Jump to content
Forum Cinema em Cena

felipef

Members
  • Posts

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by felipef

  1. 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'."

     

  2. 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.

     

     

     

     

  3.  

     

    smiley11.gif 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  smiley5.gif

    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 smiley2.gif

    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 smiley36.gif!!

    *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 smiley19.gif

    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...

     

  4.  

     

    smiley11.gif 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  smiley5.gif

    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 smiley2.gif

    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 smiley36.gif!!

    *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 smiley19.gif

    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

  5.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    smiley11.gif

     

    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 veículo 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...

     

     

     

    Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.

    E para muitos.

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     

    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

  6. 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

     

  7. 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.

     

  8.  

    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&amp ; ;cs=1

     

    felipef2006-2-22 9:30:3

  9. 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

     

     

  10.  

     

     

     

     

     

    smiley11.gif

     

    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 veículo 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...

     

     

     

    Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.

    E para muitos.

     

     

     

    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.

     

  11.  

    smiley11.gif 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  smiley5.gif

    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 smiley2.gif

    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...

     

  12.  

     

     

     

     

    smiley11.gif

     

    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 veículo 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...

     

     

     

    Ou seja (e na boa tbém), pra vc é fato.

    E para muitos.

     

  13.  

     

    smiley11.gif 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

  14.  

     

     

     

    smiley11.gif

     

    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 veículo 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...

     

  15.  

     

    smiley11.gif

    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 veículo 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

×
×
  • Create New...