V de Vingança

[Gustavo Adler]

Não estão comparando com Laranja. Só estão dizendo que é o melhor filme de anarquismo DESDE Laranja e não MELHOR QUE laranja.

Mudanças são inevitáveis. E de certa forma' date=' isso faz com que o meu lado fã da graphic novel não suporte algumas possíveis e desnecessárias (ainda não vi o filme) mudanças.

Entretanto, o meu outro lado de fã do cinema, precisa entender, que, o filme deve se sustentar by itself. Então resumindo minha cabeça de agora que ainda não saiu totalmente da HQ: que o filme traga a essência da história e que se ele conseguir agitar 70% das discussões mesmas que tive quando li a graphic novel anos atrás, já está valendo.

De qualquer forma, pelos detalhes que já vi nos trailers e li nas críticas da sessão no Texas, preparem-se... Vai ser um dos filmes mais discutidos em 2006.

[/quote']

entao deve ser um filmão, mas com adaptação não tao boa como queriam os fãs?

pow, só em ser um filmão!!

e acho que o cinema estava precisando de um filme "anarquista" de impacto!

não conheco a HQ, mas pelo que tu falo, to começando a esperar o filme com espectativa!!

OBS: quando disse que tavam comparando a laranja mecanica, eu disse no sentido proximo ao que tu falou!!

 

[felipef]

Não estão comparando com Laranja. Só estão dizendo que é o melhor filme de anarquismo DESDE Laranja e não MELHOR QUE laranja.

Mudanças são inevitáveis. E de certa forma' date=' isso faz com que o meu lado fã da graphic novel não suporte algumas possíveis e desnecessárias (ainda não vi o filme) mudanças.

Entretanto, o meu outro lado de fã do cinema, precisa entender, que, o filme deve se sustentar by itself. Então resumindo minha cabeça de agora que ainda não saiu totalmente da HQ: que o filme traga a essência da história e que se ele conseguir agitar 70% das discussões mesmas que tive quando li a graphic novel anos atrás, já está valendo.

De qualquer forma, pelos detalhes que já vi nos trailers e li nas críticas da sessão no Texas, preparem-se... Vai ser um dos filmes mais discutidos em 2006.

[/quote']

1 - entao deve ser um filmão, mas com adaptação não tao boa como queriam os fãs?

2 - pow, só em ser um filmão!!

3 - e acho que o cinema estava precisando de um filme "anarquista" de impacto!

4 - não conheco a HQ, mas pelo que tu falo, to começando a esperar o filme com espectativa!!

5 - OBS: quando disse que tavam comparando a laranja mecanica, eu disse no sentido proximo ao que tu falou!!

 

1 - Depende Gustavo. Posso me considerar fã  da graphic novel há mais de uma década. E não gostaria de ver 100% a HQ na tela. Filmes precisam de pequenas liberdades. Mas a essência deve permanecer. Já outro pessoal, que eu considero fanático, não quer que nada mude.

2 - Pelo que vi e o que li, diante das primeirais críticas, de pontos cruciais que deixaram no filme, prepare-se. É o que te digo.

3 - O filme certo, na hora certa.

4 - Sempre criamos. Leia a graphic novel, reveja o trailer e crie mais ainda com as conexões filme-HQ.

5 - Entendi. Mas não é bom usar esse termo entre os dois filmes. Hehehehe.

[Garbage]

Já que eu não consigo a HQ, felipef você poderia me dizer qual é a função do Finch ???

[felipef]

Putz moça... Muito coisa pra falar. Vou te mandar uma MP.

PS: seu avatar ta funfado e tal.

[Gustavo Adler]

Não estão comparando com Laranja. Só estão dizendo que é o melhor filme de anarquismo DESDE Laranja e não MELHOR QUE laranja.

Mudanças são inevitáveis. E de certa forma' date=' isso faz com que o meu lado fã da graphic novel não suporte algumas possíveis e desnecessárias (ainda não vi o filme) mudanças.

Entretanto, o meu outro lado de fã do cinema, precisa entender, que, o filme deve se sustentar by itself. Então resumindo minha cabeça de agora que ainda não saiu totalmente da HQ: que o filme traga a essência da história e que se ele conseguir agitar 70% das discussões mesmas que tive quando li a graphic novel anos atrás, já está valendo.

De qualquer forma, pelos detalhes que já vi nos trailers e li nas críticas da sessão no Texas, preparem-se... Vai ser um dos filmes mais discutidos em 2006.

[/quote']

1 - entao deve ser um filmão, mas com adaptação não tao boa como queriam os fãs?

2 - pow, só em ser um filmão!!

3 - e acho que o cinema estava precisando de um filme "anarquista" de impacto!

4 - não conheco a HQ, mas pelo que tu falo, to começando a esperar o filme com espectativa!!

5 - OBS: quando disse que tavam comparando a laranja mecanica, eu disse no sentido proximo ao que tu falou!!

 

1 - Depende Gustavo. Posso me considerar fã  da graphic novel há mais de uma década. E não gostaria de ver 100% a HQ na tela. Filmes precisam de pequenas liberdades. Mas a essência deve permanecer. Já outro pessoal, que eu considero fanático, não quer que nada mude.

2 - Pelo que vi e o que li, diante das primeirais críticas, de pontos cruciais que deixaram no filme, prepare-se. É o que te digo.

3 - O filme certo, na hora certa.

4 - Sempre criamos. Leia a graphic novel, reveja o trailer e crie mais ainda com as conexões filme-HQ.

5 - Entendi. Mas não é bom usar esse termo entre os dois filmes. Hehehehe.

aah, massa, entao vo ve se acho as revistas!!

acabei de ver o trailer, caramba, ta muito massa o personagem!!

Gustavo Adler38715.1287615741

[felipef]

Em março vai sar a colorida pela Panini, Gustavo. Essa que está a venda pela Via LeiTEIra é em PB, como foi originalmente lançada.

felipef38715.6226851852

[felipef]

Já vi mais de mil vezes essa foto dela careca, mas somente agora me veio na cabeça uma coisa: THX.

http://media.egotastic.com/media/pictures/0512/Natalie_Portm an_vendetta6.jpg

 

 

[felipef]

James McTeigue e Natalie no set: 

http://www.natalieportman.com/picstemp/C87-1A.jpg

http://www.natalieportman.com/picstemp/C101-24A.jpg

http://www.natalieportman.com/picstemp/vendetta19it.jpg

 

 

Eu odeio hype:

 

 

E, vai dar problema:

V for Vendetta: Will its politics hurt its box office?

Posted Dec 28th 2005 3:29PM by Karina Longworth
Filed under: Action & Adventure, Berlin, Box Office, Politics, Comic/Superhero/Geek

V for Vendetta - produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowskis; based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore (who has since disowned the film), and starring a bald Natalie Portman – won't officially premiere until the Berlin Film Festival in February, but ever since its first public screenings in Austin a couple of weeks ago, the film's been trapped in a bit of a tug of war between the left and right corners of the web. The fan boy circles are, predictably, all about it, and even the Hollywood Reporter has come out with a positive review. In contrast, Jason Apuzzo's leading one of the strongest marches against the picture on Libertas. From what I can tell, neither Apuzzo, nor his commenters, have actually seen the film, but that's not stopping them from proclaiming it a national tragedy. Partially in response to the Reporter review, Apuzzo writes: "Those of you who’ve been claiming that this film is just an innocent little adaptation of an 80’s graphic novel series are, um, in for a surprise."

His commenters take this opening and run with it. Calling V "a big slap in the face to “Jesusland”",  Jim Rockford claims that "What makes this film junk as a film and as storytelling is that it’s explicit pro-Terrorist and anti-American, anti-Bush politics fly in the face of the reality: terrorists really DO want to kill us all; they’ve tried very hard." It will fail commercially, he continues, because "being explicitly opposed to what most of your paying customers hold dear is a good way to lose their business." Michael Hutchinson continues the ideological doomcasting: "Now, the Wachowski Brothers were REALLY lucky that they were able to sell The Matrix with its anti-social message because of its flash and style, but its messages were rather hidden and a huge part of the audience just went for the SFX. Here you have a movie that’s all about its message, even in the trailers. Do you really think this can find an audience?"

Of course, the film's success (or lack thereof) may very well rest on one entirely non-political factor: as Alexander "Bejamins" Hamilton puts it on Left Behinds: "...the problem isn't the directors, it's that Evey Hammond is played by f**king Natalie Portman. Because Natalie Portman can't f**king act."

 

http://www.cinematical.com/2005/12/28/v-for-vendetta-will-it s-politics-hurt-its-box-office/

felipef38715.9828819444

[Garbage]

To achando que vai ser um filme do tipo "Ou você ama ou você odeia".O fato de ser Anti-Bush vai gerar polêmica msm.

[felipef]

To achando que vai ser um filme do tipo "Ou você ama ou você odeia".

E independente disso' date=' acho que TODOS deveriam ver. Mesmo que detestem o filme ao final.

O fato de ser Anti-Bush vai gerar polêmica msm.

Vai gerar? Já começou. No fórum do IMDb é só fight. E em todo artigo que leio do filme, comenta-se isso.

A história foi escrita no início e final da década de 80. E mesmo assim, nada mudou. Curiosa toda essa falação agora, né?

 

[Garbage]

To achando que vai ser um filme do tipo "Ou você ama ou você odeia".

E independente disso' date=' acho que TODOS deveriam ver. Mesmo que detestem o filme ao final.

O fato de ser Anti-Bush vai gerar polêmica msm.

Vai gerar? Já começou. No fórum do IMDb é só fight. E em todo artigo que leio do filme, comenta-se isso.

A história foi escrita no início e final da década de 80. E mesmo assim, nada mudou. Curiosa toda essa falação agora, né?

 

Arram, como as músicas do legião, escrita há 2 décadas atras mais sempre atuais, o terrorismo é assim.Não há uma definição sobre ele até hoje, ngm conseguiu defini-lo exatamente mas msm assim é sempre atual.

[felipef]

Ao mesmo tempo que isso é fascinante de se estudar e debater (só serve para isso mesmo), é assustador. 

[Garbage]

Ao mesmo tempo que isso é fascinante de se estudar e debater (só serve para isso mesmo)' date=' é assustador. [/quote']

Concordo,na minha opinião isso nunca vai ter fim.

[felipef]

Calma... Apesar de crítico, sou uma pessoa otimista. Há de acabar. Um dia... felipef38715.9988194444

[Gustavo Adler]

To achando que vai ser um filme do tipo "Ou você ama ou você odeia".

E independente disso' date=' acho que TODOS deveriam ver. Mesmo que detestem o filme ao final.

O fato de ser Anti-Bush vai gerar polêmica msm.

Vai gerar? Já começou. No fórum do IMDb é só fight. E em todo artigo que leio do filme, comenta-se isso.

A história foi escrita no início e final da década de 80. E mesmo assim, nada mudou. Curiosa toda essa falação agora, né?

 

poisé!!

acho que tem um carinha aqui do forum, que posta muito na pasta do xman, que deveria ser o 1° a assistir esse filme

Ao mesmo tempo que isso é fascinante de se estudar e debater (só serve para isso mesmo)' date=' é assustador. [/quote']

só serve? putz, isso já é muuuita coisa!!

e eu prefiro estudar e debater isso!!

e tudo que faça debater e estudar isso pra mim é tudo

[felipef]

Quem seria este usuário?

Imagina isso aqui depois do filme com os posts enormes dele em linguagem-internet...

[felipef]

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!

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22103

[felipef]

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

 

[felipef]

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.

[felipef]

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

[Gustavo Adler]

Quem seria este usuário?

Imagina isso aqui depois do filme com os posts enormes dele em linguagem-internet...

nem me fale

talvez ele nem entenda o filme e se tiver muitas explosões ele adorará

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;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, 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!!

[felipef]

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

[felipef]

1/3/2006

Guest 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

felipef38722.4471296296

[felipef]

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. 

[felipef]

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"