W
wabrams
Guest
I take it you equally despise *The Three Musketeer’s *as well?
- Status
T
Thursday1
Guest
Let’s set some stories straight. The government did not start out as christian, it took and twisted convenient parts for its own use. Let’s face it what is more unlikely than the Church of England (Tea and cake or Death!) becoming a fascist government?
The second point is slightly nitpicking. The bell is “Big Ben,” the tower is “The Tower of Parliament.” V blows up all of Parliament, not just the tower.
Third, I guess no one sees the irony in who they got to play Adam Sutler, the dictator. John Hurt played Winston Smith in the 1984 version of Nineteen Eighty-four.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
The second point is slightly nitpicking. The bell is “Big Ben,” the tower is “The Tower of Parliament.” V blows up all of Parliament, not just the tower.
Third, I guess no one sees the irony in who they got to play Adam Sutler, the dictator. John Hurt played Winston Smith in the 1984 version of Nineteen Eighty-four.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
M
MulusChristi
Guest
Greetings Masterjedi,
I appreciate your review. However, I get tired of the Fascist = extreme conservative model. It is not historically accurate. It is rather the pap which liberals always throw at conservatives to hide the connections between modern liberalism and socialiasm, communism and fascism.
Fascism was born in Italy under Mussolini and he started out as a communist, NOT some kind of Italian conservative/nationalist. Hitler also was never a German or Austrian nationalist or conservative. He hated the capitalist system as much as communism. In fact, at the end of the war, he chose to fight the capitalist west harder than the communist east. So fascism is a twisted sibling to communism and socialism.
The movie V for V is very dishonest in this mismarriage of traditional values and fascism. In fact, it is part of the persecution of Christian values which we are seeing in the west. That is my main objection to what I have seen of the hype and reviews. It is part of the cultural attack on our values. It gives justification to the bigoted secular persecution of Christians and it is delusional.
On a minor point, I also was annoyed by the double cross used in the government logo. This was the symbol of the French resistance against the fascist Vichy government. More twisting of history.
T
Troy7
Guest
And setting yourself up as spiritual advisor and deciding what films are sinful for others isnt?
This is just the other side of the Harry Potter fundamentalist view of cinema.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
It’s not an evil Christian government. It’s an evil government masquerading as Christian.
That’s kind of the whole point of the movie in the first place…you get to decide.
And as I said, that’s the ONLY thing I can say that I really had a problem with in this film. They seem to forget the fact that persecuting and killing homosexuals and accepting their lifestyle as perfectly acceptable are not the only two available options out there. However, since I know that those are not the only two options, I can discuss that fact with others who have seen the movie, and explain why I thought it could have been better in that regard.
Blowing up historic landmarks (for good reason and/or with public approval)…no, I don’t think so. Showing a negative portrayal of a
Anglican/Catholic clergyman…again, I would tend to say no. Because it’s not the office of the priesthood that is being attacked…it is the corrupt character of the bishop. So no, I don’t really see a problem with that.
I would definitely tend to agree with you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but from what I remember learning, the “Fascism = Extreme Conservative” explanation really isn’t that far off. It’s an oversimplification, certainly, but it’s just about as accurate as the “Communism = Extreme Liberal” explanation. And remember that labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” don’t apply exclusively to religion. Both extremes start with a dangerous economic theory, and then branch out in opposite directions. Fascism was developed as part of an extremely conservative reaction to the extreme liberal views of Communism; and they’re both economic systems, so of course you should expect them to be related on certain levels. But extreme conservatives will tend towards regulating every aspect of life to keep stability and order, while extreme liberals will tend towards regulating nothing (except, of course, opposing conservative views) in the name of freedom. A better way to say it might simply be that Fascism is an example of what unreasonably conservative views can lead to, just as Communism is an example of what unreasonable liberal views can lead to.
The government is never identified as “fascist” (or anything else, really) in the film…the audience/reviewers simply translate it as such because it bears significant similarities and/or characteristics of that style of government. Whether or not it really fits the historical definition of fascism is irrelevant…it’s still a very bad form of government, and that’s all that really matters for the purposes of this film.
That’s an interesting fact. But still…so what? It’s a basic geometrical pattern. Do you think Hitler really cared about what the “Nazi” symbol had already been used to represent in history? This film is set (more or less) in the future, and the totalitarian government in power has taken the logo of it’s choice as its symbol. Regardless of what it had stood for in the past, it now stands for something else. Things like that happen all the time in real life…I don’t see why this should have to be any different.
B
bones_IV
Guest
sigh! Ever heard of the brick parable? The moral of the parable is no matter how many times you try to mix mud with straw it will always come out as bricks. No matter much you try and sugar coat it, the result is always is the same. FYI, the swastika originally was supposed to mean good luck, but now given the day and age it is innappropriate to use this symbol. The swastika represents anti-semitism. Pius XII said “our world has traded in the cross for another cross” (the swastika that is). Any government that has the characteristics of the government described in the movie is not a fascist government? In what way? This movie is about the equivalent of the book “Hitler’s pope”.It’s not an evil Christian government. It’s an evil government masquerading as Christian.
That’s kind of the whole point of the movie in the first place…you get to decide.
And as I said, that’s the ONLY thing I can say that I really had a problem with in this film. They seem to forget the fact that persecuting and killing homosexuals and accepting their lifestyle as perfectly acceptable are not the only two available options out there. However, since I know that those are not the only two options, I can discuss that fact with others who have seen the movie, and explain why I thought it could have been better in that regard.
Blowing up historic landmarks (for good reason and/or with public approval)…no, I don’t think so. Showing a negative portrayal of a
I would definitely tend to agree with you.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but from what I remember learning, the “Fascism = Extreme Conservative” explanation really isn’t that far off. It’s an oversimplification, certainly, but it’s just about as accurate as the “Communism = Extreme Liberal” explanation. And remember that labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” don’t apply exclusively to religion. Both extremes start with a dangerous economic theory, and then branch out in opposite directions. Fascism was developed as part of an extremely conservative reaction to the extreme liberal views of Communism; and they’re both economic systems, so of course you should expect them to be related on certain levels. But extreme conservatives will tend towards regulating every aspect of life to keep stability and order, while extreme liberals will tend towards regulating nothing (except, of course, opposing conservative views) in the name of freedom. A better way to say it might simply be that Fascism is an example of what unreasonably conservative views can lead to, just as Communism is an example of what unreasonable liberal views can lead to.
The government is never identified as “fascist” (or anything else, really) in the film…the audience/reviewers simply translate it as such because it bears significant similarities and/or characteristics of that style of government. Whether or not it really fits the historical definition of fascism is irrelevant…it’s still a very bad form of government, and that’s all that really matters for the purposes of this film.
That’s an interesting fact. But still…so what? It’s a basic geometrical pattern. Do you think Hitler really cared about what the “Nazi” symbol had already been used to represent in history? This film is set (more or less) in the future, and the totalitarian government in power has taken the logo of it’s choice as its symbol. Regardless of what it had stood for in the past, it now stands for something else. Things like that happen all the time in real life…I don’t see why this should have to be any different.
P
Peter_Wright
Guest
This movie is simply a contempory blending of Zorro, the Count of Monte Cristo, and the Phantom of the Opera.
K
Kendy
Guest
I enjoyed it. . I didn’t agree with everything, like the way lesbian lifestyle is glorified. But where can you go to avoid that? And besides, they are entitled to their opinions.
More importantly, I thought it was brilliantly done. You have to be pretty clever to make a terrorist look sympathetic these days. And the way it was clearly a satire on American politics, but since it was in Britian, the viewer can detach himself long enough to reflect on the issues. It was really smart. A wonderful thriller. I recommend it.
Kendy
. I didn’t agree with everything, like the way lesbian lifestyle is glorified. But where can you go to avoid that? And besides, they are entitled to their opinions.More importantly, I thought it was brilliantly done. You have to be pretty clever to make a terrorist look sympathetic these days. And the way it was clearly a satire on American politics, but since it was in Britian, the viewer can detach himself long enough to reflect on the issues. It was really smart. A wonderful thriller. I recommend it.
Kendy
B
bones_IV
Guest
Peter Wright:
In other words a lesson that is non functionable or a story that fails to get its get its point across?
B
beckers
Guest
I saw the movie last night. It was okay. Not one of the best movies i have ever seen but not one of the worst. It was slow in some parts and overly violent in some areas. I knew that going into the movie because these are the brothers that did the Matrix’s. Thats what they are know for.I actually want to read the comic book now because i know that the author was not happy with the movie version and would like to see just how different it really was.
Yes the movie has some references about American politics but when I first saw any of the government stuff I kept thinking Hitler and the book Animal Farm. Plus i remember the author said it was more about Thatcher and her government but that the director had to throw it into the future to update it. It brings up some pretty good points. I don’t want to included any spoilers about the movie so I won’t go into too much detail…
1.) How much does the media try to influence society?— The reporters try to tell stories about a building being demo when it really was blown up. They masses don’t buy it.
2.) Even people with-in the government don’t buy what they have been told- The main inspector has a change of heart on how to view his role in the government—Reminds me of a great book that had the same plot line—Red Rabbit by Clancey and the story behind JPII shooting.
3.) Vengeance and hate is bad-
4.) Love is the Key to EVERYTHING! (if you watch the movie you will see how it shapes the characters)
5.) The Government in the end is controlled by the people and not a person. If the masses so choose to change the government then that is their right.
6.) Gay theme- Yes i didn’t enjoy this part and wish it had been left out BUT I understand why it was put in there. Do a little research on the Brothers who did it and you might understand why it was there.
7.) Religion- I never thought of the bishop as a catholic at all. He was a bishop of the Church of England. Almost anyone should no something about the split and development of the church of England founded by King Henry The 8th. In Middle school and High school we learned all about King Henry…even how to remember how all of his wives died…I was more offended with the Priest in Sin* City* because he was a seen as a catholic priest.
8.) These are just some of the things I caught….
If you don’t like a movie then that’s fine but don’t judge a movie until you’ve seen it and if you don’t want to see it then don’t. No one is going to force you. Just don’t tell the one’s who have seen it what the movie really means or how we should view it. We are educated people who simple have a different opinion on why we see movies and what we get from them. Just like why I read certain books over others books. My decision not anyone else’s.
God Bless,
Beckers
Yes the movie has some references about American politics but when I first saw any of the government stuff I kept thinking Hitler and the book Animal Farm. Plus i remember the author said it was more about Thatcher and her government but that the director had to throw it into the future to update it. It brings up some pretty good points. I don’t want to included any spoilers about the movie so I won’t go into too much detail…
1.) How much does the media try to influence society?— The reporters try to tell stories about a building being demo when it really was blown up. They masses don’t buy it.
2.) Even people with-in the government don’t buy what they have been told- The main inspector has a change of heart on how to view his role in the government—Reminds me of a great book that had the same plot line—Red Rabbit by Clancey and the story behind JPII shooting.
3.) Vengeance and hate is bad-
4.) Love is the Key to EVERYTHING! (if you watch the movie you will see how it shapes the characters)
5.) The Government in the end is controlled by the people and not a person. If the masses so choose to change the government then that is their right.
6.) Gay theme- Yes i didn’t enjoy this part and wish it had been left out BUT I understand why it was put in there. Do a little research on the Brothers who did it and you might understand why it was there.
7.) Religion- I never thought of the bishop as a catholic at all. He was a bishop of the Church of England. Almost anyone should no something about the split and development of the church of England founded by King Henry The 8th. In Middle school and High school we learned all about King Henry…even how to remember how all of his wives died…I was more offended with the Priest in Sin* City* because he was a seen as a catholic priest.
8.) These are just some of the things I caught….
If you don’t like a movie then that’s fine but don’t judge a movie until you’ve seen it and if you don’t want to see it then don’t. No one is going to force you. Just don’t tell the one’s who have seen it what the movie really means or how we should view it. We are educated people who simple have a different opinion on why we see movies and what we get from them. Just like why I read certain books over others books. My decision not anyone else’s.
God Bless,
Beckers
J
jdnation
Guest
Managed to see it last night, and I found it to be quite an excellent movie, althoguh the only drawback is that the lesbian lifestyle is glorified a little… I find the point was that regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, it is indeed wrong to handle it in the manner that the government of England has…
I don’t think the films idea was to make Christianity out to be bad, but it is trying to relate the fascist state towards a western audience that is Christian. It shows the danger and warning of those amongst us who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” “Not everyone who calls out 'Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of heaven” about those who will call out to Christ, but to whom Christ will say “away with ye, I do not know you.”
I will agree with those who feel it tries to tie in current world events in the film, but that is to make it all the more relevant and relatable.
I don’t see anything glorifying Islam in the film either, the man says he owns a copy of the Koran to read it for his own pleasure, but nowhere is it suggested that he is Muslim, in fact he’s a homosexual so he can’t be Muslim… The owning of a Koran is the only reference I see to Islam, but that’s all, a forbidden item…
I have not read the graphic novel on which this is based one, but the creator, Alan Moore originally worte it during the time of the Conservative Margaret Tatcher government or something like that. Some say that Moore does have some anti-Christian bias, but I’m not sure about that since they may just be basing it on this work or perhaps his own stand on the homosexual issue. But he has chosen to distance himself from Hollywood and the feature films made on his works.
All in all, a very interesting film, with some clunky direction and dialogue, but overall, quite awesome! (The lesbian scenes aside, but I feel they attempted to try and make the audience feel sorry for them, but this can also subjectively carry those feelings outside of the film for people who are not well instructed about their faith.)
I don’t think the films idea was to make Christianity out to be bad, but it is trying to relate the fascist state towards a western audience that is Christian. It shows the danger and warning of those amongst us who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” “Not everyone who calls out 'Lord! Lord! will enter the kingdom of heaven” about those who will call out to Christ, but to whom Christ will say “away with ye, I do not know you.”
I will agree with those who feel it tries to tie in current world events in the film, but that is to make it all the more relevant and relatable.
I don’t see anything glorifying Islam in the film either, the man says he owns a copy of the Koran to read it for his own pleasure, but nowhere is it suggested that he is Muslim, in fact he’s a homosexual so he can’t be Muslim… The owning of a Koran is the only reference I see to Islam, but that’s all, a forbidden item…
I have not read the graphic novel on which this is based one, but the creator, Alan Moore originally worte it during the time of the Conservative Margaret Tatcher government or something like that. Some say that Moore does have some anti-Christian bias, but I’m not sure about that since they may just be basing it on this work or perhaps his own stand on the homosexual issue. But he has chosen to distance himself from Hollywood and the feature films made on his works.
All in all, a very interesting film, with some clunky direction and dialogue, but overall, quite awesome! (The lesbian scenes aside, but I feel they attempted to try and make the audience feel sorry for them, but this can also subjectively carry those feelings outside of the film for people who are not well instructed about their faith.)
J
jdnation
Guest
Since it has been brought up, I’d like to mention some things about the so called homosexual persecution under the Nazis.
Many prominent members of the Nazi party and amongst the troops were homosexuals. (Some believe Hitler was also, but this has not been proven)
There was indeed a law in Germany before the war against homosexuality, but it was never enforced…
The Nazis kept this law as a convenient excuse to accuse any opponents of their regime (Many of whom were Catholic Priests) because it was convenient to accuse anyone of this crime and then lock them up.
Because many were homosexuals, the Nazis, being interested in the occult also admired the ancient Greek culture which tended to glorify the lifestyle as some interepreted it, and were angry that this Greek culture was eventually overtaken by Christian values that originated from the Jewish religion, thereby setting another precedent in their mind for persecution of the Jewish people and the undermining of the Christian faith in Germany with occultic and new age principles.
This and more is documented in the book ‘The Pink Swastika’ which I beleive is quite reliable though some critics feel some of it is entirely speculative. But for the most part it does expose the homosexual myth of persecution under the Nazis.
Many prominent members of the Nazi party and amongst the troops were homosexuals. (Some believe Hitler was also, but this has not been proven)
There was indeed a law in Germany before the war against homosexuality, but it was never enforced…
The Nazis kept this law as a convenient excuse to accuse any opponents of their regime (Many of whom were Catholic Priests) because it was convenient to accuse anyone of this crime and then lock them up.
Because many were homosexuals, the Nazis, being interested in the occult also admired the ancient Greek culture which tended to glorify the lifestyle as some interepreted it, and were angry that this Greek culture was eventually overtaken by Christian values that originated from the Jewish religion, thereby setting another precedent in their mind for persecution of the Jewish people and the undermining of the Christian faith in Germany with occultic and new age principles.
This and more is documented in the book ‘The Pink Swastika’ which I beleive is quite reliable though some critics feel some of it is entirely speculative. But for the most part it does expose the homosexual myth of persecution under the Nazis.
L
Libero
Guest
This is somewhat strange,
The ‘prominent officer’ you may be referring to is Ernst Rohm, he was actually arrested and killed following the Night of the Long Knives. Many of the homosexual members of his SA were also killed.
The Nazi party themselves made ammendments through the Reichstag changing policy on homosexuals (ensuring it was discriminative) and they were far less kind to them than the previously very open minded Weimar Republic was (it was actually one of the most liberal minded countries in the world at the time).
The Nazis vigorously enforced the anti homosexual law, and also made them do terrible work. It has been documented by War Historians that after Jews, homosexuals were the most likely group of people to die in a concentration camp - some statistics showing that it was three times more likely.
The ‘prominent officer’ you may be referring to is Ernst Rohm, he was actually arrested and killed following the Night of the Long Knives. Many of the homosexual members of his SA were also killed.
The Nazi party themselves made ammendments through the Reichstag changing policy on homosexuals (ensuring it was discriminative) and they were far less kind to them than the previously very open minded Weimar Republic was (it was actually one of the most liberal minded countries in the world at the time).
The Nazis vigorously enforced the anti homosexual law, and also made them do terrible work. It has been documented by War Historians that after Jews, homosexuals were the most likely group of people to die in a concentration camp - some statistics showing that it was three times more likely.
J
jdnation
Guest
You are correct. The anti-homosexual law was kept in place, however it was never enforced except to conveniently falsely accuse dissenters as homosexuals and place them in labor camps. The late Pope John Paul II had recalled how Catholic Priests were accused of being homosexuals, and one of the reasons he refused to believe about there being any problems with homosexuals in the priesthood and this unfortunately culminated into the scandal we know today. As well Jewish men who were prisoners in the camps recalled stories about how they were forced to perform sexual acts for Nazi guards. The Roehm Purge or ‘Night of Long Knives’ that you refer to is argued to actually be a front for another political agenda…
These are the arguments put forth in a non-PC book ‘The Pink Swastika’ that you can read online for free here:
abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/
If you view the HTML version it should pop up in a new window, use the left side menu to scroll down to and click on the section ‘The Persecution of Homosexuals’ . I recommend giving the entire book a read, it includes a bibliography. It’s free to download…
I should also mention that there were indeed some homosexuals that were persecuted by the Nazis, but there is a very strange issue surrounding that. The book will explain more about this…
L
Libero
Guest
Well I had a look, and I have to say I wasn’t all that impressed, not due specifically to the content, but due to the authors, and the praise they have for their book. Scott Lively seems very biased, as equally biased as one who would want to promote the gay cause. He is devoted to exposing homosexuals for something which they may not be, simply look at his work and life. Also, the praise seems very suspect, it is from sources who will evidently be against homosexuality - the comment “…Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams have done America a great service…” was a bit concerning, what is that meant to mean? The author is not an historian, in fact he is a lawyer, everything I have been taught in regards to interpreting documents in history is being contradicted here - I cannot take this book to be any form of absolute truth, the book is even avaliable for free, that doesn’t seem too good - but there are definetely some interesting points here.
P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread
J
jdnation
Guest
Yes, as I said, critics call the book speculative, but it does draw an interesting picture talking about things that others don’t want to take into consideration… I don’t think the fact that it is available for free online is a negative thing if they feel strongly about it to allow it to be distributed online, and it is available for purchase. Perhaps if you find the time to read it from the beginning, they lay down things that are brought up again later on…I cannot take this book to be any form of absolute truth, the book is even avaliable for free, that doesn’t seem too good - but there are definetely some interesting points here.
P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread
If you like, there is a criticism of the book here:
geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/
^However I will say that the critic also makes interpretation fo the Bible here and there that are laughably false and shows his ignorance of certain things… anyway I’ll trust you to be knowledgable on the subject. I’d be interested if you can offer me any criticisms etc. If we cannot continue to ‘hijack’ the thread, then please feel free to PM me anything you may find…
L
Libero
Guest
Thanks, I shall try and read them both by the weekend
M
MidnightSun02
Guest
“V for vile, vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous, and vomitaceous.” - Michael Medved.
Medved took the words right out of my mouth. I went with my boyfriend last night thinking that I’d be enjoying a good action film based off of a comic. Instead, I was so disturbed to the point where I wanted to get up and leave but I didn’t as my boyfriend bought the tickets. It turns out he felt the same way.
Here is the full review from Medved explaining the storyline…also explaining WHY it bothered, not only him, but me and my boyfriend as well:
michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/home.jsp
Medved took the words right out of my mouth. I went with my boyfriend last night thinking that I’d be enjoying a good action film based off of a comic. Instead, I was so disturbed to the point where I wanted to get up and leave but I didn’t as my boyfriend bought the tickets. It turns out he felt the same way.
Here is the full review from Medved explaining the storyline…also explaining WHY it bothered, not only him, but me and my boyfriend as well:
michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/home.jsp
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I must agree with Bones and others who find this another of the eminently avoidable movies that are foisted upon us in ever greater frequency. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy action movies with an agenda that forces me to think. Nothing wrong there. But what I appreciate even more profoundly is using the Lord’s money to bring about a greater holiness in my life and not using the Lord’s money to destract me from holiness.
I will not be seeing this movie because from every person’s review I know that this movie is far from inspiriting holiness, actually tears it down.
I don’t see why a Catholic Christian would waste the Lord’s money and time seeing movies like this…and especially so during Lent.
CDL
I will not be seeing this movie because from every person’s review I know that this movie is far from inspiriting holiness, actually tears it down.
I don’t see why a Catholic Christian would waste the Lord’s money and time seeing movies like this…and especially so during Lent.
CDL
F
Fitz
Guest
You know, I won’t see the movie either. Yet I know that there are many people that see films every weekend and they love films. It is just a movie and if an adult Cathoic is a movie lover, then it is fine if they see the movie. Many people find the need to get out and be able to talk about the latest movie and especially if there is controversy. I don’t think that an adult that has a strong faith can be altered by watching a movie. It is just a movie. I am glad I am not forced to watch these films.
- Status