V for Vendetta

[Sir Auros]

Now, I've yet to read the graphic novel, so I don't know what the differences are, but I'm surprised anyone could disown this movie.

It's smart, action-packed, subversive, and edgey. No punches were pulled and I was shocked and delighted that such a politically-charged movie could be released in this country at this time. It's clearly had some people afraid (see Newsweek's review) and some of the dismissals (see Newsweek's review) I've read speak volumes.

It was one of those movies where you leave with that indescribable feeling you have after watching one of those great works of cinema.

As an off-topic aside, yes, I realize the current trend is to toss comic-related movies into the comic section since Brendocon whines and bitches about it since someone tossed one of his in there despite a longstanding precedent (set primarily by Jim) that all movie discussions, including comic-related, go into GD. Therefore, I'm posting this in here to thumb my nose at him.

EDIT - I will either add more to this or additional comments after a longer period of digestion. This may warrant multiple viewings in the theater, which is something I haven't done in a while. Helps that there's a theater showing it (though not as good as the one I saw it in tonight) not one minute from my house.

EDIT 2 - Interesting article comparing the versions. Interesting that Moore bailed out on it without even seeing it, but having read that, I don't think the changes weren't foreseen. I'm planning on reading the graphic novel, but I'm more likely to be a fan of the movie since it's supposedly more contextualized to Americans.

[RID Scourge]

My friend, who saw it, said he like the comic better, and that he wasn't as enamored with the beginning or the end. He said the end was changed for the worse, but still not bad. I'm planning on seeing it with him when he goes again.

[Halfshell]

Originally posted by Sir Auros
As an off-topic aside, yes, I realize the current trend is to toss comic-related movies into the comic section since Brendocon whines and bitches about it since someone tossed one of his in there despite a longstanding precedent (set primarily by Jim) that all movie discussions, including comic-related, go into GD. Therefore, I'm posting this in here to thumb my nose at him.

Bite me.

I'm all in favour of this thread being in here, I just think there should be some ****ing consistency.

Saw the film last night. Good. Far from superb, but good nonetheless.

[Sir Auros]

Originally posted by Brendocon
Bite me.

I'm all in favour of this thread being in here, I just think there should be some ****ing consistency.

Saw the film last night. Good. Far from superb, but good nonetheless.

I know that's what you're going for, but it'd be nice if others on staff would realize that the consistency would be leaving such threads in this forum since it had always been that way up until last summer.

On the topic of the movie - had you read the graphic novel? Was it too alien being set in Britain, but clearly Americanized? I'm curious as to how someone who is actually from the UK and who was familiar with the source material would feel about the movie.

On the topic of the political message, I'm sure there are going to be people who are going to go apesh*t over the unsubtle stabs at the Bush administration (say 36% of the country?), but how can people say this movie glorifies terrorism? In the pre-9/11 world, V would have been seen as a freedom fighter given the black and white evil of the government, but now we have people who would actually defend such a government in the name of calling him a terrorist. Don't terrorists usually target innocent civilians instead of military or government targets?

[Brave Maximus]

I haven't read the comic yet - but will try and pick it up this week, after seeing the movie.

As for reviews: I first read the MSN.ca's review of it which had nothing but glowing reports. From friends who have seen it, they say it's awesome. Then I read Newsweeks review (mostly because Auros said it was so bad). Not having seen the movie - I must say - I think they missed the point of the movie. Is the American media so afraid of anything depicting people rising up against the government?

Imagine what they would say if Star Wars had been released post 9/11?

[Ravage]

I have to concur with Brave. It's amazing how biased the media is since 9/11.

Course now and days in the Imperial States of America if you say anything against it your a traitor or some ****. But then again the President's approval rating of 37% has to mean something as well.

[Commander Shockwav]

Saw it and thought it was one of the most well done movies I have ever seen.

The politically charged messages it sends, and there are many, are powerful and cleverly delivered. And its done via a comic book hero movie format, of all things!

This is not your average Batman or Superman flick. This is something that strikes a very deep chord in those who are dismayed by the underhanded political dealings that we face in the US today. This movie is hardly fantasy, but more accurately, a depiction of what lies ahead for our world, particularly for citizens of the U.S.

Those who are unaware of current political circumstances today in the US will leave this movie thinking this is something more along the lines of Bladerunner, a look at something surreal, something impossible. The more astute and aware among us though will see this movie for what it really is. A warning. A warning of what has already happened under our very noses, and what lies ahead because of our aloofness, our general willingness to accept and trust what we hear and see on the tele and what our current administration seeks to make us believe.

One scene involving dominoes really hits home. Its a statement that things that have already been set into motion that can't be stopped. The hero of the flick, labeled as a "terrorist", is the product of something reflective of what we have today in Guantanemo Bay, in Abu Gharib, and the numerous documented torture sites around the globe.


I went in thinking this would be an action packed Batman-type of flick. I left with the same kind of feeling I had with Life is Beautiful or Fahernheit 911. I left saddened by what I and certainly my children will likely have to face.

[verytired]

Read the graphic novel a while a go, and fell in love with most of Alan Moores work since then (Promethea I could forgie, But Tom Strong? yeeshk).

I really, really hope the movie does the book justice.


Although, the fact I know it's Hogo weaving behind the mask kind of puts me off: not that he's a bad actor, more that the point is you don't know who he is... Well, I always hope for too much.

[RID Scourge]

EDIT: Actually, I suppose that's not a spoiler if you're arsed to read the cast. ne'ermind.

[verytired]

Yeah, I was worried some one would get narky about that, but I came to the same conclusion.

Imagine sitting through the whole feature, and wondering when Hugo Weaving was gonna show up?

[inflatable dalek]

It was beaten to number one at the UK Box Ofice by the Pink Panther remake. I think I just lost all faith in mankind...

[angloconvoy]

Hmm. Someone over at transfans posted a link to an interview with Moore in which he made a ot of totally valid points. He was against the movie not because he didn't expect the changes, but because he did, only the choice to have it made was DC's not his. His only choice was whether or not to have his name on or accept royalties. He did neither.

Not read the original start to finish but can see what Moore meant, why not have the guts to do a new story set in america?

Also, the movie now and again thought it was a bit too clever, and compensated with some massively heavy-handed shots.

Not to toally decry it though, for all its faults it was entertaining enough for the most part, and was relatively brave in america's current climate.


That cg shot of the raindrop was a complete waste of the maker's time and money though.

[Sir Auros]

Originally posted by angloconvoy
Not read the original start to finish but can see what Moore meant, why not have the guts to do a new story set in america?

That's where he loses me. I think it's asinine for him to assume that the reason they referenced the US political climate was for cowardly reasons rather than changes made to make it more accessible and relevant to the American moviegoers.

I think it's kind of funny that he's disowned the only movie based on his work that's been worth watching over something that smacks of an arrogant misunderstanding.

[angloconvoy]

If you see it from an english point of view its not an arrogant misunderstanding. Moore did read the script before disowning it, so he got what it was about. Plus he hates movies that are heavy on cgi, so its well within the guys rights. As for my point about the english point of view, every time hollywood makes a movie of a british story they rejig it to suit an american audience, with at least one american being given a starring role, or having a part invented for them. Sometimes by relocating the story (high fidelity), or by dumbing down elements the producers don't trust an american audience to understand. Or in the case of many war movies, pretending Britain were barely even there (U571 springs to mind). If you have your own themes, why not write your own story rahter than picking another story with similar, yet subtly different enough themes and giving it a rewrite. Oh, right, they tried that with the matrix trilogy, so obviously not a strong point (granted the first was good).

And like I say, I really did enjoy V for Vendetta on the cinema. I just don't see it as such a brave work of genius is all. It was an entertaining and somewhat moving action flick, which sets it above a lot of what's out there.

[Sir Auros]

Originally posted by angloconvoy
Oh, right, they tried that with the matrix trilogy, so obviously not a strong point (granted the first was good).

...and I think that's exactly why this movie worked out so well and why they chose it. The Wachowski brothers aren't competent enough to create their own material, but they can really work with somebody else's work as a springboard. That said, it's still not cowardly as he implies, but more of a laziness issue. I strongly disagree with his argument that they did it out of fear to base it in America.

I'm also curious as to how relevant the story would be in the contemporary UK. I'm not familiar with all the politics that the original story was criticizing Thatcher for, and I'd like to know if it's relevant to the Blair administration as well. For example, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for a movie to come out in the US that was critical of the Nixon administration at this point. Not unless it was a period piece anyway.

And like I say, I really did enjoy V for Vendetta on the cinema. I just don't see it as such a brave work of genius is all. It was an entertaining and somewhat moving action flick, which sets it above a lot of what's out there.

Given that it was released by a major film company in the USA in it's current state, it was brave. Setting it in the UK was hardly a cop-out when it's so clearly a parable of what could be here. Genious, maybe not, but it was poignant without making me feel like I was manipulated, and it takes a smart movie to do that for me.

[angloconvoy]

In all honesty the reworked version is probably more relevant to today's current political climate than the original. Blair is more of a mini-bush than a new thatcher (though he'd probably prefer to be the latter). The original story (and the stock footage used in the film) are more to do with the miners strikes in the 80s and the resulting civil unrest.

Fair enough to say its not cowardly, but it would have been braver to make a movie using america as america, rather than britain as a metaphor for. It might also have prevented the movie from considering itself a bit too clever, or maybe it just needed a more competant director so that the more interesting parts wouldn't have been delivered so heavy-handedly.

Not quite sure why I'm arguing against a movie that I really did enjoy. Probably just because I want to see hollywood do some proper justice to a british tale one of these days.

[DrSpengler]

I wrote a review for http://www.filmsy.com so that has what I thought of the movie in it. But in short, I liked it.

V for Vendetta

I guess I should start this off by saying I’ve never read the DC/Vertigo comic in which the movie is based. I’ve always wanted to, as I think Alan Moore is one of the finest comic book authors to ever grace the planet, but never got around to it. As it stands, it is probably best that I DIDN’T read the source-material for this movie, as apparently the two are vastly different and fans (and Moore) are outraged over the changes.

Be that as it may, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The trailers are disgustingly misleading, with hard-rock music blaring in the background as V (the title character and hero of questionable ethics) throws knives in bullet-time clichés while stuff blows up everywhere. The trailers make this film out to be more hackneyed comic book tripe no better than Fantastic Four, Daredevil or equally recycled garbage.

This film is, in fact, nothing like the trailers would have you believe and rises far above the expectations of “just another comic book movie”. V for Vendetta is a commentary on politics, how much blind trust people should have in their government, what makes a person a “terrorist”, how a point of view can make all the difference and, I am certain this will instantly turn off a vast majority of movie-goers, a critique of the Bush Administration and a parody of current events.

I admit, that last part is enough to drive a lot of people away and I can’t say I really blame them. There’s so much high-profile “Bush-bashing” out there it’s difficult to tell what’s meaningful and what’s just more lazy satire for the sake of being topical. But also factor in the bit about “how a point of view can make all the difference”, and while one can view the commentary in this film as “Bush-bashing”, others can find something a tad deeper in it all.

Just to get it out of the way, the plot is like so; the people of England have put far too much blind faith in their government, both out of fear and laziness, and as a result their democracy gradually transformed into a brutal dictatorship. People can live, work and love as freely as they want, so long as they abide by “the rules” and conform to the government’s very exacting standards. That means no homosexuals, no questioning the way things are run, no religion that isn’t Christian (possessing a Koran means immediate execution) and absolutely no resisting “The Fingermen”, the Government’s power-tripping law-enforcers.

V is a man whose identity was lost when the government chose to use political prisoners (mostly people who broke those first two “rules” I listed above) as guinea pigs for various experiments. V was badly scarred in a fire at the death camp, but managed to survive. Donning a mask of Guy Fawkes, the notorious British “traitor”, he embarks on a war not only for revenge, but to open the eyes of the people living in the English dictatorship and inspiring them with the strength to resist.

It all may sound a bit predictable, but V for Vendetta is far more intelligent than movies with similar settings, like Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux. The blame for the country’s predicament isn’t squarely set on the Dictator, or the government, or Bush, or Christians, but rather the bulk of the blame is laid upon the citizens of England, who looked the other way and gradually gave their government the power to make their decisions for them just because it was easier than doing it themselves.

And to increase the film’s believability, it isn’t set in some futuristic techno-world, nor is it set in some grim and gritty war-torn environment. Actually, England is rather contemporary, clean and just…normal-looking. The setting isn’t over-the-top, it’s credible.

V, himself, is possibly the best part of the film. He is extremely articulate, very well-educated and can deliver more touching emotion in that static Guy Fawkes-mask than most of Hollywood’s “A-list” flavors of the month that get so much credit. His dialogue is what makes him so charming, and he delivers some of the most philosophically-intriguing and memorable lines you’ll ever see in a film made in this era of explosions, explosions and more explosions.

As a matter of fact, even the explosions in this movie are driven by symbolic meaning and never happen without purpose.

The true crime is that this is a movie most people are going overlook, be it that it’s “just another comic book movie”, “stupid Bush-bashing” or maybe that they just hadn’t heard of it thanks to some terrible marketing. Regardless of how many people this movie managed to reach, by the time it reaches its conclusion, it is sure to make you consider thinking for yourself and question why you’d let anyone else do it for you.

So on “The Relative Grading Scale of Super Mario Villains”, a BAD movie would rank as a “Lakitu”, but this was a GOOD movie, so it gets rewarded with a “Buzzy Beatle”.

[Cliffjumper]

Hmm, I'm going to have to see this now I've read the book... sounds like they've made some changes which don't sit with me (mainly some of the little ones I've picked out of that excellent review, Spengs - for one, bullet-time would totally change the feel of the violence in the comic. The bigger things, well, I'll have to see. I'm pretty fed up with anti-Bush sentiments (if half the people who do lazy "Well, Bush is an idiot LOL" things did something about it, there'd be less of a problem). On first read of the book, I didn't pick up too much apathy from the British population - it seemed more of a Thatcher/Hitler analogy, with a country in disorder seemingly saved by a strong hand, and people didn't really realise what exactly was being put in place until it was far too late, and then were at a loss as to what to do about it (basically, however much anyone despises Clinton, he didn't leave the USA in anything like the mess England and Germany were in in those respective cases).

SPOILER! (select to read)

In the comic, V runs past someone, and they're dead. Much more effect, much less Matrixy. Also the Koran thing sounds like an explicit for-the-slow-kids thing

Wasn't Fawkes Dutch?

[Getaway]

Just a quick response to Sir Auros about the issue of its relevance to current as opposed to thatcherite Britain.

This is where it didn't work for me and those who I saw it with, too much would have to change, for example there is a healthy culture of debate and protests such as the stop the war or pro hunting marches. Religion is not an issue over here nor is there in any way massive censorship or freedom of speech issues.

There was just too much wrong with the issues that it sort of jarred you out of the suspension of disbelief you normally have in a film. Anglo's point about the issues being more American is a good one because they are issues over there it seems, but not here.

Cliffy I'm pretty sure Guy Fawkes is one of the York villains.

[Halfshell]

Originally posted by Cliffjumper
Hmm, I'm going to have to see this now I've read the book... sounds like they've made some changes which don't sit with me

I'm alright with a lot of the changes. I'm viewing it more as a re-imagining in today's climate, rather than a direct adaptation.

A lot of the things they've shuffled/changed/condensed are down to pacing issues, I feel. Okay, so it's still spread over the same timeframe, but structuring a two hour movie is wildly different to a decade-produced serial.

The contemporary (I've probably spelt that wrong, yes, I know... yes, I could look it up in the time it takes me to write this, I know... I'm a bad, bad person) setting also means tweaks have to be made here and there to make it more relevant to today. Alright, so it's in the future so it's not that contemporary, but the future vision from now is different to that twentyfive years ago.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes - it's more "based on" than a direct reiteration on film. Portman's accent is far more criminal than most of the changes or plotholes...

Wasn't Fawkes Dutch?

'pparantly not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes