What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[Goliath]

Last movie I watched:

Kicks (2007)

Dutch film about the multi-cultural tensions that exist in our society. This film is very topical, since the relationship between Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch people in The Netherlands in general have severly worsened in recent years (or maybe it has just become more visible?). Anyway, this *could* have been a great film to highlight this. Instead, it was a collection of boring clichés, stereotypes, cardbon cut-out characters, misplaced humor, corny dialogue and awful acting performances. There are too many unibteresting storylines and the main one doesn't get resolved satisfactory.

The only saving grace, and the reason I kept watching (and why I watched it in the first place), was actress Maryam Hassouni. She played a Dutch-Morrocan police officer. She's an excellent actress, but also an astonishingly beautiful woman, and to see her dressed in that uniform...

I'm sure most guys would say I'm crazy, but I like this ordinary Dutch-Morrocan much more than all the Angelina Jolies and Megan Foxes out there...

[TheSequelOfDisney]

The Other Boelyn Girl - I haven't watched a movie in which I despised every single character. I'm not joking; I hated every single one of them. SPOILERS: King Henry was terribly terrible. You don't have an affair (that's just morals) and then you don't have another "affair" with the first woman's sister. That's disgusting. Plus his only want in life was to have a son and then when he had one with Mary, he was deemed a "bastard" and then the baby and Mary were sent off to the country. What the heck? Let's see: I hated Mary because she "stole" King Henry from Anne and had an affair even though she was already married (and her husband said she could do it! Now that's frickin' messed up!). I hated Anne because she "stole" King Henry back from Mary and she was malicious and vindictive and simply evil. Whenever this takes place, they had some messed up minds. I hated Anne, Mary and George's parents, too--especially the father. He just let his very dumb brother-in-law let him rule is life so he can get his honor back. The mother just let her husband and brother walk all over her and I'm glad that she slapped her husband yelled at her brother at the very end because those two really deserved to have their own heads chopped off. The brother/brother-in-law (whatever his name is) had some major issues where he had to be in control of everything. I think he needed a reality check to see what was best for his sister's family, not protecting/gaining some stupid honor. George was a lunatic because he just gave up and married that imbecilic whatsername just because his daddy told him to. And then that little witch “caught” George and Anne doing the nasty even though they didn’t! Thus having both of their heads chopped off. Wow, this is a very long rant. I really hated every single character. I’m not sure if I even like the movie because I’m so put off by the characters (did I mention I hated every single one of them?). I don’t even know if I can even rate the movie because I despise them so. And somehow my sister loved this movie. I don’t get it.

[PeterPanfan]

^ They're only characters to an extent... King Henry, Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth, etc. are, as I hope you know, real historical figures. While Phillipa Gregory did, as usual, spice up their lives a bit, King Henry really did cheat a LOT, and kill his wives.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

^ They're only characters to an extent... King Henry, Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth, etc. are, as I hope you know, real historical figures. While Phillipa Gregory did, as usual, spice up their lives a bit, King Henry really did cheat a LOT, and kill his wives.

Yeah, I know the historical relevance but I really just can't get over how much I hate all of them. I might watch it again with the director's commentary (hopefully that'll be better). Maybe I just hate this part in history? I don't really know.

[Goliath]

The Other Boelyn Girl - I haven't watched a movie in which I despised every single character. I'm not joking; I hated every single one of them. SPOILERS: King Henry was terribly terrible. You don't have an affair (that's just morals) and then you don't have another "affair" with the first woman's sister. That's disgusting.

Oh please! How can you *ever* make a good, interesting, exciting movie if everybody has to be goody-goody? You can't make a horror movie, because people shouldn't kill! That's wrooooong! You can't make a movie about crime. People shouldn't steal. That's wrooooong!

Films that focus on morally dubious characters make for the most interesting, intruiging film experiences. It can be about this person's struggle with his flaws. He can overcome them, he can let his flaws get the best of him. He can triumph or he can be dragged down by his own immoral actions.

We can all have different opinions on movies, and on what a movie 'should be', But saying a film is bad because the characters do the 'wrong' things, doesn't make any sense... *at all*!

I don’t even know if I can even rate the movie because I despise them so. And somehow my sister loved this movie. I don’t get it.

Maybe because she was just watching a movie instead of playing miss holier-than-thou who's passing out 'morality grades'. If the characters had been the way you wanted them to be, it would have been one *very* dull movie in which nothing ever happened. It would be just king Henry and his faily sitting around drinking tea for two hours.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

We can all have different opinions on movies, and on what a movie 'should be', But saying a film is bad because the characters do the 'wrong' things, doesn't make any sense... *at all*!

Well, to me, it's kind of hard to like a movie when I don't particularly care for any of the characters. I didn't say that the movie was bad, I just didn't like it because I didn't like any of the characters. I'm sure that some people really love the movie based on the historical context and that whole bit but I'm not exactly a history buff. My sister loved it because she loves history. And I wasn't handing out morality grades. But if I was, they would all fail.

[PixarFan2006]

I watched Toy Story 2 last night.

Cannot wait to see Toy Story 3 in a couple weeks (Which is how long I usually wait to see a new movie in theatres).

[Lazario]

We can all have different opinions on movies, and on what a movie 'should be', But saying a film is bad because the characters do the 'wrong' things, doesn't make any sense... *at all*!

I was about to try thinking of a way to debunk that, but that actually reminds me of Leonard Maltin's idiotic review of Ghost World.

[Goliath]

Well, to me, it's kind of hard to like a movie when I don't particularly care for any of the characters. I didn't say that the movie was bad, I just didn't like it because I didn't like any of the characters.

But you said yourself, the reason you don't care for any of the characters, is their bad morals (or their lack of morals). It seems to me that this 'attitude' would have you miss out on some of the best movies and tv series ever being made. If you only want to see works in which the protoganists are purely good and always do the 'right' thing, you will never see exciting, intelectually stimulating, thought-provoking movies that will give you a whole new experience or an other perspective on the world. I guess that, when I look at the assembly line-crap Hollywood's been spewing out and the succes it has, stimulating movies are not what the general audience wants. Not that I don't enjoy the occasional 'popcorn movie' or action spectacle. But there's more than that out there...

I was about to try thinking of a way to debunk that, but that actually reminds me of Leonard Maltin's idiotic review of Ghost World.

You make me curious... Please do tell.

Related to this, the last film I watched was The Edukators (2004), in its original German also known as 'Die fette Jahren sind vorbei' ("The good years are over")'. I'm sure Lazario would love this movie, seeing how he just railed against mass-produced films which keep the audience dumbed down. I'm also sure TheSequelOfDisney would hate it, because the main characters do all kinds of unlawful things. But like Bob Dylan once wrote: "But to live outside the law you must be honest".

It's a beautiful, wonderful, impressive piece of art. I haven't marveled at a film like this in a loooong time. Set in modern-day Germany, it's about three young anarchists who want to protest the decadent society they're living in, but they're not really sure how. Like one of them says early on in the movie: all the protest movements are gone. There's nothing to believe in anymore. Everything that was once subversive, you can now buy it in stores. The youth can't be organized anymore, because there's nothing to organize around anymore.

Still, they stage protests and try to get the masses conscience about 'the system', but with little succes. Their biggest succes is breaking and entering in luxurous villas. They never steal anything, but they mess up the entire place and then leave a message: either "the good years are over" or "you have too much money". One time, they get caught redhanded and from there, everything goes wrong. They're forced to kidnap the rich sucker who lives there. Not knowing what to do now, they take him into a cabin in the mountain, where all kind of surprising events take place... I won't reveal more.

I was just so touched by this film. It's not just a political film; it's every bit also a film about human relationships, troubled young people, identity crises, and life questions. I was particularly impressed with the genuine way it managed to portray the love between two of the main characters. There was nothing artificial about it; it just developed so natural, and it was acted out so well. It reminded me of the last time I really loved someone six years ago.

A wonderful film. Do yourself a favor, Lazario, and watch this one.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

But you said yourself, the reason you don't care for any of the characters, is their bad morals (or their lack of morals). It seems to me that this 'attitude' would have you miss out on some of the best movies and tv series ever being made. If you only want to see works in which the protoganists are purely good and always do the 'right' thing, you will never see exciting, intelectually stimulating, thought-provoking movies that will give you a whole new experience or an other perspective on the world. I guess that, when I look at the assembly line-crap Hollywood's been spewing out and the succes it has, stimulating movies are not what the general audience wants. Not that I don't enjoy the occasional 'popcorn movie' or action spectacle. But there's more than that out there...

You sure like debates, huh? There aren't any films where all of the characters are purely good (at least none that I've seen--everyone is flawed in some way). But in this film, there are hardly any characters that have good in them at all. The only one that I can think of is Stafford and all he did was marry Mary and raise Mary and Anne's kids (even though I think Mary is still married to that one dude that was sent away by Henry). You don't need to worry about me seeing "exciting, intelectually stimulating, thought-provoking" because I actually have (some of my favorites even). I have seen a pretty good range of films in my opinion. Yeah, sure, maybe I like to see films where people aren't corrupt, kill each other and so forth. That doesn't mean I don't watch them from time to time. Why would I not give a film the chance it deserves. I composed my thoughts on the film and that's just what I think. If you don't agree, that's cool. But don't tell me that I will never see "thought-provoking" films or that I'm narrow minded on which films I see. I think that this conversation is over because I really don't want to discuss this film or which films I watch any further with you.

[TheValentineBros]

Toy Story 3.

Loved it!

[2099net]

People watch different films, at different times, for different reasons. Expectations have some bearing on how we view a film too.

I'm not sure how The Other Boelyn Girl was promoted in the US - but I expect "romance" as a concept was at the very least hinted at, if not out-right stated. I doubt many people in Britain would be fooled by such promotion as they should be more aware of the historical facts. But if he watched the movie expecting some romance he has every right to dislike it. If he watches the movie again, knowing what he now knows, he may appreciate it more.

I don't think SequelOfDisney was saying he hates ALL films with characters of bad ethics.

Yes, some of the greatest movies of all time may be filled with such characters; Goodfellas, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Vertigo, Bonnie and Clyde, Memento, arguably Citizen Kane...

Yet I have no interest in the first two at all. Nothing turns me off more than Gangster films. I just don't like them. It's a personal preference. But it doesn't stop me liking some of the other movies I've named (as well as many, many more). Perhaps one day, I will be in the mood to view Goodfellas, but I doubt it when there's so many other movies to watch and enjoy - including frothy, fun, throwaway movies where everybody is likable.

There's nothing wrong with such movies - railing against them is like railing against teeny-pop music. Its only a problem when such movies become the majority. Which I think is far from the issue. The bigger issue is how many movies these days are made for teenage boys/early 20s men, almost to the exclusion of anyone else.

And there's the irony - because said films are also often filled with anti-heroes - proving that you can have unlikable characters in brain-dead tosh, just as you can have films filled with likeable characters in sensible, cerebral film; such as Shaun of the Dead, Amelie, Ed Wood or (God forbid) Pixar films.

edited for spelling: d'oh

[pap64]

I personally have no issue with movies about anti-heroes as long as the story is well written and balanced. In the movies Netty mentioned for examples all the characters get their just desserts, as in their actions had dire consequences. They are also surrounded by characters who are complete opposites and are just as well written.

I am a sucker for character development, and I think the biggest challenge for a writer of any kind is to write an anti-hero that is likable and well rounded, even if his actions are despised the reader/viewer. Like I explained already, the key element here is that the character doesn't fully get away with it, or that his or her actions have deep consequences that are real.

This is easier said than done. I've noticed that writers tend to go down one of two paths: the realistic path and the fantastic path. In the realistic path, the characters suffer real consequences and their actions aren't as fantastic as they first seemed. In the fantastic path his or her actions are glorified to the point where reality is ignore in favor of fantasies where the characters are living the high life.

Netty already explained to us some movies that are good at that. My example of a movie with unlikable characters is West Side Story. I simply hated this movie. All of the characters are unlikable, even Tony and Maria, simply because they are stereotypes and their motives are clearly established. Basically, we are following these bunch of hoodlums who are trying to act tough for no reason other than trying to "control" the neighborhood. It's weak.

Oh yes, I forgot about one thing: at least ONE character has to be the voice of reason in the story. Even if that character is working for the anti-hero he or she must be there to remind the characters and the audience that the things being done are not right. The character in a way becomes part of the audience, he or she says what we think and thus makes it more tolerable to see these characters pull off some questionable acts.

One favorite movie of mine is Catch Me if you Can. The main character is a scam artist who is living the high life at the cost of someone else's money, and is being smug about it. But they made him human as well. He may be enjoying his criminal actions, but he still has many emotions that conflict with his actions.

City of God (the movie we just talked about earlier) is filled with anti-heroes. Violent kids, twisted adults and a dangerous city adorn the storyline. And yet its still an enjoyable film. Again, its because there's a balance and the characters are well written and developed.

In short, a movie with anti-heroes fails when the characters aren't treated like human beings and it shows no consequences for their actions. If this is taken into consideration, you could have a despicable character and still be able to relate to him or her. As crazy as that sounds, it's possible in the right hands.

[blackcauldron85]

Toy Story 3. On Friday. Already posted my thoughts in the appropriate thread...but forgot to post here. Not like it matters.

[Goliath]

You sure like debates, huh? [...] You don't need to worry about me seeing "exciting, intelectually stimulating, thought-provoking" because I actually have (some of my favorites even). [...] I composed my thoughts on the film and that's just what I think. If you don't agree, that's cool. But don't tell me that I will never see "thought-provoking" films or that I'm narrow minded on which films I see. I think that this conversation is over because I really don't want to discuss this film or which films I watch any further with you.

Why are people on this board are always so testy when you disagree with them?

I wasn't attacking or insulting you, Sequel. I always assume people understand that on a discussion board, others are going to... discuss... what you have previously written. But often, they don't and they act like they got attacked.

I just give a reaction to the things you've written. I don't know why you have to get so hostile and defensive about it...

Yes, some of the greatest movies of all time may be filled with such characters; Goodfellas, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Vertigo, Bonnie and Clyde, Memento, arguably Citizen Kane...

Yet I have no interest in the first two at all. Nothing turns me off more than Gangster films.

Well, I would call The Godfather as much a family drama as a gangster film. It's about a young man who has always kept himself out of the criminal activities of his family, but who gets forced into participating anyway and ends up losing his soul because of it. Gangster film or not; that's just a good story.

Perhaps one day, I will be in the mood to view Goodfellas, but I doubt it when there's so many other movies to watch and enjoy - including frothy, fun, throwaway movies where everybody is likable.

There's nothing wrong with such movies - railing against them is like railing against teeny-pop music.

I never said there's anything wrong with them. (Well, there are a lot of arguments to be made *against* them, from a sociological point of view, but let's not to that here.) I even said I enjoy them from time to time. I have some favorites in the 'genre', even.

Its only a problem when such movies become the majority. Which I think is far from the issue.

I don't know if that's true. I think most movies are like that. I don't mean only the teenage-films, but also most action/horror/ thriller films.

I personally have no issue with movies about anti-heroes as long as the story is well written and balanced. In the movies Netty mentioned for examples all the characters get their just desserts, as in their actions had dire consequences. They are also surrounded by characters who are complete opposites and are just as well written.

I agree balance is good, but I don't have to see characters getting their "just desserts" persé. I'm fine with it if it happens, but I'm equally fine with it if they get away with what they do. Take Pulp Fiction for example: even though Jules is a hitman who has done his fair share of murdering, he walks away scott-free. I like the character: he's played very cool by Samuel L. Jackson. I don't need to see him being put down. To take a film which everybody is familiar with: what about Disney's Pinocchio? Would it have been better of all the villains got what they deserved? I say no. Life is often that way: good people get the short end of the stick, while the 'bad guys' get away with they do.

Oh yes, I forgot about one thing: at least ONE character has to be the voice of reason in the story. Even if that character is working for the anti-hero he or she must be there to remind the characters and the audience that the things being done are not right. The character in a way becomes part of the audience, he or she says what we think and thus makes it more tolerable to see these characters pull off some questionable acts.

Nah... I hate that kind of preaching. The audience shouldn't be treated as six-year-olds. They have to be able to make their judgements themselves.

City of God (the movie we just talked about earlier) is filled with anti-heroes. Violent kids, twisted adults and a dangerous city adorn the storyline. And yet its still an enjoyable film. Again, its because there's a balance and the characters are well written and developed.

Yes, Cidade de Deus was an excellent film. It shows the reality of the Brazilian slums. I like how it doesn't try to whitewash the harsh reality, but shows it in all its misery.

But like I said, I can immensely enjoy a traditional 'good versus bad'-film if it's well made. (Otherwise I wouldn't be a fan of Disney films.) For example, I always enjoy Bruce Willis killing off 15 terrorists single-handedly in my favorite Christmas movie Die Hard.

[UmbrellaFish]

Once Upon a Mattress (2005)- I've never seen or heard anything from this show before, so I was pleased. It certainly isn't a musical that changed the world, but it was light annd witty, and Carol Burnett was great! I was delighted to see all kinds of names I knew besides Burnett's (Tracey Ullman- who was a bit old to be Fred, but she was funny so it worked- Zooey Deschanel, and Matthew Morrison).

After watching this I researched the show and as it turns out this version is the third televised version of the play. Apparently, Carol Burnett did the role of Princess Winifred in 1964 and 1972. There's not that many clips of the show on YouTube (hint, hint, DVD release!), but I did watch her version of "Shy".


EDIT: Oh! I watched Carousel, too! I was a bit in and out of that one, but what I saw I liked, especially the second half which surprised me because I expected to find the whole "Bill comes back to Earth to guide his daughter"-thing boring, but no, it worked, really, really well!

[jpanimation]

Shutter Island (2010) 7/10 - pretty good but not one of Scorsese's best. He does a terrific job of setting up the atmosphere and paranoia. Actually, the whole damn thing is directed really well, it's just the story I'm not fond of (I feel the same way about Mystic River). The whole twist ending was just OK for me. The acting was fantastic and Scorsese's idea for the score was inspired. Well crafted, held my attention, just didn't care for the story.

Toy Story 3 (2010) 7/10 - overrated for sure. Not in the same league with the first two. Lotso was too much like Stinky Pete (he wasn't even as good), Buzz being reset to think he's a real Space Ranger was the first movie all over again, the toys not believing Woody was also the first movie all over again, choosing between paradise and Andy was the whole theme of the second movie, and everything from the second movie was forgotten as the toys had to come to terms with Andy growing up all over again. In many ways, the movie felt like one big Toy Story cliché. Everything at Sunnyside felt like a LONG DRAWN OUT side story that took way to long. The whole prison break thing was just tiring. This movie brought nothing to the series and I find myself agreeing with those saying this is an unnecessary sequel. The animation, rendering, effects, everything was flawless. They finally look like real toys and the humans finally look good (in the first film they looked terrible). Ken was funny and I love the now fat dog. I just felt it lacked the emotional pull of the first two. I will say this, while just a repeat of the first two movies, it's NO WHERE near as bad as Shrek the Turd (which to me, is just unwatchable). It's a good movie, especially when you consider they were forced into it because Disney was making their own sequel (then again, the same thing happened with Toy Story 2, which turned out better), but it still lacks the purpose of the first two films (in some ways, I'm less excited about Cars 2 now). I just don't see my self running out to watch this one again anytime soon. What they say about nostalgia blindness is true, as I'm sure that's what everyone is experiencing with this movie (critics included).

My full review is in the appropriate thread.

[Goliath]

Yesterday (2004)

South-African drama, entirely spoken in the Zulu dialect, but the acting was so natural and the emotions so genuine. Truly a work of art, this film tells the tale of Yesterday, a young woman who lives with her little daughter Beauty (the most beautiful child you've ever seen; and she could act really well!) in a little village far from any big city. One day it is discovered she has 'the virus', but she remains strong, for her daughter.

Most of the film is not about her sickness, but it paints a picture of her regular life. It's not a film that plays heavily on the viewer's emotions. The writer-director doesn't want the audience to feel sorry for Yesterday; they should admire her strenght and courage. So no dramatic violin-filled musical score, no close-ups of watery eyes, no dying main character. Just telling the story like it is; like the reality it is to hundreds of thousands of women all through South-Africa.

[pap64]

V for Vendetta

Before I offer my thoughts, I just want to say that I dreaded watching this film. The reason why is because I was not happy at all with the Matrix sequels and didn't trust the Wachowskis. It didn't help that the movie got mixed reviews, especially from fans and the movie going media. Hell, I had heard that Alan Moore dropped his name from the comic because the Wachowskis had turned his vision into a 9/11 conspiracy theory story.

But what surprised me the most was that some people absolute ADORE this film to pieces, to the point of worshipping every line the movie says. But what really did it was my best friend's GLOWING recommendation. To give you an idea of how much he loved the film, he is hardly impressed with movies in general. Only a few of them will make him go 'WOW, THAT'S AMAZING!", and V for Vendetta was it. This surprised me because the movie had gotten so many mixed reviews I doubted it would be as fantastic as he claimed it is. So I promised him that I would watch the movie one of these days.

So, today is that day. What did I think of the movie? To be honest with you, it was much better than I expected it to be. But I don't think its the greatest movie ever made. I am, however, not one to argue movie tastes. I just found too many issues with it in order for me to say its was brilliant.

First off, the Wachowskis have this problem with writing dialogue... In that they write speeches instead of normal dialogue. This is a common problem in their work. Hell, even Speed Racer had this problem! They know how to write fantastic monologues and speeches, but for the life of them they can't seem to write normal dialogue. Every scene feels like it was carefully rehearsed, cold, dry and nearly devoid of emotion. It bothers me a lot.

The other issue I have with their movies is that they don't quite know what type of movie to make. In Vendetta's case, did they wanted to make a vigilante fantasy story or a political thriller? Did they want to deliver a message about the current political situation around the world or present us with an anti-hero that is still likable? Should it be action heavy or filled to the brimmed with exposition and character development? I feel as if they want to include everything just so the film has substance, but at the same time I think it hurts their stories, thus making them feel pretentious and absurd.

It's kind of funny, though. Here we have the Wachowskis who want to give their stories too much substance, while we have people like Michael Bay who sacrifice characters and story in order to deliver a spectacle. Funny how things tend to work out with people.

But in all fairness, the subject of V for Vendetta at least warrants some of this. This was much, much, MUCH worse in Speed Racer. The original anime was about a kid racing around the world, with the biggest story being that of his brother Racer X. But the Wachowskis turned this into a convoluted story about conspiracy, greed, honor and other crap that doesn't fit in with the Speed Racer universe. I mean I appreciate that they tried to add substance to a rather shallow series, but they went overboard.

V himself is surprisingly likable as character despite his stance as a terrorist/anarchist/extremist/vigilante. What I liked the most about it was that the writers gave him a believable backstory, telling us that V is as much of a victim as the rest of his countrymen. It doesn't quite redeem him, but at least he was treated as a human being rather than some outlandish caricature (though at time he crosses that border). I was also surprised to learn that he was played by Hugo Weaving. He is a very interesting actor in that I didn't recognize him based on just his voice and mannerisms. In my opinion, he is the best thing about the movie.

Eve (Natalie Portman) was OK, though her writing wasn't as solid as V. She is clearly a damsel in distress tied to the overall narrative so that V has a character to interact with. In some cases it works, in order it feels forced.

I think the reason did so well with many people (my best friend included) is that the whole movie is a vigilante fantasy. The average person HAS been screwed one way or another by the government, and has often wished to put a stop to the abuse, make a difference and relive the romanticized revolutions of history. V for Vendetta is one HUGE love letter to revolutions of any kind, citing many of them as reasons for the people to revolt against their corrupt government.

It's idea of revolution is a very romantic, idealist one. V gains A LOT of support from the people of London, his terrorist attacks feature beautiful fireworks and at the end of the movie V's corpse is placed inside of the building he wanted to explore, surrounded by roses. The people, all dressed like V, watch in awe the fireworks, looking clearly inspired by the whole event.

It takes many liberties with its story, making it one big, fantastic, romantic vigilante tale. I can see how some people would love this film for it, and others would hate it.

But enough of my rambling. In my case, I'm somewhere in the middle. When the movie works, it works, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it the best film ever made. But like I stated before, I am not one to judge someone's taste in movies. V for Vendetta is a good movie, much better than the stuff that came before and after it (the Matrix sequels and Speed Racer). It still, however, has too many flaws in order for it to receive the moniker of fantastic film.

I would give it a 7 out of 10. Not bad, not great either.

I would love, however, to hear a comic book guy's (haha) thought on the comic as clearly the biggest issue is that the movie takes many liberties with the original source and thus the movie suffers greatly from it.

[2099net]

Ok PAP, here goes (from memory)

The first thing is you have to remember V for Vendetta is a British creation for a British comic. True, said comic went bankrupt before the strip was finished and DC Comics are more closely associated with V for Vendetta as a result of them publishing the complete comic series and trade paperbacks, but its really is culturally British.

Most importantly its key references are Guy Fawkes and Orwell's 1984. Both are drilled into the British culture; both are extensively taught at schools and of course, every 5th November we celebrate Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night.

The Back story, and how V presents himself and his ultimate plan all mirror Guy Fawkes to some extent. Of course, Fawkes wasn't burned alive pre his attempted terrorist attack on Parliament. But him and his fellow Catholics were a repressed minority - just as V for Vendetta shows other minorities being repressed. The "origin" of V is obviously purposely added narrative synchrony.

Ask people today if Guy Fawkes was a hero or villain and most likely most would say villain. However, history tends to dictate who is and isn't the hero. Bonfire Night was original a celebration not of Guy Fawkes' capture, but of him. Today we burn "Guys" on the fires, but the original effigies were of the Pope or the King. To the oppressed Catholics, Guy was a hero. In V for Vendetta, it's quite clear from the outset who are the heroes and who are the villains.

I'm not one who holds Alan Moore's original with much reverence - I save all that for his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Watchmen:) - and I think Alan Moore has been far too critical of all his films (even the not-at-all-like-the-original LXG movie), so I can't really comment to much on Moore's thoughts.

Some sequences are in a different order IIRC. V in the original is certainly more of a bastard; the trick he plays on Eve is certainly harder and more hurtful in the original (or perhaps I just think that because I knew what was coming when I viewed the movie). V also seems less like a superhero - he's still motivated by his hate, but I don't recall him being portrayed as unstoppable as he is in the movie. Possibly the original makes us question the nature of hero and terrorist more too - its a while since I've read it, but I think that while there obviously is corruption and decay in the government and still has the same denouement, the book does make us question more if V is a hero or a villain.

As for the politics, I don't really see that they have been changed at all. As you may know, the UK has more CCTV per head of the population than any other country. I think V was written just as this programme was being initiated. There's obviously some of that in the story - government spying on its subjects, but I think primarily it reflects the general cold war thinking of the time - peace protesters being attacked and arrested, major miscarriages of justice being revealed, worry about the bomb, worry about what sort of government would arise if we were attacked etc. They all add up to a distrust of the government and a feeling of "us" and "them" I guess.

I'm not sure the argument about naturalistic dialogue holds for V for Vendetta. It's not supposed to be "real". I can't say I remember any of it sounding false - beyond V's riddles that is - I guess it could be British vs American styles. I would guess many of the monologues are taken from Moore's writing - if not verbatim then certainly in spirit. Perhaps most of the dialogue too.