V for Vendetta

[Fist and Faith]

Yup. Cool. Very, very cool. Hugo Weaving is excellent. No, we never see his face, because of the mask. But his voice and body language are fantastic.

Natalie Portman is also very good. (It's not a love story, after all. )

The filming, lighting, that kind of thing, look very good to me. I seem to be liking this kind of thing more these days. Sin City is another great example. Maybe they're doing it better?

For any who are wondering, it's been too long since I read the comic to know what differences there are. I figured I'd rather read it again after seeing the movie, so there'd be less chance of being upset while watching.

[sgt.null]

i want to see this so much. I have a fondness for Guy Fawkes.

[Warmark]

Looking forward to seeing it.

[ur-bane]

I'll rent it when it hits DVD, because it looks good...but I don't like the title.
"A is for apple, J is for Jacks....cinnamon toasty Apple Jacks"

[Worm of Despite]

I heart the title, but then I heart anything from Alan Moore's mind. I'm prolly gonna try to see this with my mom or someone, and then I'll read the graphic novel. Like Fist, don't wanna approach the movie as a complaining purist.

[Fist and Faith]

...I heart anything from Alan Moore's mind.

Amen! Watchmen, Swamp Thing, etc.

Hey! You don't suppose The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is actually good?!?

[CovenantJr]

I have a fondness for Guy Fawkes.

Curious.

[Creator]

I have a fondness for Guy Fawkes.

Curious.

FIGHT, FIGHT!!!

[Worm of Despite]

I think it's cause Guy Fawkes is a cool name or something. Certainly not because he wanted to blow up members of Parliament and the King! Though I admit that's cool.

[sgt.null]

Guy Fawkes (April 14, 1570–January 31, 1606) was an English soldier and a member of a group of Roman Catholic conspirators who attempted to carry out the so-called Gunpowder Plot in 1605. The plot was an attempt to assassinate King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) and the members of both houses of the Parliament of England. To do this, Westminster Palace was to be blown up during the formal opening session of the 1605 Parliament, in which the king would address a joint assembly of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Guy Fawkes was in large part responsible for the later stages of the plan's execution. His activities were detected, however, before the plan's completion. Following a severe interrogation involving the use of torture, Fawkes and his co-conspirators were executed for treason and attempted murder. Guy Fawkes is remembered with Guy Fawkes Night on November 5. It was said that Fawkes was "the only man to ever enter parliament with honest intentions."

Fist: the two League graphic novels are excellent. the movie is horrid.

[Lord Mhoram]

I read the graphic novel recently, but refuse to see the film as Alan Moore said it was "rubbish."

PS Fist,

League of Extraordinary Gentlmene the graphic novel rules. Not as good as V, but still great.

[matrixman]

WARNING: long-winded review below. In the event of eyestrain or migraines, please forward complaints to the friendly Mods of this forum.

The simple verdict: S For Satisfactory? A good movie, but not great.

The complicated verdict: it probably would have had a stronger impact on me if I had never read the graphic novel. It's both a blessing and a curse to have known and loved this work for years. I wish I could've been someone in the audience who was experiencing the power of the story for the first time. I was so busy mentally noting the differences between the film and the book that I couldn't properly enjoy the movie in its own right. On a second viewing maybe I can immerse myself more.

Glamour vs. Grit
This is a great looking movie, but maybe it looks too good, or too clean. In the graphic novel, David Lloyd's art depicts a decaying world where everything looks grimy (and vaguely diseased - including people) and sinister shadows are everywhere. The sense of oppression is downright suffocating. It makes you want to go outside for some fresh air after finishing the book. The movie, on the other hand, doesn't quite make the viewer squirm in that way. We are all sitting comfortably in our seats enjoying the proceedings. So I'm criticizing the film for not being more daring in challenging the audience's comfort level, but I'm also commending it for being a competent action flick that doesn't get bogged down in political sermonizing.

Certainly, no single 2-hour feature film could hope to capture every nuance of such a deep story as V For Vendetta, so the film is vulnerable to the charge that everything has been dumbed down for the big screen. Maybe it should have been a meatier 3-hour movie. Maybe it could've used some of the grittiness of Batman Begins. Could've, should've...wasn't. Alan Moore may well be disgusted that his dark political story has been turned into a glamourous action movie, which could be why he didn't want to be associated with it in any way. His name doesn't appear at all in the credits, just artist Lloyd's.

Mere escapist fare?
A review in a local newspaper summed up the film as basically flash without substance - a visually exciting joyride that takes elements from, say, 1984 and Phantom of the Opera, but without offering much insight beyond just token dialogue about the thorny social/political issues raised. The reviewer thus deemed the film to be escapist fare and not much else (though very polished escapist fare). I agree and disagree with that. I agree that the film can seem at times to be nothing more than brisk and superficial entertainment because that's the price to be paid for skimming over much of the subtext of Alan Moore's carefully built story in order to try to squeeze in the major plot points. On the other hand, I disagree that this film is just mindless entertainment. Even if the film doesn't match the depth of the novel, there is more to absorb than just pretty explosions or V playing action hero. I have to wonder, could that be at the heart of the reviewer's objections? That V For Vendetta is simplistic escapist fare simply because it has at its center a figure who goes around in a costume and has the power to change society? Of course, I can see critics laying such a charge at the book, not just the film. So, Orwell's 1984 can be considered a serious political drama, yet V For Vendetta is nothing more than escapist fare? One expresses the "futile" passion of the individual against the state (Winston Smith), the other expresses the "effective" passion of the individual against the state (V). I'm stealing from Stephen Donaldson's "man as an effective passion" philosophy about fantasy to make that point. How is Orwell's work more relevant than Moore's (and vice-versa), in terms of political parables? What matters is that both are powerful cautionary tales.

I will concede that Moore's V has a superhuman quality to him that renders him less believable or endearing than Orwell's Smith, who is truly an Everyman victimized by the system. For me, the great power of Orwell's story resides in its message of utter hopelessness. On the other hand, the power of Moore's story is that ultimately there is hope, despite the human capacity for destruction and evil. V himself may be not exactly representative of the common person (unless we're all psychopaths harboring vendettas), but he does stand for all those in history who have had the courage to fight state tyranny. The local reviewer ultimately judged in his piece that V is the kind of dangerous force that can't be accepted if we wish to have a stable society. Sure, if we lived in a more or less free society already (and we do in the West), then of course we wouldn't want some deranged anarchist to destabilize what we've got. But I imagine V would be some sort of folk hero in Communist China or whatever other authoritarian regime you care to name. (I only mention China because of the irony that Mao was himself a kind of folk hero at the beginning.) So depending on whether you're the opressor or the oppressed, V is either a terrorist or freedom fighter to you. Shall I label the reviewer, who judged V a dangerous force, as part of the fascist media?

Hello, Padme, I'm Agent V...
Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving...hmm, Star Wars royalty in cahoots with Elven royalty? Er, Matrix villainy? Weaving plays V as well as anyone could have hoped for, I guess. You never see his face, but his voice carries the day. Weaving's distinctive voice is so ubiquitous now (to me anyway) that it's actually not as distracting as it could have been. But Natalie Portman maybe wasn't the most ideal choice to play Evey Hammond. Personally, I would've liked to have seen a less well-known actress take the part. Unfortunately, in my eyes Portman's presence somewhat takes away from the illusion of this particular world the movie is trying to create, because she brings with her too much "Star Wars" baggage. Padme is still too fresh in my mind. The film might have been more effective (for me) if it had a cast of relative unknowns to create their own fresh mythos.

Stephen Rea does a fine job as the police detective - the "good man" caught up in the system. John Hurt as leader Suttler looks like he's having fun bossing everyone around. Again, it's a gleeful bit of casting irony to have him play a Big Brother type figure, since he had memorably played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of 1984.

I'd say director James McTeigue is a journeyman rather than a visionary filmmaker. To be fair, there are a few sequences in the film that are very well done, possibly even better than in the book. The sequence showing the Nazi-like treatment of the "patients" at Larkhill Detention Centre comes to mind. The story of the doomed girl Valerie was also well done, with beautiful imagery. Also, V's lair is almost spot-on perfect. But the film did not deliver any cinematic epiphany to my senses. Overall, there's nothing particularly special about V For Vendetta as filmmaking art that I can see, certainly not pioneering like Sin City which broke new ground for comic book adaptation, nor visionary like The Matrix which broke new ground for visual effects (a film that McTeigue worked on as first assistant director). Since V For Vendetta is McTeigue's directorial debut, maybe he should be given some slack. The movie is a fine effort, despite its shortcomings.

However, those shortcomings may lead filmgoers to conclude that Alan Moore's work is just an interesting but not particularly special comic book that isn't extraordinary enough to merit reading after seeing the movie. (Well, I guess they wouldn't know he wrote the original story, since they won't see his name anywhere). It would be sad if filmgoers didn't read the graphic novel, but they shouldn't be required to. The movie should succeed or fail on its own.

[taraswizard]

I read a few days ago that Alan Moore as a matter of personal preference does officially affiliate himself with any derivative works made from his work. (If that's wrong, well then this essay was blowing smoke) The essay protrayed his attitude regarding this matter as a tempermental 'artiste' who cannot stand to see his originals tampered with in anyway.

[Fist and Faith]

WARNING: long-winded review below. In the event of eyestrain or migraines, please forward complaints to the friendly Mods of this forum.

That's me. Anybody wanna complain?
Man goes to the complaint department: "I'd like to complain."
Man behind the desk: "You want to complain?! Look at these shoes! I've only had them two months..."

The complicated verdict: it probably would have had a stronger impact on me if I had never read the graphic novel. It's both a blessing and a curse to have known and loved this work for years. I wish I could've been someone in the audience who was experiencing the power of the story for the first time. I was so busy mentally noting the differences between the film and the book that I couldn't properly enjoy the movie in its own right. On a second viewing maybe I can immerse myself more.

Again, I'm lucky that I don't remember the comic well enough. (But I was REALLY looking forward to him conducting on the rooftop. That was awesome in the movie! )

Glamour vs. Grit
This is a great looking movie, but maybe it looks too good, or too clean. In the graphic novel, David Lloyd's art depicts a decaying world where everything looks grimy (and vaguely diseased - including people) and sinister shadows are everywhere. The sense of oppression is downright suffocating. It makes you want to go outside for some fresh air after finishing the book. The movie, on the other hand, doesn't quite make the viewer squirm in that way. We are all sitting comfortably in our seats enjoying the proceedings. So I'm criticizing the film for not being more daring in challenging the audience's comfort level,

I know what you mean about Lloyd's art. It fit the story very well. (I know a guy who doesn't like Matt Wagner's Grendel: Devil by the Deed because the art is too pretty for the story. Naturally, I beat the crap outta him.) But I didn't have the problem you had with the "pretty" look of the movie, because the political atmosphere and overall fear were so strong. I imagine talking to Stalin was kinda terrifying in that way.

So depending on whether you're the opressor or the oppressed, V is either a terrorist or freedom fighter to you. Shall I label the reviewer, who judged V a dangerous force, as part of the fascist media?

Loyalists or Patriots? As usual, the answer depends on who wins.

Hello, Padme, I'm Agent V...
Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving...hmm, Star Wars royalty in cahoots with Elven royalty? Er, Matrix villainy? Weaving plays V as well as anyone could have hoped for, I guess. You never see his face, but his voice carries the day. Weaving's distinctive voice is so ubiquitous now (to me anyway) that it's actually not as distracting as it could have been. But Natalie Portman maybe wasn't the most ideal choice to play Evey Hammond. Personally, I would've liked to have seen a less well-known actress take the part. Unfortunately, in my eyes Portman's presence somewhat takes away from the illusion of this particular world the movie is trying to create, because she brings with her too much "Star Wars" baggage. Padme is still too fresh in my mind. The film might have been more effective (for me) if it had a cast of relative unknowns to create their own fresh mythos.

I didn't mind Portman. Probably because I saw her in Closer more recently than SW. (And I only watch the SW movies for the fights anyway. ) And although I also think unknowns would be cool, since probably very few people have any idea who Alan Moore is, I don't think there would be as many sales that way.

[matrixman]

I read a few days ago that Alan Moore as a matter of personal preference does officially affiliate himself with any derivative works made from his work. (If that's wrong, well then this essay was blowing smoke) The essay protrayed his attitude regarding this matter as a tempermental 'artiste' who cannot stand to see his originals tampered with in anyway.

I don't know about the details of this story. I was just surprised at the absence of Moore's name from the film credits, so I assumed he must've been seriously ticked off by the adaptation. I could understand totally his position: if I and other fellow artists had poured our energies into creating something as amazing as V For Vendetta, we'd certainly want people to buy and enjoy our work rather than divert their money into what we thought was some shallow Hollywood imitation of it. Besides Moore, I wonder how artist David Lloyd feels about the movie? His name appears on the credit roll, so it's not like there's a mass rejection of the film by all who worked on the graphic novel.

I didn't mind Portman. Probably because I saw her in Closer more recently than SW. (And I only watch the SW movies for the fights anyway.) And although I also think unknowns would be cool, since probably very few people have any idea who Alan Moore is, I don't think there would be as many sales that way.

Well, it just feels like both Weaving and Portman have been in every other movie I've seen recently, though I know that's not actually true. They are two likeable stars, each coming from popular movie franchises, so it just makes sense that they're in demand. It's like how Patrick Stewart for a time seemed to pop up in a movie every other month, when he wasn't being Jean-Luc Picard or Professor Xavier, or how Nicole Kidman for a stretch seemed to star in a new movie every other week. I'm not really complaining: it's all an amusing spectacle of popular actors being paraded/herded into all kinds of roles, regardless of whether those roles actually suit them or not.

Obviously Hugo Weaving can act, as can Portman. I'm just saying, did it have to be Weaving...just because of his association with the Wachowski brothers, who produced V For Vendetta? And did Evey Hammond have to have the face of an actress that is so well known already?

For instance, why did the cast of LOTR make a big impression on me? Because it was largely composed of actors unfamiliar to me. Same with The Matrix. But now Weaving has become too familiar since that first time he donned Agent Smith's shades. Of course, since he's behind a mask as V, I can't very well accuse him of overexposing himself.

[sgt.null]

well Weaving wasn't the first choice. but the first actor bolted and the Bros. called upon a friend.

[hierachy]

It's a good film.

[Fist and Faith]

For instance, why did the cast of LOTR make a big impression on me? Because it was largely composed of actors unfamiliar to me.

That's the best example of an unknown cast I'm aware of. They were all fantastic, and I'd never so much as heard of most of them. Yet I can't imagine anyone looking more like the characters they portrayed, or doing a better job.

[sgt.null]

excluding Liv Tyler of course.

[CovenantJr]

Guy Fawkes (April 14, 1570–January 31, 1606) was an English soldier and a member of a group of Roman Catholic conspirators who attempted to carry out the so-called Gunpowder Plot in 1605. The plot was an attempt to assassinate King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) and the members of both houses of the Parliament of England. To do this, Westminster Palace was to be blown up during the formal opening session of the 1605 Parliament, in which the king would address a joint assembly of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Guy Fawkes was in large part responsible for the later stages of the plan's execution. His activities were detected, however, before the plan's completion. Following a severe interrogation involving the use of torture, Fawkes and his co-conspirators were executed for treason and attempted murder. Guy Fawkes is remembered with Guy Fawkes Night on November 5. It was said that Fawkes was "the only man to ever enter parliament with honest intentions."

I know all that. I live here, after all.

And to be factually correct, Guy Fawkes is remembered in a bad way on Guy Fawkes' Night. There's a little rhyme that goes with it, about not forgetting treason.

Not that I'm particularly sore about the whole thing; I just think it's ludicrous to idolise someone like Guy Fawkes.