*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Cassy_w]

Is there a new Superman trailer attached to any prints?

 

[Cory S.]

Kyle,

The sequence involving Evey that you described above is almost exact to the graphic novel. Evey in the graphic novel has no idea how V did it. The explanation on how V did it is not explained either. He just did it. It's quite powerful when you first read it to see that it was V who was actually do it. The film almost hits it note for note. As far as the shipping of the V costumes, that's my only, only nitpick but it can be forgiven. The ending in the graphic novel is totally different but I think they have the same message.

 

[Marc Pasc]

Yes there was, I could not help but think Hollywood is completely out of fresh ideas. Every trailer was This part 3, That part 4, This part 2 and That part 5. I am not looking forward to this years movies judging from the trailers I saw at "V".

By the way I really enjoyed V for Vendetta, It was completely un expected refreshment from the CGI action filled goo that is usually associated with Comics or Graphic novels. The trailers certainly fool you into believing it is a different sort of movie while blasting you with major spoilers that sort of ruined a few parts for me. I wish trailers would be teasers instead, I try to avoid them at all costs but I happened to see the "V" trailer during March Madness and could'nt look away and I dearly paid for it.

Loved the movie but think it will be a 50/50 split on like it, hate it reaction.

Very nice pacing, I was on the edge of my seat even considering some may consider this slow paced. I like what I would call several "twists"

 

[Fred Bang]

I read in the Montreal Gazette that Moore choose to remove his name from the movie not because of the movie's quality but just because the studio said that they had his "blessings" on the movie, which was not true, and that he had become more and more pissed with Hollywood since LXG.

I'm quite sure he would agree that this is a good movie.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Before I comment, I would like to respectfully request that we suspend the rule about no political discussion, as this movie is impossible to discuss cogently without involving politics.

The very subject matter of the movies is politics, the powerful against the powerless. A discussion that "censors" this subject matter clearly can't say anything important about the movie.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry, no exceptions to that rule.




Crawdaddy

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I politely disagree. Having now seen the film (and seeing it again tomorrow, gladly), at it's core the film is bigger than politics. Perhaps that is the limit of YOUR ability to discuss it's importance...but not everybody's. Certainly not mine. Such should be our discussion. What is forbidden is any connection to current political speech, which is wise and true, as ignoring it does not lead to better discussions.

The film merits a review, of course I am toying with waiting for a second viewing before doing it. But I might crack earlier.

To wit, I did love the film. It's weak points were about average, and it's strong points were brilliant. It probably will be love it or hate it. I loved it. But I loved Fight Club as well. And the Matrix sequels

Take that as you will.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Some excellent points and another reason why we can't relax our rules against political discussion because it could spin too easily out of control if we relax them in conjunction with this film and what is currently going on in the world of today. There is no need to open those can of worms.

By the way, I loved this film and will see it again as it is a film that deserves a second viewing.





Crawdaddy

 

[JohnAP]

Saw the film last night. I couldn't really judge what the rest of the audience thought, but my friends and I all thought it was great.

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

Although I expect to see a lot of political pundits hand-wringing about how this movie "endorses terrorism," I don't think the argument has merit. In both the comic book and the movie, V is genuinely heroic but he is also monstrous and insane.

He could easily have achieved his ends without torturing the one human being that he really cares about (Evey). Such an act can only be described as monstrous and insane, and it establishes that V is only slightly less evil than the government he seeks to depose.

PS: I'm a little miffed that so many reviewers spoiled the torture segment by revealing that it is V -- not the government -- that tortures Evey.

One gets the sense that he is not as concerned with freeing the people of England from tyranny as he is with his own lust for vengeance. Indeed, all his claptrap about freedom and tyranny is probably little more than a rationalization for his bloodlust.

The story doesn't offer any easy answers to complex questions, which is precisely what I like about it. Although I'm happy that they left V morally ambiguous, I'm not entirely happy about the removal of some of the humanizing elements of the antagonists (gov't officials).

Oh, and Hugo Weaving's performance was amazing even with the restriction of that mask.

((Edit: spelling correction))

 

[Quentin]

V is absolutely insane and more than a little obsessed with his vengeance fantasy...UNTIL Evey calls him a monster.

That's why he lets HER send the train in. That part of his revolution is hers and the people's, and he finally gets it.

While they did take out some of the humanizing elements from the officials, I think Stephen Rea's inspector becomes the humane official enough to communicate the message.

I may go see this again tonight.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I second Hugo's performance. It really is fantastic, and he brings the character (and it's a hard character) alive.

Of course V is a bit insane...more than a bit. I don't think the film did enough to do justice to him in terms of how special he was. His intellect, his control, his forethought. It was alluded to, but never really given weight.

They did remove one of my favorite bits from the Graphic Novel:
When the doctor asks to see his face again, and he allows her to see it. Her final words were quite haunting in the book.

But that's minor. I will see it again before my review It definitely deserves a second viewing. Very, very well made film. I can't wait for the discussion to get going

 

[Blake Siefken]

"Hey, look! Bullet time with a knife! We're so clever!"


Other than that I thought the movie was really good, and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more negative publicity from the American media.

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

Aw, c'mon, Blake. If you're going to make that complaint, wouldn't it be better to complain about the bullet-time raindrop?

 

[Blake Siefken]

Speaking of anarchy, check this out about that star of the film, Natalie Portman:

http://www.devilducky.com/media/42822/

I had no idea!

 

[brentl]

I'm suprised nobody mentioned the nearly endless Phantom of the Opera bits that play throughout this movie. I will say they were the only things thatpulled me out of the movie.

Loved it, but it could have been 15 minutes shorter.

I may see this again next week.

Brent

 

[Nathan V]

Wow, I never knew all that about Natalie Portman. Surprising, esp. with her being a harvard grad and all.

Highly entertaining film that uses the thriller genre as a vehicle to communicate ideas to an audience. I particularly liked the two characters, and the relationship between them.

I was struck by how 'sincere' this movie is; Not unlike earlier films such as 12 Angry Men and Gentleman's Agreement or Best Years of our Lives, the film does not hesitate to present its message directly to the audience, on the topmost layer of the film, without irony or cynicism. It's kind of refreshing, films like this. Magnolia is another contemporary example.

It was also a nice change of pace to see a movie with such verbose dialogue. Great fun to listen to. Oh, and Stephen Rea is a COMPLETE badass.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm really torn on thid. The first 2/3 were pretty great and entertaining, aand surprisingly close to the book. It was the post



Agreed! After watching it, I couldn't help but wonder why Stephen Rea wasn't in every movie! Which is saying something considering how great Hugo was.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Good film.
The masks were certainly cinematic, but in the book, the same thing was accomplished by shutting off the camera system. (Moore had this really daffy idea,, where the government of britain would spend billions of pounds to cover the whole of britain with surveillance cameras. Yeah, right!. Like that would ever happen. I suppose that the masks were one way at ridding the screenplay of that most problematic plot point).

Any comparisons that can be made against present governments are in the eye of the beholder...

 

[JeremyErwin]

Also, I'm afraid that 'V', despite his claim to appreciate art, cares not a whit about Original Aspect Ratio.