See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Go See V for Vendetta - 4 stars
Source:
Mehitable
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 18, 2006
Author: Mehitable Storm
Post Date: 2006-03-18 23:42:56 by mehitable
Keywords: Vendetta, stars
Views: 1245
Comments: 46
We went to see it tonight and had a split reaction - I thought it was one of the greatest, most profound movies I've seen in years. Extremely powerful and thoughtful. V depicts very clearly both how a totalitarian state comes about and what is required to bring it down - and what the stakes might be for individuals who attempt it. It's kind of like the next logical progression for the Wachowskis after the Matrix series. Once you realize you're in the Matrix, how do you break free? V tells me that the most important thing is to overcome your own fear. There are so many memorable scenes and lines in this movie, I couldn't go through them all. One of the most striking to me was the question that the police captain asks his lieutenant about whether he'd want to know if the government was behind comitting terrible crimes against its own people. This movie may have a 20 year old graphic novel as its basis, but it's really as fresh as our daily headlines. I said split reaction as my boyfriend (who is faily apolitical) found it too talky and repetitive. He was bored. Not his cup of tea. But for those who enjoy politics, and believe that there is no more important topic in America today, I would say - go see V and tell everyone you know to go as well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: RickyJ (#2)
LMAO - He's wonderful in many ways, but he tends to be very conservative personally. I think he found it difficult to relate to the lack of humor in the movie and he found it too pessimistic. I think it frightened him. Many people are going to have that reaction. It's scary to challenge the status quo, whether of govt or ideas.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Those who object to a depiction and endorsement of rebellion against tyranny would do well to remember that our own country started that way. I believe it was Jefferson who said that a little rebellion now and then was a good thing. I agree - the govt should fear the people, not the other way around. Agreed! I think people need to be frightened out of their complacency.. something needs to wake them up..
Lack of humor? What are you talking about? The depiction of the movie's Bill O'Reilly-like media blowhard was a riot. The heavy-handed media scaremongering that looked like yesterdays broadcast of CNN and faux news was a wonderful - a non-parody parody, so to speak. But, funniest of all was the courageous parody of the Chancellor on a talk show that unbeknownst to the media masters had "left the reservation." The movie was full of good fun, making a mockery of the present regime. I laughed repeatedly, at the regime's expense. ;^)
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
I wasn't able to attend any of the the anti-war rallies in my area today. But I will definitely go see V in the next day or so. I will at least use it for inspiration to help me re-think my anti-war activities. I want to remain non- iolent, but I am looking for something more effective. As the character in V says, we must jettison fear. What we must understand is that honest and intelligent and out-spoken people are an enemy of the state. We have to succed at being against war and for peace or we will wind up in concentration camps. And to succeed we must let go of fear. I would be proud to share a cell at Gitmo with anyone on this forum, but my first choice is that only the criminals in Washington and the real perpetrators of 9-11 go to jail.
You have to SCARE the man out of the sheep. Quite frankly I see the "It's too late" and the "We can't do anything." attitude that even affects this and other Constitutionalist and Patriot forums as a reminder that the "Sheeple" mode can even be found amongst US occasionally. Two boxes still remain OPEN to use and one of them, THE JURY BOX still allows for non violent action against the toatlitarian wannabees.
The heavy-handed media scaremongering that looked like yesterdays broadcast of CNN and faux news was a wonderful - a non-parody parody, so to speak. He was like a blend of O`Rilley and Limbaugh. The gov/media reminded me of the movie "Robocop".
Interesting concept. All this talk reminds me of 'Brazil' and my whole attitude about dealing with terrorism rationally; When someone streaks across the field at a ball game, they don't show it on TV. They don't give them the attention they commanded. That's the clincher IMO re: why the 'War on Terror' is a sham. If terrorism was a real problem, those against it would not feed into its desired reaction.
"Debunking 'Caveman' conspiracy theories since 2002" NOW your thinking! Once you understand that you're dealing with a liar, you can analyze statements in terms of their deceitful m.o.. A very powerful tool, once you get the hang of it. There is a whole lot to be understood in this world by just that line thinking.
I've seen the flick. I've seen it twice. Great flick, however it's not going to move people in any direction other than out the door. I've tried discussing the film with people. They're not interested in talking. Perhaps they're not done digesting the parts that were boring, informative, or unpalatable to them. The issue with this movie isn't so much that it glorifies terrorism, it's that it's something that we haven't seen since the 9-11 incident. I call 9-11 an incident, because it was an act of war perpetrated against the American People by others who would seek to destroy this country's freedom and people. However, I am not talking about Islamic Terrorists, as they were simply the tool and current boogey man to get the job done. The movie was a departure from the source material but is still relevant to Today's current events, only through virtue of a few added in lines and props. You could show this film in the 1930's and it would have moved people, but that's because they didn't have the benefit of 70 plus years of additional brainwashing. I can assure everyone that this film will not move people to don masks and go after the government. Nobody is going to stop paying their taxes, going to work, or start subversive movements, because you cannot trust your fellow citizens not to rat you out. I promise everyone on this thread and on this site, this movie will go away just like every other movie like it that speaks of crushing evil tyrants. I remember all the talk about how Star Wars would change America's perception of George Bush. Remember Lord Of The Rings? The Matrix Movies? Now this one? Movies are simply movies. People are stupifyingly ignorant in this country. You might get the message, but your fellow movie goer won't. They have the attention span of a house cat, thanks to TV, and the media. If the thing had commercial breaks it might have gotten through the layer of stupfying brain fat that Americans seem to be born with. I'm an American, I was born and raised here, but this country stopped being America the day I started waking up. I woke up after Gulf War I. I learned a lot about who really runs this country, and since I've been on this path to enlightenment, I've figured that the only way to truly be free, is to move to the ocean. That's right, the ocean. It's the only place where people can be free. Unfortunately, there are pirates, just like there are on land, so I guess you take your chances. Regardless, the views expressed in this movie will not mesh so well with the post 9-11 dogma and propaganda of the media elite. In fact, the quickest way to marginalize it, would be if George W. Bush were to endorse it.
#7. To: mehitable (#5)
The central message is about the ability and NECESSITY for ordinary people to rebel against dictatorships. The "terrorism" that V engages in is really symbolic - no one is intentionally killed in his destruction of the 2 govt buildings - he blows them up at night. It's the beginning and end to his war against the govt that tried to destroy him, and that destoys so many innocent people daily.
#8. To: mehitable (#6)
I think he found it difficult to relate to the lack of humor in the movie and he found it too pessimistic.
#9. To: mehitable (#0)
#10. To: Zipporah (#7)
#11. To: Arator (#8)
depiction of the movie's Bill O'Reilly-like media blowhard was a riot.
#12. To: mehitable (#5)
The "terrorism" that V engages in is really symbolic - no one is intentionally killed in his destruction of the 2 govt buildings - he blows them up at night.
:: Awoken Research Group :: 4um's 'ARG List' ::
#13. To: valis (#12)
If terrorism was a real problem, those against it would not feed into its desired reaction.
#14. To: mehitable (#0)
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#15. To: Coral Snake, All (#10)
Wrong. Think again. by Francis Steffan Carol Asher is a 66-year old retired nun and school teacher who volunteers tirelessly as an assistant to Retired Phoenix, Arizona Police Officer Jack McLamb. Her energies are siphoned into the organization, Aid & Abet Police & Military organization. As a hard worker and a caring person who strives to help others, she is now facing the possibility of serving 14 years in prison. What could a retired nun and school teacher possibly do to warrant fourteen years in prison?. She committed what must be considered near blasphemy among American Judges these days; in the privacy and sanctity of the jury deliberation room she may have told the other jurors that ultimately, she answered to a Higher Authority than the judge. In retribution for Carols alleged blasphemy against a wannabe god of the Idaho judiciary, she has been charged by Lawrence G. Wasden, who is the Idaho Attorney General; by Stephen A. Bywater, who is Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Criminal Division and by Justin D. Whatcott, who is Deputy Attorney General-- all of whom pretend to work for the people of the state of Idaho. They have charged her with felony perjury for doing her duty as a juror within the confidentiality of the jury deliberation room. Am I Serious?? Sadly YES. Here are some facts as we have them that have led to this point:. A man was stopped for a traffic infraction while driving a company owned truck and during the stop as found to have an outstanding warrant against him. He locked the company vehicle as he was to be arrested for the warrant. The Officers decided to have the vehicle impounded and then took the keys away from him, unlocked the vehicle and conducted an "inventory search," which is a necessary device to shield the impounding department from being sued for stealing people’s things out of their car or, for less credible reasons as “safety purposes.” During the inventory search, a small amount of an illegal drug was allegedly discovered within the company vehicle. Carol Usher was summoned for jury duty and selected to sit on the case described above. She listened to the evidence of the case and conscientiously the facts, and American jurisprudence of the accused being innocent until the State can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecutor and judge must have considered this case, to be a slam- dunk, young-male-minority drug conviction. Carol conducted herself as a thinking, attentive, and conscientious juror, who did her best to pay attention to all the facts so as render a just verdict. She was one of four jurors who voted "not guilty." So why, then is she the only one being prosecuted? It has been reported to The American Voice that during deliberation Carol had sent a note to the judge asking to clarify how the warrantless search was valid, since it had not been based on any probable cause of any crime being committed but under the pretext of inventorying the contents of the locked company vehicle could muster constitutional validity. In reply, the judge responded that he, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney had decided in the Judge’s chambers that the search was lawful. Deliberation continued but Carol had additional difficulties identifying any evidence that actually tied the accused to the illegal drugs. As mentioned previously, the accused was driving a company vehicle that had been driven by others within the company prior to the accused's use of it. The prosecution also failed to produce any evidence of the accused's fingerprints on the bag containing the alleged illegal drugs. As Carol discussed this lack of evidence with her fellow jurors within the supposed sanctity and privacy of the jury deliberation chamber she reportedly mentioned to her fellow jurors that she still had a problem with the constitutionality of the search in addition to the lack of evidence produced by the prosecution. The jury foreman jumped up and told Carol that she shouldn't even think about the constitutionality of the search because the judge had already decided that it was lawful. It is further reported that Carol's reply to him was that she answers to a higher authority than the Judge. At the end of their deliberation, Carol and three other jurors had decided that the evidence against the accused left reasonable doubt of the his guilt and, therefore, he was acquitted. Another juror, perhaps unhappy that Carol honestly said what was on her mind, and looking for favor with the local authorities or simply possessing a hatred of God and justice, went to the prosecuting attorney and reported details of the jury deliberation. Apparently in Idaho, and perhaps where you live also, the court requires jurors to sign, under penalty of perjury, that they will decide a case based on the facts. To some this may not read so bad at first glance; however, what this accomplishes is to make a jury impotent. For instance, it is a fact that illegal drugs were found within a vehicle, so search was conducted. But if the search was not lawful, then the evidence cannot be used; likewise, if a search is lawful, then the evidence can be used. Minus any other considerations, the guilt or innocence of the crime of illegal drugs being within the vehicle is determined by a single decision concerning the lawfulness of the search. If this single decision is only the purview of a judge and a jury must yield to the judges, well, then there is no decision left for the jury to make and they are a rubber stamp for the will of the state's judge. This is arguably an extreme example; however, the decision to allow certain evidence to be considered by the jury and other evidence to be withheld is a common tactic used by prosecutors in league with their fellow state employees that judges use to control the facts that only they think should be presented.. The argument made and advice given by a judge who writes for "The Judges Journal," Frederic B. Rodgers, states ,"The jury oath I give to jurors selected to try the case makes them promise to respect and follow the applicable law in finding the facts. The court's job, not the jury's, is to determine what laws apply." and that "Violating the jury oath may subject you to prosecution for perjury." One must ask where exactly have judges developed this notion that it is the "courts" -- actually meaning then, the Judge’s--prerogative to decide what a law written and defined by the legislature actually means. One would think that a law so complicated and not understandable to an average jurist would be by definition void. "Courts" have ruled that ignorance of the law is supposedly no defense; however, when ones becomes a jurist, the "court" apparently declares them incompetent and tells them what the law is. This appears to be a very self severing double standard. Nevertheless, you have a decision to make. What kind of nation do you want to live in? What kind of nation do you want your children to inherit? Will it be one where probate judges turn disabled men and women into chattel to be destroyed at their will alone? Will it be one where members of the jury are required to sign an oath under penalties of perjury to only rule according to a judge’s OPINION of what a law means? Will it be one where judges (Judge Jose Cabranes, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) sink to the level of criticizing the decisions of Northern Juries prior to the Civil War refusing to convict slaves on escape charges that may have forced their return to their owners? Today’s judges would have one believe that unrestrained power of the Jury will be the destruction of society and the ringing in of anarchy. Perhaps the judges of King George felt the same? The founders of this nation and our long standing Supreme Court rulings indicate otherwise. Whatever your view is of the men who founded this nation, one thing seems certain: They realized that there is a difference between being guided by "feelings" and being guided by conscience and they trusted the Jury. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States supreme Court, 1789 "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." -Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902 "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." - Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941 "The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..." -U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972) "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall 1) "The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to aquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." -U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972) "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." -Thomas Jefferson If every juror who serves on a jury must guard his or her tongue in the privacy of the jury deliberation room, fearful of making a statement which will be reported to the prosecutor or the defense attorney or judge by some jury snitch, then what happened to the privacy, the sanctity, and the confidentiality of jury deliberations? Have we gone back to a time in this land where jurors will be punished by the "court" for refusing to render a verdict according to the demands of the government, when jurors will be punished if they refuse to ignore their conscience and blindly accept the orders of the judge as the supreme law of the land? Have we reached a time when to hold the moral and religious reservations held by the majority of the people in this country- those reservations which allow us all to consult our own conscience, to rely upon our own guiding principles and religious teachings - must be ignored, set aside? In a time when there is credible evidence of widespread election rigging and blatant bribery, now called lobbying, and an unprecedented level of impropriety and influence of special interest groups within government, not always American groups either, and a frightening shift in government policy towards the good of corporate interests and away from the interests of the people of the several States of the union we as the People need to hold on to and defend our right to be impartial jurists free to decide what is just by the law, the facts and our conscience. Jurors, as the direct representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers -- and the forensic investigators in most cases -- are all a part of, and receive their paychecks from, government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom. Juries were intended as the protectors against government's power-hungry, expansion, and the resultant rise of tyranny. The primary role of our jurors remains that or serving as an independent body to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties. Is this a failure of government employees of the state of Idaho to understand the role of the juror and the law? Or is our system of justice failing, which is a failing of our society as a whole? It certainly isn't a failure on the part of Carol Asher who stood up and did her duty of legitimately exercising her rights of reason and conscience. All thinking people should rise to her defense, in righteous indignation, and in outrage over the arrogant, despotic actions of state Attorney-General Wasden, and his staff, all of whom are complicit in an official conspiracy to deny God given rights, in defiant opposition to the clear dictates of our Constitution and long standing American jurisprudence. Because if we do not stand up for Carol Asher now….we are all NEXT. We thank http://www.fija .org for their contributions to this effort, and encourage you to visit their website
Two boxes still remain OPEN to use and one of them, THE JURY BOX still allows for non violent action against the toatlitarian wannabees.
State Retaliates With Perjury Charges
http:// TheAmericanVoice.com
editor@theamericanvoice.com
#16. To: Esso (#15)
This is an excellent example of how government tyranny actually affects ORDINARY people. The problem with telling most people that they live under an increasingly totalitarian govt is....most of them don't mind. They don't mind because they don't see that it would affect them at all. After all, if you don't do anything "wrong", nothing will happen to you..,right? This is one of the few problems I have with the movie V - the section where they show how the new dictatorship starts stamping out homosexuals. While that actually DOES happen in many dictatorships, most people don't care as they don't care for homos anyway and they don't think it affects them. I would not have chosen this group to show the effects of dictatorship, but something that affects an ordinary family like those watching the TV. This is a good example of how governmental tyranny can affect an ordinary person through a seemingly ordinary event - serving on a jury. Who on earth would expect this juror to be facing a sentence of her own simply for questioning what a judge thinks and having her own (valid) opinion about a legal case she has been assigned to?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#17. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#14)
I agree with your assessment Tommy.
I can assure everyone that this film will not move people to don masks and go after the government
#18. To: mehitable (#16)
I would. I came to within a hair's breadth of going to jail because during voir dire (jury selection) I told the judge and prosecutor that I refused to convict a person on the basis of a law that shouldn't be on the books. That, of course, sent the prosecuting attorney (a snotty little bitch) into a tizzy, who ran up to the judge's bench, flailing her arms about, and loudly demanded that I be incarcerated for contempt of court. The defense attorney argued that I should be allowed to serve. The judge dismissed me with a warning that in the future I should learn to follow instructions or face harsh consequences.
Who on earth would expect this juror to be facing a sentence of her own simply for questioning what a judge thinks and having her own (valid) opinion about a legal case she has been assigned to?
#19. To: mehitable (#0)
James Wolcott's review of "V For Vendetta".
#20. To: Esso (#18)
that is an incredible story about what happened to you as well as what happened to Carol Asher.
#21. To: Esso (#18)
This is probably more common or widespread than we realize and is the kind of tyranny that actualy could affect the average person just innocently going into jury duty. I wish more people were aware of these situations.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#22. To: aristeides (#19)
Outstanding review. And the number of "V"s grows...
But gives the movie its rebel power is the moral seriousnessthat drives the action, emotion, and allegory. That’s what I didn’t expect from the Wachowski brothers (The Matrix), this angry, summoning Tom Paine moral dispatch that puts our pundits, politicians, and cable news hosts to shame. V for Vendetta instills force into the very essence of four-letter words like hate, love, and (especially) fear, and releases that force like a fist.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#23. To: mehitable (#0)
74% 'favorability rating' for "V for Vendetta" from the popular movie review site 'Rotten Tomatoes'. That's not too shabby.
#24. To: aristeides (#19)
Wow, great review - thanks for the link. I agree with everything he said, and I've already seen that people of various political stripes will be uncomfortable with it. I think V has been panned (1 star) by some big media - Times? etc, and I'm not surprised as it's truly one of the few challenging movies I've ever seen. It not only reveals what the problem is - a dictatorship - but how it came to pass and most importantly - WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. It addresses moral issues and ideas with seriousness and with the intent of providing solutions - not just a rant. Ths is THE defining movie of the Bush neo-con admin and perhaps the defining movie of this young century, so far. I'm very pleased to see from the box office reports that it's also number 1 in the country now. One thing that struck me about the movie - as much as we talk about the "sheeple", the ordinary citizens in V are presented as knowing or suspecting in large part that the govt and media lie to them regularly and they've learned to determine at times when this is happening. The key is whether the ordinary people - the people in offices, and pubs and watching at home on the telly - can overcome their fear and apathy to the point where they are able to say no to their govt. The greatness of V is not what V personally does in killing various govt officials or blowing up a couple of govt buildings - it's that he inspires the mass of ordinary Britons to join together and resist their oppressors. The scene at the end where the people march together is breathtaking. It brings tears to my eyes thinking of it, and how I wish I could see something like that happening in THIS country NOW.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#25. To: who knows what evil (#23)
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#26. To: who knows what evil (#23)
excellent!!! it's at the top of the box office too. I hope it can maintain that position. Fortunately there are tons of Matrix/Wachowski fans out there, and maybe...people aren't as stupid or passive as we fear they are.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#27. To: mehitable (#24)
You said it, sister. Rather than depressing, I found this movie to be the most inspirational movie I've seen in years. Hope springs eternal that the Beast might yet be overcome...
The greatness of V is not what V personally does in killing various govt officials or blowing up a couple of govt buildings - it's that he inspires the mass of ordinary Britons to join together and resist their oppressors. The scene at the end where the people march together is breathtaking. It brings tears to my eyes thinking of it, and how I wish I could see something like that happening in THIS country NOW.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#28. To: Arator (#22)
Ever since the news about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo started coming out, I have found myself thinking often about Edmond Dantès and the Château d'If.
#29. To: Coral Snake (#10)
Quite frankly I see the "It's too late" and the "We can't do anything." attitude that even affects this and other Constitutionalist and Patriot forums as a reminder that the "Sheeple" mode can even be found amongst US occasionally. Two boxes still remain OPEN to use and one of them, THE JURY BOX still allows for non violent action against the toatlitarian wannabees. I dont know Coral.. remember on FR how they've gone on and on for years about judges and the courts being too liberal?? That we need 'conservative' judges?? Well of course ignorantly I was in agreement.. but of course I hadnt considered that what we need are principled judges rather than those who are cut from the same cloth as conservatives aka neocons..
You have to SCARE the man out of the sheep.
#30. To: aristeides (#28)
Our new foundness for hooding to further dehumanize those whom we wish to destroy does remind of one of the iron mask... There is nothing entirely new under the sun...
Ever since the news about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo started coming out, I have found myself thinking often about Edmond Dantès and the Château d'If.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#31. To: Arator (#27)
I felt the same way about it - it's really an inspiring movie. We need heros - even heros like V. I can totaly relate to V's love of old movies and the Count of Monte Cristo (one of my favorite novels as a child) as we have so few actual heros (on a large scale) to inspire us. I found the movie ultimately very uplifting and encouraging.
You said it, sister. Rather than depressing, I found this movie to be the most inspirational movie I've seen in years. Hope springs eternal that the Beast might yet be overcome...
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#32. To: aristeides (#28)
I had never considered it.. but youre right.. false imprisonment.. etc.
Ever since the news about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo started coming out, I have found myself thinking often about Edmond Dantès and the Château d'If.
#33. To: Arator (#30)
Funny you should mention the iron mask. I was also thinking about that the other day. Alfred McCoy argues in A Question of Torture : CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (which I just finished reading) that the practise of hooding comes out of CIA psychological experiments from the 1950's on how to break people down psychologically. And I was wondering to myself if putting the iron mask on whoever the mysterious man was in the iron mask whom Dumas made into the genuine Louis XIV was meant for the same purpose. Of course, at least as the story is presented in the movies, the prisoner could see through his mask, so the disorientation desired by the CIA would not have occurred, at least to the same extent. (I can't say I've read the Dumas on this one. It's apparently part of Dumas's long second sequel to The Three Musketeers, entitled Le vicomte de Bragelonne. But I've only seen the movies with Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. and Louis Hayward.) Hugh Ross Williamson wrote an essay on the identity of the man in the iron mask which appears in his collection Who Was the Man in the Iron Mask?.
#34. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#14)
Hi Tommy, I missed your post earlier. I know what you're saying about people's reactions - I saw that in my own boyfriend last night. I don't expect this movie (or any movie) to change people's or live completely. After all, we had Moore's 911 movie, which was extremely well done, and I don't know how many minds that actually changed. I think the important thing about V for me is that it's a chink in the armor. Big Hollywood produces a movie (granted perhaps somewhat unwittingly) that is utterly subversive - and a great movie. I believe this movie will have some affect on people long after they've seen it on some level. Any time we have a public truth telling, it makes it that much more difficult to complete the totalitarian goals. People have seen the blueprint and they become wary. Perhaps people will remember V at some point in the future when something happens that makes them think "there's something wrong in the country". Many of us are at that point now, and many more will join us - when they overcome their fear and apathy. Some people - a sizeable minority certainly - never will. But V helps to bring the light in just a little bit more, and maybe that's all I can ask any work of fiction to do. It will take time to change things in this country, but the more aware people become, the better. At a time when news media deliberately lies and hides the truth and works to deceive us, we must have some truth or honesty from some source. And V is one of them.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#35. To: mehitable (#31)
I strongly recommend the French TV production of The Count of Monte Cristo" with Depardieu from the late 90's.
#36. To: mehitable (#26)
Preliminary box office projections for the weekend are generally posted around 5 p.m. on Sunday afternoons...I have little doubt that it will be #1, as it was the biggest weekend release. What will tell the tale will be the amount of money it brings in...that will be VERY interesting.
...it's at the top of the box office too...
#37. To: who knows what evil (#36)
The figure I saw was for Friday - at over 8 million - I don't know how to rate that. It will be interesting to see how the weekend turns out. It's also interesting how several tools of the MSM are trying to kill the movie with absurdedly bad ratings. There's no way V rates a 1 star - even for just production values alone and Portman's performance, it would rate a minimum of 2. That's obviously politics talking. I wonder how it might affect the movie.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#38. To: mehitable (#37)
Probably not as much as it will effect the credibility and standing of the panning critics and publications. Don't you love it when they out themselves as being total tools of the emerging fascist police state?
It's also interesting how several tools of the MSM are trying to kill the movie with absurdedly bad ratings. There's no way V rates a 1 star - even for just production values alone and Portman's performance, it would rate a minimum of 2. That's obviously politics talking. I wonder how it might affect the movie.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#39. To: mehitable, Arator, Zipporah, TommyTheMadArtist (#37)
Box office is in...$26.1 million for "V for Vendetta's" opening weekend. Considering the time of year, that's pretty good.
#40. To: who knows what evil (#39)
It's not too bad for an R rated movie at this time of the year that was even boycotted by some. I think word of mouth will give this movie strong legs.
Box office is in...$26.1 million for "V for Vendetta's" opening weekend. Considering the time of year, that's pretty good.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#41. To: who knows what evil (#39)
BTW, your figures are just the estimated total for the weekend, the actual amount won't be known until tomorrow afternoon.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#42. To: Esso (#18)
The current legal scam is scared witless of a fully informed juror. Good job.
#43. To: All (#42)
Tom Laughlin's latest Billy Jack movie information. Good stuff there.
#44. To: who knows what evil (#39)
You're right.. not the big movie season..
Box office is in...$26.1 million for "V for Vendetta's" opening weekend. Considering the time of year, that's pretty good.
#45. To: RickyJ (#41)
True, but from a historical perspective, there is usually little variance between weekend 'estimates' and 'actuals'.
BTW, your figures are just the estimated total for the weekend, the actual amount won't be known until tomorrow afternoon.
#46. To: mehitable (#16)
I agree. One will read an arguement from some bot where they will state that their own freedoms have not been violated, but everyday one can read where there are violations of our Bill of Rights happening to other citizens. If we don`t stand up for some other citizens rights, who will stand up for ours when our time comes.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest