felipef
-
Posts
1495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by felipef
-
-
Entrei rápido só pra dizer isso também. Merdelete e nada é a mesma coisa.
felipef2006-2-20 18:51:8
-
Tá qualquer nota essa tradução do babel!
-
Como não estou com a mínima vontade de raduzir, vai essa versão imunda do babel mesmo.
Janeiro 12, 2006V PARA VUCKING VANTASTIC
A série da matriz era muitas coisas a muitos povos. A primeira película era um revelation, do conceito e da entrega. O Wachowskis controlou dizer uma história que muitos outros estiveram interessados também em dizer - sobre quebrar fora de sua aceitação do mundo como ele o controlam - mas disseram-no como um dos filmes grandes da ação sempre, não uma onça da gordura, carregada com os momentos iconic que foram riffed sobre sempre desde. O primeiro sequel, a matriz recarregada, girou a idéia original em sua cabeça. Construiu para fora da noção dos ciclos, nosso esforço que é mais com nossas próprias naturezas, mesmo quando nós pensamos que nós sabemos a contagem. Era também brilhante, embora entendido mal maciça. A terceira película eu estava surprisingly quiet aproximadamente, na parte grande por causa de seu índice. É um filme sobre a aceitação. Mas a aceitação não é drama terrìvel emocionante. Havia certos momentos grandes nesta película também. Mas a movimentação emocional das primeiras duas películas foi perdida à resposta final à aceitação da trilogia.... V para Vendetta é um retorno ao estilo da primeira película da matriz. Mas em muitas maneiras, é uma película mais poderosa, mais importante, mesmo se pode nunca combinar o frescor visual película grande do orçamento do Wachowski da primeira. V para Vendetta alcançam após o puramente visual e podem jorrar sejam a mais melhor película de 2006. (não terá muita competição para a honra quando abrir março em 17.) E No., eu não exaggerating. A película é, como a matriz, sobre um mundo sob o controle de um regime totalitarian. Aqui é humana... e os povos não estão sendo enganados. Nós somos conscious. E nós aceitamos. Nós aceitamos fora do medo. Nós aceitamos fora do apathy. Nós aceitamos porque nós nos esquecemos de estar livres. Neste mundo, nós vagueamos com o Evey, jogado por Natalie Portman. É rebel bastante ser para fora após o curfew mas ainda, é peça da maquinaria em torno dela. Enfrentando o problema mortal, é conservada por V, um vigilante mascarado que fale em Shakespeare e lute com velocidade e facas. Quer mudar o mundo. Não está pronta para fazer qualquer outra coisa semelhante. Sua viagem é junto a história da película. Eu não estou indo começar neste momento em uma revisão da película. Após um que vê, eu sou pressionado duramente encontrar uma única falha na película... e aquela está exagerando-a provavelmente um bocado. Mas eu sentei-me na obscuridade e eu pensei a myself, ao Wachowskis, diretor James McTeigue, novelists gráficos Alan Moore & David Lloyd, e a prata de Joel do produtor, está pedindo os moviegoers alcançassem mais distante do que todos os filmmakers do estúdio pediram que os povos vão em muitos anos. O estilo é simples e arco. A edição de Martin Walsh está cheia de truques grandes. E a língua... oh a língua... tem o eloquence simples, perfeito de Edmond Rostand com trações de Shakespeare ao carregador. E você vai com ela. Você tem que ir com ela. Porque há tal poder nestas idéias... nestes caráteres. (e não pense por um segundo de que a aparência de Sinead Cusack nesta película era uma coincidência. Jogou Roxane na versão legendária de Derek Jacobi da versão da companhia real de Shakespeare de Cyrano de Bergerac no 80s adiantado.) Portman é consideravelmente perfeito nesta película. É bonita certamente, mas é nela olhos que nós vemos seu poder verdadeiro como uma actriz. Nunca começa um riso, uma ruptura. Esta é uma viagem dura. Mas você acredita que poderia sobreviver, como Evey deve. O impossibility de um homem em uma máscara que cubra completamente sua cara, cujos os olhos você nunca vê, cujos corpo e os olhos são tudo você começa sempre ir em, é superado pelo underappreciated muito Hugo que tece, que não soam como tem em alguns de seus incarnations precedentes, mas quem nunca é qualquer coisa menos do que completamente believable, não importa como duramente deve embrace o. E suportar moldado, de tyrant unforgettable hurt de John, à bobina do hangdog de Stephen Rea, a um contido shockingly e aperfeiçoa a volta por Stephen Fritar e e... em apenas grande. E há umas voltas na história que você pode nunca ver a vinda. Esta película, shockingly, faz a indicação a mais poderosa sobre a aceitação dos povos que são diferentes que eu vi em uma película, pequeno ou grande, em uma estadia longa, longa. (No., eu não estou indo o dizer anymore sobre ele. Você quererá experimentá-lo para yourself.) Alguns povos estão indo tentar pintar esta película como política em uma maneira específica. O mesmo era verdadeiro da matriz. Mas não é o que o Wachowskis é sobre. Se uma administração americana específica sentir como uma reflexão do estado em V para Vendetta, seja assim ele. Mas não é realmente sobre as forças do evil. É sobre o poder do humanity. E porque eu prestei atenção ao filme, eu tenho que admitir, rasgos vim a meus olhos às vezes, não somente do drama da película, mas de saber esse pessoa que resistem películas deste peso - e dele é um sério, muito R-r-rated (R nao duros, mas muito R), película challenging que desgasta o casaco de um filme terrific da ação - enthralled filmmaking e para encontrar-se no toque com as mensagens. E neste, nenhum filmmakers foi sempre tão brilhante quanto o Wachowskis (com respeito devido ao diretor McTeigue, que mais do que carrega seu peso aqui) em entregar a mensagem com divertimento classical do filme. Talvez teve mais selvagem fêz um filme maciço da ação do CG, ele poderia ter começado lá. O poder de Steven Spielberg fá-lo um dia. M. A noite Shyamalan convenceu-se que tem já. Jim Cameron é toda sobre o amor e o metal. Soderbergh é demasiado bom no intimacy de tentar para ele. Nós temos a esperança para outra, como Fincher, cujo o clube da luta é um brilhante, mas uma variação mais grosseira, mais menos acessível neste tema. Mas no risco de invocar Kubrick duas vezes em uma semana, eu quero saber se uma laranja do clockwork sentiu como esta quando foi liberada primeiramente. O clockwork é um filme muito entertaining, realmente, por mais dolorosas que algumas seqüências sejam. Mas mesmo essa película é mais resistente fazer exame do que esta. O Wachowskis sabe apenas grande um spoonful do açúcar fará a medicina ir para baixo sem você que conhece sempre o fazia exame de toda a medicina. (agradeça o goodness que são homens decent, espiritual generosos... do frickin ' Chicago... quem gostam de fundir acima o sh*t.) Eu poderia ter um esmagamento... Eu poderia ser provado erradamente... mas eu penso que este filme jogará mesmo com as audiências do academy do envelhecimento. É um filme que poderia ser laughable, mas não está... não em nenhuma maneira. E se jogar a essa multidão, não seja surpreendido vê-lo pendurar em torno do ano seguinte neste tempo. A única esperança da razão I que V para Vendetta não é a mais melhor película de 2006 é que nós todos seríamos afortunados ter um punhado das películas que podem esperar o combinar é poder emocional, intelectual porque o ano vai longitudinalmente. Surpresa, surpresa, surpresa...
EMe.
-
Outra:
January 12, 2006
V FOR VUCKING VANTASTIC
The Matrix series was many things to many people. The first film was a revelation, both of concept and delivery. The Wachowskis managed to tell a story that many others were also interested in telling - about breaking out of your acceptance of the world as it controls you - but they told it as one of the great action movies ever, not an ounce of fat, loaded with iconic moments that have been riffed on ever since. The first sequel, The Matrix Reloaded, turned the original idea on its head. It built out the notion of cycles, our struggle being more with our own natures, even when we think we know the score. It was also brilliant, though massively misunderstood. The third film I was surprisingly quiet about, in great part because of its content. It's a movie about acceptance. But acceptance is not terribly exciting drama. There were some great moments in this film as well. But the emotional drive of the first two films was lost to the ultimate answer to the trilogy… acceptance.
V For Vendetta is a return to the style of the first Matrix film. But in many ways, it is a more powerful, more important film, even if it can never match the visual freshness of the Wachowski's first big budget film. V for Vendetta reaches past the purely visual and may well be the best film of 2006. (It won't have much competition for the honor when it opens on March 17.) And no, I am not exaggerating.
The film is, like The Matrix, about a world under the control of a totalitarian regime. Here it is human… and people are not being tricked. We are conscious. And we accept. We accept out of fear. We accept out of apathy. We accept because we have forgotten to be free.
In this world, we wander with Evey, played by Natalie Portman. She's rebel enough to be out past curfew but still, she is part of the machinery around her. Facing deadly trouble, she is saved by V, a masked vigilante who speaks in Shakespeare and fights with speed and knives. He wants to change the world. She is not ready to do anything like that. Their journey together is the story of the film.
I'm not going to get into a review of the film at this point. After one viewing, I am hard pressed to find a single flaw in the film… and that is probably overstating it a bit.
But I sat in the dark and I thought to myself, the Wachowskis, director James McTeigue, graphic novelists Alan Moore & David Lloyd, and producer Joel Silver, are asking moviegoers to reach farther than any studio filmmakers have asked people to go in many years. The style is both simple and arch. Martin Walsh's editing is full of great tricks. And the language… oh the language… it has the simple, perfect eloquence of Edmond Rostand with Shakespeare pulls to boot. And you go with it. You have to go with it. Because there is such power in these ideas… in these characters. (And don't think for a second that Sinead Cusack's appearance in this film was a coincidence. She played Roxane in the legendary Derek Jacobi version of The Royal Shakespeare Company's version of Cyrano de Bergerac in the early 80s.)
Portman is pretty perfect in this film. She is beautiful indeed, but it is in her eyes that we see her true power as an actress. She never gets a laugh, a break. This is a hard journey. But you believe she could survive, as Evey must. The impossibility of a man in a mask that completely covers his face, whose eyes you never see, whose body and eyes are all you ever get to go on, is overcome by the very underappreciated Hugo Weaving, who doesn't sound like he has in any of his previous incarnations, but who never is anything less than completely believable, no matter how hard it is to embrace him. And the supporting cast, from John Hurt's unforgettable tyrant, to Stephen Rea's hangdog cop, to a shockingly restrained and perfect turn by Stephen Fry and on and on… just great.
And there are turns in the story you can never see coming. This film, shockingly, makes the most powerful statement about accepting people who are different that I have seen in a film, small or large, in a long, long time. (No, I'm not going to tell you anymore about it. You'll want to experience it for yourself.)
Some people are going to try to paint this film as political in a specific way. The same was true of The Matrix. But it is not what the Wachowskis are about. If a specific American administration feels like a reflection of the state in V For Vendetta, so be it. But it really isn't about the forces of evil. It is about the power of humanity.
And as I watched the movie, I have to admit, tears came to my eyes at times, not only from the drama of the film, but from knowing that people who resist films of this weight - and it is a serious, very R-rated (not hard R, but very R), challenging film wearing the cloak of a terrific action movie - will be enthralled by the filmmaking and find themselves in touch with the messages. And at this, no filmmakers have ever been as brilliant as the Wachowskis (with due respect to director McTeigue, who more than carries his weight here) in delivering message with classical movie fun.
Perhaps had Wilder made a massive CG action movie, he could have gotten there. Steven Spielberg might do it one day. M. Night Shyamalan has convinced himself that he already has. Jim Cameron is all about love and metal. Soderbergh is too good at intimacy to try for it. We have hope for others, like Fincher, whose Fight Club is a brilliant, but coarser, less accessible variation on this theme. But at the risk of invoking Kubrick twice in one week, I wonder whether A Clockwork Orange felt like this when it was first released. Clockwork is a very entertaining movie, really, painful as some sequences are. But even that film is tougher to take than this one. The Wachowskis know just how big a spoonful of sugar will make the medicine go down without you ever knowing you were taking any medicine. (Thank goodness they are decent, spiritually generous men… from frickin' Chicago… who like to blow sh*t up.)
I could have a crush… I could be proven wrong… but I think this movie will play even with the aging Academy audience. It is a movie that could be laughable, but is not… not in any way. And if it does play to that crowd, don't be surprised to see it hanging around next year at this time. The only reason I hope that V For Vendetta isn't the best film of 2006 is that we would all be fortunate to have a handful of films that can hope to match it's emotional, intellectual power as the year goes along. Surprise, surprise, surprise…
-
Rolou uma sessão ontem.
Vendetta Days
If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (depending on one's political perspective), the notion of a "good terrorist" should be an exploitable subject for a Hollywood film...no? In any case it's now the basis of a very smart big-bolt action drama, and from the makers of The Matrix yet -- the brilliant, very crafty, vaguely oddball Wachowski Brothers.
V for Vendetta (Warner Bros., 3.17), which I saw Wednesday afternoon, is a genuinely rousing and serious-minded thriller that's fairly throbbing with political metaphor. Anyone over the age of 10 or 11 will be able to connect the dots. And it's probably safe to assume that V will anger a few rightie jerkwads, but that's fine -- March can be a boring month and the arguments will be fun.
V for Vendetta is Fight Club-plus...it's Fight Club strapped to a missile...or should I say a fertilizer bomb?
Based on Alan Moore's early '80s graphic novel and set in a fascist England in the near-future, it's about revenge and revolution from the point of view of an anti-fascist rabble-rouser provocateur named "V" (voice-acted by Hugo Weaving, whom we never meet in the flesh). And about a growing relationship between V and Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), whose parents were crushed for anti-fascist activi- ties and, like Neo at the beginning of The Matrix, is looking to add something vital to her life.
She certainly acccomplishes that before the film is over...along with thousands of others in London who join in overwhelming the police in front of Parliament...each one, like the hero all through the film, wearing a grotesque Guy Fawkes mask... bonding fast against tyranny.
Okay, so it has a pie-in-the-sky, fairy-tale ending. I think that's allowable in some cases.
Most readers probably know that Fawkes was one of a group of Roman Catholic conspirators who attempted to blow up London's Parliament building (or perhaps just the House of Lords) in 1605, but didn't quite succeed. He and his co-conspi- rators were caught and was executed for treason. The anniversay of Fawkes' failed attempt (which happened on November 5th) is celebrated as Guy Fawkes Day.
V for Vendetta is a futuristic myth, a fable...designed at every stage to entertain but quite obviously aimed at our world and time...portraying what happens when people get scared about potential enemies and give a pass to rightwing brown- shirts who run roughshod over basic freedoms. If you don't see the parallels to the political tendencies and tensions of 2006 then I don't know what.
What this is, curiously, is a heavily-budgeted, Joel Silver-produced actioner that works as a kind of companion piece to Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight. Jarecki's film is pure exposition, of course, but it paints a riveting portrait of some crafty politicos who did what they could to exploit citizens' fears after 9/11 in order to expand and strengthen their power base...and that's exactly what the bad guys have been up to in Vendetta.
So the film is nervy as hell and will most likely enrage people like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who will probably say it endorses terrorism or some such hooey. It doesn't, of course...I mean, not actually...but watch the righties go to town.
Vendetta may not have the stylistic visual pizazz of the Matrix films, and in fact feels a tiny bit flat-footed during the first 15 minutes or so, but this concern quickly falls away because once the film gets rolling it becomes more and more pointed and complex by the minute.
In my book V is one of the most politically audacious mainstream Hollywood films ever made because it really lays it on the line -- there are dark echoes of 9.11 and 21st Century neocon power dreams and hard-right fanatacism all through it, and yes...the good guy does blow up a building or two.
Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving in V for VendettaAnd yet -- trust me -- this is a film that says and stands for all the right things. Which is why it's going to get attacked.
Look at all the inflammables...a terrorist hero, a sub-plot about a deeply-in-love lesbian couple (this plus those hot lezzie scenes in Bound tells you the boys definitely have a thing for girl-on-girl action), plus a huge fertilizer bomb under Parliament and that '03 sex-change operation...forget it, the right's going to have a field day.
The bottom line is that V isn't some simple-minded action flick trying to glorify the struggle of a lone terrorist against a repressive right-wing regime. It's using a story that follows the contours of an action-thriller to push an allegory about some very real and threatening tendencies in our society today.
James McTeigue "directed" V, but it was basically a Wachowski show and there's no point in getting picky about this. But it's probably fair to credit McTiegue for the fact that the actors are excellent from to bottom -- Weaving, Portman, Stephen Rea, John Hurt, Stephen Fry, Sinead Cusack, et. al.
I assume Warner Brothers marketing will be handing out Guy Fawkes masks at press and promotional screenings between now and March 17. How could they not be? Can I have mine early so I can be the first one on the block?
In any case, the Wachowskis are back after a two-year hiatus, and bully for that.
For most of us, the legend of Larry and Andy began nine years and three months ago with the release of Bound, a brilliantly designed indoor crime drama. Their rep was double-certified and cast in industrial steel with the release of The Matrix in March 1999, and it grew from there. For the next four years the Wachowskis were as mythical gods.
But the aura started to fade with the May 2003 release of The Matrix Reloaded, which disappointed just about everyone on the planet except for David Poland, and then came the Really Big Crash of The Matrix Revolutions in November of '03, and everyone was saying "what happened?" The Wachowskis had let everyone down and all of that geek goodwill pretty much imploded.
The boys seemed to disappear for all of '04 and early '05. Then they began work on Vendetta last summer in London and here they are again with a film that some are going to call a work of genius, or at least a piece of revolutionary cinema.
Everybody loves a good comeback. Will V for Vendetta make big money or just good money? No telling...let's see what happens.
-
Fala sumida...
Não dá mesmo para entender esse trailer...
-
Internet ou nos cinema norte-americanos?
-
Capa patética.
Só pq não era que vc esperava e/ou queria ...
Gostei da capa' date=' apesar de não ir muito com a cara desse cara como Superman ... mas era a capa mais esperada e mais justa.
PS: Acabei de comprá-la, antes de vir aqui pra lan house à espera da sessão de "Soldado Anônimo" ...
[/quote']
Em relação a capas a SET esta uma negação, como eu já havia dito. Por isso eu não espero mais nada, nem crio espectativa sobre isso. Mas eu queria sim, uma capa com diversos filmes que seriam lançados esse ano.
A Warner paga mais.
felipef38725.9422916667 -
Atualizando da minha viagem.
Isso é estranho de se ver:
http://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/vforvendetta/cmp/trailer.html
-
agora' date=' tem uma cena no trailler, que o mascarado leva tiros da policia inglesa e nada sofre, ele usa algum tipo de colete ou tem superpoderes?
[/quote']
SPOILER
Então Gustavo, o V é super treinado nas artes e etc e tal. A cena que você falou, acho que é uma cena alterada da HQ. Nela V é baleado por Finch, e sangra. No filme, ele é baleado pela polícia que esta sendo liderado por Creedy. Apesar de já ter uma idéia já se formando a respeito dessa cena, deixarei para fazer comentar depois do filme...
-
"V for Vendetta - This is the big one. I can’t honestly be expected to give an objective review of this film since the book on which it’s based is important to me. It represents a lot of my beliefs about governments and citizen responsibility and the hard to distinguish line between (yes, I’ll say it) terrorism and revolution. That said, I was nearly in tears several times during this film and I think Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving are amazing. My only small nit-pick was the (obviously Wachowski-influenced) decision to make the fighting more fu and less swash-buckler. When this film is released in March, it may stir up a lot of controversy and certainly a lot of conversation. Like Orwell’s 1984, some will think it heavy-handed or even silly while others like myself will cling to the belief that “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.” (p.s. Buy the book before the film and read it.)"
-
Remember, Remember BNAT 7!!!!!
So I'm Finally waking up from the 24 hours of sleep I needed to make up for for the 24 hours on non sleep that I spent at BNAT 7.... Quite possibly the best 24 hours I've spent in a movie theater... EVER!!!!
I think the best feeling was watching DER FUHRER'S FACE cartoon while drinking my carton of Chocolate Milk at 10am on a Sunday with a great group of people just as excited as I was to be watching a rare Donald Duck cartoon actually Projected on a Big Screen. Then to top it off watching V FOR VENDETTA right afterwards.... WOW!!!!!! I'd already seen the greatness that was KONG and LADY VENGEANCE, but nothing could have prepared me for V. -
"V For Vendetta (2005):
10AM: Very big reaction when Harry announced this one, especially when he said that Warner Brothers had to call the Berlin Film Festival (where it was supposed to debut) to see if anyone would mind a BNAT showing. "What world are we living in where that sentence can even exist?!?!" Harry exclaimed. We apparently have the only print currently in existance, and that print only showed up 2 hours before we screened it. Pretty cool. Before the film we got to see an amazing print of In Der Fuhrer's Face, an old Disney WWII propaganda film that has Donald Duck as a Nazi. You can get this short (and a ton of other amazing cartoons) in the Disney On the Front Lines collection. This particular print came from Nicky Katt's archives. Hmmmmm. Beyond the novelty of Donald as a Nazi, this is an incredibly funny cartoon. Plus, the animation is spectacular. We also got to see a 2600 StarMaster Commercial, The Return of Captain Invincible, X3, and MI:3 (apparently we're the first audience to see it... there was an uncomfortable silence whenever Cruise first showed up on the trailer... I fear Mr. Cruise has a long road ahead of him.I haven't read any of the source material that V for Vendetta is based on, so I can't speak to it's success as an adaptation. I can tell you that the audience reaction was strong throughout, and I personally liked it very much. I'd have to see it again, but my first tendency is to say that Natalie Portman just gave her finest performance to date. With my current state of sleep deprivation, I'm having trouble expressing how much I liked this movie... so I'll just say that it was really, really good, and kept me (and the rest of the audience) on the edges of our seats after 21+ hours of films... there isn't a much higher compliment. The final thirty minutes were incredibly moving, and powerful, and inspirational. A truly great end to the festival.
With that said, I do want to point out one particular brand of stupidity that was rampant throughout this screening. This film is set in a future in which the government has assumed unprecedented levels of power by scaring the general populace into giving up rights. Sound familiar? Of course, comparisons could be drawn, at least on some level, to the current US political landscape. Now, without getting into my personal political leaning, let me give out one simple piece of advice to those of you planning on seeing this film: Oohing and aahing and clapping and cheering when a movie character makes a political statement that, on its surface, agrees with your own personal philosophy does not make you 'cool' or 'politically savvy.' It makes you a tool. (Especially when a closer inspection at the character's ethos reveals some quite unsavory values.)
Example: At one point in this film, a character makes the statement that is on the film's poster, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." As soon as that line was spoken, a huge chunk of the theater let out a giant whoop, like they were in the middle of a Michael Moore rally. Of course, I didn't hear anyone cheering when character, in the same speech, announced that "sometimes you have to blow up a building in order to change things."
I don't know if that make sense to you, so let me say it this way. I really like pizza, especially pepperoni pizza. That's fine and great, but if a character in a movie mentioned that they liked pepperoni pizza also, and I screamed in the theater "I LIKE PIZZA TOO!", people would think I was an idiot, and rightfully so. I guess my point is, if you want to cheer every time you agree with something that is said on-screen, that's one thing. But if you're only doing it during political bits (or, for instance, whenever an old movie depicts a negative racial stereotype), then you're probably only doing it to make sure everone else knows how much you hate George Bush (or racism, etc). And it's the 'wanting to make sure everyone else realizes that you like the same thing they do' thing that seems kinda toolish in my book. Then again, it's a free country... do whatever the hell you want."
-
"I'll just get to the point and say the final film was V For Vendetta, the Natalie Portman graphic-novel adaptation written by The Wachowski Brothers (and due to be released in March). Now, I was completely sleep-deprived while watching it, but I still think the film is a lot more abstract and Expressionistic than fans are going to expect. It's a very political film, full of debate about government leaders, alienation, and terrorism. There are some massive action setpieces, but the film is really more about political bonds between the disenfranchised. I became completely unsurprised by Harry's announcement that V For Vendetta is scheduled to screen at the Berlin Film Festival in February."
-
É raro' date=' mas alguém com uma boa tirada do fórum da Panini:
Enviada: Ter Jan 03, 2006 8:58 pm Assunto: Eu acho que a principal bronca do Alan Moore é devido a terem transformado o enredo numa espécie de "elseworld". Essa coisa de: "O que aconteceria se os nazistas ganhassem a guerra".
Já no primeiro prefácio que li de V, Alan deixou claro que embora tenha cometido alguns equivocos no seu exercicio de previsão do futuro, ele acredita que, infelizmente, do jeito que a Inglaterra vai, caminha inexoravelmente para o facismo. Já David Lloyd, num outro prefácio que li, também afirma da importancia da HQ para as pessoas se conscientizarem sobre esse futuro sombrio para qual caminham.
Quer dizer, apesar de se passar numa "distopia futuristica", os autores estavam falando sobre o presente. Isso está claro na leitura da graphic novel. Eles querem alertar o leitor para o estado das coisas no mundo atual.
Quando voce diz que esse tipo de coisa (o futuro facista) acontece numa "realidade paralela" onde os malditos nazistas ganharam a guerra (eles, sempre eles, é tão facil só odiar eles e se esquecer de todo o resto), voce desvincula a possibilidade de que a trama de V tenha a ver com a REALIDADE.
Claro que Hollywood não ia dizer que a América de Bush por exemplo caminha para o facismo. Vamos dizer que isso é um Elseworld...
É esse tipo de coisa que deixou Moore p***, na minha opinião.Acho que isso que ele falou, dirá respeito apenas a venda o filme. E vamos ver se essa idéia de "futuro descompromissado" não é uma alegoria para, de fato, o nosso futuro engatilhado. No final das contas, quem leu a graphic novel sabe, a mensagem continuará sendo o meio.
[/quote']
ou seja' date=' o que o Alan Moore ficou chateado é com o fato do filme não ser tão claro e direto quanto queria, não ser uma previsão de nossa realidade, e sim dar a entender que é uma previsão de um universo paralelo, é isso?putz, tomara que seja só isso, pq to pondo muita fé nesse filme, acho que o cinema tá precisando de um filme assim!!
assim como o meio artistico ta precisando de alguém contrario ao que está ocorrendo no mundo, um transgressor dessa politica!!!
temos só Bono e o vocalista do coldplay que lutam por causas justas, mas não são os transgressores que a sociedade necessita!!
[/quote']
Isso.
E em relação a questão da visão descompromissada, é fato que isso foi e será apenas para vender o filme. Por tudo que já saiu, para quem já leu a HQ, sabe que quase nada mudou. Só de que quando foi escrita a história, as coisas ainda não tinham acontecido de forma desastrosa. Agora as coisas estão acontecendo. Além do mais, tudo isso começa do prórpio autor que desenvolveu a história num presente alternativo do início da década de 80. Tivesse feito então de forma diferente...
1 - é, seria mais impactante realmente!!
mas creio que não deixará de ser, será apenas mais suavizado, menos impactanto do que poderia ser caso fosse direto como o autor queria!!
Um comentário que destaco. Percebe-se a propaganda politica do editor do site com aquele discursinho imundo de que está tudo bem no mundo e que os governos precisam acabar com a ameça à humanidade que o terrorismo e blá blá blá. Não' date=' sério... O Brasil já sofreu ataques terroristas? Me digam sinceramente... E aí que está a questão da história e não percebem que só aumenta.
"It’s about time the `boycott this filth` repressives had a new target.
[Editor’s Reply: So with their $100 million budget, major stars and Warner Brothers distribution - and an entertainment press eager to laud what they do - who is it exactly who’s ‘repressing’ these guys again? Man, I’ll take ‘repression’ like that any day!
P.S. I can tell by your paranoid tone that you’re going to love this film - it’s absolutely ideal for shiny, happy customers like you! Enjoy!']
Comment by BillyCorgan — 12/25/2005 @ 7:23 am"
2 - é comico de tão patetico essa visão!!
esses persona são a propria alienação em pessoa, alienação e alienador, são os ingenuos e ignorantes, são o proprio sistema!!
nosso amiguinho fanzoide de xman deve tar adorando essa critica desse site
1 - Vê? Como o autor e os fanáticos podem estar reclamando de futuro descompromissado se o autor trabalhou em cima de um presente alternativo?
2 - Na verdade o alienador convoca alienados-squad para ajudar na propagação aos outros alienados-povo.
Que nosso amigo usuário, lord ovomaltine, fique longe desse tópico...
felipef38722.5975462963 -
Um comentário que destaco. Percebe-se a propaganda politica do editor do site com aquele discursinho imundo de que está tudo bem no mundo e que os governos precisam acabar com a ameça à humanidade que o terrorismo e blá blá blá. Não, sério... O Brasil já sofreu ataques terroristas? Me digam sinceramente... E aí que está a questão da história e não percebem que só aumenta.
"It’s about time the `boycott this filth` repressives had a new target.
[Editor’s Reply: So with their $100 million budget, major stars and Warner Brothers distribution - and an entertainment press eager to laud what they do - who is it exactly who’s ‘repressing’ these guys again? Man, I’ll take ‘repression’ like that any day!
P.S. I can tell by your paranoid tone that you’re going to love this film - it’s absolutely ideal for shiny, happy customers like you! Enjoy!]
Comment by BillyCorgan — 12/25/2005 @ 7:23 am"
-
De novo, acho que (ainda não vi) a essência não foi tão alterada assim e esse review deixa claro duas coisas:
1-Vai ser assim que o Bush Squad vai reagir ao filme.
2 - Se queriam a merda no ventilador, conseguiram.
Além de que, o cara que fez a crítica tenta de todas as maneiras dizer que o filme é chato, inocente e etc. Ora, se é um filme com um metralhadora atirando para os governso atuais, porque não cada um tirar suas próprias conclusões?
E por último, ele disse que se quiser um filme sobre anarquia, fica com Clube da Luta. Depois dessa, vou ali e já volto...
PS: Só para deixar claro que eu, felipef, não sou a favor de terrorismo algum. Nem da política mundial.
-
1/3/2006
felipef38722.4471296296Guest Review: V For Vendetta
Filed under: General Movie Reviews— The Road Warrior @ 3:58 pm
[Editor’s Note: Below is a review of V For Vendetta, exclusive to LIBERTAS. We will refer to the author as ‘The Road Warrior’ - JA.]
V for Vendetta. A title which may be one of the most intelligent and insightful declarations of the upcoming, not-so-subtly disguised “comic book” film about terrorism, conservatism, and extremist hysteria. But V FOR VENDETTA is, perhaps, not the most accurate title. Here are a few more precise titles for this film:
B for Boring.
N for Naive.
P for Pretentious.
P for Paranoid.Imagine all the pompous, meandering philosophizing of the two MATRIX sequels without any of their (somewhat) redeeming action sequences. That’s V FOR VENDETTA in an N for Nutshell. And thankfully that’s the good news. Because hopefully people will stay away in droves once word gets around from the unlucky few who’ve endured this view askew of modern politics and morality.
Make no mistake about it (and question all the authorities who tell you otherwise): this film set in the jolly ol’ England of the not-so-distant future is very much about America here and now. Or more accurately: it is a paranoid, left-wing fever dream of what America is here and now. On that level, it can be amusing at times (unintentionally, because this film is oh-so-very self-important…as I’m sure will be the reviews that call it “brave” and “thought-provoking”). It is also educational in that it serves as a psychological study of left-wing projection and paranoia. Needless to say, this is one misguided, naive film that is everything it accuses the government within the film of being: fear mongering, deceitful, hateful, and propagandistic. This irony, unfortunately, seems to be lost on director James McTeigue and writers Andy and Larry Wachowski (who adapted Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s graphic novel).
Conservatives in power. Get it?From the very opening of this film, it becomes clear that the futuristic England under the reign of evil Conservatives (no brain-dead writer cliche there, right?) is meant to be a stand-in for the filmmakers’ paranoid vision of America - or where they believe America is headed. England, having been drawn into “America’s War,” is now a police state ruled by the Religious Right. This allows the filmmakers to indulge in a laundry list of the Left’s greatest hits of manufactured or downright paranoid “issues,” rants, hysterics, and propaganda (the very thing the film accuses the Right of doing). Here is just a sampling of the bits of “conventional wisdom” found within the world of V:
1. Conservatives have created a false climate of fear in order control the masses.
“V", both the film and the masked “hero” in the film, insists that the “Terrorist Threat” is a ruse, and that the Conservative government is the real terrorist - having manufactured a climate of fear around a so-called “Terrorist Threat.” I find it interesting and revealing that here in the real world (and in the world of “V"), the Left accuses the Right of manufacturing fear (remember, Michael Moore said there is no terrorist threat…as if 9/11 was an accident or a new kind of “once-in-a-lifetime-only” terrorism), but the Left and V FOR VENDETTA have no qualms about creating an environment of fear about a Religious Right takeover.
[Note: like all Left-Wing fear-mongering, this films likes to erroneously equate the extreme Religious Right with mainstream Conservatism, which would be like equating NAMBLA with mainstream Liberalism.]
This film is yet another attempt to manufacture this false fear. Considering that the Religious Right in the real America can’t even keep “Silent Night” in a school “Holiday” party, it’s hard to consider the Religious Right as anything other than a minor annoyance - certainly not the Left’s ultimate Boogeyman. As a result the film is often hysterical - not funny hysterical but pathological hysterical.
The irony, also seemingly lost on the filmmakers, is that the end of the film reveals that the government’s fear was, um, right. Terrorists ("V” and Evey) do in fact strike, blowing up Parliament and leaving who knows how many innocent people dead (not shown or even alluded to - this being the first ever terrorist bombing that magically avoided civilian casualties?).
MoveOn’s next poster grrrl.2. Christians are evil; Islamists are poetic.
In the askew world of “V” and the Liberal imagination, all Christians are hateful, perverted, and cruel. The evil fascist government is itself implied to be “Christian” (their party flag has a “double” cross emblem on it), and the one religious Man of Faith we meet - who is in the pocket of the ruling party - is a Catholic priest who likes little girls to dress up like Little Bo-Peep before he has his way with them. I find it completely hypocritical that every time a Hollywood plot has to have a bad Islamic terrorists (which is a rarity in today’s movies anyway), it has to be balanced by a good Islamist. Not so for Christians apparently. There’s not a decent one in the entire world of “V". Talk about hateful and propagandistic. Score another one for the tolerant and sensitive Left.
Adding insult to injury, in “V” we meet a character (seemingly the only level-headed person in the film) who, it turns out, is a rebel who keeps a secret museum of banned items. One of these items is a banner comprised of the American flag, the British flag, and a Nazi Swastika overlaid on top of them with the slogan “Coalition of the Willing.”
He also keeps a copy of the Koran under glass. When Natalie Portman’s uber-naive Evey asks why he has it, he says something along the lines of “because of its beautiful imagery.” I’m no Christian, but I’ve read the Bible and it has just as much beautiful imagery. But does it get a shout-out or an endorsement? No. Because in the paranoid fever dream of the Left, anything associated with Christianity must be vile and worthless. But surely, I must be mistaken because the sensitive Left never stereotypes, right?
3. Conservatives created AIDS to kill homosexual deviants.
In the world of “V” anyone who is deemed an “enemy of the state” (specifically we are shown gay couples…and more gay couples) mysteriously contracts an incurable disease that we learn was created by – everyone sing along now – the evil Conservatives. Lions and Tigers and Elephants, oh my. Again, subtlety is not a gift of the writers or director. The paranoid message is that AIDS was created by conservatives to kill off all them heathen, immoral “fags.” [Never mind that the conservative Bush administration has spent more money on AIDS research than the Clinton administration. But when facts get in the way of your fear-mongering, bury the facts.]
4. Bush is Hitler. Of course. Well, not Bush because this is only a “comic book” movie, right? And the Chancellor of V’s England is clearly not Bush, right? Mindless entertainment. Don’t read too much into it. Or so will sayeth the cowardly filmmakers and the publicly traded film company who will likely run for these “covers” once this cat is out of the bag. The connection is made visually, however, that the religious rulers in the world of “V” are Nazis in new clothes. Ergo, in Lib think, they are surely Republicans. Again, this is never stated overtly, but it’s made bluntly obvious that this fascist ruling party is the Conservative party. The horror, the horror.
Natalie Portman, looking very Stepford Wife while doing media for V.What is it with the Left’s fascination with Hitler anyway? They’ve got Hitler on the brain. You can dislike and disagree with President Bush all you want, but to compare him to Hitler reveals much more about the person making the comparison then it does about President Bush. You want to know what someone is really like? Look at what they hate. It’s Psychology 101. Under the chapter heading “Projection.”
This film, which perhaps I should be endorsing on second thought, is a textbook study of projection. It unintentionally reveals the man behind the Liberal curtain. The Left is what it fears. And what it fears is projected onto the Right. Just ask yourself: which of our two political extremes endorse policies that are more closely linked with Socialism, Fascism, and Hitler? For example, one of the first things Hitler did when he rose to power was to take guns away from private citizens so they couldn’t fight back. Which party wants to ban guns? The party of the Left. You’d think if the Religious Right really wanted to take over the country (and being that all Republicans must surely own guns already) they’d be the ones trying to ban guns…unless this is all just Liberal fear-mongering. But Liberals don’t trade in fear, right?
Hitler also wanted to eliminate Christianity. Which party is in bed with the ACLU - currently attacking Christianity, crosses, and Christmas at ever opportunity? The party of the Left.
And which party endorses and promotes the thought police tactics known as “political correctness?” The party of the Left.
In fact, the Left will often drag out the old false and fearful stereotype that Conservatives want to suppress free speech and crush dissent. But consider how many overtly political Hollywood films (such as “V") have been made recently that voice dissent against conservative “issues” like the Iraq War, the military, pre-emptive strikes, corporations, religion, etc. The answer: dozens. Now consider how many overtly political Hollywood films have been made that voice dissent against Leftist values? None. Whose voice is really being suppressed in this country?
Here to protect us from nasty things like faith.Or consider how many anti-war, anti-Bush, liberal activist speakers are invited to speak on college campuses versus the number of pro-War, pro-military activist conservatives who are invited. The ratio is at least 20 to 1 (and the few who are invited are more often then not shouted down by Leftist faculty and their “tolerant” student followers, and not allowed to speak after all). Again, I ask: which side is doing the suppressing? Even Howard Stern, whose show was deemed to have crossed FCC lines of decency (and, like it or not, the government owns and leases the radio waves, so they have every right to decide what they deem appropriate) has gone on to even greater fortune at Sirius and his voice will still be heard by millions. This is not suppression or censorship. In fact, Stern should be - and probably is - thanking the FCC all the way to the bank. We should all be so lucky to be censored like that!
Again, the unintentional irony of “V FOR VENDETTA” is that it is (or at least the philosophy of the filmmakers is) what it condemns. The proof is in the final shot. Short of “TRIUMPH OF THE WILL,” you’ll be hard pressed to find a shot of more conformist goose-steppers than the shot (see below) of the parade of masked “V” followers at the end of this film. Talk about mindless followers. I’d love to tune-in to this post-V Revolution world in twenty years when unemployment is through the roof, crime is running rampant, and President V sends anyone who disagrees with him to the death camps.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good, healthy dose of anarchy as much as the next Marx Brother, but I can’t take hypocrisy and this film reeks of it. What’s worse is that I get the sense the filmmakers have no clue how hypocritical - and paranoid and fear-mongering - they really are. Personally, if I want an anarchic film that entertains and makes me think, I’ll take “FIGHT CLUB” any day.
The marching V-men.While watching this fearful film, I kept thinking about the famous line from “Spider-Man” – “With great power comes great responsibility.” I don’t believe in censorship, but I have to wonder about a powerful, publicly traded company like Time-Warner greenlighting a film that tries to make a case for, if not downright promote, the destruction of government buildings. I’m sure our friends across the pond will be outraged. As Americans would be if an English studio made a film insinuating that the bombing of the Capital building in Washington D.C. strikes a blow for freedom.
But, then again, I’m not too worried because the film is a bore. The only thing I wanted to blow up after seeing it was the marketing department that made it look so cool and exciting. Can I get an R for Refund?
But for those who do see it, I hope the message they take home is this:
If you want to know what someone (or some group or some political party or some filmmaker) is really like, look at what they hate and what they fear. That is who they are.
I give this film two goose-steps and a “Heil V-itler” for Herr Wachowski and Herr McTeigue. Don’t fall for their paranoid, hate-mongering, and fear-manufacturing piece of faux anarchy, or you may find that you too have become that which you fear.
Consider yourselves I for Informed.
Comentários:
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=1241
-
É raro' date=' mas alguém com uma boa tirada do fórum da Panini:
Enviada: Ter Jan 03, 2006 8:58 pm Assunto: Eu acho que a principal bronca do Alan Moore é devido a terem transformado o enredo numa espécie de "elseworld". Essa coisa de: "O que aconteceria se os nazistas ganhassem a guerra".
Já no primeiro prefácio que li de V, Alan deixou claro que embora tenha cometido alguns equivocos no seu exercicio de previsão do futuro, ele acredita que, infelizmente, do jeito que a Inglaterra vai, caminha inexoravelmente para o facismo. Já David Lloyd, num outro prefácio que li, também afirma da importancia da HQ para as pessoas se conscientizarem sobre esse futuro sombrio para qual caminham.
Quer dizer, apesar de se passar numa "distopia futuristica", os autores estavam falando sobre o presente. Isso está claro na leitura da graphic novel. Eles querem alertar o leitor para o estado das coisas no mundo atual.
Quando voce diz que esse tipo de coisa (o futuro facista) acontece numa "realidade paralela" onde os malditos nazistas ganharam a guerra (eles, sempre eles, é tão facil só odiar eles e se esquecer de todo o resto), voce desvincula a possibilidade de que a trama de V tenha a ver com a REALIDADE.
Claro que Hollywood não ia dizer que a América de Bush por exemplo caminha para o facismo. Vamos dizer que isso é um Elseworld...
É esse tipo de coisa que deixou Moore p***, na minha opinião.http://www.hotsitepanini.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22383& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;start=25
Acho que isso que ele falou, dirá respeito apenas a venda o filme. E vamos ver se essa idéia de "futuro descompromissado" não é uma alegoria para, de fato, o nosso futuro engatilhado. No final das contas, quem leu a graphic novel sabe, a mensagem continuará sendo o meio.
[/quote']
ou seja' date=' o que o Alan Moore ficou chateado é com o fato do filme não ser tão claro e direto quanto queria, não ser uma previsão de nossa realidade, e sim dar a entender que é uma previsão de um universo paralelo, é isso?putz, tomara que seja só isso, pq to pondo muita fé nesse filme, acho que o cinema tá precisando de um filme assim!!
assim como o meio artistico ta precisando de alguém contrario ao que está ocorrendo no mundo, um transgressor dessa politica!!!
temos só Bono e o vocalista do coldplay que lutam por causas justas, mas não são os transgressores que a sociedade necessita!!
[/quote']
Isso.
E em relação a questão da visão descompromissada, é fato que isso foi e será apenas para vender o filme. Por tudo que já saiu, para quem já leu a HQ, sabe que quase nada mudou. Só de que quando foi escrita a história, as coisas ainda não tinham acontecido de forma desastrosa. Agora as coisas estão acontecendo. Além do mais, tudo isso começa do prórpio autor que desenvolveu a história num presente alternativo do início da década de 80. Tivesse feito então de forma diferente...
felipef38722.4412037037 -
É raro, mas alguém com uma boa tirada do fórum da Panini:
Enviada: Ter Jan 03, 2006 8:58 pm Assunto: Eu acho que a principal bronca do Alan Moore é devido a terem transformado o enredo numa espécie de "elseworld". Essa coisa de: "O que aconteceria se os nazistas ganhassem a guerra".
Já no primeiro prefácio que li de V, Alan deixou claro que embora tenha cometido alguns equivocos no seu exercicio de previsão do futuro, ele acredita que, infelizmente, do jeito que a Inglaterra vai, caminha inexoravelmente para o facismo. Já David Lloyd, num outro prefácio que li, também afirma da importancia da HQ para as pessoas se conscientizarem sobre esse futuro sombrio para qual caminham.
Quer dizer, apesar de se passar numa "distopia futuristica", os autores estavam falando sobre o presente. Isso está claro na leitura da graphic novel. Eles querem alertar o leitor para o estado das coisas no mundo atual.
Quando voce diz que esse tipo de coisa (o futuro facista) acontece numa "realidade paralela" onde os malditos nazistas ganharam a guerra (eles, sempre eles, é tão facil só odiar eles e se esquecer de todo o resto), voce desvincula a possibilidade de que a trama de V tenha a ver com a REALIDADE.
Claro que Hollywood não ia dizer que a América de Bush por exemplo caminha para o facismo. Vamos dizer que isso é um Elseworld...
É esse tipo de coisa que deixou Moore p***, na minha opinião.http://www.hotsitepanini.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22383& amp; amp;start=25
Acho que isso que ele falou, dirá respeito apenas a venda o filme. E vamos ver se essa idéia de "futuro descompromissado" não é uma alegoria para, de fato, o nosso futuro engatilhado. No final das contas, quem leu a graphic novel sabe, a mensagem continuará sendo o meio.
felipef38720.7831597222 -
Dos outros retardados:
Filho de Tony Blair causa polêmica ao participar de V de Vingança
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! :-)
Por El Cid
Esta é das boas: o Parlamento britânico está em polvorosa. Tudo por conta da participação de Euan Blair, filho do primeiro-ministro britânico Tony Blair, em V de Vingança - a aguardada e temida (?) versão para as telonas do clássico quadrinístico subversivo de Alan Moore. A notícia é do jornal inglês The Sunday Times.
A complicação é assim: Euan, de 21 anos, é assistente de produção dos irmãos Andy e Larry Wachowski, produtores da película. Tudo que ele faz é desempenhar funções banais como parar o trânsito para as filmagens e, vejam só, preparar um chá das cinco para a equipe. Mesmo assim, sua participação tem sido duramente criticada pelo Partido Conservador britânico. O motivo? Óbvio, caríssimo leitor d'A ARCA: o que o deputado David Davies chama de "apologia ao terrorismo".
Como você bem sabe, "V de Vingança" conta a história de um anarquista mascarado chamado apenas de V (Hugo Weaving, o Agente Smith da trilogia "Matrix") - um sujeito que, num futuro próximo, ataca o regime totalitário que toma conta da Inglaterra com armas pouco usuais, incluindo explosões a prédios públicos como a tradicional sede do Parlamento inglês, cartão postal londrino.
Davies e seus parceiros afirmam que Blair é um hipócrita, por permitir que seu filho trabalhe em um filme que aborda o tema dos atentados enquanto o governo do Reino Unido propõe a criação da expressão "apologia ao terrorismo" para rotular determinados tipos de crimes.
Só para constar, a equipe de filmagem de "V de Vingança" gravou, em junho, na rua Whitehall, onde fica o tal prédio do Parlamento e a maioria do ministérios. Durante quatro noites, mais de mil figurantes fizeram do lugar uma espécie de praça de guerra. E, é claro, novamente os críticos de Blair o atacaram - acusando seu filho de ter usado sua influência para conseguir a permissão para fazer as imagens no local.
"V de Vingança", que traz ainda a talentosa Natalie Portman, musa do Kaickull, no elenco, estréia dia 17 de março nos EUA. -
V FOR VENDETTA MOVIE MASK Prop Replica
Set in the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V FOR VENDETTA tells the story of a mysterious revolutionary who finds an unlikely ally in a mild-mannered young woman. The screenplay by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski is based on the acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore (WATCHMEN, From Hell) and David Lloyd. Originally published by DC Comics as a 10 part series in 1988, V FOR VENDETTA has been praised for its vision, potency and eloquence. Moore is widely considered to be one of the finest comics writers of all time, and has been credited with single-handedly expanding the potential of the comic book medium with his work. This limited edition, hand-painted cold-cast porcelain replica measures approximately 10.5" high x 6.5" wide x 7" deep and is displayed on a sculpted base. This replica was constructed from a mold of the actual movie prop, includes a full-color Certificate of Authenticity, and is packaged in an elegant black gift box with foil stamping. Limited edition of 500.
$195.00 US | On Sale February 22, 2006
-
Do nerd de novo:
Published on Sunday, January 1st, 2006 at 06:27:29 AM CST
Harry's Top Ten Best Films of 2005!!!
Happy New Year Everyone, Harry here and I suppose it’s time for me to formally give up on 2005 and tabulate up what my picks for the best of the year were. Now there’s a difference between the bests of the year – and my faves. On this list you won’t see WALLACE & GROMIT and CORPSE BRIDE or BATMAN BEGINS or KING KONG or HOSTEL or FEAST or WALK THE LINE or STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH or UNLEASHED or THE DEVIL’S REJECTS or LAND OF THE DEAD or WAR OF THE WORLDS or SIN CITY or THE DESCENT or MILLIONS or KISS KISS BANG BANG or TOM YUM GOONG – though TOM YUM GOONG is the single most kickass asskicking film I’ve seen in 2005 or 2006. Hell – if put to the sword and asked to name my favorite comfort flick of 2005, I’m likely to say something really insane like SKY HIGH – which I f**king love. No. The following 10 films are frankly the films that kicked my ass in every conceivable fashion. Intellectually, emotionally, artistically – just at every conceivable level – these are the films that had my number as the guy that sees a zillion movies a year. And frankly – I’ve had a great year. That films like SYRIANA, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, MURDERBALL, CAPOTE, EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED, THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, ELIZABETHTOWN or CRASH haven’t cracked my top ten – much less those “favorites” of the year. I mean I’ve listed 28 films so far that I f**king dig the living sh*t out of – and I haven’t even mentioned films that got that U.S. distribution at last like OLDBOY, SYMPATHY FOR MR VENGEANCE or ONG BAK – which have appeared on my bests lists – going back… oh about 2 and 3 years ago.
My list is a bit different from the average critic, mainly because I pro-actively seek out films I hear about world wide. I don’t passively sit and just judge the films that the U.S. distributors put me in front of – there’s a bigger world of film out there – and if you seek out festival films and the films that play in other countries – and if you’re lucky enough to attend BUTT-NUMB-A-THON – well – there’s films that get seen that haven’t hit another venue in the country. And as a result they end up in my consideration. Think of those titles and early heads ups. They will be seen domestically eventually. And much faster than films like OLDBOY and SYMPATHY FOR MR VENGEANCE – which took 2 and 3 years to get in front of U.S. audiences. Let’s kick this off…
10. TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE
At number 10 is my favorite documentary of 2005. TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE. At one level this is “This is my Dad” film. The Dad in question is Haskell Wexler, one of the most fantastic Directors of Photography in the history of cinema, a wild pinko liberal (Yippee for the Pinko Liberal Dad Set!), but more than any of that this film became something that was more important than a career study of a man that has stretched and battled with the format of cinema. It became an amazingly intense look at aging, regrets, understandings and the soul of a very complicated man and his son. You see the Director – a Mark Wexler (Haskell’s son) has never lived up to his father’s estimation. He’s a republican, so naturally Haskell thinks he’s insane (I totally agree) – He makes documentaries about things like AIR FORCE ONE and takes innoculous photos with multiple Presidents. He tends to want to shoot things to make them pretty and composed instead of gritty and real. The sequence where Haskell is trying to talk to Mark’s camera – while Mark is inanely preoccupied with trying to get Haskell out on the balcony cuz there’s a pretty sunset… and in the argument you get a portrait of the difference between the two filmmakers – and in the construction of the documentary – that argument and that it was captured on film is more important than what Haskell was attempting to say or Mark’s pretty sunset. Ultimately – You see that what at the time had to be a very annoying experience to both – we as the audience are witnessed to Haskell condemning him for trying to make him pose for the camera which was totally artificial and orchestrated for the documentary -- he then goes on to say that the doc is about him and what and where he has to say something is more important than that f**king sunset – but in creating this argument what happens is – neither father nor son – both of whom were trying to manipulate the film, could beat the reality of butting heads in this scene which was REAL! And emotional.
The documentary interviews a who’s who of the wonderful artists that worked with Haskell – and it’s a real treat to see folks like Peter Bart, Michael Douglas, Jane Fonda, George Lucas, Conrad Hall (both of em), Dennis Hopper, Ron Howard, Norman Jewison, Elia Kazan, Irvin Kershner, Albert Maysles, Paul Newman, Julia Roberts, Sidney Poitier and so many others. Ultimately – the film is a portrait about how little fathers and sons often fail to realize how inadvertantely they hurt one another. The little jabs, the denigration, the lack of acknowledgement. And in this case – that door swings both ways. The son rejected a lot of the father, which in turn led to the father rejecting much about the son. That this Doc bridges and exposes that makes for an incredibly moving film that while educating you on the career and importance of one of the great cinematic artists – also reveals so much upon the human condition. Great film!
9. MUNICH
Easily the most classically filmed Spielberg movie in ages. That he made this as quickly as he did gave me hope that we’re going to get a great deal of wonderful work from Steven for sometime to come. To get a full look at my thoughts on this film, Click Here! It’s a movie that literally has it all.
8. THE HIDDEN BLADE (KAKUSHI-KEN: ONI NO TSUME)
The latest film from Yoji Yamada – the brilliant filmmaker behind TWILIGHT SAMURAI! Like THE NEW WORLD and MATCH POINT – this is a love story at its heart. And love with a Samurai – is oddly sweet and beautiful. I’ve only ever seen Yoji’s TWILIGHT SAMURAI – and the love story in that had my heart aching. Ultimately there is a two-fold story in place. First is the story of the samurai’s love for his maid, second is the sh*tty situation of this particular samurai’s buddy, who like Obi-Wan’s padawan – turned rogue – then he’s ordered to hunt him down and kill him. The love story illustrates and makes us care for the lead samurai intensely – while the danger and friendship of the task he has at hand… well you’re incredibly involved by the end of this film, which I will not spoil. I loved it though. That the creator of TWILIGHT SAMURAI has turned in yet another fantastic film, well it has me ecstatic. The performances, cinematography, music and story all just make for a brilliant movie.
7. MATCH POINT
While not at all the typical Woody Allen movie for most audiences, ultimately – it isn’t nearly as radical in it’s departure as most would assume. Ultimately – Woody has made a career out of the romantic triangle. It’s how the inherent problems of a love triangle are solved that is different. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is in the Woody Allen part of the film. But perhaps for the very first time ever, the Woody substitute isn’t affecting Woody throughout the film. There are lines that easily belong coming out of Woody’s mouth and mind, but Meyers does a brilliant job of just not going for the easy delivery. Instead, he flattens the irony of the line and delivers it with hidden wit instead of obvious wit. It really is quite fascinating to see an actor so confident in his own delivery to just leave Woody behind. Then there’s Scarlett Johansson and Emily Mortimer – they’re just wonderful. Had there been 40 minutes of Scarlett nudity – the film easily would’ve been number one this year, but that was a costume design error that hopefully will be corrected in Woody’s next outing with the jaw-droppingly gorgeous Scarlett.
It’s strange – I’ve seen so many articles about this film, that it was only while watching the film that I realized – I’d never seen a trailer, nor had I read any of those articles. If you haven’t seen a trailer – keep it that way – JUST SEE THE MOVIE. Go in expecting a Woody Allen film. This is one of the greatest presents of the year. There’s a point where the genre of the film just suddenly takes a right turn and at that juncture – you’ll either get furious at Woody – or be twisted emotionally into knots. Me? Woody was making me out to be an overstuffed Pretzel by the end of this thing. Brilliant film. Wonderful surprise! Way to go Woody!
6. THE NEW WORLD
To read my full thoughts on this one, CLICK HERE! Malick’s abstract narrative about the life and loves of Pocahontas is an amazingly affecting and telling film about the time in which the world got a lot bigger. As I’ve said in my review – this is one of the most beautiful films – period. I would LOVE to see a 70mm screening of the film, and I dream of the PARAMOUNT here in Austin getting a special engagement of the film in that manner. It’s just stunning. But more than that – this is cinema’s power to take one to a completely different time and place. This film’s ability to just make the theater and age we live in – to just make all of that disappear for the 2 and a half hours or so… that’s just magic. Pure and simple. Magic. Malick puts a lot of soul in his films – this is brilliant work.
5. HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE
Miyazaki’s latest is pure genius. He effortlessly creates fantasy in a way unlike anything I’ve ever seen. There’s never painful exposition to explain the universe we find ourselves in, it’s simply there. This world of magic and technology and warfare and despair and love and pain and joy. It’s incredibly. I love how a little girl named Sophie can just be walking down the street, she can meet a young man, then suddenly they’re being pursued by strange tar monsters and walking on air above the city and the ordinary life in a hatshop – and the next morning she’s an old woman cured… and then there’s that scarecrow hopping about – and the magic and the invention… It’s an endless string of creative possibilities unleashed. Miyazaki, I feel starts over anew with each film. These are not variations, they’re wholly new worlds and dreams. This isn’t like any fantasy that I know, but I love it. This is just stunning work. They also did a pretty damn good job on the English version – though I still prefer the Japanese. This is my second favorite non-live-action film of the year.
4. STRINGS
STRINGS is my favorite non-live-action film of the year. Absolutely brilliant. Completely unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. A Danish Marionette film that is simply so much more than you could possibly guess without having seen it. First off – the English version is just awe-inspiring. The voice work by James McAvoy, Catherine McCormack, Julian Glover and Derek Jacobi – among others – is just superb.
Ultimately the film is a tale of Shakespearean proportions about ill-advised vengeance based on the information at hand. It’s about sinister manipulation of facts, political intrigue and the dark secrets of dead fathers and so much more. These strings do not reach up to human hands, but instead they soar up into the sky, beyond the clouds. Where do they come from? Where do they lead? How do they know to appear for a new carved baby?
This is a world where the life of a marionette has led to no roofs, Where an arch is an impasse of impenetrable proportions. Where having your strings cut means death. They have their own metaphysics and beliefs. It’s the most magical puppet film since the heights of DARK CRYSTAL. Brilliant work!
3. LADY VENGEANCE (aka SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE)
Known everywhere else in the world as SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE, Tartan Films will be releasing this in March of 2006, but it’s played a few festivals, countries and Butt-Numb-A-Thon 7 – so it goes in my 2005 list.
This film doesn’t come out and slap you like OLDBOY did, instead this is a story that is structured very very differently. In fact – the first 40 or so minutes you might even begin to doubt Chan-Wook Park. But friends, it’s all brilliant set-up and absolutely everything pays off in spades. This film builds and builds and builds with infinite patience. It unfolds like a brilliant tale should. And when you begin to get your payoff – dear god. It’s f**king amazing. The vengeance this lady unfolds is unlike anything anyone could possibly imagine. First – we learn what it is that has been done to her. Then we learn pieces of the revenge, who the victim of her vengeance is to be… or the victims. Just think raincoats and scissors.
Lee Geum-Ja. Don’t f**k with her, ever. Wow.
2. V FOR VENDETTA
It’s okay to hate me for having this on my 2005 Best of List. But you have to understand, I went through an awful lot to make sure I saw this in 2005 – and I did it all on the blind f**king faith that it was going to do justice to Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s original work. There’s a part of my that believes the movie was the most lucid fantastic dream I’ve had all year. And it is for that reason alone that it is not Number 1. The movie I have in my head felt like a brilliant dangerous dream of a film. It made you want put on a mask and blow up sh*t. I was applauding dialogue like it was action scenes, coveting gestures like they were FX show pieces.
The story about the girl that dares to be different is a brilliant short story buried in this film. And Natalie Portman does the best work of her career. She’s absolutely raw emotionally. Just fantastic. And then there’s Hugo Weaving. You never see his face – hell, if all you knew him from was his Agent Smith – you’re about to meet an entirely different Hugo Weaving. His V voice is brilliant. The lines he has and the delivery of those lines… they’re exquisite. It’s as perfect as Karloff reading Seuss or Olivier doing Shakespeare or Samuel L Jackson doing Tarantino dialogue. It’s bliss.
The music, Biddle’s brilliant camera work, the design, the editing and the story telling, it’s just a dream. I absolutely love this film. I crave it. Everyone I know that saw it is dying to see it again. We sit around and look at one another and start talking about it. It comes March 17th – and for those that have seen it… trust me – it seems an eternity away.
1. HUSTLE & FLOW
Why is HUSTLE & FLOW my number one film of 2005? Because it shouldn’t be. Under no circumstance should a film about a low rent pimp with rapper dreams should appeal to a Hawaiian shirt wearing film geek. But ya know what – that’s the power of great cinema. I saw this film back in March and it continues to slap me around and says “WATCH ME!”
This is a film about dreams, about beginning again, about how it is never too late to turn your life around. How you absolutely must stop doing what you hate to do and change your life for the better – not next week, not next month, but start right now. I love this film. I love the story of the film, how it got made, how it found me, how against all odds I loved it.
I love how it takes the expectations of the Blaxploitation Genre and turns it on its ear. This is a tale about the worst sort of people in the world. A pimp – an exploiter of women. His “whores” and the people he convinces to join him on his dream. And no matter what – you’ll dream that dream, you’ll feel that desperation, that hurt, that expectation. This is a film with a very small budget but the best acting in cinema this year. In my opinion – this film deserves to not only be nominated for Best Actor with Terrence Howard – but I also feel that Paula Jai Parker should be nominated for Best Supporting Actress and that Craig Brewer should be nominated for writing and directing and that the film should be nominated for Best Film – and in my opinion it should win all of those – plus best song for either “WHOOP THAT TRICK” or “IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP” or “HUSTLE AND FLOW”!
Craig Brewer is the debut talent of the year and he came out against all odds and frankly made the best film of the year.
Well – that’s my Top Ten. I’ll be doing a top twenty preview – just as soon as I finish this doozy of a DVD PICKS AND PEEKS for January – what a great month of releases – so for now – I hope wherever you all are at – you’ve had a safe and happy new year. Let’s prey we get movies of this quality throughout 2006! -
Quem seria este usuário?
Imagina isso aqui depois do filme com os posts enormes dele em linguagem-internet...
V de Vingança
in Filmes em Geral
Posted