V for Vendetta

[KoshFan]

I'm pretty sure I want to see this, and I'm wondering if anyone out there has already taken a look at it. Also I' d be interested in hearing what our Brit members think of its premise, in particular in the wake of the bombings this past year.

 

[vacantlook]

I saw it on Saturday and liked it a great deal. I haven't read the comic that it's based on, but I have read that some people who have both read the comic and seen the movie that it's not exactly like the comic (but then, what movies ever are exactly like their written source material?). The criticism that the movie presents toward democratic governments' sliding into fascism is not subtle. Above all, the film is a call to the people to wake up and take back the government.

 

[LondosHair]

If you go looking for political vindication, or just the opposite, you'll find a way to see both in the film.

Personally, I enjoyed the heck out of it because the characters are written so smartly, and the movie makes you think. It's very rhetorical... but it wasn't rhetorical propaganda. In fact, I found the references to the United States to be more amusing than anything else.

The best badasses are always the well-spoken ones. This is why Morpheus was a badass in The Matrix, and Neo was just a skinny twerp who got lucky. V is definitely one of the most well-spoken badasses I've ever had the pleasure of watching on the big screen. His introduction to Natalie Portman's character is a mastery of linguistics, and only Hugo Weaving can deliver it so well.

 

[KoshFan]

Good. That pretty much settles it in my mind. I've seen some bad reviews -- but even Star Wars got bad reviews, which shows what critics know.

 

[G Kar of the Kha Ri]

Having read the comic several years ago, I know I was looking forward to this. That, and worried about the translation to the big screen. It seems like it worked out alright, even with whatever alterations may have been made.

As it stands, I'm STILL looking forward to this. Just need to get out and catch it... sometime.

 

[Kaleb]

I very much enjoyed it when i saw it the other night.

 

[AntonyF]

Not read the comic, but LOVED the movie. Really loved it... best I've seen in ages, maybe even in my top ten. I'd need to see it a second time and really see.

But I saw it this afternoon and it's really stuck with me. There was so much to love about it, I just loved its entire execution.

And Natalie Portman is FINE. Mmm.

 

[KoshFan]

Okay, I saw it last night, and in the words of a friend who saw it with me, "I left my brain on the wall behind me."

I very much need to see it again. Truly fantastic.

 

[tlsmith1963]

I love, love, love this movie! Living in America is so sad & frustrating these days. We needed a film like this. I will probably see it again, & I rarely go to movie theaters these days. You pay so much to get in, & you pay so much for the food. If I am going to pay so much money, the film had *better* be good! "V" was worth the money.

Tammy

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Excellent movie with great dialogue and character moments. Halfway through V's introductory speech, my son said, "You can tell the Wachoski's wrote this." Hugo Weaving at his best and almost worth the price of admission right there.

 

[Galahad]

Good. That pretty much settles it in my mind. I've seen some bad reviews -- but even Star Wars got bad reviews, which shows what critics know.

In my opinion a critic's view is as much influenced by his/her personal political viewpoint as it is for his/her appreciation of the artistic qualities or lack of, found in a film/television series.

A sad reflection on the lack of objective criticism.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I finally saw V for Vendetta on DVD, and liked it a lot. Given that it is 'legitimizing terrorism,' at least in the eyes of some, I'm surprised that it didn't meet with huge negativity from the critics... I can see Michael Medved bursting a blood vessel! :beer:

 

[AntonyF]

I saw it again last night, and loved it all over again.

Never saw it as legitimizing terrorism mind you. Although I can understand that view.

But then I expect lots of barmy people have barmy ideas for it. I know some people just compare it to Bush or something, and then they're totally missing the point of the film.

 

[Galahad]

It all depends how you define terrorism.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a terrorist as someone who uses violent and/or intimidating methods of coercing a Government or community. It also describes terrorising as "to fill with fear".

By that logic, the British and US Governments are terrorists. they are using the fear of attack to coerce their people into giving up civil liberties and submitting to authoritarianism.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there isn't a genuine terrorist threat from outside... but I am saying that politicians are playing on it and making the "demon" bigger than it is in a bid to bring in laws that no sane man or woman would ever normally advocate.

V uses the statement "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people", which is absolutely correct.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[KoshFan]

My initial thrill at seeing this movie has waned a little. The more I look at it, the more plot holes I see. But the center section -- from Evey's imprisonment through Valerie's story to Evey's release -- is still one of the more powerful bits of film I know of. I'd give the movie a V for uneVen, now, but it's still well worth watching.

 

[LondosHair]

It's not whether the movie tried to legitimize terrorism, rather that it tried to portray terrorism as a viable option. (Yes, there's a difference.)

V uses the statement "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people", which is absolutely correct.

Actually, it's not. You have to remember, his is an extremist's point of view. People indeed shouldn't fear their governments, but neither should governments fear their people. How can you expect a government that's afraid of its own people to do right by them? No, a more correct thing to say would be "People should respect their governments, and governments should respect their people."

I did think the movie was wonderfully and smartly written, even though I didn't agree one iota with V's methods and tactics. Any movie that makes you THINK by testing your morals is going to be memorable, and this movie did just that.

 

[Galahad]

I don't think we have to respect our Governments. In the UK it's usually around a 40% turnout at the polls, of which the victor usually secures 40%. They may be elected by a democratic process, but that does not mean the democratic majority approve of them. What is more, the mainstream British parties are starting to occupy either the authoritarian economic centre right or the liberal economic right. Nothing credible on the left now. I occupy similar turf to the Scottish Democrats or their Socialist paries... but that's no use when you are in the middle of England... being just ever so slightly liberal but left wing in terms of economics.

I can respect the fact that they are the elected power... but I won't respect them if I don't think they are right.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

It's not whether the movie tried to legitimize terrorism, rather that it tried to portray terrorism as a viable option. (Yes, there's a difference.)

Yes, there is a difference, but if terrorism seems to be the only viable option, and is accepted as such in the context of the film, IMO, that is legitimizing it. IMO, the film was indeed trying to draw a very narrow set of circumstances that made terrorism, at least in a limited way, seem necessary for a greater good. That is of course a profound moral question, and part of what makes the film interesting, to me. Of course I like the Count of Monte Christo meets 1984 aspect as well.

V uses the statement "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people", which is absolutely correct.

Actually, it's not. You have to remember, his is an extremist's point of view. People indeed shouldn't fear their governments, but neither should governments fear their people. How can you expect a government that's afraid of its own people to do right by them? No, a more correct thing to say would be "People should respect their governments, and governments should respect their people."

I did think the movie was wonderfully and smartly written, even though I didn't agree one iota with V's methods and tactics. Any movie that makes you THINK by testing your morals is going to be memorable, and this movie did just that.

Well, the "governments should be afraid of their people" was a little over dramatic, but certainly fit the context of the film, and balanced the first half of the statement. Of course I agree that "respect" is a better condition, but I can also wish that a government would be "afraid" to disrespect the people, and their rights.

And, I do apologize for bringing politics into this forum, but any meaningful discussion of this film necessitates it.

 

[KoshFan]

I do apologize for bringing politics into this forum, but any meaningful discussion of this film necessitates it.

And meaningful discussion is what the filmmakers wanted -- so it seems they've succeeded in that respect.

 

[ryuu]

i wached this film two days ago and loved it i feel that it shows that there is both good and evil in everything take V for example he is fight ing for peoples freedoom but he isnt afraid to kill a few people to get his way or whazer name the one who tesed on V and created the virus she showed good in the end...