Plot:An an alternate timeline where Germany won World War II and Great Britain is now a facist 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.
Cast: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Fry, Rupert Graves, Stephen Rea
My opinion:
Wonderful Ideas, gorgeous visual style, superb acting.
Good movie.
It is certainly entertaining and worth catching in theaters for the full experience, but there are some problems with it. At times it seems its ideas are so outstanding (especially considering the story was created in 1982) that the movie doesn't know exactly how to execute them.
There is almost too much thrown in that some of the storylines seem excessive, and there are some encounters that border on cartoonish (ie, several things that happen at absurdly convenient moments).
It's a psychological thriller on one hand, an revenge/action movie on another, and then sometimes it feels like kind of a dumb superhero flick out of touch with reality. Luckily, those parts don't dominate the movie.
The acting is extraordinary, and Hugo Weaving should be commended for bringing a masked man to life. Any doubt about Natalie's acting talent should be wiped away with this performance. Plus the style was really engaging.
Overall I liked it, I just have some issues with it.
I didn't read the comics, nope. Was it a faithful adaptation?
Convenient moments: Natalie finding the cop right as he was going to shoot V and spraying mace in his eyes, Stephen Rea finding Natalie right as she was going to pull the lever, etc.
A lot of that kinda stuff going on. Not that it matters much.
The things you mentioned didn't bug me. Some of that was orchestrated by V... via whatever weird powers he seemed to have. Stephen Rea for instance... that was set in motion by V. I don't think that was a coincidence... it happened exactly as he intended.
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it. I still think it was pointless though for Natalie to have her hair shaved off. Are the characters in the movie worried she has lice?
And is there a difference between calling someone an anarchist as opposed to a terrorist?
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it. I still think it was pointless though for Natalie to have her hair shaved off. Are the characters in the movie worried she has lice?
You'd have to look at it from a female perspective. Hair means more to women than men. It's part of humiliating her, dehumanizing her.
Quote:
And is there a difference between calling someone an anarchist as opposed to a terrorist?
An anarchist doesn't necessarily do anything to bring about anarchy... a terrorist doesn't necessarily want anarchy he simply wants something different than what's going on now.
There's a great deal of question as to whether V actually is a terrorist. Is a terrorist only someone who attacks innocent civillians or is it anyone who blows things up to bring down a ruling government?
What's the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist?
I say V basically IS a terrorist. A lot of the folks arguing the opposite side say he isn't because there are no civillian casualties... but really... he blows up the biggest buildings in London and there are no civillian casualties? Unlikely.
He's just not the kind of terrorists we think of when we use the word.
Technically, by the dictionary, terrorists do target societies or governments. The sticking point is that it is unlawful. Of couse every government is going to make it unlawful for it to be targeted, no matter how heinous and in need of replacement.
9-11 brought about the need for more discrimination with the word; say social terrorists who target the innocent to instill fear, or state-terrorists who target the members and instruments of the government itself. Yes, there will be civilian casualties under both types--and only pacificists would not see the critical difference.
Quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
Superman teaser - Sorry, but it doesn't look good. His cape looks worse than the flying CGI Neo. I hope the next trailer out is more convincing or I won't be seeing this till it hits the cheap theater.
An American Haunting - Aside from a terrible name, this has potential to be our generations Exorcist.
Now, onto the film
Wow, simply wow. At first I was a bit disappointed with the editing, as it would cut to the next scene just as I was fully enjoying the particular scene (example would be the beginning explosion of the Bastill). However, my disappointment was quickly washed away as awe invaded my senses. The scenes between V and Evey were beautiful, showing a humanistic side to V that the novel didn't touch on. The was the environment he lived in was captured was gorgeous, with the music from his "stolen" jukebox adding to the perfect setting. The film never let up in dialogue (which came off completely absurd yet engaging) and action, always keeping the viewer hooked.
Alan Moore is insane as it is, but his insanity went up a notch in my books since he complained about the films representation of his novel, yet the material that was left out didn't affect the film at all. Everything felt so right and in its place. There were many scenes that slapped a smile across my face. Hugo Weaving went up in my books as well, holding the character of V very strong. What can't this guy do? The ending was simply magnificent. It ended at the exact moment I was hoping it would (and yes, while the scene was playing out, I was wishing it in my head). Not to mention, Street Fighting Man in the beginning end credits was awesome.
Such a great flick. It was amazing I was in a packed theater for a midnight show and I've never quite seen a reaction like this one. There wasn't any cheering or fun just stunned silence. After the show people where just milling outside the theater smoking and murmering with complete strangers like they had to get their thoughts out NOW.
Weaving was the ****ing man.
I thought it was interesting what they chose to cut out from the comic, and add in.
The virus subplot was OK but IMO it didn't really add anything.
I was suprised that they cut out the racial cleansing aspect of the government, one of the freakiest details to me was that London was lily white.
I wasn't suprised that they cut out the crueler aspects of V's revenge. Especially the Bishops. Though I thought is was nice to see nods to the fans (The Dolls in the Commanders house, and if you listen very carefully to the people monitering the Bishop you CAN hear the nasty irony going on.)
Really the only thing that was cut that bothered me was...
(Spoiler if you want to read the comic)
Was the ommision of Evey BECOMING V at the end. That was one of my favorite touches in the book, and the loss of it, just didn't feel right to me.
I like how they didn't show Evey becoming V. In the end it is kind of almost like she does, since she mentions how V represents everyone. Anyone who hasn't read the comic wouldn't know, but those who have can kind of imply that it was what the director was going for.
Yeah I understand, and I don't think it hurt the movie. But still it was a nice grace note, it really hammered home the point that ideas don't die, and I was sad to see her gone.
Yeah I understand, and I don't think it hurt the movie. But still it was a nice grace note, it really hammered home the point that ideas don't die, and I was sad to see her gone.
Yeah, the thought that ideas don't die, they live on... his in the form of Evey was stronger in the comic, I agree.
But I was satisfied with this ending as well.
Really, I found the movie a lot more powerful than the comic. The comic is sometimes a little scattered and difficult to understand. The film trims the fat and trumpets the comics ideas without all the clutter.
This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously.