Always Right Movie Review'dustries

This is a very timely movie, in my opinion. Set in a Phildickian world, where the United States government has fallen and England's government has turned to fascism, V for Vendetta is much more political in nature than most movies. However, don't let that scare you away from seeing this movie. In spite of (and because of) the politics, V for Vendetta still manages to entertain with amazing alliteration, excellent usage of the classical classic the 1812 overture, and some old fashioned British comedy, complete with gorillas and plenty of slipping on banana peels.

The story follows a terrorist who goes by the name V, whose goal is to fulfill Guy Fawkes' failed ambition to blow up the Parliament building on the 5th of November. Hoping to stir the souls of the people to resist their totalitarian government, he announces his plans to England one year in advance using the fascist government's TV station, which is piped into every home by law. In the midst of this, V saves a young woman named Evey from some corrupt government police who target her because she is out after the government mandated curfew. The rather interesting relationship between the always masked V and Evey plays a major role in the rest of the story arc.

Although the movie gets bogged down slightly in a couple of places due to some dialogue that is difficult to follow (although that may just be because I'm not British, and sometimes get distracted by the accent, or in Evey's [Natalie Portman] case, attempt at the accent), and a rather drawn out (in my opinion) tangent strongly supportive of homosexuality, the movie's story easily held my interest.

This is a timely film in a world where elected U.S. Senator Jim Bunning has stated "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead" and President Bush continues to allocate more and more unchecked power for the Presidency. Contrast this with founding father Patrick Henry's statement "Give me liberty or give me death." Even if you don't agree with such libertarian political ideas, I still encourage you to see the movie, if for no other reason than that this movie forces its audience to think which seems to be a rare thing indeed nowdays.

So who should see this movie? Anyone interested in the idea of liberty.
Who should not see this movie? Anyone who is easily offended, and cannot get past being offended.

Overall rank: Dominating

Some interesting V for Vendetta trivia:
This movie had, by far, the most uses of the word "bollocks" of any movie that I have seen.

Apparently, I need to take dancing lessons, because according to V, "A revolution without dancing, is a revolution not worth having!"

There have been an extremely limited number of movies that have interested me enough to cause me aggravation waiting for their slow march to the shelves of rental stores, but after I read In Cold Blood last year, it was a long and painful wait for the movie Capote to come out on dvd. Like the title character, I was inclined to say "It's torture, what they're doing to me..."

Of course, maybe what prompted Capote to say those words carried a little more emotional weight, as he was speaking of waiting seemingly endlessly to know the fates of two men on death row.

A little background for those who are not familiar: Truman Capote was one of the great American writers of the 2oth century. His works include the controversial 1948 bestseller Other Voices, Other Rooms, as well as Breakfast at Tiffany's, and of course In Cold Blood--the fascinating writing of which is the centerpiece of this movie.

Capote had a somewhat troubled childhood while moving around with his wandering mother until he was dropped in Alabama, where he was raised by his aunts for a while. By coincidence or fate he lived next door to, and became lifelong friends with, a certain woman named Nelle Harper Lee, another one of America's greatest writers who wrote a little novel you may have heard of called To Kill a Mockingbird. Capote then moved to New York, and attended the highly prestigious and historical private institution--the Trinity School. There he reportedly scored a 215 on the entrance IQ test.

Capote never attended college. He took a very low-level position at The New Yorker for a while before he published a short story that won the O. Henry Memorial Award. From this he received enough attention to be able to write and publish Other Voices, Other Rooms, and from there became a celebrity.

Capote--an open homosexual--quickly became one of New York's social elite: A flamboyant personality known for his lisping, high-pitched voice, outrageous dress, and wild mannerisms.

After this success he was working for The New Yorker as a writer, and Capote stumbled across an article in The New York Times that told of the apparently senseless slaying of a prominent family in a rural, western Kansas town called Holcomb. Something about the article struck Capote, and he convinced his editor to let him travel to Holcomb to write a story on how the killings had affected the community. What grew out of this seemingly random seed of inspiration is now part of literary history.

Suffice to say, a New York intellectual with the mannerisms of Capote stands out a bit in the extreme rural areas of the midwest, and perhaps causes a bit of distrust among the locals. Yet somehow Capote managed to find inroads into the very inner circle of the investigation into the killings headed by Alvin Dewey of the local law enforcement, and even managed to get his hands on the diary of the murdered family's teenage daughter from her best friend, and perhaps most importantly, when the killers were finally captured he secured nearly unlimited visiting rights while they languered on death row...and delved deeply into their minds and hearts.

Capote soon realized that he wasn't just going to be writing an article. He was going to be writing a book. And as he put it, he knew even before writing a single word that it would be so good that when he thought of it, he could "hardly breathe." After reading In Cold Blood, I would concede that he was not being inappropriately hubristic about the perceived quality of his future work.

Crucial to Capote's success in getting "in" with the people of Holcomb was his "research assistant": Harper Lee. She befriended, for example, the wife of Alvin Dewey, making it possible for Capote to write about the investigation. Without her down-to-earth personality to help win over the citizens of Holcomb for Capote, it is highly doubtful In Cold Blood could have been nearly as complete. Maybe it couldn't have been written. At any rate it was extremely interesting to me to compare Lee and Capote's journey with interesting episodes in the book, and at various points, go "Ah--so that's how he was able to find out about such and such..."

This movie is not about the story of In Cold Blood, even though the events depicted there serve as the backdrop. This movie of course is about Capote and the manipulative way he went about writing the novel and the effect it had on him. Central to the movie is his relationship with one of the killers: Perry Edward Smith. After Capote gained virtually unlimited visiting rights, he spent years with Smith and his accomplice Dick Hickock, and he manipulated Smith into divulging his innermost thoughts, as well as, eventually, the truth about what happened in the house of the murdered family on the night of their deaths-- and "why" they had been killed.

The crux of Capote, however, is the competing forces of empathy and ambition to glory. He empathizes with one of the murderers. While Capote talked with Smith, he began to feel something of a kinship with his ambitious, tortured soul. In the movie he says he feels as though he and Smith were brothers, and that Smith had gone out one door (poverty, poor relationships, and failed dreams) while he had gone out another (social, financial and literary success). At the same time he knows that his novel about him and the murders is going to be a classic. Thus, when Perry and his accomplice get a stay of execution, with the possibility they might go free, Capote finds it tortuous. He needs them to die so that the book can be finished. It can be argued that Capote "loves" Perry through his identification with him, but when Perry dies he will be happy--and from the movie it is definitely not because justice is served. He will be exulting that he himself can finally revel in glory by completing the great novel he envisions. These competing feelings wreak emotional havoc on Capote in the film and it is suggested that Capote's decline into drugs and alcoholism later in life was a result of his guilt.

Capote is an intense and subtle movie whose merits and instances of plot go far beyond what I have written here. There are some great bits of humor. At the premiere of the film adapted from To Kill a Mockingbird, Capote is subdued and withdrawn as he receives news that the killers have a stay of execution. He is unable to feel good about Harper Lee's moment in the spotlight. There's a well-acted scene between the two in which Lee is saddened about Capote's self-absorption but I also got the feeling of her being somewhat resigned to her friend's personality and identification with his similar artistic sensibilities. When she leaves him be, drinking alone at the bar, he says of the premiere to no one except himself "Frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about."

This is To Kill a Mockingbird we're talking about here. The film highlights Capote's narcissism.

Despite having what might be considered an ambition so ruthless as to be considered villainous, Capote, along with Harper Lee, are among my favorite writers. Therefore this movie was a pleasure to watch just to see these authors brought to life with such skill. Harper Lee could have been defined a bit more, I thought, but the actress, Catherine Keener (The 40-Year Old Virgin), probably did about the best possible job with the material. And In Cold Blood is probably my favorite book of all time--or at least it is neck-and-neck with one or two others. It is an example of what Capote termed a "new genre" he claimed to have invented: the non-fiction novel--journalism with a literary voice. Perhaps one reason In Cold Blood had such an impact on me is that I identified so closely with the community of Holcomb and its citizens--being from another midwestern agricultural town on the plains of very similar character. In fact, a brief look at a map shows that my hometown lies on almost the same line of longitude.

In Cold Blood examines the dichotomy of the world of American's "normal" middle-class, and America's dark and real underbelly. It is also a harrowing and poignant look into the nature and motivations of the two violent men glimpsed in Capote, and conclusions can be drawn as to the nature and motivations of American violence in general. It's not that we have to excuse murder, but we should try to understand it. In Cold Blood and To Kill a Mockingbird both do what writing should do, whether fiction or non-fiction: give people a greater comprehension of how the human world functions, even if it means taking a hard look at the uglier aspects of society and of ourselves. Then, just maybe, it helps things change for the better.

Capote is an excellent film concerning the story behind the book, but, perhaps obviously, it does not concern itself with the events of the book itself much beyond what is necessary for elucidating the nature of its title character. Only those who have read it will be able to pick up on the literary importance of the characters seen here outside of Truman and Lee. For example, the brief glimpse of the friend and boyfriend of the murdered teenaged daughter, or of the longer but incomplete look at Perry Smith. You get a feeling about why Truman empathizes with him, but unless you have read the novel you don't really know what Perry's story is. My suggestion is to read In Cold Blood first if you haven't already, then see this movie to get a deeper understanding of it.

For his portrayal of Truman Capote, Phillip Seymour Hoffman won the Oscar this year for best performance by an actor in a leading role, in addition to the Golden Globe, Critic's Choice, and Screen Actors Guild awards.

I hadn't even realized that this movie had been released in theaters letalone released to DVD when I walked into blockbuster last night. But there it was, the last copy on the shelf, wiating for me to rent it. It was fate, I tell you!

Good Night, and Good Luck is a historically based movie that focuses on the CBS newsroom, where Edward R. Murrow uses his program, See It Now, to confront Senator Joseph McCarthey. It is known that McCarthy used fear, falsehoods, and belligerence to gain power. He would turn his "Communist Hunt" towards anyone that questioned his methods. Edward Murrow did not backdown. He brought the truth to light and exposed McCarthey for what he was... a bully, a "big brother." At the time, the media was far more willing to keep things quiet... look at the light presidents were portrayed in prior to Richard Nixon. But Edward Murrow (and CBS) didn't hesitate to go after Joseph McCarthy and that makes him one of the greatest journalists ever.

Yahoo Movies shows many As and Bs for this film, but I am going to take the time to attack one particular review:

This film is a revisonist piece of left wing propagand that does nothing to convey the sense of immeninet communist invasion that the country felt at the time. It harps on the alleged excesses of Senator Mcarthy's crusade to root out communist infiltrators and does not acknowledge that the amount of communist sypathizers that actually were fereted out. Not only this, it does not show the chilling effect this campaign had on those that considered joining the reds. In a any fim that purports to be a relatively historical piece it is there duty to be fair nad balanced with the truth. This film is nothing more than a propaganda piece that trys to villfy the memory of a American patriot.

Number of communist sympathisers ferreted out?! An American patriot?! Edward Murrow and the movie, Good Night, and Good Luck, fought to protect civil liberties as much as anything. McCarthy's "witch hunt" spread slander without producing evidence. Sure he claimed to have this list and that list, but hard evidence was not produced. People lost their jobs without facing a trial. All for being communists? As Americans, we have the right to choose our political party. And you have the right to post your opinion. I applaud you for that, but take a look sir or madam at what you really believe in.

I have heard that the timing of this film is perfect. With Bush and his [smeagol accent] precious [/smeagol] Patriot Act, who is going to stand up to the plate? Bloggers? Actually, there are journalists taking a stand against it, but apparently they do not carry enough clout.

Some quotes from the movie can be seen here. Here is one that I enjoyed, Murrow on the subjuect of television:

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Okay, enough tangent ramblings ;)

This was an excellant film that should be shown in high school history (and maybe even journalism) classes across the nation. George Clooney and Grant Heslov, I applaud you!

I saw Leprechaun 4: In Space for one reason: because there was a review that said "NEVER, ever, under any circumstances watch this movie." And now that I have all I can say is NEVER, ever, under any circumstances watch this movie. Why? Look at the title.

Leprechaun...(okay, are you with me so far?)

In...SPACE!!!

On the cover of the video--I guess to make sure that we know that, yes, the leprechaun really is "In Space"--there is a picture of a moon landing complete with lander capsule and the American flag.

However, please ignore this misleading graphic if you were hoping for a historical fiction film. At no point in the movie is there any mention of the moon landing. At no point in the movie do the events depicted take place within at least 23,462,784,000,000 miles of the moon, and that is using the most generous estimation possible. Because the location of Leprechaun 4 is mostly in an orbit around an unknown planet orbiting an unknown star, if we were to select a star at random from anywhere in the universe, then there would be almost a 100% chance that at no time in the movie do any of the characters come within less than a working infinity of miles from the moon.

That is a long-ass way from the moon--even by God's standards. And, seeing as how the moon features prominently on the movie cover, infinity times seems to be an inordinate amount of times for the moon to not be mentioned within the movie itself.

So why in the nine hells is there a picture of a moon-landing on the cover?

It seems to me it would have taken a lot less work and made an infinity more amount of sense to put the Leprechaun's face on a black background and sprinkle it with a few white dots for stars and be done with it.

Okay, a bit of the "plot":

An Irish Leprechaun kidnaps the princess of some planet trying to get her to marry him so he can become a king. Marines drop in and rescue her after a gritty, balls-to-the-wall Leprechaun versus Space Marines firefight.

Yes--I said Leprechaun versus Space Marines firefight. Possibly the most authentic realization of future combat ever committed to film.

And you think a squad of heavily-armed Space Marines are any kind of match for an Irish Leprechaun? Think again. Based on what I saw the leprechaun apparently has two rather significant advantages going for him:

1.) He CANNOT DIE
2.) He can conjure ANYTHING into existence at ANY TIME ex nihilo

Now, normally a writer for the stage or screen is familiar with certain venerable dramatic principles, like don't have a character that both cannot die as well as conjure anything willy-nilly out of thin air at any time with no restrictions, because that would just be stupid...

But Leprechaun 4 plays by its own rules.

So the immortal all-conjuring leprechaun gets aboard the marines' ship to get back the princess, and fun ensues. Why this plotline involving an immortal all-conjuring leprechaun would take more than about five minutes to resolve itself is beyond my ken. Why aforementioned immortal all-conjuring leprechaun needed to marry a princess to gain power is beyond my ken. Why set designers in 1997 thought disco balls would still be a prominent feature of dance floors in the far-future is beyond my ken. A lot of things concerning this particular film are beyond my ken.

Truly, this movie has to be seen to be believed--but I don't recommend doing so.

Actually, I'm going to tone down the rhetoric a bit. If you are among the most daring and battle-hardened b-movie-watchers able to withstand quotes such as:

[German accent]
I am not Mitten-heim...
I am... MITTEN-SchPIDAH!!!

(spider)

...then you shall be rewarded because this film is indeed a laughfest pot of gold for those capable of adopting the appropriate mindset.

Oh, and the princess was pretty hot too:



Despite everything, if I look past the dialogue that makes The Hot Chick look like Hamlet (I am 100% serious), and if I look past the plot that made so little sense that it actually made a negative amount of sense and formed an anti-sense particle storm that set off a small sense explosion in my vcr by colliding with the postive sense particles in the normal universe, then I can see a film with a whole lot of potential. Ah, what Leprechaun 4: In Space could have been...

I guess there was a take-home lesson I got from all this:

Never...ever...under any circumstances, urinate on a leprechaun's corpse. That is for zombies. You have to desecrate the corpses of zombies, or they come back. Leprechauns are different. Write this down. If you confuse zombies and leprechauns in this regard, you are going to be in for one hell of a bad day. Think the Alien chestbursting scene, only, uh...

downstairs.