Maybe so, but again, I'm focusing on what the movie was, not what you think it should have been. The fact that there were elements of V that you think were significant that got left out is irrelevant. The point is that a great many things made it in and they were wonderful.
Well, if that's the way you feel, there's nothing I can do to really stop you. I'm glad you enjoyed it, anyway.
Matrix lightNing. The lightning in the scene where Natalie Portman walks out into the rain is from the Matrix Revolutions.
Oh, okay. I didn't care for that at all. Pathetic fallacy is filed under the "quick and easy" tropes that should have no place in a film that's allegedly as complex and elegant as this one is.
Any time terrorism is featured in a movie the media goes crazy.
I haven't seen much huff about this, to be honest. I think the Guardian ran a piece about it, but that's all I've seen.
Furor, I understand you didn't like the movie, but you really need to give more than just a "no it wasn't" to everything I say in order to make me think otherwise.
That's all I can do until you give me something concrete to argue against.
Quote from Jedit »
Are you really so obtuse that you can't see how a movie in which the chief protagonist is a terrorist who blows up significant buildings is controversial?
Having seen the movie, I can tell you that there's nothing controversial about it. Which is why it fails. It should be controversial, but, somehow, they manage to present it in a way that never makes you doubt V or his intentions at all. There is no controversy in this film. The villanous fascists are cartoonish and inept, the hero is a dapper swashbuckler who never manages to rise above being simply eccentric even when he's killing people, and poor Evey isn't given nearly enough to do for us to be conflicted about her.
The concept is only controversial. That is, "blowing up buildings" is the controversy. It is this stupid little factoid that people who haven't seen the movie will latch onto in an effort to either laud or condemn this movie inordinately for its "controversial" nature. "Blowing up buildings" is certainly dubious in and of itself, but, within the movie, there's nothing ambiguous about it. That is the problem.
I think you're hating this movie for the sake of hating it, probably because you've read the GN and think the movie should have been just like that. (No, I didn't read your review before typing that - but I have now.)
That's one reason I didn't like it. Others include the fact that the direction sucked, the editing sucked, the visuals were often lackluster (the "Matrix Lightning;" the knife-trails, the V mask itself, etc.), the screenplay was silly, the pacing was inept, there were several scenes that were amateurish and unnecessary (the Guy Fawkes thing at the beginning, say), and on and on and on. Don't freaking ***** about me "hating the movie for the sake of hating it," because I don't hate it, for one thing (you've read my review), and because I have actual and legitimate gripes about the execution, for another.
You've forgotten that quite a few things in the novel won't work onscreen,
No, I haven't forgotten that at all. I refer to this in the review.
that the movie needs to be less than four hours long,
This is an irrelevant concern. There have been good adaptations in the past, and there will be good ones in the future. I'm pretty sure they could have fit in everything they needed to.
and most importantly you've forgotten that the GN isn't perfect.
Certainly it's not perfect. It is infinitely better than this film, however.
Evey becoming V at the end was a mistake. As V said, V is an idea more than a man. It doesn't matter what Evey does, whether she kills or not; as V, she would remain associated with the things V was associated with. The violence and the killing would taint whatever she did. Sure, it's a nice stylistic thing, but Moore really wasn't thinking.
The ending with the public wearing the masks makes more sense as V/Fawkes is also a symbol for revolt against the government. With cameras recording your every move, a mask grants not only anonymity but freedom. V is free, and he helps Evey become free; by sending out the masks, V is saying "Put this on if you want to be free". I, too, thought it was going to be dumb and bad when I saw the trailer, but in context it works.
I guess we are forced to disagree on this. It is my considered opinion that retaining the one, symbolic V - even if it is just Evey - is more potent in the "ideas live forever" than is simply cheapening the message by reducing it to a "he's in all of us" moment, which is cliched and overdone. The idea of V is manifestly not in all of us, else we would not need to be inspired by the external avatar that was he.
I will say this, though: "He was Edmund Dantes," was a hell of a line.
1
Is this the same David Icke who maintains that the world is secretly controlled by
giantshape-shifting space lizards?EDIT: On closer inspection, he does not suggest that the shape-shifting space lizards are giant.
1
Oh, okay. I didn't care for that at all. Pathetic fallacy is filed under the "quick and easy" tropes that should have no place in a film that's allegedly as complex and elegant as this one is.
I haven't seen much huff about this, to be honest. I think the Guardian ran a piece about it, but that's all I've seen.
That's all I can do until you give me something concrete to argue against.
Having seen the movie, I can tell you that there's nothing controversial about it. Which is why it fails. It should be controversial, but, somehow, they manage to present it in a way that never makes you doubt V or his intentions at all. There is no controversy in this film. The villanous fascists are cartoonish and inept, the hero is a dapper swashbuckler who never manages to rise above being simply eccentric even when he's killing people, and poor Evey isn't given nearly enough to do for us to be conflicted about her.
The concept is only controversial. That is, "blowing up buildings" is the controversy. It is this stupid little factoid that people who haven't seen the movie will latch onto in an effort to either laud or condemn this movie inordinately for its "controversial" nature. "Blowing up buildings" is certainly dubious in and of itself, but, within the movie, there's nothing ambiguous about it. That is the problem.
That's one reason I didn't like it. Others include the fact that the direction sucked, the editing sucked, the visuals were often lackluster (the "Matrix Lightning;" the knife-trails, the V mask itself, etc.), the screenplay was silly, the pacing was inept, there were several scenes that were amateurish and unnecessary (the Guy Fawkes thing at the beginning, say), and on and on and on. Don't freaking ***** about me "hating the movie for the sake of hating it," because I don't hate it, for one thing (you've read my review), and because I have actual and legitimate gripes about the execution, for another.
No, I haven't forgotten that at all. I refer to this in the review.
This is an irrelevant concern. There have been good adaptations in the past, and there will be good ones in the future. I'm pretty sure they could have fit in everything they needed to.
Certainly it's not perfect. It is infinitely better than this film, however.
I will say this, though: "He was Edmund Dantes," was a hell of a line.