Ya think? Film review Message delivered There's no mistaking the political statement in V for Vendetta, in which the hero is also a terrorist. By Steve Persall Published March 16, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta is the boldest political statement against the Bush administration since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even Michael Moore wouldn't prescribe bombing government facilities as a cure for dubious leadership. A futuristic setting in England doesn't disguise the film's rabid intent. James McTeigue's movie will be branded as irresponsible, even dangerous, by some viewers, although if the past in any indication, the ones who don't see it will yowl loudest. All those knee-jerk critics need to know is that the film's hero is a terrorist. V for Vendetta audaciously proposes that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and the difference between good and evil is mostly semantic. The film is based on a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd; the book was released in 1989 to protest the political atmosphere of the Margaret Thatcher years. The plot has been reworked to post-9/11 sensibilities by Andy and Larry Wachowski, who wrote their first draft before The Matrix made them famous. Alan Moore has distanced himself from the production; an adapted dud such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can make an author skittish. Or perhaps he guessed a firestorm lay ahead and didn't want to answer for other authors' ideas. The Wachowski brothers are notoriously reclusive, making this a cut-and-run protest of sorts. V for Vendetta will reignite those claims of disconnect between the film industry and the real world that George Clooney eloquently doused at the recent Academy Awards. The movie begins with a flashback to 1605 when Guy Fawkes unsuccessfully conspired to blow up Parliament, and was captured and executed. "Remember, remember, the fifth of November,'' the poem begins. But people have forgotten by 2019 when a mysterious figure wearing a cape and eerie Fawkes mask plots an explosive reminder. Hugo Weaving "Agent Smith'' in the Matrix trilogy wears the mask throughout the film, yet his elocution of the Wachowskis' rich, rebellious dialogue creates a fuller character than expected. He calls himself V, explained with delirious alliteration to Evey (Natalie Portman), whom he rescues from a trio of lecherous government goons. V takes Evey to a rooftop to witness his masterpiece, blowing up the Old Bailey courthouse on Nov. 5, 2019, to protest a totalitarian regime. She becomes his accomplice, both pursued by grim inspector Finch (Stephen Rea). V vows to complete Fawkes' mission and blow up Parliament on Nov. 5, 2020. The screenplay stacks the cards in V's favor, with vaguely familiar polemics about strength, unity and faith in God spouted by blustery Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt) and a TV commentator ranting like Bill O'Reilly. Color-coded curfews keep dissent down; the media is a spin-control tool; and a Ministry of Objectionable Materials hides books, works of art, even a jukebox from citizens. Possessing a copy of the Koran is reason for execution, lumping Muslims into the same undesirable group with homosexuals and anyone who disagrees. "The security of this nation depends upon complete and total compliance,'' Sutler says, and we're urged to hiss. Such words speak much louder than violent actions in V for Vendetta. This is a film about ideas, not entirely popular ones, that could topple a government faster than bombs if enough people took them to heart. The finale of McTeigue's movie, when V's vendetta spreads to the masses, is so revolutionary that I wondered how this movie ever got made, much less distributed by a major studio (in this case, Warner Bros.). Does it endorse terrorism? Not as much as it decries politicians using fear to rule. More semantics. The future, the film loudly declares, is now. Steve Persall can be reached at (727) 893-8365 or persall@sptimes.com. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/16/Weekend/Message_delivered.shtml
Saw it tonight. I liked it for the most part, but i'm still trying to figure out why all movies usually end up about politics one way or the other. I wasn't expecting that.
freaking incredible movie, this movie will do things like All The Presidents Men, etc did, wow freakin wow, amazing!
i saw it again tonight and it was still great. there were no parts where i was just hoping to move through to a more exciting part of the movie, it still seemed as fresh as the first time i saw it. i'll probably go see it again just to see the ending again.
It was good movie but I hate how the slanted it. . IT IS NO WHERE NEAR AS GOOD AS THE COMIC BOOK I see Why Alan Moore hated it Rocket River
SLIGHT SPOILERS The Homosexual angle was not in the book from what I recall neither the woman in the cell next to Portman nor The guy she hooked up with were homosexuals During the great round up of people for LarkHill they only show homosexuals getting rounded up While they were trying to portray V as a virtual Anyman they only/primary abused minority seems to be homosexuals The throw away line about Gordon i think [the talk show host] having a koran . . .was kind of meaningless considering his . . uhm tastes were on display as well . .. . which obviously was a killable offense as well. Rocket River
I haven't seen the movie yet, but how in the world were you not expecting that? Did you not read or see anything about this movie before seeing it?
I haven't read it in a while, but the stuff about the women in the cell before Evey was definately in the book. I'm gonna read it again though. I'll get back to this thread later.
I had no idea. I don't watch many movies and went with a friend. I thought it was going to be like a comic book type movie, like spiderman or xmen. I really had no idea. BUT I enjoyed the movie, so its all good.
Saw it Sunday - loved it. Only read the first few issues when it originally came out. Can't wait for Watchmen!
i thought this movie was a really good movie overall...but i thought the ending could have been so much better. the ending to a movie is so important, and it didn't do justice to the rest of the film. to end w/ just fireworks? the last line was somewhat fitting though. this movie could have been more than just a good movie. nevertheless, i really enjoyed it and it was the first good movie i've seen at the theaters in a while
my ONLY complaint, is not enough hot lesbians. I mean why is it, since Congress passed a law making lesbian sex legal in 1997, that you must have one ugly ass lesbian and one hot lesbian? Can't they both be hot? -Isaac Newton.
No, you can't. I'm glad you like his comics. I do too. But Alan Moore's politics are to the left of the most liberal American politician. And I can promise you he does not share your ambivalence towards gays and lesbians.
I thought it was one of the better movies I've seen in a while. My only real complaint was that I didn't need to have the subtext, comparing it to current political situation, beat into my head. The Koran deal, the Abu Ghraib like scene things like that. It could have been a bit more subtle and still gotten it's point across. Hugo Weaving was awesome as V
I don't understand how can V torture her, interrogating, dragging her in and out, and other stuff, all by himself without being recognized. Otherwise, a pretty good film.
