Dissenting the "revolution".
V For Vuckin' Stupid.
Ok, so I actually I haven't seen it yet. Since when was that criteria for a movie opinion? Not sure if I even will at the theater. Some of the stuff seems drenched in political allegory and very watered down, specifically the fact that the words fascism and anarchism are apparently nowhere to be found in the film.
And I am not really a fan of terrible attempts at accents such as Natalie Portman's. In fact, I really don't like Natalie Portman as an actress at all.
Alan Moore disassociated his name with the movie for a reason (read below). It is because this is just another money-making venture by the Wachowski brothers and I am most likely just going to hold out for a DVD rental, if I even view this at all. I don't get a boner over the Matrix trilogy like some people do, and I just have a general indifference to Hollywood blockbusters like this. It portrays the feuling of ideas, when it really says very little. The Matrix was the same way. The premise was great, the dialogue and story sucked. Maybe I should wait to see V For Vendetta before I officially form a likewise opinion, but heresay is telling me quite a lot at the moment.
Structural functionalism vs. free agency. I get it. Throw in a bunch of explosions for the international market and a romance for the ladies.
This shit wants to appear edgy and counterculture. Hollywood is already prepared to market the 'revolution'. Get your stencils out folks.
I think I'll just wait and save my money for Ice Age 2. The first one was gold.
Here is what Alan Moore had to say....
"I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures - not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys - and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives - which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
George Clooney's being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it's not illegal - not yet anyway - to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked."
Ok, so I actually I haven't seen it yet. Since when was that criteria for a movie opinion? Not sure if I even will at the theater. Some of the stuff seems drenched in political allegory and very watered down, specifically the fact that the words fascism and anarchism are apparently nowhere to be found in the film.
And I am not really a fan of terrible attempts at accents such as Natalie Portman's. In fact, I really don't like Natalie Portman as an actress at all.
Alan Moore disassociated his name with the movie for a reason (read below). It is because this is just another money-making venture by the Wachowski brothers and I am most likely just going to hold out for a DVD rental, if I even view this at all. I don't get a boner over the Matrix trilogy like some people do, and I just have a general indifference to Hollywood blockbusters like this. It portrays the feuling of ideas, when it really says very little. The Matrix was the same way. The premise was great, the dialogue and story sucked. Maybe I should wait to see V For Vendetta before I officially form a likewise opinion, but heresay is telling me quite a lot at the moment.
Structural functionalism vs. free agency. I get it. Throw in a bunch of explosions for the international market and a romance for the ladies.
This shit wants to appear edgy and counterculture. Hollywood is already prepared to market the 'revolution'. Get your stencils out folks.
I think I'll just wait and save my money for Ice Age 2. The first one was gold.
Here is what Alan Moore had to say....
"I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.
Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures - not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys - and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives - which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
George Clooney's being attacked for making ["Good Night, and Good Luck"], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it's not illegal - not yet anyway - to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked."