Master Index of Archived Threads


V FOR VENDETTA

1 rose

1 votes

2 roses

2 votes

3 roses

2 votes

4 roses

3 votes

5 roses

1 votes

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 10:23 AM

I saw it opening night. I'll leave this up for a while before i make any comments.

martin Mar 28 2006 02:34 AM

i thought the message was overbearing, and the lead character distractingly annoying. the alliteration he dropped at the beginning really got on my nerves, and the way he carried himself was generally grating. natalie portman is always watchable though. struggle against fascism is a message for adults, but the delivery is for children. A for awful.

Vic Sage Apr 03 2006 12:42 PM

V is certainly flawed, but i disagree with your overall assessment. The movie is ambitious, but it is sort of schizophrenic... its an art-film with too much violence, or an action film with too much chatter. But nevertheless, it's a chilling, moving call-to-arms, sounding at an important time. V's final battle under the subway shows what this movie COULD have been, had they cut some chatting and mixed it up a bit more. Its not just that more action would've been enteraining (tho it would've been), it would've also better serve the theme the movie pretends to raise. Because, if you're going to ask the question "when is terrorism justified?" then you can't so load the answer in the story-telling. In between blowing up empty buildings, V only kills bad guys who deserve it, and this he does mostly off-screen, in bloodless ways. It lacks ambiguity and sophistication in its viewpoint. In fact, the one horrible thing we see him do to an innocent is forgiven by his particular victim (i won't say who) and his act ultimately serves the victim's needs. If we had seen some exciting action sequences in which he serves his taste for retribution in more interestingly horrible ways, and if his actions actually killed innocents because "in order to make an omelette...", then the question is more complicated and more interesting. V is further humanized by giving him a stupid, pointless love story, as if that had anything to do with anything. But this is Hollywood and we must replace moral complexity with simplistic heroism, and politics must always revolve around a love story. On a side note: If Portman's character "Evie" is to be totally debased and dehumanized during her imprisonment, to the extent that she is completely broken down, then where is the requisite "nude shower scene" or other moment of sexual humiliation or torture? They show a bit of a shower scene, but all you see is her upper back. Now, not only does this annoy me because i want to see Natalie Portman naked (which is a good enough reason), it again underlines the way the movie pulls its punches. But here's the thing... the movie works anyway. Portman's radicalization is a personal journey that we take with her, and, in the end, when the gates outside Parliament are filled with a citizenry finally awoken from its stupor... well, its a glorious moment, a call to arms reminiscent of the Les Miserables musical in its goose-bump inducing emotion. Heavy-handed? Yup. But between the striking art direction, the moving performances, the chilling message (compromised though it is), the imaginitive action sequences (few as they may be) and the engaging personal journey toward awareness and engagement for not only Evie but the entire populace... it seems to me well worth the price of admission, and its virtues (such as they are) are better appreciated on a big screen, rather than waiting for them to be minimalized on tv.

martin Apr 05 2006 02:22 AM

thats a good review. we probably disagree about the value of the political message of the movie. besides, i think the message is so garbled and scattershot that even if i agreed with it, i wouldnt be sure exactly what i was agreeing with. fascism is bad? i suppose. maybe there is a fine line between terrorism and activism? sure, why not. i see no need to be told that, and i dont think this is a time in history that we need to be reminded. plus i am never how much of the message i am supposed to relate to reality. what if our government has ties to the guys we percieve as the enemy? ok, thanks for reminding me, i will question that. what if terrorism is sometimes justified? hmm, i will look into it. what if the terrorists are actually more than connected to the government, but actually are the government? hmm, well thats a bit much. was i supposed to think that? i am not sure. what i would have liked would have been if the movie gave up on the message and went really far over the top into total absurdity so i would feel like i wasnt even supposed to be getting a message about terrorism and politics. sometimes i enjoy an explosion or karate chop just because they are cool. i dont like being lured into somebody's silly politics because i am up in there trying to see a cool knife throwing dude. i often sort of resent being presented with some sort of political message in a movie. i feel like the movie is treating me like a child that needs to be taught a lesson. i did like the call to arms at the end though, just for the visuals of seeing all those peeps marching together in the stupid mask. if there is a cause i can sign up for that involves marching with other peeps in goofy masks, count me in.

sharpie Aug 08 2006 06:55 AM

Saw it on video last night. Had been prepared to dislike it as The Matrix movies did nothing for me, so I was pleasantly surprised. Could have been cut by about 20 minutes with way too many scenes of the officials being yelled at by the leader but the overall feel of the movie worked for me. Yes, Natalie Portman being naked would have been nice but the whole fake torture stuff was a bit hard to believe.

Elster88 Aug 08 2006 07:37 AM

Saw it in theaters. It entertained me. Somewhat different than the average action flick, which is refreshing.

ScarletKnight41 Aug 08 2006 09:34 AM

My daughter loved this movie. I know that she's going to buy it on DVD the second that she gets home from camp (she may even make us stop at Target for a copy before getting home from camp!).

sharpie Aug 08 2006 12:01 PM

I watched Lenny's DVD that he bought with the money he made feeding a neighbor's cats.

Elster88 Aug 08 2006 01:05 PM

If Portman's character "Evie" is to be totally debased and dehumanized during her imprisonment, to the extent that she is completely broken down, then where is the requisite "nude shower scene" or other moment of sexual humiliation or torture? They show a bit of a shower scene, but all you see is her upper back. Now, not only does this annoy me because i want to see Natalie Portman naked (which is a good enough reason), it again underlines the way the movie pulls its punches. Was the shower scene really about "pulling punches" or just a way of getting the point across without having to show nudity? I think the audience got the idea that she was being broken down without a naked shot. Like you, I'm for a Natalie nude scene...in fact I think she should have had a nude scene in all of her movies since she turned 21. But I'm not sure that I agree with your point.

Vic Sage Aug 08 2006 02:25 PM

yes, its pulling punches. there's a difference between knowing something and feeling something. You need to feel for Portman on a viceral level in those scenes, to feel that she's actually being tortured, so when its revealed that ***SPOILER WARNING*** V is actually the torturer, it has real emotional impact. If the torture is simply suggested, and hinted at, or simply not portrayed, then you can KNOW that V tortured her, but you haven't FELT it in the same way. It's the same as all the off--camera killings he commits. Even the gentleness of his killing of the lady doctor. And his bombs apparently don't kill any innocent folks. That, and the love story, are all meant to blunt the perception of V as an insane terrorist. He's just a charming Zorro-type hero revenging himself upon the powers that be, on behalf of the people. But that isn't what the book was, and it isn't what the movie otherwise CLAIMS itself to be. Like i said, if you want an audience to truly reconsider the nature of terrorism as a form of political action, then you've got to present a TERRORIST, not a misunderstood hero. They pulled their punches to make him more likeable, to have it both ways. Or they were forced to pull their punches by their studio, and by the possibility that Portman might've simply refused to do any nude scenes.Either way, they compromised and failed to make their point.