In the opening paragraph for my (negative) review of "Saw II," I wrote how pre-release hype can either make or break a film with me.  As I wrote in that review, films like "Shaun of the Dead" has had its hype work very well for itself.  Of course, in the case of "Saw," its hype was just a bit too much apparently.  Now, though, we come to "V for Vendetta," a property based on a comic I've never read (from mastermind Alan Moore, who, unfortunately, has never had a very good relationship with movie studios and, hence, no longer asks for credit when his works make the jump to the screen).  Even now as I write this, my TV next to me has a commercial airing in which one critic called "V" the "first great film of 2006" and just yesterday, I read an advance review that claimed "Vendetta" is not only a good film, but it will actually change the way you look at life.

Well, luckily, in the case of "V for Vendetta" its hype is mostly correct.  Have my opinions on life been changed?  Not at all.  This is a movie produced by Joel Silver for God's sake.  But is this one immensely entertaining?  Absolutely.

"V for Vendetta" deals with a facist government in the future that controls all of... Britain?  Europe?  I'm still not sure.  Anyhoo, it seems that some sort of horrific plague has taken hold of most of North America, and the U.S. has been plunged into a chaotic civil war.  It is this war that has led to the ugly state of Britian (or all of Europe).  Freedom of speech and actions is no longer tolerated, and one man thinks this should change.

This is V, our main protagonist.  I'd like to take the time and make a quick point here.  There are many out there pointing an accusing finger at "Vendetta," claiming that it shares a pro-terrorism stance.  Anyone who says this is vastly mis-informed, as V is no more a terrorist then George Washington was.  After all, if it's a Hitler-like figure calling you "a terrorist," then does it really count?

Moving on, we are introduced to the big baddie, that of Emperor Adam Sutler, an evil, Big Brother-type who appears only on a large television screen before his evil board of directors (we know they're evil because they sit in a circle in complete darkness, only their faces being shown).  Of course, the hapless ruler is extremely upset that a "terrorist" is running around, blowing up buildings and causing just general chaos.  Detective Finch (the always solid Stephen Rea) is thrown on to the case and is soon questioning his own patriotism towards the ruling government around him.  It should also be noted that Natalie Portman is sort of thrown into all of this as the hapless Evey, a woman rescued and then taken in by V.

Know what?  It doesn't really matter.  Being completely coherent is not exactly the point of this one, which I think is actually quite a shame.  Clues as to exactly what the hell is going on just sort of trickles in piece by piece and, by the end, there are still some things that haven't been covered quite as well as I wish they should have.  While watching this, I couldn't help but be reminded of last year's "Constantine," in that we get a bunch of pretty colors but an all-too-vague sense of reasons for the said pretty colors.  Though, this may be unfair, as I find "V" to not only be able to explain itself a bit better then "Constantine" (a film I actually liked based on its coolness factor alone), but I believe it too just be a much better film as well.

But then we come to the action sequences, which are... well, breath taking.  To mix things up a bit, V uses no guns of any kind, but only his wits and a rather large collection of cutlery.  The knife-work in this film is absolutely fantastic, and the bullet-time slow motion effect popularized by "The Matrix" is not nearly as masturbatory here as it is in some other movies that cop it ("Alien Vs. Predator," I'm looking your way).  For this, first time director and "Matrix" D.A. James McTeigue should be commended.

Speaking of the director, there is even more controversary with this one in that there are some out there claiming that McTeigue is in actuality just a frontman for The Wachowski Brothers (who wrote and produced).  I find this hard to beleive, as McTeigue has actually gone against the D.A. stereotypes, and has managed to find his own sense of style that is actually quite unlike The Wachowskis.  In fact, this is more like "Hellboy" meets "Darkman" with, oddly enough, a dash of "Sky Captain" added... though, I don't really think this one is quite as good as the aforementioned few.

So, we have a very solid cast, a decent enough script, and a nice little debut from McTeigue.  So, what's not to like?  Honestly, I just don't know.  The incoherency is certainly part of the problem, but that's just not it.  I'm giving this one a three star rating, the same rating I bestowed upon films like "Constantine" and "Van Helsing"... yet, this is better.  Much better then either of those.  It's just that there is something missing, that extra kick.  There are non-action scenes in this flick where everything falls into place, such as an expertly directed and edited montage of Rea putting all the pieces together as chaos comes to fruition and V knocks down a very large and very cool set of dominoes or when the would-be terrorist has a very touching sitdown with one of his victims who is truly sorry for all her wrong doings.

Very awesome and very powerful.

Yet we also get some truly bizzarre stuff like the image of V, sporting his dark, black clothing and freaky Guy Fawkes mask wearing... a flower-coated apron and making eggs in a frying pan.  There's even more too, but I just can't put my finger on it.  Something that just doesn't fit.

So, with that, I say this one is certainly worth seeing.  Also, as a final note, it should be made very clear that if you choose not to see this because of your political views, there is something very wrong-headed about you.  For the love of God people, do not look to deep into this.  In the words of Holden McNeil:

"These are fictional characters."

*** out of ****

NOTE: I was able to see this because of free passes I recieved at a comic book store in Pittsburgh.  If you would like the same, apparently WB is dropping off free tickets to early screenings within many major cities.  Just find a comic shop and ask.

I didn't enjoy it that much. It was long, boring and only one scene of actual 'violence/gore.'

I read the original series and the movie took a lot of liberties with it.  I can see why Alan Moore didn't want his name attached to it.  As a stand alone movie, it was quite good.  Hugo Weaving was incredible.


Phil

Quoted from Antemasque I didn't enjoy it that much. It was long, boring and only one scene of actual 'violence/gore.'

See, I think they terribly mis-advertised this one as some sort of action-y "Matrix" clone when, in fact, it is more similar to titles like "Batman Begins."  I could also see where you found some parts a bit overdrawn and boring (the torture scenes, I thought, went a bit too long and had a terribly anti-climatic and non-sensical conclusion).

I found nothing wrong with the torture scene.  It went into Valerie's background.  It was probably the most faithful part of the movie.

It didn't think it was Matrix-esque.  It had its own style visually and, IMHO, a much better story than the Matrix.


Phil

I want to go see this...but I'm 14 and my parents or my brother NEVER go to the movies...ever. So that puts this one out...I'll just rent the DVD

My biggest problem with the torture scene was that the pay-off was just far too... easy.  Trust me, I am not normally the type to start tearing a movie apart just because it sort of bends the rules of most modern logic, but in this case I thought it stuck out like a sore thumb in a movie that mostly seemed to try and stay within the realm of believability.

I want to see this. But why does he look like Zorro with a joker mask? His outfit isn’t very feasible for what he does. Wouldn’t the mask make it difficult to see? His gloves are cumbersome for a knife handler. And what’s with the knives? Why no guns? And am I the only person who would like to marvel at an actual human with actual skills instead of just a bunch of unrealistic CGI effects?

I like the premise, though I heard the author of the book hated this movie. I just don’t think it’s very realistic for a guy in a cape and Zorro hat with bulky gloves and daggers to fight a bunch on men without getting his mask pulled off.

I’ll probably watch it anyway just because I like the premise. I like Natalie Portman and I love Agent Smith’s voice.  

Is it me or does being a writer make you so much more sensitive to and critical of predictable dialogue and one-liners?

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I want to see this. But why does he look like Zorro with a joker mask? His outfit isn’t very feasible for what he does. Wouldn’t the mask make it difficult to see? His gloves are cumbersome for a knife handler. And what’s with the knives? Why no guns? And am I the only person who would like to marvel at an actual human with actual skills instead of just a bunch of unrealistic CGI effects?

The movie answers most of these questions.  There's no reason to answer them here.  He does show some nice fighting moves, though, and not in a matrixy sort of way.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I’ll probably watch it anyway just because I like the premise. I like Natalie Portman and I love Agent Smith’s voice.

Hugo Weaving had the perfect voice for the role.  I can't think of anyone else who could've done it.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Is it me or does being a writer make you so much more sensitive to and critical of predictable dialogue and one-liners?

One-liners.  Ridiculous plot twists.  Holes in the plot....


Phil

I heard the comic book was based off a real person. Apparently some guy did try to blow up Parliment in the 18th or 19th century, got caught, was horribly tortured and killed. Anyone know anything about this? A few people were talking with the professor about it before class on Friday but I didn't catch the guy's name.

Anyone, I may see this. The trailer made it look like utter Hollywood crap but it's been getting good reviews and many other people have said the advertising of the movie is misleading and it's actually much better than it looks. Then again, it's a comic book movie, which can actually be worse than a remake as the original material has to be watered down so much since comic books are so incredibly risque nowadays. I don't know. Maybe next weekend if I have nothing better to do.

His name was Guy Fawkes.  I was named after him.

Guy Fawkes (April 13, 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, the House of Lords was to be blown up during the formal opening session of the 1605 Parliament -- in which the members of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons were jointly assembled. 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 good intentions".

- From Wikipedia.org

That's the guy. Thanks dude.

The mask that V wears is a Guy Fawkes mask, not a joker mask, BTW.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe The mask that V wears is a Guy Fawkes mask, not a joker mask, BTW. Phil

Ahh, I gotcha. I knew about Guy Fawkes and I knew the “remember, remember the fifth of November” tagline was derived from an old poem. I called it a joker mask because it looked like it was smiling and because it reminded me of a Batman comic book my brother had or something.

Thanks for the info. I think it makes the movie better. I don’t necessarily require a movie to be realistic to be enjoyable. I do find it kind of strange, though, that a guy can obtain explosives but not guns.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I don’t necessarily require a movie to be realistic to be enjoyable. I do find it kind of strange, though, that a guy can obtain explosives but not guns.

He made the explosives himself.  It's easier to make explosives than guns, I guess.


Phil