| Author |
Message |
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:33 pm |
|
It is 3 hours long..... 
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:44 pm |
|
Is noooooooot. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes (according to imdb.com).
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:21 pm |
|
I can't afford to go see this movie!!! Our local cinema is crap and only shows rubbish movies (like ones with Queen Latifa in) so I'd have to skip town and I have no money!!!
I want to see it so badly.
I guess I'll read the graphic novel instead. 
|
|
|
MakeItSo
Commander
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Somewhere in California
|
| Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:53 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | MakeItSo wrote: | | I wanna see the movie so bad! I heard that it was pretty good. Maybe this movie will be a lot better than the last Matrix movie. |
How dare you..... 
ON TOPIC....
I have yet to see the movie. I can't seem to get a chance to watch it. Anyone know how long it is? |
What? The last Matrix movie wasn't neccessarily bad but I liked the first movie the best. I was kind of disappointed with the last one but it wasn't bad or anything. But back to topic:
Has anyone seen V for Vendetta on the IMAX. The movie theater that I work at is playing it on IMAX and I wanna see it on that. The movie is long though.
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:28 am |
|
*squeal!*
I just saw it last night and my god! I have a new favorite movie!
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:46 am |
|
Awesome Z! Dad is interested in seeing a movie, (Any at this point, Pink panther is gone) I'll have to convince him to go to this one and take me  I really, really wanna see this movie. I hope to see it in theaters!
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:45 pm |
|
I so wanna see this movie.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:47 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Is noooooooot. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes (according to imdb.com). |
Well, count all the trailers, the waiting, and you have... *Drum roll* Three hours
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:11 pm |
|
There are only 12 minutes of trailors. You peeps really need to pay more attention to the cinematic industry, 
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:59 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | It's 2 hours and 12 minutes. |
I don't think I could sit down for that long.
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:26 am |
|
you'd be fine Nadia. The movie goes by really quickly, at least in my opinion, because there's so much to see and pay attention to.
Plus it's better on the IMax! 
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:30 am |
|
Awww! IMax? We don't have that here...
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:31 am |
|
We have an IMax about, oh, 30 minutes from my college campus. We saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on the IMax the day it came out.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:29 pm |
|
| Ziona wrote: | you'd be fine Nadia. The movie goes by really quickly, at least in my opinion, because there's so much to see and pay attention to.
Plus it's better on the IMax! |
That's good, I suppose. I really want to see it,but I don't think it's out yet.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:43 pm |
|
I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was really good, minus a few points....
SPOILERS
| Quote: | This is my "review and opinion" of the movie. I became interested in it as soon as I heard Padme Amidala and Agent Smith were going to be in it, while being led by the Wachowski brothers. That was almost too much to resist. I saw previews of V throwing daggers around, while in the vigilante mask, and thought it looked really bad ass. The movie had amazing dialogue, good acting, beautiful cinematography, and so much more. It was up to par with Reloaded and Revolutions, although I know some low brow people are going to say "then it must not be good." Ignore them. V was overall an excellant movie. So at this point, people maybe wondering why I keep going on and on about how good it is, yet say there is something not all right with it...
I remember hearing about how "controversial" this movie was. Especially with Conservatives, as proved by RM. Ironically the thing my fellow Conservatives have been complaining about the most is the "glorifyinng terrorism" aspect. I actually didn't mind it. V did not do what the terrorists of Iraq are doing. He didn't kill innocent people. He killed people that were part of the facist government. He really did want freedom. He killed the bad guys essentially, thus making him a freedom fighter. There is no comparison to the people who rose up in V to terrorists who blow themselves up in Iraq. People tried to compare the occupation of Iraq with this movie. Those people, Liberal and Conservative alike, are not correct at all. US was there for liberation, and even if they were there for oil, we have not done ANY of the stuff they have done in Iraq that the bad guys did in England. With that said....
The politics in this movie were NOT subtle in the least. It was in your face anti-conservative and that was the biggest mistake they could have made. Why? They alienated a huge audiance. Before people say "They don't care. That was the purpose-to show the evils of Conservatism. WRONG. It was to show that freedom was the most important thing and to hold onto it is mankind's duty. They could have easily made that referance if they had used Communists as the bad guys. In fact, it would have made more sense. Thats how Communists live, more or less. Before people say "you're conservative, that is why you're complaining." Wrong again. If this movie had done the other extreme and showed that life under Liberal rule=chaos? I would not have liked it. Especially if they rubbed it in your face, over and over, like this movie did with Conservatives. The movie lost it's sense of freedom means all, no matter the political affiliation of the dictator. It became conservatism is evil and anything is else is good. This movie should have shed partisan politics and taught us that tyranny, no matter what affiliation is WRONG. The movie is the ultimate in irony, Liberal propaganda is making a movie about Conservative propaganda. Its a shame, the movie lost something because of this...
Another thing was the use of the oppression of homosexuals. This was one of the lowest things ever. Why homosexuals? Because that is an issue today? There are issues of racism as well. Issues of discrimination through religion.(Which the movie LIGHTLY touches, I'll admit). It seemed like a cheap use. Homosexuality isn't bad, but its abuse in this movie was pathetic...
Religion was touched onto this movie and the Wachowski brothers use the most famous of crutches! Catholism=evil, everyone else=good. VERY PATHETIC. An evil Bishop that has sex with young children. So clique and contrived that it was sickening. I don't mind the us of the Church as bad guys. I honestly don't. But the problem is, idiots will think this is real. That every Church member is like this. For once, I'd like to see a REAL controversial film. A film that depicts Catholic Church members as GOOD guys. MANY priests have done a lot to help people. What about a movie about a Catholic priest that sheltered Jews during the Holocaust? Or a priest that is fighting for homosexual equality? No. Too many people will call that a propaganda film. Its easier to make them evil, than good. PATHETIC. I will say I love the use of the Koran. Its beautiful in symbolism. A book of Religion, banned by the evil totalitarian government. The book sat in a case, now only history due to the evils of persecuation. The Koran is filled with so much beauty and seeing it locked in a case was good symbolism of beauty: art, literature, music, free thought being locked away by the evil government. Then again, I really like Muslims, so anything about them I find really fascinating.
Those are my main complaints, but I don't think the movie was bad. The problem is, many idiots will miss the initial point and think that its real life. Church is evil, Bush Admin. really did 9/11 to conquer the world, etc. Stupid things like that. Same thing happened with Reloaded and Revolutions. People missed the initial point of free will and symbyosis. Humans needed machines and machines needed humans. THAT was the point, but people were too busy complaining that Neo did not go super saiyan in the Machine City. This movie was about the pursuit of freedom and holding onto it. Nothing more. VERY good movie overall. Hugo Weaving is so fantastic that it makes me furious that he is not in move movies. I applaud the Wachowski brothers in their use of him and amazing movies they make. After this, I'd like to see anyone say Natalie Portman is "wooden" in her acting. I recommend people go see V. Although one warning: FALSE ADVERTISEMENT. This movie is not really an action movie. More of a political movie... |
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:44 pm |
|
Is it just me, or is that quoted post coming up as a blank white box? lol
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:47 pm |
|
lol. It's spoilers. If you want to read 'em, you highlight them, as is the rules in this forum
I might ready some of 'em, but only when I can.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Ziona
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Aug 2001
Posts: 12821
Location: Michigan... for now
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:48 pm |
|
Ahh... *ner* I'm out of the loop o.0
Thanks RM!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:56 pm |
|
Read it.
Founder, from what you've just said, I'm following your expectation: I do NOT feel that it was a movie about freedom and whatnot. Reading that, it's just as I expected: a Bush-bashing, Conservative-bashing, America-bashing movie. That's NOTHING like ANYTHING I would want to see. I got enough of that with Farenheit 9/11.
Now, I'm sure the acting and all that technical stuff was good, and perhaps the dialogue was, but you only successfully jaded my opinion further: I would not want to see it and would be entirely unwilling to see it, even moreso now.
I entirely disagree with you that it was about freedom and stuff. No, I would say that it's a political movie and little more. All an attacking movie. The idiots who directed and produced the movie should not only be ashamed, but they should rethink their future movies and either be more fair and balanced about what they put in them or just forget the politics altogther.
I know I couldn't stand this movie and have, as I knew I would, as much will to see it as I do Farenheit 9/11 again.
Almost makes me want to jump into Hollywood just to make a wholesome, quality movie without politics. Perhaps like you said: a real controversial movie, showing, say, those of our faith doing good things, being the good guys for once.
I'll see this movie the day I go to hell.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:15 pm |
|
It's "anti-conservative" stance makes sense if you follow the story line. The world has been devastated by disease and war, and Britain would appear to be one of the few stable countries left. What party would people most likely turn to to keep things the way they are and avoid progression towards a possibly more violent future? Conservatism. Also, people tend to turn towards religion in times of disaster, hence the religious issue.
In this movie the government was very different from the United States's (currently). I don't think one can really compare them, if that's what you're attempting to do.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:20 pm |
|
Nope, not what I'm trying to do. As Founder discussed, though, it's a big-time conservative-bashing movie and I don't want to see such a thing.
If I want to see a movie against facism I'll go see a WWII movie. There's a ba**ard during that time that really existed that I could care to watch a movie about. But this? No, I will not be seeing this movie. Not until the day hell freezes over.
But enough about me. I've made my position clear, and it's not going to change
So, yeah. As Obi-Wan and the one stormtrooper said in Episode IV, "Move along."
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:05 pm |
|
It was more of a general statement. Although it amazes me to no end how you can allow others to make your decisions for you.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:22 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Read it.
Founder, from what you've just said, I'm following your expectation: I do NOT feel that it was a movie about freedom and whatnot. Reading that, it's just as I expected: a Bush-bashing, Conservative-bashing, America-bashing movie. That's NOTHING like ANYTHING I would want to see. I got enough of that with Farenheit 9/11.
Now, I'm sure the acting and all that technical stuff was good, and perhaps the dialogue was, but you only successfully jaded my opinion further: I would not want to see it and would be entirely unwilling to see it, even moreso now.
I entirely disagree with you that it was about freedom and stuff. No, I would say that it's a political movie and little more. All an attacking movie. The idiots who directed and produced the movie should not only be ashamed, but they should rethink their future movies and either be more fair and balanced about what they put in them or just forget the politics altogther.
I know I couldn't stand this movie and have, as I knew I would, as much will to see it as I do Farenheit 9/11 again.
Almost makes me want to jump into Hollywood just to make a wholesome, quality movie without politics. Perhaps like you said: a real controversial movie, showing, say, those of our faith doing good things, being the good guys for once.
I'll see this movie the day I go to hell. |
Um...I want to make A LOT clear, that you miscontruied(sp?)?
First of all, I did not say the entire movie was an anti-conservative movie. It was definitly there, but that was not the message. See? You're doing what I knew people would do. Liberals see this as the truth of what is going on in the world. Conservatives see this as an attack on their own affiliation. BOTH are wrong. This movie WAS about freedom and to be honest, you can't tell me I'm wrong because you did not even see it.
BTW? You're making it sound like I'm recommending people do not see this movie. That isn't true. I'm recommending people DO see it, if not for Hugo Weaving's acting alone. Trust me. HE IS AMAZING.
-Edit-
RM? I'm seriously fighting an urge to grow angry at the comment that the Wachowski brothers are idiots. They made the Matrix...
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | It's "anti-conservative" stance makes sense if you follow the story line. The world has been devastated by disease and war, and Britain would appear to be one of the few stable countries left. What party would people most likely turn to to keep things the way they are and avoid progression towards a possibly more violent future? Conservatism. Also, people tend to turn towards religion in times of disaster, hence the religious issue.
Nope. You didn't need to have an evil conservative government for this movie to work. It would have been better under commie rule actually. Would have made more sense. It did work in this movie partially, but didn't need to be done.
As for Religion, this movie did not show people turning to it. It showed one Religion as banned and another as an accessory to a giant propaganda machine.
In this movie the government was very different from the United States's (currently). I don't think one can really compare them, if that's what you're attempting to do. |
EXACTLY.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:37 pm |
|
Well, why give communists a bad name? The ideals behind communism aren't extremely bad, but they just don't work.
They had to pick a governmental style to use. I wouldn't say that using one is really any more or less offensive than another.
Chrisitanity is the main religion in Britain, so wouldn't it make sense to make out a Christian religion to have become dominant? In any country with an extremely conservative government, a religion usually dominates public life. Just like that whole Afghanistan issue with the Christian convert. Islam isn't the only religion there, but it's the dominant one with the most power. I'm not condoning their use of Catholocism as a scapegoat in the movie, however Catholocism once controlled the known world. Can any other religion say the same? Therefore, if it happened once, why couldn't it happen again?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:47 pm |
|
1. Did I say you were "wrong?" No, I said "I entirely disagree with you." Opinion. Didn't say that you were wrong, just that I disagreed with you.
2. I wasn't trying to make it seem as though you were denouncing the movie. You so clearly were supporting it. I was only using things you said to back up my side.
3. I enjoyed the first Matrix (only one I've seen), so I guess they're not total idiots
4. Intrepid, you just don't get it...I'm not talking about Catholics ruling the world or anything, jeeze.
5. I made it clear that I wanted to move along. Yet again, because I haven't seen the movie, I'm not allowed to speak my mind and take a stance. So, why argue with me? It's futile, because anything I say will go right out the window because it's "not valid."
I said "move along," meaning forget what I was saying and discuss it on your own terms, excluding me. So can we do that, please? Anything I say here is pointless. Arguments from me are futile. So yeah. Forget anything I'm saying, alright? I'm done. I've said my piece and continuing debate is futile. I'm done speaking in this topic, unless I find some danged good reason to speak.
So, yeah. You enjoyed it, great. If you haven't seen it and want to, okay, more power to you. I don't want to see this kind of movie, and I won't. Get it? Got it? Good.
Have fun.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
