V For Vendetta

[DaForce]

I got to see a sneak preview of this tonight and I was fairly impressed with what I saw.

First things first, is it the same as the graphic novel? Yes and no. It's the same message as the novel, but the timeline and a few of the subplots were changed and/or omitted for brevity's sake. There were a few new items added that I liked, and a few items taken out that I wish they had left in.

Is it politically overzealous? Again, yes and no. The book was about politics and ideology and people's roles in the governments they allow to govern them, so it's a bit hard not to be political in a movie of this type. My only qualm is that the W. Bros. changed the story enough to take (what I see) as an easy political pot shot. The movie really didn't need it but it's there for people of a conservative nature to condemn the film and blah blah blah as they always do when they perceive something as a threat to them, but it honestly doesn't apply unless they see themselves as fascists.

With that said, the first hour of the movie kind of dragged for me (having read the book), but once we get to Natalie's head shaving scene things really pick up quickly. It also didn't help that I had a guy sitting near me (whom I've named Mr. Giggles) who giggled almost throughout the entire movie. I'm talking giggling at inappropriate places in the movie, during lulls in the movie, etc. It was fairly weird.

Anyway, Portman did a great job (which shows that she can act when an even a half-competent director is behind the camera...ya hear me Lucas?), the guy behind the mask (rumors are it wasn't Weaving, but who knows) was great especially since he had to emote through a mask that doesn't change expression, and the story kicked ass.

I definitely be seeing this again on the IMAX screen.


Rating: Full price ticket for multiple viewings.

[magiccarpet]

i'm really looking forward to seeing this...thanks for the write up. So instead of midnight showings, they have 10pm shows the night before...is this a new trend?

[KingVoyeur]

I can't wait for this to open. I read the first half of the graphic novel while I was in Barnes and Noble waiting for a friend, and I completely fell in love with it.

I saw something that I found pretty interesting yesterday on TV. On the Fox News channel Joel Silver was being interviewed by some anchor. Being the more "conservative" news channel, I was curious to see what kind of questions Silver would be asked. It seemed like most of the questions the anchor was asking were of the "so are you glorifying terrorism? Is your main character a terrorist?" types. It really seemed like they were trying to get Silver to say that this was an anti-Bush movie that supported terrorism so that they could crap all over it, but Silver wasn't playing along. Did anyone else see that interview?

[sickness]

Glad to hear this is a good one. I've been looking forward to it for several months now and will definitely be watching it this weekend.

[magiccarpet]

i really want to go the first night, but the ncaa tourney might prohibit me from doing so

[Deacon]

I liked it a lot. Didn't love it, it had too many flaws for that, but it's an interesting, entertaining movie.

The biggest problem I had was with the Wachowski's script. God bless 'em, but they can't write believable dialogue to save their lives. And that made the opening fifteen minutes or so pretty worrying, as you're getting to know the characters and the setting. After that, after you get drawn into the story, things get better, but it still would've been better if more talented writers had had a whack at it. Still, they do a pretty decent job of translating the spirit of the book.

As for Portman... sure, she was better than in the "Star Wars" prequels, but she's given numerous performances better than this one. I get the impression that - as seems to happen sometimes with actors - putting on the accent got in the way of the performance. Her British accent isn't bad, but it's still not entirely convincing. But she gets better as the film goes on. It's hard to judge Weaving's perfomance under the circumstances, but at the very least his vocals did the job.

For me, Stephen Rea, as the cop on V's trail, is the best thing in the film. He's still hampered by some stilted dialogue, but he's got a hangdog likeability that helps drive the movie.

I'm not sure how audiences in general will take to it. It's a lot talkier than audiences might expect (although not as talky as the "Matrix" sequels, thank the Lord), and not as fast paced as some might hope. But the whole terrorism angle gives it an interesting spin that other films don't have right now, and that makes it worth a look.

[KingVoyeur]

Seeing it tonight, was just reading through reviews beforehand, came across this on FOXNews.com -

But the movie's seditious, anti-President Bush subtext is obvious: The regime that V and Evey seek to undermine controls the masses through wiretapping, television spin and misinformation, using religious piousness for political gain and positioning itself as the protector of a fearful public.

Yes, because before Bush, no one had ever though a government could do things like that. Those authors like Orwell and Alan Moore must've had some kind of psychic flash of Bush's presidency that influenced them to write 1984 and V for Vendetta. Don't you just love people who think everything's about them?

[sickness]

Sounds like a guilty conscience to me. Why else would Fox project this as being about Bush?

[jayce78]

It was very entertaining , and even caused you to think a little about the times in which we live like the novel itself. . . .

Portman was great I thought & ha! She did do a good job in Star Wars III , is it possible for the fing geeks in this forum to talk about a film without taking shots . . .

[Space Tycoon]

Originally Posted by sickness

Sounds like a guilty conscience to me. Why else would Fox project this as being about Bush?

I felt the same way when Medved accused Lucas of joining the "far-left, Michael Moore crowd" when SWIII first came out.




.