← Back to Reviews
in
V for Vendetta
Rating: B+ / A-
Director: James McTeigue
Natalie Portman .... Evey
Hugo Weaving .... V/William Rookwood
Stephen Rea .... Finch
Stephen Fry .... Deitrich
John Hurt .... Adam Sutler
Official site's synopsis:
The Nutshell
Worth watching, sometimes provocative, sometimes a little silly. I was more apt to forgive mistakes considering the subject matter and that the source material is a "graphic novel" - these tend to have a different "spirit" altogether that can lead toward grandiose or stylized. Considering this, elements that came off oddly or poorly can be written up to the director not merging the source style with the film presentation with finesse. There is some action, but the point is not physical action but the "spirit of action."
It's basically a social commentary told in a style that might remind you vaguely of Tim Burton's Batman mixed with X-Men. Ie, the capacity for a dark, rich story based in myth that verges on the superficial and overdone. But, thought provoking, interesting, will instigate discussions and exclamations afterward.
The Review
D@MN Hugo Weaving's voice is sexy. I remember I used to find his Agent Smith's threatening, relentless nature hot and bubbly in The Matrix but you know, I wasn't thinking of him as like, worth kissing. Long "Introductory V Vocab Lesson" aside, I found his elocution delicious and his delivery divine. It made me want to just melt right there and invite him to slice all of my clothing off while he was at it. Eargasms, people. Remember how we used to always quote, dryly and sensuously, "Missssterrrr ... Anderrrrsonnnn"? And why? Because the way he said it was memorable, evocative, and just a little bit dirty.
Flash forward to Vendetta. The choice of Hugo for his voice is a sound one. However, they did not develop a presence strong enough to stand behind the mask, character, story, or myth. Just because you went through something doesn't mean you're mighty, scary, or vengeful. You need to SHOW me you have depth, might, rage, and grief, passion. Tossing a joke along with your knives doesn't help to prove that. This is not Indiana Jones. If you're going to use humor, it ought to be Batman style - understated and slightly painful.
I should clearly hear malice in V's voice, grief when he thinks about other's suffering, confusion and betrayal when he speaks of the agreement of his people to comply with a totalitarian government. Instead he's perpetually well mannered and snazzy, vaguely trite, more often slightly amused or nonchalant than emotionally reflective of wanting the revenge he has dedicated his life to. This man was a victim, and a victim has a thick, convoluted, difficult emotional pallette with which to paint. They used a very limited color pallette.
There is one key moment later in the film where V is unlocking a side to himself that betrays Evey, but it suddenly becomes Evey's story rather than his. You understand why they do that later in the film, but this is another example of the film undermining itself. To best understand the future, I must know the past. If you gloss over the past (V) I will not understand or believe in the future nearly as well (Evey).
This and other troubling flaws drop this movie from A to B. It's mainly the lack of force behind Hugo Weaving's V, which is not his fault (because we know how fabulous he was as Agent Smith) but the filmmaker's fault. They did not build upon V, but used him only as a caricature and an excuse to expound on an film that can be encapsulated with the word "ego."
Whoever it was who did it, Wachowskis or McTeigue, their own egos got the better of them, and the film suffered for it. There is a man behind V, because the film as they conceived it offers a framework that claims he is a man who must now launch his nation into a new era out of his own suffering and need for vengeance. So the filmmakers sketch it out and then run amok, rather than building that framework solidly to justify what comes after. They were so concerned with running amok, showing off this and that, the flair of this idea or that, the montage sequences they're so proud of, the melodramatic turns of phrase from our Hero V, that they dropped the power of the film to some extent in favor of the Power of Cheese.
But, Cheese, aside, I was moved by the film. I was moved by V's words, even if his own actions didn't always support the ideas he was formed of. I was moved by powerful images of people making a stand, of people suffering for false truths. I felt utterly verklempt watching a march of people upon the streets of London.
The movie touches on things like a leader of government saying "I will show the terrorist what terror is." Ironic and powerful - is this not the heart of Bush's declaration of the War on Terror? What man claims he will show evil what evil is, but evil himself? Or is he? Does the end justify the means? Do you need to fight fire with fire? How far is too far? When does speaking the truth become anarchy?
When does protecting your own people from harm become genocide? When does proteting the moral fabric of your people become racism, sexism, tyrannism? When does the government saying "Trust me to take care of you" become "I cannot trust you to take care of yourself"? How far will a belief take a people - into madness, into power-mongering, into human experimentation, into murder?
Powerful questions that are raised, but the man who raises them seems almost docile in his "vendetta." He barely asks any of these questions of anyone except in one televised speech that is fairly blase'. You never see him discuss these things or what he's seen and done with Evey, a key character in his mission. We, the watcher know - but the only key character who DOES know, from all sides, is Stephen Rea's (Inspector Finch). That's fairly sad, considering that he's not our main character.
I do like that they don't actually make V the hero. I mean he is, but he isn't. I heard rumors this movie was a support of anarchy, but it clearly isn't. Again, the "fight terror with terror" statement, and the plot- is blunt - a government can be as evil as a terrorist, a terrorist as evil as a government. No one is safe from the rules of humanity. All of us are suspect. We can all lose ourselves in our self righteousness. We can easily become V or the Chancellor, who are merely two sides of the same coin - torturer and victim, each taking his turn. As V learns from Evey, it's a fine line he's walking and he can easily turn into the monster that made him.
There's a love affair, too, but it's misplaced and lacking. Don't use it if you can't support it. Build it up steadily and consistently from the beginning, not as an afterthought. There was soooo much potential there, and that fell flat. Embarassingly so.
V seems to playing (like the Joker, who is a true anarchist and not trying to justify, villify, free, or enlighten anyone except prove to the world how delightfully wicked and clever he is). But V is claiming to have a vision and a meaning behind his actions - he wants vengeance, and to wake his people up. If so, STOP PLAYING. I never read the book but man, if you want me to buy that you're serious, then the prancing around like a minx in your mask is not going to help.
Give me angry when you're betrayed, let me FEEL the spittle you're building up behind the mask, even if I can't see it.
These people had a fierce story and it was just not told fiercely enough. If you really want to wake the world up, then you entreat them with the ferocity of your love for your nation and what you want them to see. You are fighting first and foremost for something, and if after you have a beatific moment of sainthood, fine, but you need to be gnashing, crying to the heavens, and wailing about it first.
And you don't undermine it with jokes, overdone montages or parallels to Hitler and holocaust, screaming tyrants, lack of proper character development for your hero from HIS POV, etc.
So, yes, I liked it. But like OG, I expected so much more, considering the fact that these filmmakers were after a point and seemingly wanted to touch people, make them think, inspire them. They inspired me, but also made me doubtful just because of these mistakes. So I forgive them, but only so much.
Actor/Character reviews ...
Natalie Portman (Evey) was fabulous in her suffering and fear, lacking in her accent, likeable and interesting. She got way more character development and screen time than V and should not have.
Stephen Rea (Inspector Finch) did the best with his character in the whole film. Flawless. Everyone else made a mistake somewhere, or were told to do something they shouldn't have and went with. He was consistent, believable, and you saw all kinds of emotions lurking around in there he was struggling with without making huge statements or dramatic gestures.
Stephen Fry (Gordon Deitrich) was also very good, very believable. Got a little more screen time in places than he should have before the big revelation later (his tv sketch). How they used his character was very smart, useful, and powerful.
John Hurt (Chancellor Adam Sutler) was way overdone. He probably did what he was told, but man. They literally threw him up there and practically had a banner over him that said "AKA, HITLER." Then again this speaks to the "graphic novel" source versus the "film source" and so I'm more likely to forgive it.
Rating: B+ / A-
Director: James McTeigue
Natalie Portman .... Evey
Hugo Weaving .... V/William Rookwood
Stephen Rea .... Finch
Stephen Fry .... Deitrich
John Hurt .... Adam Sutler
Official site's synopsis:
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.
Worth watching, sometimes provocative, sometimes a little silly. I was more apt to forgive mistakes considering the subject matter and that the source material is a "graphic novel" - these tend to have a different "spirit" altogether that can lead toward grandiose or stylized. Considering this, elements that came off oddly or poorly can be written up to the director not merging the source style with the film presentation with finesse. There is some action, but the point is not physical action but the "spirit of action."
It's basically a social commentary told in a style that might remind you vaguely of Tim Burton's Batman mixed with X-Men. Ie, the capacity for a dark, rich story based in myth that verges on the superficial and overdone. But, thought provoking, interesting, will instigate discussions and exclamations afterward.
The Review
D@MN Hugo Weaving's voice is sexy. I remember I used to find his Agent Smith's threatening, relentless nature hot and bubbly in The Matrix but you know, I wasn't thinking of him as like, worth kissing. Long "Introductory V Vocab Lesson" aside, I found his elocution delicious and his delivery divine. It made me want to just melt right there and invite him to slice all of my clothing off while he was at it. Eargasms, people. Remember how we used to always quote, dryly and sensuously, "Missssterrrr ... Anderrrrsonnnn"? And why? Because the way he said it was memorable, evocative, and just a little bit dirty.
Flash forward to Vendetta. The choice of Hugo for his voice is a sound one. However, they did not develop a presence strong enough to stand behind the mask, character, story, or myth. Just because you went through something doesn't mean you're mighty, scary, or vengeful. You need to SHOW me you have depth, might, rage, and grief, passion. Tossing a joke along with your knives doesn't help to prove that. This is not Indiana Jones. If you're going to use humor, it ought to be Batman style - understated and slightly painful.
I should clearly hear malice in V's voice, grief when he thinks about other's suffering, confusion and betrayal when he speaks of the agreement of his people to comply with a totalitarian government. Instead he's perpetually well mannered and snazzy, vaguely trite, more often slightly amused or nonchalant than emotionally reflective of wanting the revenge he has dedicated his life to. This man was a victim, and a victim has a thick, convoluted, difficult emotional pallette with which to paint. They used a very limited color pallette.
There is one key moment later in the film where V is unlocking a side to himself that betrays Evey, but it suddenly becomes Evey's story rather than his. You understand why they do that later in the film, but this is another example of the film undermining itself. To best understand the future, I must know the past. If you gloss over the past (V) I will not understand or believe in the future nearly as well (Evey).
This and other troubling flaws drop this movie from A to B. It's mainly the lack of force behind Hugo Weaving's V, which is not his fault (because we know how fabulous he was as Agent Smith) but the filmmaker's fault. They did not build upon V, but used him only as a caricature and an excuse to expound on an film that can be encapsulated with the word "ego."
Whoever it was who did it, Wachowskis or McTeigue, their own egos got the better of them, and the film suffered for it. There is a man behind V, because the film as they conceived it offers a framework that claims he is a man who must now launch his nation into a new era out of his own suffering and need for vengeance. So the filmmakers sketch it out and then run amok, rather than building that framework solidly to justify what comes after. They were so concerned with running amok, showing off this and that, the flair of this idea or that, the montage sequences they're so proud of, the melodramatic turns of phrase from our Hero V, that they dropped the power of the film to some extent in favor of the Power of Cheese.
But, Cheese, aside, I was moved by the film. I was moved by V's words, even if his own actions didn't always support the ideas he was formed of. I was moved by powerful images of people making a stand, of people suffering for false truths. I felt utterly verklempt watching a march of people upon the streets of London.
The movie touches on things like a leader of government saying "I will show the terrorist what terror is." Ironic and powerful - is this not the heart of Bush's declaration of the War on Terror? What man claims he will show evil what evil is, but evil himself? Or is he? Does the end justify the means? Do you need to fight fire with fire? How far is too far? When does speaking the truth become anarchy?
When does protecting your own people from harm become genocide? When does proteting the moral fabric of your people become racism, sexism, tyrannism? When does the government saying "Trust me to take care of you" become "I cannot trust you to take care of yourself"? How far will a belief take a people - into madness, into power-mongering, into human experimentation, into murder?
Powerful questions that are raised, but the man who raises them seems almost docile in his "vendetta." He barely asks any of these questions of anyone except in one televised speech that is fairly blase'. You never see him discuss these things or what he's seen and done with Evey, a key character in his mission. We, the watcher know - but the only key character who DOES know, from all sides, is Stephen Rea's (Inspector Finch). That's fairly sad, considering that he's not our main character.
I do like that they don't actually make V the hero. I mean he is, but he isn't. I heard rumors this movie was a support of anarchy, but it clearly isn't. Again, the "fight terror with terror" statement, and the plot- is blunt - a government can be as evil as a terrorist, a terrorist as evil as a government. No one is safe from the rules of humanity. All of us are suspect. We can all lose ourselves in our self righteousness. We can easily become V or the Chancellor, who are merely two sides of the same coin - torturer and victim, each taking his turn. As V learns from Evey, it's a fine line he's walking and he can easily turn into the monster that made him.
There's a love affair, too, but it's misplaced and lacking. Don't use it if you can't support it. Build it up steadily and consistently from the beginning, not as an afterthought. There was soooo much potential there, and that fell flat. Embarassingly so.
WARNING: "V spoiler" spoilers below
I thought Evey and V were platonic and then all of a sudden they're dancing and he's smashing mirrors like he's the Phantom of the Opera and she's Christine - ludicrous! She's declaring they can run off together, which makes no sense if she really knows who and what he is. If she's ok with him not taking off his mask, why on earth is she making that offer? Why is she SUCKING on that mask when we know he can't feel it, maybe can't even see it, and she's been told to ignore his body by HIM? USE what you know gets to him - WORDS. Leave it at that, man, leave it at that. That mask is freaky.
V seems to playing (like the Joker, who is a true anarchist and not trying to justify, villify, free, or enlighten anyone except prove to the world how delightfully wicked and clever he is). But V is claiming to have a vision and a meaning behind his actions - he wants vengeance, and to wake his people up. If so, STOP PLAYING. I never read the book but man, if you want me to buy that you're serious, then the prancing around like a minx in your mask is not going to help.
Give me angry when you're betrayed, let me FEEL the spittle you're building up behind the mask, even if I can't see it.
WARNING: "V spoiler" spoilers below
Why on earth is he perfectly unemotional about Evey selling him out to the Bishop? Yes, she didn't get away with it, but it should still have made him snippish at the very least. No more egg on toast with butter for YOU.
These people had a fierce story and it was just not told fiercely enough. If you really want to wake the world up, then you entreat them with the ferocity of your love for your nation and what you want them to see. You are fighting first and foremost for something, and if after you have a beatific moment of sainthood, fine, but you need to be gnashing, crying to the heavens, and wailing about it first.
And you don't undermine it with jokes, overdone montages or parallels to Hitler and holocaust, screaming tyrants, lack of proper character development for your hero from HIS POV, etc.
So, yes, I liked it. But like OG, I expected so much more, considering the fact that these filmmakers were after a point and seemingly wanted to touch people, make them think, inspire them. They inspired me, but also made me doubtful just because of these mistakes. So I forgive them, but only so much.
Actor/Character reviews ...
Natalie Portman (Evey) was fabulous in her suffering and fear, lacking in her accent, likeable and interesting. She got way more character development and screen time than V and should not have.
Stephen Rea (Inspector Finch) did the best with his character in the whole film. Flawless. Everyone else made a mistake somewhere, or were told to do something they shouldn't have and went with. He was consistent, believable, and you saw all kinds of emotions lurking around in there he was struggling with without making huge statements or dramatic gestures.
Stephen Fry (Gordon Deitrich) was also very good, very believable. Got a little more screen time in places than he should have before the big revelation later (his tv sketch). How they used his character was very smart, useful, and powerful.
John Hurt (Chancellor Adam Sutler) was way overdone. He probably did what he was told, but man. They literally threw him up there and practically had a banner over him that said "AKA, HITLER." Then again this speaks to the "graphic novel" source versus the "film source" and so I'm more likely to forgive it.