it was a good movie overall but its sorta long (2 hrs+). THe movie is very heavy on philosophy. 75% of the movie is more or less dedicated to that. The rest is dedicated to the fighting. I gave it a B on Yahoo.

Saddys - go see it, I recon you'll dig it. Im keen to hear your thoughts on it.

.... England will prevail......

Hugo Weaving is amazing, brilliant. The plot: Subversive. The film manages to mostly succeed in the disturbing goal of making the audience root for the futuristic terrorist "Guy Fawkes". Be prepared to be made uncomfortable. (for example, i wouldn't recommend it to the guy I know who escaped from the WTC).

My only complaint: Gets a bit heavy handed and simplistic (the writers fault?) . The acting is really good , and the atmosphere chilling, a scary view of the not too distant, and not too implausible future. Modern day twilight zone feel.

Thanks for the heads up lexxrobotech, lizard.

I guess we should take a look :)

I enjoyed it, def worth a view

I didn't get all wound up or clench the teeth like I think a movie like this is trying to do, nor was it long conversation worthy after....

but then again, maybe i'd have to be British?

Oh no they blew up the Canadian parlimentary buildings! Oh wait, that's cool...did they get the PM?
No? Damn......now there will be more taxes for the re-build....

*please ignore newbie bumpin' old threads*

Maybe I'm just too puritanical, but this was a disappointing adaption, IMO. The graphic novel is one of those life-changing kinda deals, and Natalie Portman's portrayal made me want to gouge my eyes out. :shock: I thought Hugo Weaving was pretty good tho.

I agree: Natalie Portman was the worst in the movie but the rest was pretty dang good.