|
Directed by: James McTeigue Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, John Hurt IMBd posted:In a story where Germany won a future World War and Great Britain is now a fascist state, a masked vigilante known only as "V" conducts guerrilla warfare against the government. When he rescues a normal young woman (Portman), she joins his struggle against the forces of oppression... There are still a considerable amount of people out there who still don't take the comic book-movie genre seriously even after gems like Batman Begins and A History of Violence. Hopefully V for Vendetta will change the collective mind of that minority, because it's a truly fantastic film. On a technical level, the movie is near perfect. The fight scenes are great, but one of them in particular blew me away the final confrontation with Creedy and his men. The acting is pretty good: Hugo Weaving definitely brings alot of charm to the character, Natalie Portman is adequate, and both Stephen Rea and John Hurt are very good in their respective roles. The plot moves pretty slowly towards the middle, but I imagine that can be attributed to the pace of the graphic novel (which I haven't read). What I found most amazing about V for Vendetta was the poweful social and political messages conveyed by the film. I wouldn't be surprised if this film stirred up quite a bit of controversy, because the anti-government and pro-revolution sentiment is clear as day. While it's not outright telling people to revolt against their government, it urges them to question what their government tells them and take what they (as well as the mass media) say and do with a grain of salt. I don't consider myself a liberal or a radical by any means, but hell, the explosion sequence at the end was really effective. Overall, in terms of movies based on comic books, I'd certainly place V for Vendetta on the same echelon as Batman Begins. I'd say the action in Batman Begins is more entertaining, but V for Vendetta is a much more meaningful movie. RATING: 4.5 PROS: Powerful, socially conscious commentary disguised as an entertaining action flick CONS: Drags on a bit in the middle ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0434409/ Vernacular fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Mar 16, 2006 |
#
?
Mar 16, 2006 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
I would have liked it if they had stuck more to the comic book. The comic's creator has disowned the film, which says a lot about it's content. "Blowing up a building can change the world" is not what I would call socially conscious commentary either. There is nothing socially conscious about this movie. It is a movie about anarchy: if you are an anarchist & hate GW (it's aimed squarely at him), you'll love it. It's a basic two-star movie with some overblown yammering in the middle, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2006 17:49
|
|
|
Alan Moore disowning the film has less to do with the content (though he did pan the script) and more with Warner Bros/DC Comics "swindling" him out of creator rights. The illustrator, David Lloyd, is credited and has gone on the record saying more or less that Alan needs to lighten up. “V” has a lot going for and against it. The title character is a masked anarchist bent on overthrowing an oppressive government in an other-world Britain, where hammerlock nationalism grew out of dire threats of disease and war. He fights with knives and is Very Cool. It’s also a romance, as the masked “V,” played obscurely by Hugo Weaving (and if there's a way to distract the audience from "omg it's Agent Smith as V," putting a mask on the guy does the job) rescues a girl named Evey, played by Natalie Portman (who shows an emotional range enough to make you forget her as Padme in Star Wars.) The pair part ways and are reunited, both recognizing and showing a change in character even as V plots an explosive revolution. It’s also a psychological thriller and political criticism, not just of government, but with religious and sexual politics stuffed in the cracks, as V reveals all his motives and secrets behind his designs. It’s like Batman, Zorro, “Fahrenheit 451,” “1984” and “Count of Monte Cristo” all together. “V” is an American-made film, with a script by “Matrix” creators Andy and Larry Wachowski, directed by their colleague James McTeigue. But it’s a story set in Britain, with icons and symbols that might be unfamiliar to anyone who hasn’t visited London. Guy Fawkes, a real person who tried to blow up the British Parliament building at the turn of the 17th Century and whom V regards highly enough to emulate, might also be unfamiliar. Most importantly, though, “V” is a work of transgressive fiction — the sort made popular by novels like “Fight Club” and “American Psycho” in the late 1990s and severely missing today. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, these are the kinds of stories that book editors and movie producers threw off their desks, never to be read or seen by anyone. Small wonder then that “V” was first a comic book, and a 20-year-old one at that. Voted 4.V out of V. Excellent film. Go see it. Don't blow up nothin'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 03:07
|
|
|
This movie, whatever else it may be, is proof that Yakety Sax can't actually make everything funny. You can kind of see this coming, anyway, but when Evey's boss from the station did his uncensored bit making fun of the chancellor, set to Yakety Sax, I only laughed until I realized that he was absolutely, definitely, going to be tortured to death for it, and then it was terribly sinister. Perhaps it worked even better as ironically sinister music because of its status as a comedic cliche. It's definitely not the same as the comic book. V is still a freedom fighting anarchist, and Evey is still his protege, confidant, etc., but there are lots of details that are glossed over, and a few minor changes that I didn't like. Some of that can be chalked up to the change in medium. Other bits just seem silly, like how some of the people taking off Guy Fawkes masks at the end are ones who were tortured to death earlier. I understand the need for visual symbols in cinema, where it's not always possible to have a character or voice-over explain something, but some of the substitutions didn't really work. That having been said, I think that the spirit of it was consistent with the spirit of the original, and they were both really good, although I'd give the comic the edge. Just don't go expecting it to get the Sin City treatment, because it ain't so. I give this 4 out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 06:55
|
|
|
Technically perfect. Script was perfect or the nearest perfect I have ever seen. Subtly perfect. Plot - for a plot that was adapted from a graphic novel, I couldn’t expect anything better – I’m going to call it perfect. Social messages and inspiring rhetoric were incredibly effective. Contrasting traditional motifs against each other were also effective. The dynamic between Weaving and Portman was particularly magical. The character of V was incredibly dense, but it wasn’t crammed down your throat either - it wont down so smoothly you didn’t realize it till afterwards. Action sequences 10/10. In reference to the above comments about dragging in the middle: yes, it did, but I think it was a necessary pause for effect that allows the contrast to mature more, to gather force enough to be effective, and boy was it ever. Some of V’s soliloquy’s were nothing short of Shakespearean brilliance, although much should be attributed to the delivery. rating: 5.5 It may be because I just saw it but its the best movie i can call to my memory that i have ever seen, full stop. And I don’t even think I’m out on a limb with this. ilshur fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Mar 18, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 07:08
|
|
|
Somewhat formulaic, but after Ultraviolet, this is loving amazing. Technically superb, though, and really engrossing. I'm going to see it at least once (already got tickets for Saturday matinee), if not twice more in theaters. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 07:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Somewhat formulaic, but after Ultraviolet, this is loving amazing. Technically superb, though, and really engrossing. I'm going to see it at least once (already got tickets for Saturday matinee), if not twice more in theaters. 4.5/5 ANYTHING (mostly anything) is amazing after Ultraviolet. I can't say more then what has already been said here, but I can say that I left the theater with a pretty good feeling. Y'know that tingly feeling you only get from a really good movie? That one. The story was excellent, effects likewise, acting for the most part (Natalie Portman's false british accent was a bit grating), and the whole movie was well worth the money. I say so far one of the best mainstream films of 2006 (but when you got Ultraviolet to compete with... come on) 4.5/5 EDIT: Some grammar. Maxiu fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 17, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 07:41
|
|
|
I loved the comic. Coincidentally I loved the Wachowski Brothers thematic interpretation of the comic. Without giving anything away, I will simply state that the movie ran 2hours and 15mins, and not a minute was wasted. The script cleverly and consciously cut-out and condensed certain parts from the comic that were necessary for a thematic adaption. When I went into the film, I was expecting to be let down by a poor, comic to movie run-of-the mill, adaptation. I feared that a highly complex and brilliant comic would suffer when it was brought to life on the big screen. I was wrong! The message was not lost, and any fellow fan of the book would surely appreciate this movie. I give it a 4.5/5 Great movie! And for those who have not read it, you might need to see it twice because a lot of things happen fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 08:24
|
|
|
My sweet merciful God. I went into the theater expecting an above average comic book flick. I must say, that this has been one of the best movies I've seen in many years. I haven't left the theater with so much joy and feeling in my life. I felt more after this movie than when I saw Munich--my favorite film from '05. I knew we'd be in for a ride after the first five minutes. After the 1812 Overture started playing I felt all warm inside. I honestly can't pick this movie apart and analyze it because I demand that you go see it yourself. Just know that it's a perfect mix of emotions and insane story. This is George Orwell's story put on film, except ten times more horrifying. And oh my the Guy Fawks plot was awesome. I loved the whole poem and the fact that the whole movie was based after this subscript in a history book (or maybe just a US history book). 5.5 loving amazing. Makes me want to stand up and rebel against something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 08:50
|
|
|
johnnybgood1234 posted:Makes me want to stand up and rebel against something. Ha, that line just about sums it up. Best rebellion movie right behind The Matrix and Star Wars. Great Wachowski dialogue, awesome directing (Can't wait to see what McTeigue's got next). 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 12:12
|
|
|
This was an amazing film, I am speechless because I cannot think of any flaws. I have never read the graphic novel nor do I know the original story but I am going to look at it completely aside from that. (Even though this film has sparked an interest and I shall be picking up the comic soon enough.) Amazing. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 19:15
|
|
|
The movie honestly had me in rapt attention (minus anytime I noticed Natalie's absolutely wretched British accent), until the bullet time knife fight. Then it lost me completely and I wasn't able to get back into it again. Why must everything now happen in slow-mo? I am still disappointed they couldn't find a decent British actress to play Evey. Also, the love story felt tacked on and I really don't think it was necessary. Overall, 3/5. It entertained me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 22:42
|
|
|
Forumulaic. I had high hopes for this film, but it quickly breaks down into a Bruce Willis style action flick with excessive CG and special effects overdoses. If a good action flick is what you're into it entertains, but it far from subservise or politically/socially insightful in any way. The fact that the original comic writer refused to have anything to do with it was a bad sign, but I was still expecting more than yet another action flick. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 22:53
|
|
|
I haven't read the novel yet, but I loved this movie. It takes a lot to get me to go to the movie theater, especially on the opening day of a popular movie, but I'm glad I did. The thing that struck me about the movie was the attention to detail. Little things, like the dilated pupils of the Chancellor's eyes were powerful, and make me want to see the movie again. I loved the music. I loved the TV news clips. Aside from a couple of quibbles with the ending, this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. Junky posted:I was still expecting more than yet another action flick. Really? I really don't like action movies and I didn't see it that way at all. There were a few fight scenes, but most of the movie wasn't "action." kurupi fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 17, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 23:07
|
|
|
The dialogue was enough to make me happy with this movie. I'm glad I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 01:08
|
|
|
This was one of the best movies that I have seen in quite a while, which is partly due to the fact that almost every recent movie has sucked a significant amount of cock. However, V for Vendetta was an incredibly welcome change of pace. The movie, like others have pointed out, is a wonderful mesh of a comic-book action movie, 1984, and Sin City. The action sequences are very well done, even though the bullet-time knife fight at the end seemed a tad out of place, yet after the scene beforehand, it worked well enough. Hugo Weaving is one of the few actors whose voice alone makes him a glorious actor. The dialogue is both written and delivered perfectly, and V's entrance was absolutely amazing. Really, I don't even know what to say. There was so much of this movie that I just loved, and the only part that was even remotely disinteresting was the middle where we watch Natalie Portman get tortured for a while. In any case, you owe it to yourself to go see this movie. Rating: 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 03:27
|
|
|
While certain deviations from the graphic skewed my opinion, as I expect it will for those who have also read it, the movie is exceedingly well done with visually impressive sequences that warrant a trip to the theatre. The dialouge is very good and much of the movie is not actually action. It's a strong film with a level of quality in make that hovers around Fight Club. I rated this a 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 03:31
|
|
|
Just got home from watching the movie. It was very good! The script was amazing, the dialog was well spoken, the acting was consistantly well done, the bad guys were easy to hate yet easy to understand, and there were some nice explosions. Everything you need in a good movie is here. 5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 04:38
|
|
|
I wish I watched this movie a bit more seriously. Throughout the film I was shouting in my head "Oh come on, that wasn't in the comic!" or "Hey! What's with this scene?" when I should have been watching it for the movie that it was. I advise anyone who has not yet read the comic to wait until after they've seen the film to do so and anyone who already should just forget about it and watch the movie. As far as the film goes, it's great and definitely worth a see. The action adn dialouge are great, and the acting pleased me as well. I love Hugo Weaving in whatevers he's in. He's just got this strange charm that even shines through when he's wearing a mask. Natalie Portman was solid as well, and any incidental characters were solid. The fight scenes were excellent as well, although a little out of place it seemed to me. The final scene was fantastic as well. Although different from the book it was still enough to get me excited. Totally sweet explosion, too. I'll give it a 4.5/5. The -.5 is me venting the inner comic nerd who was hoping for a more faithful adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 05:09
|
|
|
A few other have pointed out that this deviated from the comic - in my mind, the adaptation toned down much of the anarchist philosophy, and removed some of the depth to the V character, and the relationship between him and Evey. However, I think it came out quite well, I am impressed, and I really enjoyed it. I am saddened that the modern adaptations to some of the themes will make people think this is an "antibushlol" movie instead of something a bit more intelligent and complex. I loved it, the lines/dialogue were excellently delivered, natalie portman stunned me, and the cinematography was impressive. 5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 05:23
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with the comic and only went to this movie because someone else took me. The positive: The last 20 minutes were cool. I enjoyed those special effects and the music. Stephen Rhea is a good actor. The negative: Really slow start. The first half of the movie was excruciatingly boring. Additionally, I was not very moved by the plot or message of this film. Everything was really heavy-handed and obvious. If you are 14 and just starting to understand corruption in the world, maybe you'll find this politically insightful. To me, it was just the same old dystopian, cliché view of the future. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 05:27
|
|
|
First let me state, that this film is mislabeled as "action" in the thread title. The film was anything but a true action film. I honestly think this is probably the best film that I've seen in at least the last two years, the best comic book adaptation that I've seen yet, and perhaps the only film that surpasses its literary source material. I hated the plots of both Matrix sequels and was very leery of Wachoskis' scripting skill, but they did a perfect job of cutting the fat, and keeping to the original theme of Moore's work (speaking of which, Moore really needs to quit being such a generalizing, pompous rear end about the medium of film and accept when someone does a fine adaptation of his work), which was not anti-government or pro-anarchy, but rather an attempt to be an eye-opener about the dangers of a complacent, government-fearing society. My only complaint about the film was the insanely ludicrous v-word-laden ramblings that V used during his first encounter with Evey. 5.5/5 - a pleasant surprise, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 05:35
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, Alan Moore didn't like From Hell and League of Extrordinary Gentlemen because they sucked but he doesn't like V for Vendetta because he is jealous. This was one of the best films I've seen in years. Fantastic action sequences, beautiful cinematography, amazing acting, and a powerful script that stayed true to the ideas behind the graphic novel but made them both cinematic and (IMO) more realistic. Almost all of the changes made to the source material made the characters more believable and the circumstances less silly. I really liked the graphic novel, but I love the film. V.V/V
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 06:01
|
|
|
This person doesn't understand the forum
Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 18, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 06:37
|
|
|
I enjoyed it greatly and aside from some comic book nerd rantings it was ok. The V monologue at the beginning and the love thing at the end made me groan. Fortunately the first was quickly washed away with a touch of comedy and the other ended mercifully quick. My one biggest gripe is that evey didn't actually take up V's mask at the end, which I thought was very symbolic. Anyways, definately worth the price of admission whether you read the graphic novel or are needing to. 5/5 And to kurupi: I do believe there is some debate as to whether V was gay in the graphic novel. It seemed to me that it might be a kinda subtle hint at the same thing. Or that they were both cut from the same cloth and just happened to be so alike. I agree further fleshing out would have been nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 07:27
|
|
|
Oneironaut posted:My only complaint about the film was the insanely ludicrous v-word-laden ramblings that V used during his first encounter with Evey. I could be wrong, but my friend told me he was shooting off all the chapter titles (which all began with a V word) from the book. So in that respect I think it's pretty neat. Anyways, the second V opened his mouth, I couldn't stop smiling. I looked forward to every line of his dialog and I don't think I've ever felt so charmed by someone's speech before. It really made me think about why Shakespeare's language is so powerful. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 10:53
|
|
|
Great movie, even the bullet time knife fight with the Soul Calibur trails failed to tarnish it. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 11:28
|
|
|
Voted 4.5/5 for this very good movie and its really important message. "The people should not have to be afraid of the government!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 13:04
|
|
|
I found V for Vendetta to be entertaining, but not much else. First, the good: Hugo Weaving is great as V. Pretty much everything he says and does is gold. The only things I can complain about as far as his character is concerned are the long v-themed monologue he gives early in the movie, and the OH LOOK DEATHBED SPEECH LOVE CONQUERS ALL ETC. at the end. Natalie Portman does a good job in this film, and I hated the poo poo out of her Star Wars performances. Her accent is a little... uh... I don't know what it's supposed to be, actually. But that aside, she does a good job as Evey. The action was good. It had some good supporting performances, and individual scenes were often quite effective. Now, for the bad: The movie is really...obvious. It never surprises you, except maybe V tortures Evey, and she comes to accept it, except you recognize V's voice immediately, whoops. The movie goes in circles in a really obvious way. CUE THE MUSIC, YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE A SCENE MUCH LIKE THE ONE YOU SAW 20 MINUTES AGO! Evey hiding under the bed while somebody gets beat up, for instance, or just showing V standing in the flames over and over, or almost the same death camp footage over and over, or the ending being like the beginning, or... or... . Now, there is nothing wrong with doing that per se, but it reached the point where I'm sitting there thinking, "How long until they repeat what I just saw in a slightly different way to try to look profound?" It was distracting and didn't actually accomplish much. It also goes for cool images and "symbolism" at the expense of any kind of semblance of reality. HURR EVEY UR THE DOMINO HURR, 80,000 Guy Fawkes masks, a barbecued nut having about $1,000,000,000 to spend on terrorism.... Sure, it looks neat and all, but it isn't even plausible in the context of an internally consistent comic book story. I wasn't looking for realism, but I would have liked some attempt to make things make some kind of sense, instead of just being there to look cool and/or "meaningful." The supposed political commentary of this movie is comically simplistic, no pun intended. They made the government so extravagantly, one-dimensionally evil that V's one-man war against it isn't remotely thought-provoking. Not one unarmed civilian dies because of V. Tons of explosives, and we don’t see one innocent person get blasted! There is literally no ambiguity at all. The High Chancellor is a scenery-chewing nut who imitates Hitler, right down to aping his gestures while giving histrionic speeches with red-and-black flags in the background. V might as well have been fighting Darth Vader or Zombie Stalin or something. You've got people going HURR BUSH HURR all over this movie from both ends (the right to condemn it, the left to cheer it), and in my view both are full of poo poo. This movie doesn't make any attempt to explain how more or less democratic governments get bad leaders in real life. In fact it says almost nothing about what is wrong with real-life governments, it just arbitrarily jumped from Tony Blair to Limey Hitler with a lame blink-and-you'll-miss-it "explanation" involving biological warfare, a lot of dead people and saying God a lot. Yeah, man, rage against the machine, because the government sucks just like these movie cartoon Nazis, maaan! Except, not really. I would have liked a movie where the bad guys felt more like real-world politician assholes that are loving things up, and less like absurd moustache-twirlers, where every single bad guy you meet was in the Brit SS and a drug millionaire and... and... was REALLY OBVIOUSLY BAD :loleyes: x1,000,000. V was a terrorist, sure. Ooh, scary! Except that they made him a terrorist against the Galactic Empire, uh, I mean Ingsoc, er I mean UK fascist death camp operators who used bio-weapons on cute little kids! And his collateral damage is apparently zero. Wow, how thought provoking! Whoops, not really. Yes, I "get" the movie... because there isn't that much to get. As an action film, its pacing is off and it has some lame Matrix-y action especially at the end, but is otherwise pretty fun. As a political statement it has been watered down to the point where it is about as edgy as a bar of soap. 3/5, because Hugo Weaving's V is a lot of fun, and the movie does have fun moments. But its alleged profundity is a complete joke. EDIT: Added some more spoiler tags. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Mar 18, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 15:01
|
|
|
I'd never read the source material and had only a basic understanding of the characters and plot going in... it didn't really live up to my expectations, I thought it was pretty mediocre. Why the hell does V need a generic superhero origin story? That was one of the unfortunate parts to me, V didn't feel like one character but a muddy composition of three or four different ones. I wanted it to be grittier, bloodier, and more meaningful. Some of it is quite silly, in fact. One of the Chancellor's early rallies is a Nazi gathering with modified symbols, and it's quite campy. It looks like the hammer-nazi rally from The Wall. Natalie Portman's acting, as it always does, alternates between quite good and quite bad. Despite all this, the action is very entertaining, and the backdrop is fun if a bit flawed. 3.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2006 18:00
|
|
|
I liked this movie a hell of a lot; V's dialogue, the sparing use of action, the count of monte christo inspired plot. Unfortunately a number of things kept this from being something I would buy on dvd, or bother seeing twice. 1) Natalie Portman's "british" accent. Maybe they should have included a subplot where in the future all brits have screwed up accents because of some terrorist accent destabilizing virus. 2) The "coalition of the willing" flag. This just pissed me off, why would a british/american flag with a swastica imposed on it be a prised possession of one of the more sympathetic characters? Wow, that took a lot of balls to print to film, I'm sure; way more than it would take to toss in a cartoon image of Mohammed. 3) Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. Several shots are shown over and over. Several scenes are carbon copies. No wonder the movies took two loving hours when it could've been one and a half. 4) Enough with the gay poo poo. If I wanted to see brokeback mountain, I would have seen that instead of seeing Munich twice. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 00:16
|
|
|
Well Acted. Terrific Symbolism And Visuals. Darker Than Batman, Better Than Matrix Reloaded& Revolutions, And Hugo's Little Speech In The Begining Where He Speaks Using Mainly Words Starting In "V" Was Sweet. 4.5/5 by the way, what is the name of the song played during the finale...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 03:19
|
|
|
I voted, so therefore I must say why. I have never felt the urge to talk about a movie I saw on these board before but I felt I had to with this one. This movie had butterflys in my stomache for about the last hour. It moved me in a way no other movie has ever done. It made me think about the establishment, made me think about my life, and best of all, made me want to change something. This movie isn't for everyone though. There are quite a few references to the way things are going in the current presidency right now like the subtle avian bird flu thing where everyone soffed and said bollocks like the wachowskis were saying this bird flu thing is like the wizard of oz, pay no attention to the middle eastern contry behind the curtain, check out this flu thats killing birds, and like two really old chinese guys. If you are prone to outbursts during political discussions, and very passionate about politics, this may not be the movie for you, regardless I say everyone needs to see it. It's an important commentary on how gays, and ethnic groups are treated today in our society and is a rather grim look into the future and past we hold should we continue to hate things we don't understand. I felt that the movie although was not long enough, I didn't like some of the things they cut out like The scene where he shows the commander through the reconstruction of the concentration camp he set up but I guess it was to lend to the surprise at the end I guess. Though above and beyond everything else, I thought this was one of the best adaptations I have ever seen of comic to movie, and even though they stray far from the original material at times. They kept what was important about the story in tact. This is was the BEST movie I have ever seen. The teen punk in me wanted to jump up and scream time and time again. Viva la revolution! 5.5/5 PS: sorry if this review was self important and blowhardy. I just had to get all that out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 04:47
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this and it was goddamn awesome. Fight scenes were great, loved the story/plot etc. Natalie Portman was great in it, as was Hugo Weaving. Kicked all sorts of rear end, 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 05:11
|
|
|
I thought this film was really well done. As a huge fan of Alan Moore and the original novel, I was not disappointed by the way they handled the story here. They made everything much more relavent to today's political and social climate while keeping the spirit of the original story intact. I, too, was moved to get up and fight for something after this film (instead, I went to a bar and had a few beers). Oh, and it worked pretty well as an action movie. The acting was good all around, Hugo Weaving was fanastic, and the visual style of the film was great. Certainly the best movie I've seen so far this year. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 06:16
|
|
|
Never even heard of the comic before this movie, but I sure am interested in reading it now. This movie wasn't perfect, but definitely a total blast. Some fun, uncommon action, great visuals, gritty story, witty dialog, and very solid acting. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 06:17
|
|
|
In the words of that one general whose name I have already forgotten in the blur of awesome this movie was, "Jesus bloody Christ." Seriously, blur of awesome. The respect for the source material was visible, and yet they weren't slaves to it. Prothero as Bill O'Reilly of the future worked well, Hugo Weaving was an excellent V, and seeing Valerie's letter on film moved me closer to tears than I really want to admit. They even managed to sneak in Storm Saxon! Those of you who only care about action won't be disappointed either. Only a few real scenes, but they are more than worth it. I am using V's "I can kill them all before you reload" line in the next Exalted game I play once I figure out how to adapt it. That was the DEFINITION of a three-die stunt. (Nerding out over.) If you haven't seen it, do so. If you have, see it again. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 06:41
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this and I was disappointed. From the reviews here, I expected something more than what I got. This movie rehashes the same tired themes of governmental oppression in a not-so-distant future that we've seen before in this film's betters. It then takes those themes and combines them with a superhero movie about on par with fantastic four. Well, maybe not that bad, but it's not very good. Hugo Weaving, to his credit, does a very good job acting behind a mask. His lines are delivered in a singing, lyrical manner that tend to show off a lot of his talent with words. He really nailed making a masked character come alive, and for that, this movie is somewhat redeemed. Natalie Portman's performance, however, is uninspired. If Portman hadn't been in this movie at all, then I don't think it would have been any the worse. Natalie Portman was basically playing the role of Natalie Portman: marketing material. The narrative was delivered in a very patronizing way. Characters make huge logical leaps that are cleary only in place to move the story along. It's like that one episode of Southpark, where a scientist faced with fixing an imminent global crisis has an epiphany and says, "wait a minute...BUTTSEX!" and proceeds to derive the solution to the world's problems from this completely unrelated topic. I've seen the action portions of this movie a million times before. Karate, knife throws, stabbing some people, slashing some people, yada yada. Ultimately my biggest complaint is that the movie didn't really respect reality. The big evil government didn't feel big and evil enough. The characters were impossible to empathize with for the most part. They do things for unclear motives and you aren't sure why you should care. Just...dumb. Pros: Huge Weaving, ok music Cons: dumb 2.0/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 07:27
|
|
|
One of my all time favorite books is The Phantom of the Opera. One of my favorite characters is Erik the Opera Ghost. Even if not intentional, I felt that V For Vendetta did a very good job of modernizing and globalizing a character very similar to the Erik, without it coming off as cheesey or trite. There were some themes that I didn't really care for. The whole "hurrr America caused this and someone who was conservative and relgious (therefore automatically evil) is the bad guy" thing I could've done without (or they could've at least pointed out that any doctrine taken to its extreme is pretty lovely). All in all though, that wasn't enough to make me not like the movie quite a bit. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Got back from seeing this on Friday and was disappointed ... I thought V for Vacuous would be a better title. I have never read the comic book and had no idea what to expect; to be honest I hadn't even heard of the film, it was a friend who convinced me to go. It began OK with the retelling of the Gunpowder Plot, but my first what the hell moment was when V started regurgitating the "V" pages of the dictionary to Evey and from then found it hard to take the movie seriously. And I don't know the last time that I heard a British person say "telly", drat it. Bloody and bollocks maybe, but not telly! I got the distinct impression that the Wachowski Brothers have played Half Life 2 - "London" felt very much like City 17 with it's generic soldiers and big screen TVs with the talking head and shoulders. I also got whiffs of the Illuminatus Trilogy, fnord. Natalie Portman is hot, yes. But she can't do an English accent - most of the time she sounded South African to me! There are a few plot points that got to me as well, I'll put them in spoilers in case someone hasn't seen it yet: When Evey is hiding under the bed in Stephen Fry's house. She sees the government beat the poo poo out of Fry and haul him out, so immediately JUMPS OUT THE WINDOW where presumably the police will be leaving the house. Why didn't she wait to hear that they had actually left? Where did V get 100,000 Guy Fawkes masks from? Everyone in England knows that there is a terrorist that wears a Guy Fawkes mask about. What did the supplier think "hey orders for guy fawkes masks are up this year, there must be a big party!!" Why was Stephen Fry alive at the end wearing a mask? I thought he was killed off for keeping a Quran? I expect it was some symbolism that I didn't get ... overthrowing the government brings people back to life?! I don't know, maybe I'm taking this too seriously. It was the first movie that I've heard the audience applaud in, and I really couldn't understand why. I suppose the fight scenes were cool (especially at the end, that was great) and I liked the music, but come on... in my opinion it was just a generic action movie pretending to be clever when it really wasn't. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 14:00
|
|