Post by Storm on Mar 28, 2006 20:44:26 GMT
I saw this odd film, based on an 80's comic strip, the other day. It's one of those scary dystopias, where the UK of twenty years in the future is ruled by a brutal right-wing Government that suppresses all opposition. One gifted warrior, who is only ever seen dressed in a Guy Fawkes outfit, emerges to start a rebellion against the Government, and announces he will destroy the Houses of Parliament on November the 5th 2026.
In terms of the overall scenario, it was really just Nineteen Eighty-Four redrafted for the post-Margaret-Thatcher era. Don't get me wrong, it's still enthralling for all that, it's just after I watched it I got the feeling I saw it all last time I watched Blake's 7.
I think the acting was quite dodgy, at least in the first half an hour. As Evey, Natalie Portman does a passable English Rose accent, but she can't quite get the manner of an English girl right; in emotional moments Evey sounds very American in the force she puts into her lines, even though the accent sounds English.
Similarly, some of the dialogue isn't written too carefully. The writers have done the right thing in as much as the colloquial slang is British rather than American, but there's still too much of it and written with the kind of forcefulness you'd get in L.A., not in London. People are saying, "Damn it!" at the tops of their voices far too often to be Brits. It's clear in the early stages of the movie that some of the actors are feeling a bit awkward, although they seem to get used to it eventually.
Top acting credits go to John Hurt (has he ever acted badly in his life?), and to Stephen Fry for proving he really can do a serious role if he puts his mind to it.
Also credit for the will-they-won't-they? romance between Evey and Agent V. Very moving.
Being a serious history buff, I have to make a few grumbles about the opening scene...
At the beginning there was a portrayal of Fawkes' arrest in 1605, but it was painfully inaccurate. (This was probably just for dramatic effect, but it always makes me uneasy when movies falsify historical events.) They had him arrested while he was carting the powder into Parliament's cellars, when in truth he'd gotten that done weeks earlier, they had him resisting arrest by drawing a sword and fighting the palace guards, when in truth he surrendered straight away and tried to bareface his way out of it by claiming to be 'John Johnson', and when he was hanged, there was no sign whatsoever that he'd been through days of blood-curdling torture.
Folks, don't watch this film if you want a history lesson!
But do watch it if you're looking for insightful entertainment, there's no denying it does a fair job of that.
In terms of the overall scenario, it was really just Nineteen Eighty-Four redrafted for the post-Margaret-Thatcher era. Don't get me wrong, it's still enthralling for all that, it's just after I watched it I got the feeling I saw it all last time I watched Blake's 7.
I think the acting was quite dodgy, at least in the first half an hour. As Evey, Natalie Portman does a passable English Rose accent, but she can't quite get the manner of an English girl right; in emotional moments Evey sounds very American in the force she puts into her lines, even though the accent sounds English.
Similarly, some of the dialogue isn't written too carefully. The writers have done the right thing in as much as the colloquial slang is British rather than American, but there's still too much of it and written with the kind of forcefulness you'd get in L.A., not in London. People are saying, "Damn it!" at the tops of their voices far too often to be Brits. It's clear in the early stages of the movie that some of the actors are feeling a bit awkward, although they seem to get used to it eventually.
Top acting credits go to John Hurt (has he ever acted badly in his life?), and to Stephen Fry for proving he really can do a serious role if he puts his mind to it.
Also credit for the will-they-won't-they? romance between Evey and Agent V. Very moving.
Being a serious history buff, I have to make a few grumbles about the opening scene...
At the beginning there was a portrayal of Fawkes' arrest in 1605, but it was painfully inaccurate. (This was probably just for dramatic effect, but it always makes me uneasy when movies falsify historical events.) They had him arrested while he was carting the powder into Parliament's cellars, when in truth he'd gotten that done weeks earlier, they had him resisting arrest by drawing a sword and fighting the palace guards, when in truth he surrendered straight away and tried to bareface his way out of it by claiming to be 'John Johnson', and when he was hanged, there was no sign whatsoever that he'd been through days of blood-curdling torture.
Folks, don't watch this film if you want a history lesson!
But do watch it if you're looking for insightful entertainment, there's no denying it does a fair job of that.
