the source of our word "guy" in reference to a person. It started out as a reference to an effigy of Guy Fawkes like those silly Brits burn on Guy Fawkes day, and over time became a person of unfortunate appearance, and then just a guy.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:24:49 PM EDT
I just came back from seeing it about an hour ago...............I got the impression that V was a freedom fighter, and only killed those who were responsible for the fascist govt and those who took part in the lab experiments with the biological weapons...........I dont recollect him killing anyone that was innocent. I enjoyed it, and would recommend anyone see it for yourself. Some of you wont like it, but I imagine that some of you will.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:34:01 PM EDT
one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

the trailer looked good.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:36:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 10:18:09 PM EDT
we liked it two thumbs up....and I even forgot to hate the little bitch for a while....
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 10:25:57 PM EDT
I am going to see it tomorrow, and I hope it dose well, WHY you ask, so they make MY FAV A Moore GRAPHIC novel of all time, into a movie. "Watchmen" has the potential of SIN CITY times 10.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:49:30 AM EDT
Keep us posted
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 6:07:09 AM EDT
I thought the movie was great and I give it five out of five roses. A brilliant comeback for the Wachoski's! I thought it was even better than the book. And almost as good as the original Matrix movie.

I know it will offend some of the ARFKOM crowd, especially the Rush Limbaugh character, but I think the US has grown into a country too fearful, every night on the news we hear about a new scare from Avian flu to meteors.

Caveat: There is some good action in the movie, but it is only a minor part of the story.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 8:40:38 AM EDT
I really liked it, have fun and go see it
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 2:20:56 PM EDT
I just saw it. Silly me, I took it for a fictional story, and enjoyed it! Kinda of reminded me of Hilter and all but that is just one mans take on it. Does make you think what if?


In real life there would have been a totally different ending.

Still, I think it is a good "movie".


Travis
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top