DVD - V for Vendetta

[dalmatianjaws]

Director: James McTeigue
Cast: Bald Natalie Portman and a Mime

From James Roland at redfenceproject.com

SPOILERS
V for Vendetta is about a theocratic dictatorship that rapes helpless women and burns art . . . and the flamboyantly gay community-theater actor who tries to stop them by killing old women in their beds and blowing up famous landmarks in London.

Do you really need a review?
   
The recent bombardment of graphic novel adaptations has been hit or miss at the box office. And it’s true, the Wachowski brothers’ pedigree isn’t much to brag about after the socially embarrassing Matrix sequels, but the promise of a new director and action packed knife fights drew me to the video store.
   
Early reviews of V for Vendetta seemed promising and, in all fairness, the film really wasn’t that bad. It just forgot a golden rule of filmmaking: don’t make your hero look like a perverted circus clown.

The first three scenes hit the audience in rapid, mediocre succession. The first is a rushed flashback about a revolutionary who is quickly caught and executed. This odd intro serves no real purpose, other than providing our hero, V, with an idea for his ridiculous mask and wig combo.

This is followed by a confusing rip-off of The Phantom of the Opera, where V and our heroine, Evey (Natalie Portman) sit and prep their hair in a mirror before heading out for the night.

Thrills by the minute.
   
The last is a heavy handed introduction to the film’s fantasy world, in which we meet the antagonist (a reality-free religious government that carries badges adorned with cross-like symbols, and which we are intended to equate with the current U.S. administration) and watch as Evey narrowly escapes getting raped in public.

V swoops in to save the day and proceeds, with over-dramatic flair, to deliver the dumbest dialog ever devised to destroy decency with devilish . . . alliteration.

Almost all the dialog is pure exposition. Two detectives, torn between a loyalty to their government and the loose liberal rhetoric of a known terrorist, are hot on the trail of V. But instead of chasing him down dark alleys or setting up elaborate sting operations (scenes that would provide action to an otherwise action-less action movie) they spend much of their time staring at computer screens and talking about what to do next.
   
Despite all the technical flaws, it’s the philosophy of Vendetta that really rings false. The film is based on a graphic novel that was published by Vertigo, a division of DC Comics. Vendetta carries the same world view and flawed logic of such Vertigo titles as Hellblazer (from which we get the movie Constantine) and The Sandman, both of which portray religion as a bane to society.

The film wallows in stereotypes and hypocrisy: The sleazy religious priest is murdered in an act of sexual deviancy, but the film laments the censored life of a gay man that keeps violent male porn and Nazi propaganda in an underground chamber. When Evey stumbles blindly upon his secret cache, tucked ominously into a dark corner, her first instinct is to run. She seems frightened to be alone in a dark basement with this man . . . and yet, in the next scene, she eats breakfast with him.

Later in the movie, Evey almost goes the way of Winston Smith. Luckily, our once bold and beautiful heroine keeps her mind intact by reading the autobiography of a previous tenant - another original, well crafted and realistic character . . . a misunderstood lesbian with abusive, close minded religious parents.

In what are possibly the most ridiculous scenes of the film, we see Valerie (Natasha Wightman) face her parents as they rant, call her disgusting names and, in a syrupy slow motion, throw her baby picture into the trash. Later in the sequence, Valerie and her lover watch the news as the government storms the private homes of homosexuals and drags them off to prison. Behind them we see the lover’s bed of roses disappear into the background as we hear the most subtle dialog ever written, “And after that there were no more roses . . . .”

Near the end of the film the deep, dark government secret is finally revealed. At a high security testing facility, a priest, a nurse, and a government officer dispose of dead human test subjects in large piles that look like they were stolen from WWII stock footage.

Now, I’m not a particular fan of the current presidential administration, but even the most liberal of liberals ought to balk at putting Bush on a level with Hitler.

Pol Pot, maybe . . . or even Michael Moore, but not Hitler.

And anyway, Vendetta seems ready to use Nazis as a comparison for pure evil, but didn’t it also use a Swastika as an example of unfairly banned art?

Nazis bad, Swastika good.

Nazis bad, Swastika good. Nazis bad, Swastika good.

Sorry, I know this is annoying, but just in case the Wachowski brothers are reading this I want to speak to them in their own language . . . subtlety.

[Tiger]

Ok, I have to say, this is the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a very long time.

V for Vendetta is a FANTASTIC film!

It is not an anti-Bush film.  It is an updated version of George Orwell's 1984. 
Tip - Reading a book once in a while goes a long way.

"Vendetta seems ready to use Nazis as a comparison for pure evil, but didn’t it also use a Swastika as an example of unfairly banned art?" - The Swastika, or rather that symbol, is not a Nazi creation, someone needs to do their homework!

To anyone who has yet to see V for Vendetta, I suggest you rent/buy it on DVD as soon as possible, it really is a GREAT film. 
When I saw it, the only thing I regretted was that I had waited a few months before seeing it, I should have watched it when it was first released.

And one more thing, the ending is one of the most uplifting scenes I have seen in any film for quite a few years, it is worth watching just for the climactic events alone.

[dalmatianjaws]

Well put. Well put.

Kind of mean, maybe.

V for Vendetta is not a new version of Orwell's 1984, it's the latest in a long line of "Dystopia" stories. Originally a Greek word that meant the opposite of Utopia, it is now also a subset genre of science fiction that depicts a bleak future where a totalitarian regime has overrun a country or the world. See Logan's Run, Equilibrium, Brave New World, Anthem, etc for other examples of this in film and literature.

So, I guess I'd have say . . . um . . . maybe someone should read MORE than one book by George Orwell?

In regards to the statement that this is not an anti-Bush film, I give you this quote from Alan Moore:

"V for Vendetta" (the comic) was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy. Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country."

If you want to research the quote yourself, follow this link: http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/

I have read this and other statements from Moore that it's a shame they made the movie about Bush, because that dates the material rather than making it timeless.

As for the Swastika, I'm fully aware it was not originally a Nazi symbol. But that symbol is so powerfully connected with the Nazi regime that when an American silent film star, William S. Hart, painted a similar Native American symbol on his patio (it looks like a Swastika in reverse) the United States government contacted him because his house was under the bomber flight pattern and they didn't want to be held responsible if any pilots should drop their load early.

ON AMERICAN SOIL.

That is how closely the Swastika is connected to Nazis, and in a medium BUILT on visual metaphor, I'm pretty sure that was the filmmakers' intent.

I would also like to clarify that, just because I think preaching should be left at the pulpit and have no place in the arts, does not mean that I disagree with every point the film made.

Anyway, sorry to pull out the college level source material. I really don't mind that you like the movie, or that you heatedly disagree with my opinion. I think that's great actually, conversation and debate are healthy.  But please try and stay nice about it, especially since this is primarily a movie humor website (and, given that fact, don't you think some of my comments were purposely over the top?)

[Tiger]

I feel I was nice in my response.

V for Vendetta is an updated version of 1984.  I know perfectly well what Dystopia means.

I think that your comment of "maybe someone should read more than one book by George Orwell" is a little silly, especially considering that my "motto" at the bottom of every post is "I dream of electric sheep". 
And even if that were not the case, what did you expect me to do, list every dystopian tale which I have ever read or heard of? 

I mentioned 1984 because it is one of the first, and most notable, and I am glad you brought up Equilibrium because that is also an updated version of 1984.

I really don't care what Alan Moore has said about the film, he did not make the film, so his opinions on what the film is about are only as valid as those of anyone else.  Alan Moore did not like how the film was made, that is great for him, and this makes two people so far.

I am also fully aware how closely the Swastika is linked to the Nazis, but did it ever cross your mind that perhaps this was exactly why the film displays it in the manner it does?  Could it be a statement on an otherwise harmless symbol being used to garner power and to strike fear into people?

I realise that some of your points may have been purposefully over the top, which is clearly your writing style, and this is not a bad thing in itself.

When I read your review, I fail to see the humour in it, which is my problem here.  I see a review that is so incredibly one-sided, suggesting that V for Vendetta is a terrible film, in fact, one of the worst films ever created if your continuous negative points are to be trusted.
 
I strongly disagree with the review.  If you go out of your way to write such an imbalanced review of something you should expect some sort of backlash from those who disagree.  Just because others may not be as passionate in their defence does not make their approach any more correct than my own.