"V for Vendetta": Thumbs up (pretty much...) from the GTP reviewers!

[FoolKiller]

I suppose. But I think the movie would have delivered its point a bit better if it showed what would have happened realisitically.

Less people showing up or mass slaughter or both?

 

[Danoff]

Less people showing up or mass slaughter or both?

Mass slaughter. Revolutions are practically guaranteed to be violent and ugly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Mass slaughter. Revolutions are practically guaranteed to be violent and ugly.

True, but it was all supposed to be symbolic and the whole peaceful revolution probably sits with audiences better.

Plus, one could argue that he removed the head and there were no commands given. Of course, that would make the big boom a tad bit pointless.

At a minimum the people could have attacked the soldiers.

I think they hoped to make up for the lack of slaughter by showing the ugliness in one scene by having the little girl (I call her the bollocks girl) getting shot by the agent. That kind of said, "Here is the violence and ugliness summed up in one death. The rest of the bloodshed will be at the hands of V." It was audience friendly but the message was there.

 

[Famine]

Loved it!!!! 👍 👍

I totally support the war in Iraq, and I loved this movie - meaning it isn't anti-Bush (though anti-Bush folks would probably think it is).

The premise of this movie is that "America's War", the war on terrorism, runs on and on against many terrorist factions and eventually, through fear, plants the seed for a sufficient erosion of civil liberties that a future England is in total oppression.

The movie runs from there to discuss the effect of fear on society and how it can be used to rob you of your freedom. The basic safety vs. freedom argument is one that we struggle with today - and so I felt that the present day referenes (of which there were few) were totally justified.

The message is loud and clear, don't let fear convince you to give up your freedom. This is a message that I'd like many of the folks that I argue with in the opinions forum to get. The concept that freedom is worth risking your life, that living in a safe but oppressive society isn't really living at all, is a beautiful theme and it makes for a great movie here.

Top notch acting by Weaving and Portman. Fantastic dialogue, themes and plot. The W Brothers are 4 for 4 in my book.

👍

I just caught this film today and, rather than writing a "Famine's Review" thread, thought I'd quote this post instead.

Not that I agree entirely with it - Portman stopped the film realising its full potential (her horrified look in the prison was akin to her having smelled a slightly eggy fart). My TV table let out a sigh of disgust about how wooden she was in places.

The role of the Chief Inspector - though seen before (trying to find out the truth despite orders from above and eventually sympathising with the anti-hero) - was very well played and deserves mention up there with Hugo Weaving who, despite the mask, stole it so completely.

I think this one requires a rewatch because it's nudging on excellence at my first pass.

 

[Dave A]

Definitely one of the best films of last year imo, though I have only seen it once and can't remember most of the specifics of it, I highly reccomend it and I will be adding it to my DVD collection.

 

[Danoff]

I purchased this film and gave it a re-watch. I think it belongs in my top 10 of all time list. I was far more moved the second time through, as I understood it better.

The born-again scene with portman in the rain is phenomenal, and it has so much meaning. If only it didn't fall on deaf ears. In fact, the portman character really helps bring this movie to life as it shows exactly how a government like that manages to get in place - fear. Even if you didn't like her acting (which I thought was just fine), she plays a pivotal role.

The score bears mentioning as well. I'm listening to a bit of it right now on streaming soundtracks and it's really good. You really feel it in the "Valerie" sequence.

The movie is deep too. Much deeper than I originally gave it credit for. The parallel scenes, the symbolism everywhere, if it were made 100 years ago we'd be studying the brilliance of the symbolism in english classes and writing papers about the double and triple meanings. Instead I think this movie is mistaken by a huge portion of it's audience.

I've talked to a lot of people about it and everyone seems to jump ship at a different place. Some people thought it was anti-American. Some people thought it was pro-terrorism. It's neither of those things. But I think the movie presents itself in a sufficiently controversial way that it manages to get itself mistaken.

I wouldn't change anything though. I'm glad I own it.

Edit: Ok I might change one or two things. It gets a little too symbolic at the end for my taste and basically severs ties with reality. I like the symbolism, it just doesn't need to be quite so heavy.

 

[FoolKiller]

Edit: Ok I might change one or two things. It gets a little too symbolic at the end for my taste and basically severs ties with reality. I like the symbolism, it just doesn't need to be quite so heavy.

Still sticking by your "revolutions are extremely bloody affairs" stance, eh?

And anyone that mistakes this for pro-terrorism (especially Americans) need to look at how change against such a government comes about. The government doesn't suddenly say, "Oh, you don't like us? Well, we'll just pack up and leave the keys on the table then." There is a difference between revolution and terrorism and I feel this movie makes the distinction quite clear.

 

[Duke]

FK, since you're likely the only one here who has read Alan Moore's original comics as well as having seen the movie, can you tell me how they compare? I've heard that Moore disowned the movie and wouldn't put his name in the credits.

Not that Alan Moore isn't an odd guy, but that tells me something about the movie. Between that and having Natalie Portman in it, it's got 2 strikes against it for me.

 

[FoolKiller]

FK, since you're likely the only one here who has read Alan Moore's original comics as well as having seen the movie, can you tell me how they compare? I've heard that Moore disowned the movie and wouldn't put his name in the credits.

I flipped through a copy from a friend when I was in elementary school. I would love to make a comparison but I don't remember enough details. By the time I discovered darker comics it was hard to find.

You can read the plot at Wiki. It appears the end result becomes chaos, not V's vision.

From that I would take it that Moore imagined a world where society cannot lead itself properly, but the movie basically made it seem that when pointed in the right direction people will create orderly freedom. Basically, Moore and the comic have no faith in humanity whereas the movie relies on it to pull through in the end.

 

[Danoff]

Not that Alan Moore isn't an odd guy, but that tells me something about the movie. Between that and having Natalie Portman in it, it's got 2 strikes against it for me.

I think you'd really like it Duke. It's worth one viewing at any rate.

 

[Sting]

I agree with Danoff, its really worth a watch Duke. I mean c'mon its made by the Wachowski brothers and we know they can make a bloody good film.

Personally, I love the film, and based on it I recently bought the comic and started reading through it. For the most part the comic and film are similar with the usual differences. Havent finished the comic though.
One of my top five films I gotta say..... maybe even top 3.








England Prevails!