“An inch. It’s small and it’s fragile and it’s the only thing in this world worth having.” –Alan Moore.
Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Director: James McTeigue
Screenwriters: The Wachowski Brothers
“V for Vendetta” is about a dark revolutionary / terrorist who inspires a nation to rise up against a futuristic England, which has become a fascist, totalitarian regime. Evoking the legend of Guy Fawkes, who was notorious for the Gun Powder Plot of 1605, the masked vigilante known only as V stages a Fifth of November bombing of the Houses of Parliament.
Those familiar with Alan Moore’s graphic novel, upon which the movie is based, probably didn’t expect the film to be the CGI Matrix-esque action fest it is unfortunately being marketed as. Most people who saw the promise of the trailer will be disappointed by the movie about 20 minutes in, while fans of the comic will most likely be more patient with it. The “V for Vendetta” film has parts that are genuinely moving and inspired. Natalie Portman’s performance as Evey Hammond is a terrific example of this. The cinematography is stunning at times, and the sets and costumes are all exciting to look at. Some of the dialogue in the prison scene, taken directly from the graphic novel, was beautifully performed and presented as well. Unfortunately that’s where the movie pretty much peaks before it becomes just another comic book wrapped in a deluded notion of being important.
The problem with this “V for Vendetta” isn’t the liberties the Wachowski Brothers take with the source material but with their own childish sense of what liberty is in the first place. The film’s heavy-handed attempt to parallel the perils of the story’s setting with present-day America made me feel that this adaptation of Alan Moore’s story was inspired entirely by their personal agendas. The politics of “V for Vendetta,” which I happen to strongly agree with, were childishly presented and did nothing but distract me from the story. I know I was supposed to feel moved by the message. Instead, there were moments when I was even insulted by it. As bleak as director James McTeigue’s vision of the future is, I never once empathized with the protagonist of the story, and that’s the most insulting thing I can say about it.
Alan Moore, who penned the graphic novel, has been very public about his contempt for this film. After seeing it for myself, I’m pretty sure that Michael Moore would love it.
Rated 2 1/2 out of 5 self-serving brand icons
It can’t be that bad, can it? I’ve been waiting for this movie for 16 years.
Comment by Flammy — March 17, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
well now i don’t wanna go see it even though i never read the book anything micheal moore would love i will hate it.
Comment by Jessica — March 17, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
V for Vandetta should be renamed D for Disappointing. The movie captured none of the intensity of the novel. It was sterile and cold. I couldn’t feel anything for the main characters. Also, in typical Hollywood fasion, V falls in love with Evey. Yuck! Why can’t these idiots ever get a story right. Highly disappointing…Read the novel — it will blow your mind.
Comment by jenn x — March 17, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
i think it was moved to these times so that not only the readers of the GN would see the movie. i think it was entertaining and actually said something. in the end i was almost in tears seeing that there was hope. and micheal moore would not like this movie, he is a douche and wants peace. like they said in the punisher (which i also liked) “if you want peace, prepare for war”.
Comment by the battalo — March 17, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
i don’t care what you allege; natalie portman can’t act for shit. closer. star wars. garden state…those performances were crimes against humanity. crimes!
Comment by tony d. — March 17, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
i agree with tony D. there is no reason she should have a career.
Comment by the battalo — March 18, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
UPDATE: I have seen the film and I give it 4/5 stars. Even tho they take massive liberties with the plot, the basic feeling of book is captured (but England is too clean looking, not gritty enough, too little mention of the social upheaval that gave rise to Norsefire, I always thought Larkhill was one of many, no mention of genocides, Gordon’s role was redundant with Valerie’s )….. BUT
Give props to the Bollocks girl, Storm Saxon reference, Stevie Fry’s performance, V’s takedowns of the Larkhill Gang, using the “St Mary’s Virus” instead of a nuclear war, glimpses of America falling apart on the telly, roving suveillence trucks, Evey’s epiphany, Hugo Weaving saving this film, among other gems.
Comment by Flammy — April 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Let it not be overlooked that most movies do not do justice to the book they were inspired by. Having said that I’de like to add that this movie needed to made. The negative remarks by Disco Volante should not deture the rest of the public from watching this great film. Only a narrow minded baffoon would say it was a movie inspired by someone’s own political agenda. Further more in this day and age the timing is perfect for a movie based on the novel by Alan Moore to reach the masses. So what if the movie resembled little of the Novel…the point is..The ideas within the movie have made it to the masses.
Comment by Javier — August 8, 2006 @ 10:56 am