Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta, teaser poster released (1 Viewer)

[DonRoeber]

Anyone know where you can buy the teaser poster? The one with just the mask. I've searched all over and have found the theatrical poster in many places, but still can't find the poster of just the mask.

The movie looks interesting, but it doesn't look very faithful to the book. That's fine though, I'm sure it'll still be entertaining.

 

[Cassy_w]

DO NOT watch the new trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING.

Be warned.

 

[Ruz-El]

I just finished re-reading the comicbook. I can't watch the trailer as I'm at work, but I'm not surprised that Alan Moore took his name off the film. There is no way in hell that Hollywood would make a film in this day and age that is remotely faithful to the comics it's based on. I think Alan was quoted in an interview somewhere as describing the script as the most juvenile thing he's ever read. I'm guessing that David Lloyd is happy with the visual style, hence keeping his name on the project.

 

[MattHR]

I saw the trailer before KING KONG. Wow, what a mess. People in the audience were actually laughing at it. It sure looked like a case of "if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie". The trailer seemed to show everything, yet added up to nothing. I wouldn't be surprised to see it delayed and reworked.

 

[Kain_C]

Word has been overwhelmingly positive. Hugo Weaving is such the man and the rest of the cast looks great. I'm reading the novel now and I really like it.


Some reviews: (scroll down for AICN reviews)
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22020
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22012
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22011
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22004
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1001701281

 

[JoshB]

Apparently, word has not been all great. AICN is not the best source for accurate thoughts on films (they say a film is suppose to rock, ala Star Wars, when it fact it clearly does not). All of those reviews come from AICN, and the Hollywood Reporter is not a place I would use for accuracy concerning how good a movie really is.

From what Matt has said, and what I have read elsewhere, people were laughing after seeing the trailer. I heard a snicker or two when I saw it at Kong.

The fact that its release date was pushed back also is not a good sign. True, it may have had alot to do with the London bombings, but I feel the lack of audience interest in seeing a film about a terrorist blowing up totalitarian London is not on many people's must see list.

Hugo Weaving the man? He has been in 6 films that did not rely on much for him to do other than be exposed to ALOT of fake looking CGI and read often bad dialogue (not so much the case in LOTR, but then his role has not as a leading man). Who knows, he may pull it off, but I think that they are putting too much on he Wachowski name.

Trailers for films these days are getting more ridiculous, and people get there expectations up much too high before a film is released.

 

[Ricardo C]

Yeah, let's trust audience reaction to a trailer over audience's reactions to THE ACTUAL MOVIE...

AICN is crap, but that doesn't mean every guest reviewer is a buffoon on Harry's level.

 

[Kain_C]

Bad day, JoshB? Wow man, calm down!


Yeah, high expectations for a film is pretty up there on the list of things to change in this world. Hell, why do we even bother starting (or replying in) movie threads anyway?? :rolleyes

 

[JoshB]

And why is that? You resort to an attack on someones character whom you know nothing about and cannot defend your position because you clearly lack the necessary manners to provide simple statements to back your claims.

Perhaps I struck a nerve with what I said, but I am not going to sugarcoat my opinion on something I do not agree with just to satisfy you. I am honest and to the point of what is on my mind, and my comments on many topics in the forum reflect what is on my mind. It seems you have a problem with what I have to say, and others either acceept what I have to say, or offer there own thoughts that, while they may not agree with me, are nevertheless not of the quality of yours.

I don't think in the years I have been on here, that anyone has posted such a pointless and meaningless attack on a persons character. Everyone else here is courteous, but you seem to let your emotions and personal feelings get in the way. Calm down, and think about what you are going to say before writing these kinds of things.

I would ask, in keeping with the spirit of things i nthe forum, that you keep you postings within good taste and not resort to criticizing a fellow Forum member who you do not know, and does not appreciate reading comments attacking them persoanlly.

Trust me Kain, I have better thing to do than read you pointless and childish comments that attack who a person is instead of accepting what they have to say about something that they have every right to comment on.

Grow up Cain, and get a girlfriend yourself. I in fact have had one for over 2 years.

I have better things to do with my time than carry one childish things such as this. Post whatever you want, but I will continue saying what is on my mind, and will keep my comments about the topic at hand. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Kain_C]

Wow man. You do need to calm down. I guess you didn't notice the smileys in my posts. I never attacked you at all. Yes, you came off as bitter and slightly condescending. And then look at your last reply. Even more so.

Does this forum have an ignore feature?

 

[JoshB]

I, along with others on the forum, have continuously followed this. Occasionally, we have to bite our tongue and accept that some criticisms may rub us the wrong way. We just take it for what its worth, and move on. I have moved on, you should do the same.

I have no problems with Hugo's or the Wachowski's borhers at all. All have done respectable work (the Wachowski's last two efforts leave something to be desired), but perhaps they have found a good project to rebound with. Stephen Rea is among the cast as well, and has done great work in the past. As for Natatlie, she has proven to be a very versatile actress in certain projects, though certain films she has been in certainly do not do justice to her abilities.

 

[Kain_C]

Some very interesting posters on this page:

http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/ima...a/Posters&img=

I doubt they'll use any of them for the DVD cover though. I really like the style of this one, although Natalie looks a little odd:

http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/ima...1.jpg&img=&tt=

 

[JoshB]

They kind of remind me of those old propaganda posters of the early 20th century during WWi, WW2, and during the Bolshevik revolution. I think they are trying for a similar style.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/001286.php

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The style of it was actually what I liked most about the trailer. And I hope the trailer didn't give away everything, because if so there wasn't much to give away. Totalitarian Government experimenting on its own people, oppression, battling with a freedom fighter/terrorist. And said terrorist seems to have some serious personal issues. That's literally not enough to consume two hours with; hopefully there'll be some nuance behind that.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I need links to this ungreat word.

 

[JoshB]

Why do you need links? Do you expect all word on this film to be overwhelemingly positive? The very subject matter of the film is reason enough for it to be called into question.

Granted, I take no side in politics and what the film stands for (power, fascism, anarchy, the impotence of democracy, the potential of humanity and the innate contradictions of the English.) but this is how I see the movie going public looking at it, many who may not be familiar with the book or British history. They are however familiar with the news and media and how certain nations are viewed by the world. I don;tthink I need to mention this any further since we all know alot about it by now.

The film may not be gathering much attnetion now, but I think before its release date you will see numerous prints and interviews, etc about how this film is compared to the American government, Bush, totalitarian governments like us, etc, etc. Thats not how I see it, but when people go out and say Star Wars has political undertones to it, then you have to question how people will really judge a film.

That and it seems politically motivated films have caused some recent stir (Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich) that something like "V" is not going to have great word behind it.

Granted, I have my doubts about the film on a creative level. I was not impressed at all by the Wachowski's last 2 efforts, and there name being placed all over this film is in my mind trying to make us think they have not sold out.

So by word not being all great means that the film as a movie may not work because it may have problems with acting, characters' plot, etc (this is just speculation since it hasnt come out but its something that may still happen). Or it could mean the film is just ill-timed and will not find its audience when the subject matter hits a little too close to home (it will be interesting to see how the British movie going public reacts to it)

Like I said, I am being a little hard on it because I think that if they are going to plaster the Wachowski's name all over it, they had better make up for what they did to those "other two" movies. Some people think they were alright, but in my mind they ruined what could have been a great and original franchise. But then, thats too long a discussion that there is no sense in beating more horses dead. That and some of Moore's works have not been given the treatment they deserve.

"V" may turn out to be a relevant film that hits just the right chords, but based on how adaptations of some books and stories have been done there is reason for skepticism. It may not be done well and take heat or not being faithful to the source material, or be done well but still be viewed as a film pushing an agenda.

I don't want to turn this into a political discussion (there is plenty to go around) but I just think that the film should be looked at from the standpoint of those who will criticize its creativeness based on current affairs in the world. This may affect the film's overall tone and message and change what the story is really about. I guess that depends on how faithful thefilm makers want to make it. It would get criticized for pushing an agenda, but also take flak for sugarcoating what the story ws originally about. Thats just to be expected, I suppose.

Then again, it is about a terrorist/freedom fighter who takes on a corrupt, totalitarian government that oppresses and persecutes by bombing London. Who's cage is this not going to rattle?

 

[Robert Anthony]

Because I'd like to read what you read and digest that opinion as well. There's no agenda, it's just the only word I've read is good word, and if you say there's bad word, I wanna read that too.

 

[JoshB]

What I meant before about word not being all the great is I would wait for opinions from elsewhere than from just the two that have been mentioned, which are Hollywood reporter and AICN, which are two sources I have never trusted to begin with.

I never said those "bad" opinions came from a site. You may just assume that based on what I said about "word not being all that great" because I am questioning just how good the sources mentioned really are. They seem to be the only ones right now and neither are ones I have ever agreed with. If there are more, then by all means post them so we have more to know about the film.

I would go with something a little more solid and substantial before becoming anticipated about a film or deciding whether it may be good or bad.

They seem to be the few places right now that have comments about it. More will come along I am sure, but for now it is easy to say word of mouth is overwhelmingly positive when all there is for opinion is coming from two sources thus far.

If more come along, then that position may change but all there is to go on are the ones already mentioned.

 

[Robert Anthony]

So there's no links to bad word, then. okay. I'm not basing my anticipation on the reviews, it's just extra info I'd like to read to get an idea of what people do and don't like. average fanboys writing reviews for AICN and Kirk Honeycutt at Hollywood Reporter aren't exactly Ebert and Turan, but it's not like Ebert and Turan (or Berardinelli or Glieberman or insert your favorite reviewer here) are prime arbiters of film taste either. But it's nice to know WHY people like the stuff they do and why they dislike the stuff they don't. I like reading negative reviews just as much as the positive ones. I thought you had read some because you said word wasn't all that good, but if you haven't, no big thing.

If there's any anticipation, it's because I've read the graphic novel and heard that it's pretty faithful considering most comic book adaptations. Moore's a cranky old fart, and him calling the script infantile isn't saying much, since in the intro to the graphic novel, he pretty much calls the first two books infantile as well.

I don't read the graphic novel and think "Portman is perfect for Evey" nor am I sure about the citizens wearing V masks at the end of the trailer, but I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know if it works in the context of the movie. But it's nice to read about how it works or doesn't work from people who HAVE read it. I'm not gonna throw it away simply because it appears on a site run by a guy not exactly known for his journalistic skill and objective viewpoint. It's not like he wrote ALL those reviews. 4 of those 5 reviews come from people just like you and me. It's no different than weighing the opinion of someone who posts here, really.

 

[JoshB]

I have no favorite reviewer either (I don't know if people would consider having a favorite when it comes to a film critic, lol), but I have respected Ebert for some time, though some of his reviews quite frankly boggle my mind. (I was suprised he named "Crash" the best film of 2005, though I really liked it). Natalie seemed to be quite committed to the role, and the addition of Stephen Rea and Hugo makes for an interesting cast of no real big names. The Wachowski's may be a draw for some, but I would like to see how well the cast does with this.