NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't seen it yet. I would like to know what those who have seen it think.
So...thoughts? Worth seeing?

I haven't seen it yet. I would like to know what those who have seen it think.
So...thoughts? Worth seeing?

Was going to see it today, but I decided to watch The Hills Have Eyes. Might go tommorrow though, depending on how the day pans out.

Will see it when the Ukrainins make the cheap CD copy available in Romania. Probably. I don't care much about the subject.

My brother saw it today. Based on his report its got good action, a satisfactory plot, some lovely imagery and very little bearing indeed on the meat of the original comic.

Will see it when the Ukrainins make the cheap CD copy available in Romania. Probably. I don't care much about the subject.Taiwanese DVD screeners are better quality ;)

I just saw it. I liked it. It's got good action, a good plot (the premise is not very likely but it's an interesting one), and lots and lots of classical and modern influences, from theatre, music and real life.

Good fun!

Taiwanese DVD screeners are better quality ;)
...but they have a tiny bit longer travel to reach Romania than the Ukrainian versions do. ;)

I haven't seen it yet though, so can't really help, but the trailers look promising. They always do though...

Apart from Natalie Portman's absolutely gash attempt at acting (wait for a bit when she's really weeping, you'll see what I mean), I thought it was a sexcellent film. Admittedly, I did laugh a bit at some of the odd effects though; just because they introduced bullet time to screens, doesn't mean the Wachowski brothers can attempt to broach the new, original area of knife time - they aren't moving that fast, guys, there's no need to put silly little blurry bits after the knife movements.

But yeah, an overall 7/10. Which is good.

I have to agree with the 'knife' time assessment, it was really rather a ridiculous scene all together. It seemed clunky, like they had worked themselves to a corner or they really needed to construct a scene where they could do the knife thing, either way, that scene didn't work.

They made some choices against the source material that, while they still worked, didn't really seem all that necisarry. It was most certianly an attempt to update the comentary of the original (only the illustrator is credited, Moore apparently didn't approve), but there seemed almost a "Screenwriting 101" function to rearranging the plot so that it centered on V blowing up Parliment instead of starting with V blowing up Parliment. It's the 'ticking clock/stakes' writing that I didn't really think was neccisary. It put pressure on to find V by a certain time, but I don't know that it was really needed. It also meant that we missed out on the delightfully mad break up that V has with the statue of Justice. But that's still there in the comic book for me to enjoy.

V, in the comic book, is shot by the detective to deliver his "Ideas are bulletproof" line, and I think that it is more effective. This is a minor point, but I thought a bad choice. Delivering poniant lines to people who die immediately afterwards means that that particular idea just died and now you have to go give it to someone else (yes, the audience heard it, but within the narrative.)

I don't like the ending, Moore had the good sense to understand that it wouldn't be a switch, that V would be the start of a long process and not the end of it. Evie becoming V in the comic was more convincing than the townspeople marching on Parliment as V and the military not doing something...too magic wand

By removing more of the direct conflict between the detective and V they actually removed some of the problematic issues of V. In the comic there is a sense that V understands what he is doing and that eventually he himself has to come to an end. While they try to maintain that in the movie, it's less convincing when he is not using the detective as his conscience foil.

There where things that would have made this a travisty. If he removed his mask, if he didn't blow up Parliment. While they dicked around with the latter, it still happened. And he didn't remove his mask. For the briefest of seconds I thought they where going to identify him, but instead they where being metaphoric instead of having Evie imagine who's under the mask.

It wasn't a travisty, it did adher to the spirit of the book. It was too fixated on action, and sometimes the style didn't match up. One day later, the assessment is I'd actually watch it again, but I'm not going out of my way. It didn't have the maturity of the novel and that's too bad. I'm not going to give a star rating because those are irratating.

I heard a poor, poor reveiw from the CBC this morning.

However, the CBC might be predisposed to favor movies with less anti-gov stuff so

My brother saw it today, and all he's done since is rave about how awesome it is!

I'm going in about 10 min to see it. We'll see. :p

It wasn't a travisty, it did adher to the spirit of the book. It was too fixated on action, and sometimes the style didn't match up. One day later, the assessment is I'd actually watch it again, but I'm not going out of my way. It didn't have the maturity of the novel and that's too bad. I'm not going to give a star rating because those are irratating.
I think that while it wasn't a great movie, by not actually following the comic to the letter, they were able to make an enjoyable one.

I did find the shooting/knives scene a bit out of context, especially since it seems a bit easy how the Chancellor is delivered to him. The problem is that there are so many things going on that fitting them all into the length of a movie means that some are going to get drop.

I agree with the star rating thing. I use a chocolate raisins vs smelly socks one, and while this one has a couple of smelly socks the chocolate raisins outnumber them.

Here is an idea:

When you say whether you liked the movie, also point out whether you really liked the matrix series.

It would help me out, at least.

Here is an idea:

When you say whether you liked the movie, also point out whether you really liked the matrix series.

It would help me out, at least.
Hate The Matrix

Here is an idea:

When you say whether you liked the movie, also point out whether you really liked the matrix series.

It would help me out, at least.
I loved the original, really hated the two sequels. Quite liked V; I'd rate it above both sequels but below the original Matrix.

I loved the Matrix and my wife slept through it.

I loved V is for Vendetta and my wife slept through most of it.

I almost didn't go watch the movie, because I heard beforehad that in a way a terrorist was a good guy of sorts --- well, this movie had less to do with terrorism than with legitimate right to overthrow the government along the lines of the American Declaration of Independance --- given the government in power.

I don't want to give away any spoilers, but the underlying message (and is on the movie posters too) is that the people should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people.

I would give it an 8 on a scale of 1(worst) to 10(best).

I think that while it wasn't a great movie, by not actually following the comic to the letter, they were able to make an enjoyable one.

I did find the shooting/knives scene a bit out of context, especially since it seems a bit easy how the Chancellor is delivered to him. The problem is that there are so many things going on that fitting them all into the length of a movie means that some are going to get drop.

I agree with the star rating thing. I use a chocolate raisins vs smelly socks one, and while this one has a couple of smelly socks the chocolate raisins outnumber them.
I am intimately familiar with the difficulties of adapting a story from one medium to the other. To attempt a letter perfect translation would have been folly considering the episodic nature of the original, what worked for Sin City would not have worked here.

I wasn't taking issue with the fact that it was altered, that was to be expected, I was taking issue with the choices they made with the story-which is what I do for any movie. In this instance I have a source material to compare it to and look at how those choices reflect or alter the original material. Again, not looking for a letter perfect translation, but looking at the story and the choices made.

They constructed a new Chancellor story and I believe painted themselves in a corner with it with too much of a desire to do a slow-mo fight. It didn't work and wasn't as satisfying as it should have been. It was rather cut and paste (not in the internet sense, but you get the idea). The conclusions betrayeed a lot of the work they had laid in the film and weakened it overall. Again, it still came out a decent movie I'd watch again, but not on my own impulse. Unfortunately I dislike raisans, too.

Hate The Matrix

So V doesn't spend 80% of its length explaining itself?

So V doesn't spend 80% of its length explaining itself?
More explaining V's origins and his reasons. Plenty of vitriol in there though; what's that thing called where you emphasise the meaning of a sentence by using words which start in the same letter? There's a good little sequence with V like that.

More explaining V's origins and his reasons. Plenty of vitriol in there though; what's that thing called where you emphasise the meaning of a sentence by using words which start in the same letter? There's a good little sequence with V like that.

So there are characters in there? It isn't one big bloated idea?

So there are characters in there? It isn't one big bloated idea?
Oh no, it's far more of an idea than it is a character study. The characterization and character exploration are fairly small in favor of flashy shots and sequences, much more tread is given to the idea and theme than to character.

This is to be expected for a concept film such as this, but they could have done a better job with the characters.

Oh no, it's far more of an idea than it is a character study. The characterization and character exploration are fairly small in favor of flashy shots and sequences, much more tread is given to the idea and theme than to character.

This is to be expected for a concept film such as this, but they could have done a better job with the characters.

Then I probably won't enjoy it that much. I'll wait for the dvd by which time I will have lost interest.

i liked it. slightly lacking in the "yay anarchism!" aspects, which is too bad. i guess "boo authoritarianism" is an acceptable substitute, though still disappointing.

i disagree with some of the choices they made with the material, but at least understand most of them from a 'mainstreaming' perspective.

Then I probably won't enjoy it that much. I'll wait for the dvd by which time I will have lost interest.
Just read the comic.

More explaining V's origins and his reasons. Plenty of vitriol in there though; what's that thing called where you emphasise the meaning of a sentence by using words which start in the same letter? There's a good little sequence with V like that.

Alliteration?

So, the conclusion seems to be 'A good film, unless you're a fan of the comic.'?

So, the conclusion seems to be 'A good film, unless you're a fan of the comic.'?

i like the comic better, but the film is definitely worth seeing.

but read the comic too.

I've done so, very good stuff.

Been rather concerned about the movie, though.

I've done so, very good stuff.

Been rather concerned about the movie, though.
If you're a purist, you shouldn't be watching any adaptations ever. There was a better movie that could have been made from the source material, this wasn't the worst they could have done.

If you draw a scale of comic adaptation that has at one end, let's say, Judge Dredd-where Dredd takes off his helmet and no one is British-to Sin City, which it seems literally used the panels of the comic for storyboards, this would land closer to Sin City than Judge Dredd in that it retains the spirit but doesn't match the sophistication of the original. It's still watchable-as a diehard fan of the original (hands down my favorite graphic novel, and one of the reasons I studied film was the fever dream that I would one day adapt it-so I have every reason to trash it, I'm not doing that) it's watchable, you don't feel like someone has taken a really good pizza and poured salty fish all over it. It's just not as good as it could have been, but that can be said for so many things...

It sounds good. I want to see it, which is unusual for a movie.

If you're a purist, you shouldn't be watching any adaptations ever. There was a better movie that could have been made from the source material, this wasn't the worst they could have done.

If you draw a scale of comic adaptation that has at one end, let's say, Judge Dredd-where Dredd takes off his helmet and no one is British-to Sin City, which it seems literally used the panels of the comic for storyboards, this would land closer to Sin City than Judge Dredd in that it retains the spirit but doesn't match the sophistication of the original. It's still watchable-as a diehard fan of the original (hands down my favorite graphic novel, and one of the reasons I studied film was the fever dream that I would one day adapt it-so I have every reason to trash it, I'm not doing that) it's watchable, you don't feel like someone has taken a really good pizza and poured salty fish all over it. It's just not as good as it could have been, but that can be said for so many things...

Actually though...I know Judge Dredd is a British comic, but wasn't Mega City 1 staged in future North America?

The conclusions betrayeed a lot of the work they had laid in the film and weakened it overall. Again, it still came out a decent movie I'd watch again, but not on my own impulse.
Yeah, I think overall we agree on this movie, perhaps not through the same process, but the conclusion is the same.

Unfortunately I dislike raisans, too.
But they're good for you!

Actually though...I know Judge Dredd is a British comic, but wasn't Mega City 1 staged in future North America?
You might actually have me.

They constructed a new Chancellor story and I believe painted themselves in a corner with it with too much of a desire to do a slow-mo fight. It didn't work and wasn't as satisfying as it should have been. It was rather cut and paste (not in the internet sense, but you get the idea). The conclusions betrayeed a lot of the work they had laid in the film and weakened it overall. Again, it still came out a decent movie I'd watch again, but not on my own impulse. Unfortunately I dislike raisans, too.

They removed a lot of the political intrigue surrounding the Chancellor's eventual downfall, but I can understand that in the interests of brevity and such.

They removed a lot of the political intrigue surrounding the Chancellor's eventual downfall, but I can understand that in the interests of brevity and such.
I liked that part a lot. I think that they could have done it in the movie, though not exactly in the same way as the book-it was the manner that V went about with his vendetta slowly drove the chancellor into insanity-I think that they could have done that. But again, they where changing the bent of the story in an attempt to update, but I still think of it as a weak spot in the story telling regardless of how the comic told it. Even with their choices it was a 'quick fix' scene that they didn't really earn.

I liked that part a lot. I think that they could have done it in the movie, though not exactly in the same way as the book-it was the manner that V went about with his vendetta slowly drove the chancellor into insanity-I think that they could have done that. But again, they where changing the bent of the story in an attempt to update, but I still think of it as a weak spot in the story telling regardless of how the comic told it. Even with their choices it was a 'quick fix' scene that they didn't really earn.

I'm not sure they could have given it a proper treatment and still made the movie an acceptable length. If they were making a mini-series, or perhaps a two-part movie, perhaps, but I don't see how they could have fit everything in, all the plotting, and still kept the movie watchable.

Plus, they were really trying for a race-against-the-clock type of plot. Which I didn't mind, honestly.

I'm not sure they could have given it a proper treatment and still made the movie an acceptable length. If they were making a mini-series, or perhaps a two-part movie, perhaps, but I don't see how they could have fit everything in, all the plotting, and still kept the movie watchable.

Plus, they were really trying for a race-against-the-clock type of plot. Which I didn't mind, honestly.
The 'race against the clock' is what made it feel like 'screenwriting 101'...it does work (that's why it's in the class) but it doesn't trust the writing as much. Given the adapters, this was probably the best route for them to take...

But even given the race, the chancellor was still tacked on-not a very well earned scene. They did a better job of earning the march against the Parliment, and the build of the revolt but even that could have been earned better-or skipped for an ending that wouldn't have needed as much selling, some restraint.

It's only when a movie gets close to being really good and falls short that I get this needling. You should see me go on about Garden State-if not for some bad choices that would have been a great movie...dammit...

Here's the main few griefs I have with V....first of all, and absolutely foremost, the reason that the only credit Alan Moore took in it is illustration of the graphic novel is because he completely disowned this project. Like others have stated, it's not at all the comic book that many people (myself included) came to appreciate. Certain elements that one would think, from reading the comic, were key are ABSOLUTELY omitted, far too many liberties are taken (like when you-know-who ended up being, um....differently sexually oriented....I feel that was more Larry Wachowski's personal transsexual bitch-slap to America more than a plot device [edit: I realize that possibly comes off as narrow-minded, but let me assure you, I stand entirely for the unfairness they were trying to paint with the secondary minor homosexual storyline, what with Portman's personal growth near the end and all, I just think that adding that in and doing nothing with it detracted a bit]), and they added the stupid element of love into it. V seems eloquent and well-educated at first, but seems to fall into the realm of absolute mediocrity as it goes on, except for his seemingly miraculous planning of all the events (which also made much more sense with the events in the comic that were omitted).

If you've not read the comic and you just want to see the movie, and especially if you got anything positive out of The Matrix, I'd suggest that it's well worth the ticket price. (Luckily, as I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped, I see my movies for free and will probably never pay for a rental, as my free viewings are unlimited.)

Simonist']Here's the main few griefs I have with V....first of all, and absolutely foremost, the reason that the only credit Alan Moore took in it is illustration of the graphic novel is because he completely disowned this project. Like others have stated, it's not at all the comic book that many people (myself included) came to appreciate. Certain elements that one would think, from reading the comic, were key are ABSOLUTELY omitted, far too many liberties are taken (like when you-know-who ended up being, um....differently sexually oriented....I feel that was more Larry Wachowski's personal transsexual bitch-slap to America more than a plot device [edit: I realize that possibly comes off as narrow-minded, but let me assure you, I stand entirely for the unfairness they were trying to paint with the secondary minor homosexual storyline, what with Portman's personal growth near the end and all, I just think that adding that in and doing nothing with it detracted a bit]), and they added the stupid element of love into it. V seems eloquent and well-educated at first, but seems to fall into the realm of absolute mediocrity as it goes on, except for his seemingly miraculous planning of all the events (which also made much more sense with the events in the comic that were omitted).

If you've not read the comic and you just want to see the movie, and especially if you got anything positive out of The Matrix, I'd suggest that it's well worth the ticket price. (Luckily, as I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped, I see my movies for free and will probably never pay for a rental, as my free viewings are unlimited.)
Alan didn't illustrate it, David something did (I leant my book to my roommate, and I don't feel like looking it up right now...). I think Evie did fall in love in the comic, but it was more of a paternal thing. More of that Screenwriting 101 to add that longing love thing, though to be fair they handled that with a degree of restraint.

Moore is cantacerous, but I can see why (especially given his personality and history of movies getting bent over the rail) he removed himself from this...

Alan didn't illustrate it, David something did (I leant my book to my roommate, and I don't feel like looking it up right now...). I think Evie did fall in love in the comic, but it was more of a paternal thing. More of that Screenwriting 101 to add that longing love thing, though to be fair they handled that with a degree of restraint.

Moore is cantacerous, but I can see why (especially given his personality and history of movies getting bent over the rail) he removed himself from this...
Nonetheless, if memory serves (though it's been almost a week since we previewed it, so I admit I could be wrong) I believe the only credit he had was that it said "Based off the graphic novel illustrated by Alan Moore". I do know that he very clearly didn't want public writing credit for it, and rightly so, seeing all the changes that were made. And it was David Lloyd (sorry, I know much more about comic books than the average girl probably should, but I dated like seven comic book geeks, and two of 'em are still my best friends).

Simonist']Nonetheless, if memory serves (though it's been almost a week since we previewed it, so I admit I could be wrong) I believe the only credit he had was that it said "Based off the graphic novel illustrated by Alan Moore". I do know that he very clearly didn't want public writing credit for it, and rightly so, seeing all the changes that were made. And it was David Lloyd (sorry, I know much more about comic books than the average girl probably should, but I dated like seven comic book geeks, and two of 'em are still my best friends).
Thats odd, since Moore was the writer and Lloyd the illustrator, though they created the stroy together. Wonder how they screwed that pooch?

Simonist']Nonetheless, if memory serves (though it's been almost a week since we previewed it, so I admit I could be wrong) I believe the only credit he had was that it said "Based off the graphic novel illustrated by Alan Moore". And it was David Lloyd (sorry, I know much more about comic books than the average girl probably should, but I dated like seven comic book geeks, and two of 'em are still my best friends).
It actually said "Based on the Graphic Novel Illustrated by David Lloyd." I remember this because it struck me as amusing. The imdb.com website credits Moore and Lloyd for 'characters.' Moore's name doesn't appear in the credits of the movie. EDIT: That I saw, but I was looking for it.

It actually said "Based on the Graphic Novel Illustrated by David Lloyd." I remember this because it struck me as amusing. The imdb.com website credits Moore and Lloyd for 'characters.' Moore's name doesn't appear in the credits of the movie.
I haven't checked imdb.....they failed me thrice this past movie season, I have disowned their bitch-asses.

Simonist']I haven't checked imdb.....they failed me thrice this past movie season, I have disowned their bitch-asses.
I've got to know how...

There's always rottentomatoes.com or boxofficemojo.com. The latter can make you sound like you're some sort of insider with per-screen ratings and such.

OK...to start, I haven't read the comic. Liked the Matrix a lot, tolerated the second, disliked the third (that ending sucked ass).

I liked this movie quite a bit actually, and aside from Sin City and Kingdom of Heaven, this is the best movie I have seen in theatres in quite some time.

I thought Hugo Weaving did a great job. I thought he acted through the mask effectively, which certainly isn't the easiest thing in the world to do (not that I've tried :p ). I found most of the acting to be complementary to the story, actually. I thought Natalie Portman did a surprisingly good job, especially in the prison sequences.

I found most of the visuals effective, and I liked the use of music in the story. Had me half-assed jamming out in the theatre. :)

I think some consertvative leaning people might be a little turned off by some of the political leanings expressed in the story, but there are other subtle messages, including one gem regarding gun control. They aren't exactly shoving anything down your throat, especially given the hypothetical setting of the story. A lot of that might have to do with the adaptation, though.

Can anyone recommend how I might get my hands on the comic? :)

Overall, I'd give it an 8 out of 10...and it was worth my $7.00. Barring a glut of excellent performances, I'd go so far as to say Weaving should get a nomination (not a win) for Best Actor.

And I'll definetly watch it again someday...at least to get that aliteration sequence straight! :p

OK...to start, I haven't read the comic. Liked the Matrix a lot, tolerated the second, disliked the third (that ending sucked ass).

I liked this movie quite a bit actually, and aside from Sin City and Kingdom of Heaven, this is the best movie I have seen in theatres in quite some time.

I thought Hugo Weaving did a great job. I thought he acted through the mask effectively, which certainly isn't the easiest thing in the world to do (not that I've tried :p ). I found most of the acting to be complementary to the story, actually. I thought Natalie Portman did a surprisingly good job, especially in the prison sequences.

I found most of the visuals effective, and I liked the use of music in the story. Had me half-assed jamming out in the theatre. :)

I think some consertvative leaning people might be a little turned off by some of the political leanings expressed in the story, but there are other subtle messages, including one gem regarding gun control. They aren't exactly shoving anything down your throat, especially given the hypothetical setting of the story. A lot of that might have to do with the adaptation, though.

Can anyone recommend how I might get my hands on the comic? :)

Overall, I'd give it an 8 out of 10...and it was worth my $7.00. Barring a glut of excellent performances, I'd go so far as to say Weaving should get a nomination (not a win) for Best Actor.

And I'll definetly watch it again someday...at least to get that aliteration sequence straight! :p
You should be able to find the commic at your local book or barring that comic store.

Would most any comic book store have it? I have like, three or four to choose from.

Actually though...I know Judge Dredd is a British comic, but wasn't Mega City 1 staged in future North America?
Yep. MegaCity 1 was most of the East Coast of the US.

Yep. MegaCity 1 was most of the East Coast of the US.
I stand corrected. Though that movie was a steaming pile, even if that part was right.

Would most any comic book store have it? I have like, three or four to choose from.

Any good one will have the collected trade paperback version. It's one of the perennial classics of the form - as far as I know it hasn't been out of print since the collection was first made available.

As for Moore disowning the movie - well, that's Alan Moore. He may well be the most difficult comic book creator to work with in history, which, given hes a fracking genius, is a real pity. From the descriptions given here, I'll see it at the cinemas.

First things first. I am a deep fan of the graphic novel. Thought The Matrix was a decent enough action flick, though I have desire to see it again, ever. The sequels though were simply self-indulgent onanism.


I thought the film was ok, it seemed to me that it was very self consious and concerned about appearing stylish, which works at some points but usually feels forced. I think they remained vaguely true the spirit of the comic, and the various changes were understandable but don't quite work. Though I am admittedly prejudiced. It was also a bit too long imo, I have nothing against long films but I just feel that this particular one could have done with being a shorter, One that really grated me was that it was obviously an outsiders view of England, and tried its best to appear "English." So 'bollocks' is used frequently, so frequently that my friend suggested we should start a tally. It's also the reason why you get nods toward people like Benny Hill, which don't work imo. Though that just might be because I cannot stand him (and don't know anyone who can) and don't understand why he appears to be fairly well known in the US. On the plus side of the attempt to seem English, you do get lots of regional accents, which is nice, I was worried everyone would speak with the standard accents for British people in American films.

I did quite like the end though.


As I said at the beginning of the thread, that I saw The Hills Have Eyes remake yesterday, which was a lot better and would suggest people see that before, because it is better. Unless that type of film doesn't appeal to you.