-
Posts
1495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by felipef
-
-
Pra quem ainda não ouviu a ligação da comic con com aquele número nos ceús da convenção:
http://38.119.88.37/dl/22272cb2be62995ebe612d768305b9a6/46b799e0/audio/joker.wav
O Coringa forçando um refém a falar de suas ameaças...
-
Não leia se não quiser saber possível parte do final do filme: In the scene, the Joker's semi has already been flipped. As Dent is
walking in the clip, it is behind him, but I didn't get it in the shot.
It is in the same spot as it was in the images in my OP, so you can
look there.
It is very difficult to see, but the cops are putting some of Joker's
goons into the paddy wagon as Dent (in the gray suit) is walking toward
the top of the screen toward the large groups of reporters. As he gets
there, you can hear one reporter say *LAST CHANCE TO AVOID SPOILERS*
"Mr. Dent, Mr. Dent, was it your plan or the Batman's that led to the
arrest of the Joker." You can't make it out completely in the video,
but they are shooting the scene over and over, and I finally filled in
all the words. I kept waiting for someone to pop out and throw acid on
dent (I was hoping), but no
dice.
-
Batsucada-do-Tumbler...
Ainda bem que corre. Pelo menos deu pra conferir no som...
felipef2007-08-06 18:59:04
-
Código F não é a minha pessoa.
felipef2007-06-17 16:45:46
-
Será que o Bono verá o filme?
-
ah' date=' eu ja acho q os caras naoi sao mais os mesmos...e olha q tb acompanho dos 80..[/quote']
Exato, Jorginho!
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete (ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o) significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio � assistir para saber.[/quote']
sim, mas existem os criticos bons e os criticos ruins, � claro que para avaliar o filme s� assistindo, mas um bom critico pode dar-nos uma previa mais confiavel, n�o que vc vai achar o mesmo sobre o filme, pode at� mesmo achar totalmente o contrario, mas h� uma "menos menor" probabilidade do critico fazer uma previa mais proxima do que veremos no cinema!!
Gustavo, esse filme n�o vai dar pra confiar em quase ningu�m. Vide o review dos liberais norte-americanos. Vai ser mais ou menos assim, os f�s-nerds desse Green Day marketeiro v�o ficar de joelhos pelo filme. E aquelas pessoas incisivas contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo, v�o atirar no filme.
bem, green day marketeiro? eu nao gosto do green day, mas eles fizeram muito bem em expressar sua opini�o num clipe e na musica!!
falta isso no meio da musica, alguem que expresse a sua opini�o, o mundo e a criatividade artistica est� muito mediocre e robotica!
veja a Madonna, fez um clipe pesado, e tirou pq teve um retorno negativo dos f�s americanos
essa sim foi marketeira, se fez, tem que ir at� o fim!!
contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo? ent�o sao as mesmas que s�o contra a guerra do iraque
na verdade, a essa separa��o � mais politica do que idealista, os que s�o a favor(a maioria da imprensa, e alguma parte da popula��o mundial) da politica externa americana ir� odiar e criticar de forma agressiva o filme, j� os que s�o contra ir�o adorar o filme, se o filme for desse nivel, se for ruim, acho que s� quem � fanaticamente idealizado contra os americanos � que adorar�o, e ai s�o os nerds!!
mas ai existe tanto os nerds pro americanos, quanto os nerds anti americanos...!!
pois nerd � essencia, muito mais que conceito, se for conceito, j� se torna incoerente e inutil tal taxa��o!!
na verdade, o filme n�o � uma critica aos americanos, diretamente, � uma critica a uma politica totalitaria, que usa a violencia e a opress�o pra conquistar os seus interesses, que no momento, a politica externa americana encaixa com alguma dessas caracteristicas, no passado foi a politica externa inglesa, a portuguesa, ....!!
ent�o, os pro americanos que criticarem o filme com criticas claramente politizadas, ser�o os nerds pro americanos!
Mas ou menos isso a�.
Agora, o Green Day n�o d� n�o, Gustavo... Nem o maior surfista do Brasil consegue uma onda t�o boa...
Madonna ent�o... Bem, essa nem consigo botar numa discuss�o dessas... E olha que eu dan�ava ao som dela em festinhas no final dos anos 80...
�, concordo plenamente, ele nada havia feito antes, e agora, depois que todos criticam os americanos, o Green day faz american idiot!!
diferentemente do Bono que bem antes de 11 de setembro j� tentava combater a pobreza, n�o que ele n�o seja marketeiro, mas ele tbm faz isso por acreditar naquilo que faz, n�o s� por marketing
mas ainda sim falou, fez uma critica, por mais que seja pra vender, que foi, ainda sim foi uma critica!!
tem seu lado positivo, e acho que tem que se levar em considera��o, por menor que seja a considera��o !!
*engra�ado, hj mesmo tava discutindo algo assim com um amigo, ele dizendo que U2 � marketeiro e faz pra vender discos e musica realmente � ruim, e eu dizendo que � marketeiro, e tbm pq acredita nisso, e que era uma boa banda, e agora me lembro do Green Day, esse sim foi marketeiro de primeira!!
aah, e o site do orkut n�o ta entrando
mas andei vasculhando no orkut e achei isso aqui: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/
O U2, pra mim, � assim: ou�o a banda desde o meio dos 80, e me senti envergonhado com os �ltimos discos. Tenebroso... N�o entendo como pode haver falta de criatividade quando se est� t�o perto do caos... Na verdade mesmo, eles pararam no Zooropa. Infelizmente... MAS desde os tempos, mesmo antes do projeto Passengers, j� estavam lutando pelas causas do mundo. Sunday Bloddy Sunday, me lembro bem, foi uma porrada na �poca... E o Bono � uma pessoas BEM evolu�da, eu diria. Estar de cara a cara com o problemas do mundo, apertar a m�o de v�rios pol�ticos podres etc e tal. Nem o Moby que � budista faz isso...
Voltando um pouco mais para o centro do t�pico. Procurem no orkut pelas comunidades do Alan Moore ou v for Vendetta.
Eu tamb�m acompanho o U2 desde os 80"s, e eles foram sempre assim, n�o � modismo, pode ver desde os primeiros discos, como WAR por exemplo, e aquele primeiro disco "ao Vivo" da capa vermelha, onde Bono empunha uma bandeira branca e canta Sunday Blood Sunday.
Bono sempre foi esclarecido politicamente e sempre lutou contra as desigualdades sociais, mesmo porque na Irlanda existem muitas desigualdades.
Quanto ao Marketing, ele o usa a seu favor para chamar a aten��o do mundo para as causas socias e injusti�as, j� o que o Green Day faz � oportunismo barato.
Big, me referia quanto a estétisa sonora ao som... Em relação à postura de causas, sim. Sempre foram... A minha tisteza é que ele não espelham isso mais nas músicas... Se é de propósito ou não, tudo bem. Eles fazem o que quiserem...
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Crítica aqui ou na Omelete (ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro veículo de comunicação) significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O negócio é assistir para saber.[/quote']
sim, mas existem os criticos bons e os criticos ruins, é claro que para avaliar o filme só assistindo, mas um bom critico pode dar-nos uma previa mais confiavel, não que vc vai achar o mesmo sobre o filme, pode até mesmo achar totalmente o contrario, mas há uma "menos menor" probabilidade do critico fazer uma previa mais proxima do que veremos no cinema!!
Gustavo, esse filme não vai dar pra confiar em quase ninguém. Vide o review dos liberais norte-americanos. Vai ser mais ou menos assim, os fãs-nerds desse Green Day marketeiro vão ficar de joelhos pelo filme. E aquelas pessoas incisivas contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo, vão atirar no filme.
bem, green day marketeiro? eu nao gosto do green day, mas eles fizeram muito bem em expressar sua opinião num clipe e na musica!!
falta isso no meio da musica, alguem que expresse a sua opinião, o mundo e a criatividade artistica está muito mediocre e robotica!
veja a Madonna, fez um clipe pesado, e tirou pq teve um retorno negativo dos fãs americanos
essa sim foi marketeira, se fez, tem que ir até o fim!!
contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo? então sao as mesmas que são contra a guerra do iraque
na verdade, a essa separação é mais politica do que idealista, os que são a favor(a maioria da imprensa, e alguma parte da população mundial) da politica externa americana irá odiar e criticar de forma agressiva o filme, já os que são contra irão adorar o filme, se o filme for desse nivel, se for ruim, acho que só quem é fanaticamente idealizado contra os americanos é que adorarão, e ai são os nerds!!
mas ai existe tanto os nerds pro americanos, quanto os nerds anti americanos...!!
pois nerd é essencia, muito mais que conceito, se for conceito, já se torna incoerente e inutil tal taxação!!
na verdade, o filme não é uma critica aos americanos, diretamente, é uma critica a uma politica totalitaria, que usa a violencia e a opressão pra conquistar os seus interesses, que no momento, a politica externa americana encaixa com alguma dessas caracteristicas, no passado foi a politica externa inglesa, a portuguesa, ....!!
então, os pro americanos que criticarem o filme com criticas claramente politizadas, serão os nerds pro americanos!
Mas ou menos isso aí.
Agora, o Green Day não dá não, Gustavo... Nem o maior surfista do Brasil consegue uma onda tão boa...
Madonna então... Bem, essa nem consigo botar numa discussão dessas... E olha que eu dançava ao som dela em festinhas no final dos anos 80...
é, concordo plenamente, ele nada havia feito antes, e agora, depois que todos criticam os americanos, o Green day faz american idiot!!
diferentemente do Bono que bem antes de 11 de setembro já tentava combater a pobreza, não que ele não seja marketeiro, mas ele tbm faz isso por acreditar naquilo que faz, não só por marketing
mas ainda sim falou, fez uma critica, por mais que seja pra vender, que foi, ainda sim foi uma critica!!
tem seu lado positivo, e acho que tem que se levar em consideração, por menor que seja a consideração !!
*engraçado, hj mesmo tava discutindo algo assim com um amigo, ele dizendo que U2 é marketeiro e faz pra vender discos e musica realmente é ruim, e eu dizendo que é marketeiro, e tbm pq acredita nisso, e que era uma boa banda, e agora me lembro do Green Day, esse sim foi marketeiro de primeira!!
aah, e o site do orkut não ta entrando
mas andei vasculhando no orkut e achei isso aqui: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/
O U2, pra mim, é assim: ouço a banda desde o meio dos 80, e me senti envergonhado com os últimos discos. Tenebroso... Não entendo como pode haver falta de criatividade quando se está tão perto do caos... Na verdade mesmo, eles pararam no Zooropa. Infelizmente... MAS desde os tempos, mesmo antes do projeto Passengers, já estavam lutando pelas causas do mundo. Sunday Bloddy Sunday, me lembro bem, foi uma porrada na época... E o Bono é uma pessoas BEM evoluída, eu diria. Estar de cara a cara com o problemas do mundo, apertar a mão de vários políticos podres etc e tal. Nem o Moby que é budista faz isso...
Voltando um pouco mais para o centro do tópico. Procurem no orkut pelas comunidades do Alan Moore ou v for Vendetta.
felipef2006-2-23 9:44:57
-
E olha que nem falei os poucos críticos que gosto de ler. Mas não precisa ficar assim só porque você gosta do Nerdelete. Não te ataquei em nenhuma momento. Porque você gosta ou não do site. Eu esculhembei apenas o site. Tomastes dores e etc...Continue lendo o site, você e seus muitos...Abraço.
E para muitos.
Raz, constatação.Na boa...Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete
(ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o)
significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio �
assistir para saber.[/quote']Claro! Mas ninguém defendeu outro veÃculo aqui. E ninguém pode tirar o odor dessa merda de Omelete! Um dos piores sites de toda a internet! Lixo!
Fato ou opinião?
Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.
Quem dá valor para a opinião de "muitos" é vc, não eu. Mas pode ter certeza de que há muitos que discordam de sua "constatação".
Sei que vc não me atacou, mas vc precisa entender que qdo falam tão mal (e com tanta certeza) de algo que a gente gosta, é da nossa natureza ficar na defensiva. Que tal se vc colocasse suas razões para não gostar do site? Pode ser que assim eu entenda seu ponto de vista, e até lhe dê razão em alguma coisa (ou não, he he). Abraços tbém.
Não vou falar mal de alguma coisa que você gosta. Ser espírito de porco é algo que não tolero. Mas não gosto do editorial, da fala de bagagem e principalmente da atmosfera. Mas isso não importa mais agora...
Tem orkut?Veja a visão de algumas pessoas a respeito do filme:
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=15313&tid=2447045 814329993607&na=3&nst=-2&nid=15313-2447045814329 993607-2447625828184894030
felipef2006-2-22 23:46:32
-
Alguém lê essas notícias gigantescas?
Sim.
felipef2006-2-22 13:26:15
-
Fawkes no filme. Melhor foto até agora.
-
Conferência de Berilm:
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/cmp/berlin_video_presscon .html
E as fotos:
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/cmp/berlin_photos_pressco n.html
felipef2006-2-22 9:45:17
-
Confirma-se então as opiniões diversas...
-
E o Mike D´Angelo (que gosto) deu [51] para o filme.
C+
Lucky Number Slevin (54)
Wassup Rockers (53)
Isolation (53)
A Cock and Bull Story (52)
A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (52)
V for Vendetta (51)
Factotum (50)
Right at Your Door (49)
Friends With Money (49)
Steel City (49)
Flannel Pajamas (48)
The Peter Pan Formula (48)
TV Junkie (48)
Free Zone (48)
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo/bygrade06.html
-
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22472
It’s been interesting to sit silently on the sidelines for this one
so far, having seen it at Butt-Numb-A-Thon with everyone who rushed
here to AICN to sing hosannahs about this “revolutionary” motion
picture that would “change the world,” and also paying close attention
to the brewing controversy so articulately summed up by a reviewer on the Liberty Film Festival site, who I know has also seen the film.
I haven’t written about it yet because... I just haven’t. Other
things took priority. It’s not coming out until March, so it’s not like
I missed anything. This past weekend, it finally started screening for
the public at WonderCon in San Francisco and at the Berlin Film
Festival. That odd dichotomy should say a lot about what kind of film
this is. It’ll play well at a serious festival like South by Southwest,
certainly, but it’s also perfect for the New York Comic-Con, where it’s
showing as well. Publications like THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER and VANITY
FAIR have flipped for the movie, while VARIETY dismissed it and took
the opportunity to fire off a few more shots at the MATRIX trilogy for
good measure. Finally, audiences are getting their first chances to
decide for themselves what they think about this provocative film from
writer/producers Andy and Larry Wachowski, directed by James McTeigue,
and adapted (loosely or succinctly, depending on who you talk to) from
the work of Alan Moore and David Lloyd.
Before we even begin, I want to address the elephant in the room
and say that anyone who thinks this film is just a simplistic attack on
conservative America is missing the point. I’m sure that right now,
being on one side of the wall or the other in the polemic war that’s
been simmering ever since Bush took office must make it incredibly
difficult to see something outside the narrow prism of current
political metaphor, but not everything that has a political opinion is,
in fact, about Bush. There is imagery in this film that refers to our
present, but just as much refers to our past and even a hypothetical
future.
Alan Moore’s book, and this movie, are larger than any simple
direct political targets, though. They are instead a reminder of how
fascism works, and if the conservatives in this country are going to
get upset about that, then perhaps they need to examine their own
agenda. Are you a fascist? No? Well, then the movie’s probably not
directly about you. Remember when the source material was written...
Margaret Thatcher is a more direct political target in terms of the
origins of this story than Bush is. And there are many other real-world
parallels that find their way into the film that have nothing to do
with any current administration anywhere. And remember... the
Wachowskis first started trying to adapt this and get it produced well
before Bush took office.
All of that is real world business, stuff that some people will
choose to carry into the theater with them, and maybe you’ll even argue
that you can’t help but carry that baggage into the theater. I would
argue back that anytime you do that, you’re limiting your own ability
to enjoy or even understand a film. Yes, THE CRUCIBLE was written as a
direct reaction to McCarthy and the Hollywood blacklist, but the reason
THE CRUCIBLE will endure is because it’s a potent piece about any
situation where mass hysteria and crowd thinking gets out of hand, and
will always be accurate in terms of the way people relate. It’s great
writing.
The original Alan Moore/David Lloyd book is pretty damn great in
its own right. It’s not the best thing Moore ever wrote, and it’s
pretty obvious that it’s early in his career. It’s a major turning
point for him as an artist, I think. It is to Moore what RUBBER SOUL is
to the Beatles. I’m sure there are people who think RUBBER SOUL is
their best record, and I’d never argue against it, but I think more
people would say SGT. PEPPER or even THE WHITE ALBUM are their
masterworks, so maybe it’s WATCHMEN or FROM HELL that you prefer. V FOR
VENDETTA works because of how much Moore and Lloyd believe in the world
that they’ve created, a fascist England where freedom was traded for a
stifling, artificial safety, and because it focuses on particular
characters in a particular situation.
Calling the fears that V FOR VENDETTA articulates “left-wing” or
“liberal” is rather limiting, and limited. I’m sure no one anywhere
ever believes that they would be capable of survival and conformity in
a world where fascism is acceptable, the norm. No one wants to believe
they’d be capable of having been a “good German” during WWII. No one
wants to think they’d allow something like that to happen. But it can.
Of course it can. And it has and it will. And that’s why a film like
this resonates. This is about the way any monolith that wants to
control a nation treats its people, the way they are dehumanized, the
way their spirits can be broken, and the way they are treated as less
than human by the ruling class. V FOR VENDETTA makes personal that
process of dehumanization in such a powerful way that I can’t imagine
resisting it. Especially since Evey, the central character in both the
book and the film, is brought to vivid life by Natalie Portman, doing
arguably her best work since THE PROFESSIONAL.
So. All of that is precursor. Let’s get down to the actual film,
and let’s put everything else aside. Let’s put aside comparisons to the
book. Let’s put aside real-world politics. Let’s just discuss it as a
movie.
As a movie, I think it’s pretty good. I think it’s got moments of
greatness, and I think it also misses some of the opportunites that it
sets up. Overall, I think it’s a potent piece of SF that fits neatly
into a tradition of films like PLANET OF THE APES and THE OMEGA MAN,
movies that wear their earnest metaphors on their sleeves, totally
obvious. It’s lushly photographed by Adrian Biddle, his last film, and
it’s got a great hyper-real look and feel thanks to the production
design of Owen Paterson and Martin Walsh’s ultra-slick editing. The
score by Dario Marianelli is particularly good, effective and memorable.
What makes the film work, though, isn’t the SF setting or the look
or the buckets of money that have obviously been spent on it. Nope.
What makes it work is the fact that we have here something that we
rarely see in SF films these days... a movie about ideas over action,
character over special effects, and emotion over action.
Y’know... like THE MATRIX.
I’m sure there will be a lot of speculation about just how much
control the Wachowskis really had over the film, and I’m equally
willing to bet we’ll see a whole lot of “McTeigue didn’t really direct
this” comments, and this will probably end up being the new POLTERGEIST
in terms of a director being disrespected or ignored in favor of the
producer, but without actually having been on-set for the whole shoot,
it’s kind of hard to say who did what. McTeigue is indeed the credited
director, and it’s a really accomplished bit of filmmaking for
someone’s first time out. It’s obvious that the creative influence of
the Wachowskis can be felt in every frame of the film, and that this is
of a piece with their MATRIX films in terms of production value. It
feels like the logical next step fro them, and it will fit neatly into
their filmographies when people look back at their careers. Many of the
things that concern them the most as writers are on display here, and
it helps that Hugo Weaving gives voice to V.
There are two performances that have to work if V FOR VENDETTA is
going to deliver. The first is Evey, and as I said before, Natalie
Portman does really nice work here. I know that James Purefoy was
replaced during production, and that Hugo Weaving stepped in to play V.
I’m not sure how much of what we see onscreen is Weaving, but the voice
is his throughout, and he’s wonderful, commanding and playful and sad
and angry in equal measure. He has the incredibly difficult task of
never once showing his face, but still having to give a nuanced and
subtle performance as a human being, and not just a mask. As with the
book, the emotional highlight of the film is an extended sequence in
which Evey is captured by the government, held for weeks, and tortured
in an effort to get information from her about the identity and
location of V. It’s translated to the screen almost word for word from
the book, beat for beat, and it’s even more powerful than I expected it
to be. It also serves as one of the most succinct and beautiful
summations of what torture is meant to do and how it can be withstood
that exists in any film.
So why am I not raving about the movie the way many of the BNAT
attendees were in December? Why didn’t I make it a part of my “best of
the year” list like Harry did?
Because this film is so heavy on the metaphor, there are places
where I think it disconnects from real human experience, and that
bothered me. I also think it has an easy third act. There’s never
really any danger that V will not accomplish his goals, because he
seems to be omnipotent and magic, able to do anything, be anywhere, and
ignore whatever laws of physics he feels like. There are a few action
sequences where there’s a sort of next-step-bullet-time effect that’s
used to show the movement of knives through the air that seem
unnecessary. This isn’t an action film, and in a way, the few action
scenes that are included sort of stop the show cold.
Having said that, I would still recommend this to anyone who wants
to see SF treated with respect, or who has wondered when we would
finally see a film capture the precise flavor of an Alan Moore book.
Even though this film take liberties with the narrative, it works
overtime to maintain the same ideas that the book tried to express, and
it’s sort of incredible that this is being released by a studio as huge
as Warner Bros.
Just remember... conservatives aren’t fascists, and liberals aren’t
hippies or pinkos, and it is possible to watch and even enjoy a film
that deals with political themes without having to agree with every
single idea in it. I don’t think V FOR VENDETTA is going to change the
world. I don’t think it’s going to cause any sort of revolution. I
don’t think this film will even set off a major debate in the media. I
do think that it will provide potent fodder for conversation to anyone
who approaches it with an open mind, though, and that alone makes it
worthwhile.
I’ve been down with a particularly nasty stomach virus for a little
while, so everything I was working on got waylaid. I’m starting to get
up and around, so keep your eyes peeled for the real return of the DVD
SHELF and some new reviews for both films and, yes, scripts. Also, get
ready for a series of special articles and surprises all designed to
help celebrate the tenth anniversary of AICN, all starting soon. 2006
is going to be a great year here at the site, and I look forward to
sharing it with all of you. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
-
V for Vendetta
(U.S.-Germany)
A
Warner Bros. Pictures release and presentation in association with
Virtual Studios of a Silver Pictures production, in association with
Anarchos Prods. (U.S.) with the assistance of Medienboard
Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany). Produced by Joel SilverJoel Silver, Grant Hill, Andy WachowskiAndy Wachowski,
Larry Wachowski. Executive producer, Benjamin Waisbren. Co-producers,
Roberto Malerba, Henning Molfenter, Carl L. Woebcken. Directed by James
McTeigue. Screenplay, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, based on the
graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd, published by Vertigo/DC
Comics.
Evey - Natalie Portman
V - Hugo Weaving
Finch - Stephen Rea
Deitrich - Stephen Fry
Adam Sutler - John Hurt
Creedy - Tim Pigott-Smith
Dominic - Rupert Graves
Lewis Prothero - Roger Allam
Dascomb - Ben Miles
Delia Surridge - Sinead Cusack
Valerie - Natasha Wightman
Etheridge - Eddie Marsan
Little Glasses Girl - Billie Cook
By LESLIE FELPERINAlthough often visually striking and
undercoated by a compelling sci-fi concept, graphic-novel adaptation "V
for Vendetta" feels flat as a storyboard. Chiming faintly with current
counterculture vibe in higher-browed films, dystopian "Vendetta" posits
a masked "terrorist" hero (Hugo Weaving) trying to overthrow a fascist
state in future BlightyBlighty. Helmed by James McTeigue, pic suffers from many of same problems as last two installments of producers Andy and Larry WachowskiLarry Wachowski's
"Matrix" franchise: indigestible dialogue, pacing difficulties and too
much pseudo-philosophical info. Pic should open with a bang in late
March but may fizzle quickly.
Alan Moore, the author of the much
admired graphic novel "V for Vendetta," disassociated himself from this
production and had his name removed from the credits. This should make
his fan base extra wary, especially since two critically panned pics
("From Hell," "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen""The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen") have already been hatched from options sold on Moore's work.
Plot
differs substantially from the written version, which was issued
complete as a graphic novel in 1989. Simplified movie version, penned
by the Wachowski brothers, gamely tries to retain key plot points that
will serve as mass market entertainment, while half-heartedly updating
Moore's allegorical digs at Thatcher's Britain in the '80s to reflect
current leftist fears about what a future totalitarian state might
repress -- not just homosexuality but Islam, too.
Brit auds, however, may feel pic has missed a trick by not taking a sharper swipe at Tony Blair's regime.
Opening
prologue shows Guy Fawkes, the Catholic conspirator who tried to blow
up Parliament in 1605 and whose "treason" is remembered every Nov. 5 in
the U.K. with fireworks displays.
Post-credits, story shifts to
2020, after worldwide unrest, mysterious deadly viral outbreaks and
fear have caused the populace to elect a neo-fascist state, run by
demagogic Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt).
On Nov. 4, TV station gopher Evey (Natalie PortmanNatalie Portman)
is saved from a gang of Fingermen, thuggish quasi-police agents intent
on raping her, by V (Weaving), a poetry-spouting, caped avenger wearing
a Guy Fawkes mask, who at midnight blows up the Old Bailey, London's
central criminal court.
The government tries to spin the
explosion, but V breaks into the station where Evey works and manages
to get his revolutionary, anti-Sutler message broadcast, promising to
blow up Parliament in exactly a year's time. While at the station, he
also saves Evey from two coppers, Finch (Stephen Rea) and his sidekick
Dominic (Rupert Graves), who've come to arrest her.
Pic next
metronymically crosscuts between V killing off various characters who
wronged him, and Finch and Dominic investigating the murders, which
leads to lots of explicatory flashbacks.
Thesping lineup offers
an embarrassment of riches, which, unfortunately, the weak helming by
McTeigue rather squanders. Bambi-eyed Portman cries affectingly, and
looks fetching with a shaved head, but her character is essentially
passive and not especially interesting. (Portman's accent also wavers
distractingly across classes, from Cockney to middle-England posh.)
Meanwhile, the film suffers as its most active character, V, is hidden behind a mask and helmeted with one of CherCher's
old Cleopatra-style wigs for almost the entire running time. Weaving
tries hard with voice and movement to add expression, but there's still
nearly zero chemistry between the leads.
Supports, cast
predictably, are mostly just OK. Sinead Cusack as one of V's victims
manages to register one of pic's few moments of emotional complexity.
Helming
debutant McTeigue cites in press notes that 1965's "The Battle of
Algiers" was one of the film's stylistic inspirations, but evidence
here suggests he may be thinking of an entirely imaginary film that
bears no relation to that docudrama classic.
Perhaps helmer
thinks that the trite cutaways in "Vendetta" to stereotypically
ordinary Brits roused by V's message bear some likeness to the fervid
mix of minor characters in Gillo Pontecorvo's film.
In the end,
competent but bland craft contributions ensure pic looks less like
sci-fi stalwarts "A Clockwork Orange" and "Fahrenheit 451" and more
like "Batman Begins" or "Van Helsing."
Action sequences are
serviceable but disappointing given the Wachowski pedigree, the most
striking being the final carve-up between V and a room full of heavies.
Pic is thankfully light on CGI work and gets its most rousing moments
from old-fashioned pyrotechnics and, of all things, a huge domino
cascade.
Camera (Technicolor, widescreen), Adrian
Biddle; editor, Martin Walsh; music, Dario Marianelli; production
designer, Owen Paterson; art directors, Sarah Horton, Sebastian
Krawinkel, Steve Bream; set decorator, Peter Walpole; costume designer,
Sammy Sheldon; sound (Dolby Digital/DTS Digital/SDDS), Tom Sayers;
supervising sound editor/sound designer, Glenn Freemantle; special
effects supervisor, Uli Nefzer; visual effects supervisors, Matt
Johnson, Thrain Shadbolt; associate producer, Jessica Alan; assistant
director, Alex Kirby; casting, Lucinda Syson. Reviewed at Berlin Film
Festival (noncompeting), Feb. 12, 2006. Running time: 131 MIN.
(English dialogue)
Variety is striving to present the
most thorough review database. To report inaccuracies in review credits, please click here.
We do not currently list below-the-line credits, although we hope to
include them in the future. Please note we may not respond to every
suggestion. Your assistance is appreciated.
Date in print: Tue., Feb. 14, 2006, Los Angeles
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117929587?categoryid=31& ; ;cs=1
felipef2006-2-22 9:30:3
-
The new film V for Vendetta is a seriously
flawed, but entertaining, take on Alan Moore's comic series of the same
title. It concerns a young woman who works in a TV studio, Evey Hammond
(Natalie Portman), and her political awakening at the hands of the
masked revolutionary known only as V (Hugo Weaving). Together, they
fight the Orwellian government that has taken over an England of the
near future. This government is lead by the slightly insane, but still
compelling, Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt).
The plot itself is interesting and well told. It gives the film a
purpose and shows a certain amount of political awareness. It suggests
that society's problems aren't caused by terrorists, but by our fear of
terrorists and what the government does with that fear. Though this
idea is the basis for the plot, the film uses it more as an excuse for
action sequences then as a complex thematic element worthy of
exploration. This helps link the plot-points thematically and prevents
the movie from seeming completely pointless, but doesn't provide any
material for discussion after the movie is over.
The characters don't provide much to hold on to either. Though Evey
and V are each given a back story, they are never really fleshed out as
characters. A motive for revenge is not the same as showing what
compels a character to seek that revenge. The actors themselves never
add anything significant to the characters. All of the acting is
adequate and no one can be singled out as being the worst in the film.
Ms. Portman, however, seems to be rehashing her performance as Queen
Amidala in the Star Wars prequels, which prevents the bar from being
set very high.
Written by Matrix creators the Wachowski Brothers and directed by
the Assistant Director of the entire trilogy, James McTiegue, this film
owes a lot to those predecessors. The visual style is almost a direct
lift from the Matrix films. The use of high contrast film stock is a
good example. In this case, the high contrast detracts from the overall
aesthetic because it attempts to make the movie seem more “real” and
“gritty.” Instead, it only succeeds in making the film look like a car
commercial. This technique has been overused in action films and now
makes them all feel like they “have been done before.” Add to this an
overwhelming score that is spread thick over every frame and the
filmmakers prove that they have no confidence in their own visual
abilities. Film is a visual medium. Good cinematography and careful
editing are usually enough to convey any emotion. Music should be used
to heighten that emotion, not as a billy club to beat the audience into
feeling a certain way.
In The Matrix, the Wachowskis perfected the use of bold, iconic
imagery to encode a look of “cool” in the films. In V, McTiegue
attempts the same thing, but with much less aplomb. Because of this,
the props, costumes, and the sets look a little flat and lacking in
detail. Rather then creating powerful images that grab and hold the
audience's attention, McTiegue only succeeds in trying to use a
gimmick.
The failure to create an interesting visual feeling in the movie
could be what inspired its editing, which is so fast that even the most
patient film-goer may leave the theater with a bad case of ADD. The
editor, Martin Walsh, refuses to leave any shot in place for more then
a few seconds. This can be a useful technique when in the midst of an
action sequence because it keeps things exciting. However, when an
entire movie is cut this fast, it becomes irritating. Consequently,
when an action sequence comes along and fast cutting becomes necessary,
it is no longer effective. Because of this, the movie lacks emotional
highs and lows. Everything runs together and each moment feels the same
as the one before. This is reflected not just within each scene, but in
the pacing of the entire movie. The story takes place over the course
of one year, but feels like it takes only a few days. Every event
happens so quickly that referencing the date in the dialogue is the
only thing that lets the audience know when time has passed.
Film techniques are a lot like crack – use a little and get high,
use too much and lose that high. If the filmmakers learned this, they
might, one day, create a truly great film. Instead, audiences are
treated to yet another mediocrity. V for Vendetta is the kind of film
you watch once, but never think about again. It won't cause any serious
ripples in the flow of cinematic history, but it won't leave anyone in
disgust either. The simplistic way it deals with complex issues, as
well as its unoriginal aesthetic prevent it from being memorable. It
will provide an amusing way to spend an afternoon, but don't expect
anything you haven't already seen.
Overall Grade – C-
http://iesb.net/warnerbros2006/021506.php
-
Continuando com as news, porque é a única coisa que me interessa. Direto do: http://www.natalieportman.com/ :
The one bit of V news today is Australian Empire Magazine giving it 5 stars. v4v posted a summary...
"Thrilling and bravely
provocative, be sure to see this vital, subversive graphic novel
adaptaion-before the censors get their hands on it."
-
E para muitos.
Raz, constatação.Na boa...Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete
(ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o)
significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio �
assistir para saber.[/quote']Claro! Mas ninguém defendeu outro veÃculo aqui. E ninguém pode tirar o odor dessa merda de Omelete! Um dos piores sites de toda a internet! Lixo!
Fato ou opinião?
Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.
Quem dá valor para a opinião de "muitos" é vc, não eu. Mas pode ter certeza de que há muitos que discordam de sua "constatação".
E olha que nem falei os poucos críticos que gosto de ler. Mas não precisa ficar assim só porque você gosta do Nerdelete. Não te ataquei em nenhuma momento. Porque você gosta ou não do site. Eu esculhembei apenas o site. Tomastes dores e etc...
Continue lendo o site, você e seus muitos...
Abraço.
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Crítica aqui ou na Omelete (ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro veículo de comunicação) significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O negócio é assistir para saber.[/quote']
sim, mas existem os criticos bons e os criticos ruins, é claro que para avaliar o filme só assistindo, mas um bom critico pode dar-nos uma previa mais confiavel, não que vc vai achar o mesmo sobre o filme, pode até mesmo achar totalmente o contrario, mas há uma "menos menor" probabilidade do critico fazer uma previa mais proxima do que veremos no cinema!!
Gustavo, esse filme não vai dar pra confiar em quase ninguém. Vide o review dos liberais norte-americanos. Vai ser mais ou menos assim, os fãs-nerds desse Green Day marketeiro vão ficar de joelhos pelo filme. E aquelas pessoas incisivas contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo, vão atirar no filme.
bem, green day marketeiro? eu nao gosto do green day, mas eles fizeram muito bem em expressar sua opinião num clipe e na musica!!
falta isso no meio da musica, alguem que expresse a sua opinião, o mundo e a criatividade artistica está muito mediocre e robotica!
veja a Madonna, fez um clipe pesado, e tirou pq teve um retorno negativo dos fãs americanos
essa sim foi marketeira, se fez, tem que ir até o fim!!
contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo? então sao as mesmas que são contra a guerra do iraque
na verdade, a essa separação é mais politica do que idealista, os que são a favor(a maioria da imprensa, e alguma parte da população mundial) da politica externa americana irá odiar e criticar de forma agressiva o filme, já os que são contra irão adorar o filme, se o filme for desse nivel, se for ruim, acho que só quem é fanaticamente idealizado contra os americanos é que adorarão, e ai são os nerds!!
mas ai existe tanto os nerds pro americanos, quanto os nerds anti americanos...!!
pois nerd é essencia, muito mais que conceito, se for conceito, já se torna incoerente e inutil tal taxação!!
na verdade, o filme não é uma critica aos americanos, diretamente, é uma critica a uma politica totalitaria, que usa a violencia e a opressão pra conquistar os seus interesses, que no momento, a politica externa americana encaixa com alguma dessas caracteristicas, no passado foi a politica externa inglesa, a portuguesa, ....!!
então, os pro americanos que criticarem o filme com criticas claramente politizadas, serão os nerds pro americanos!
Mas ou menos isso aí.
Agora, o Green Day não dá não, Gustavo... Nem o maior surfista do Brasil consegue uma onda tão boa...
Madonna então... Bem, essa nem consigo botar numa discussão dessas... E olha que eu dançava ao som dela em festinhas no final dos anos 80...
-
Raz, constatação.Na boa...Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete
(ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o)
significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio �
assistir para saber.[/quote']Claro! Mas ninguém defendeu outro veÃculo aqui. E ninguém pode tirar o odor dessa merda de Omelete! Um dos piores sites de toda a internet! Lixo!
Fato ou opinião?
Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.
E para muitos.
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Crítica aqui ou na Omelete (ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro veículo de comunicação) significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O negócio é assistir para saber.[/quote']
sim, mas existem os criticos bons e os criticos ruins, é claro que para avaliar o filme só assistindo, mas um bom critico pode dar-nos uma previa mais confiavel, não que vc vai achar o mesmo sobre o filme, pode até mesmo achar totalmente o contrario, mas há uma "menos menor" probabilidade do critico fazer uma previa mais proxima do que veremos no cinema!!
Gustavo, esse filme não vai dar pra confiar em quase ninguém. Vide o review dos liberais norte-americanos. Vai ser mais ou menos assim, os fãs-nerds desse Green Day marketeiro vão ficar de joelhos pelo filme. E aquelas pessoas incisivas contra qualquer tipo de terrorismo, vão atirar no filme.
felipef2006-2-21 10:30:13
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete
(ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o)
significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio �
assistir para saber.[/quote']Claro! Mas ninguém defendeu outro veÃculo aqui. E ninguém pode tirar o odor dessa merda de Omelete! Um dos piores sites de toda a internet! Lixo!
Fato ou opinião?
Raz, constatação.
Na boa...
-
Cambada de puxa-sacos do Cinema em Cena... Cr�tica aqui ou na Omelete
(ou na Veja' date=' ou na Set, ou em qualquer outro ve�culo de comunica��o)
significa exatamente a mesma coisa: absolutamente nada. O neg�cio �
assistir para saber.[/quote']
Claro! Mas ninguém defendeu outro veÃculo aqui. E ninguém pode tirar o odor dessa merda de Omelete! Um dos piores sites de toda a internet! Lixo!felipef2006-2-20 22:6:27
Batman - The Dark Knight (# 2)
in DC Comics
Posted
Primeiras cenas reveladas na Wizard Chicago?!
"Fellas, good news. On Wednesday when I was set spying I was told by two
different people that not only would TDK be there but there would be
footage! My guess is that it will take place at the Wizard Mega Movie
Panel on Sunday at 12:30 - 1:30 where it clearly states "Get the scoop
on the next wave of comic movies... 'The Dark Knight Returns'."