V for Vendetta (the movie)

[urbpan]

I appear to be in the slim minority among my peers in finding this movie dreadful. It had its moments of being interesting and watchable, but felt so self-important and ponderous overall that I didn't enjoy it. I've never read the book, but I don't think that should matter--movies and the books they're based on need to stand alone without serving as Cliff Notes for one another.

I feel like maybe people who liked it were reacting to the whole revolutionary theme--the rebellion against a draconian (and explicitly Conservative) government. It's certainly the first time I've seen a dystopia movie where oppression of homosexuals was a major theme, but while that's a realistic aspect of the dark future, it's just a detail. It's inclusion didn't save the movie from its leaden pacing and preachy tone. I guess we're supposed to be filled with the feeling of "IT COULD HAPPEN HERE!" Yeah, of course, that's the point of all these movies. Maybe reality has gotten bad enough that the story (written what, 25 years ago) doesn't seem so ominous to me. That should make the movie more visceral and terrifying (as I found Children of Men to be).

I appreciated Stephen Fry (playing a sci-fi Oscar Wilde, the role he was born for) and John Hurt (playing Big Brother--with this and Equilibrium, I've got to wonder, why does the evil dictator insist on putting his ugly face on 50 foot video screens? That's no way to win favor. you won't see McCain doing that. But you probably will see Romney do it) [oops I put complete sentences in my parentheses] putting in good performances. In fact, all the great British actors striding about impressively draw unwelcome attention to Ms. Portman--who I must admit I've never enjoyed--and her Princess Amidala faux-brit accent. They could have edited her parts down by half and made the movie that much better. Or perhaps found an accomplished British actress (NOT Keira Knightly, thanks) to play the part instead of going for the box office draw. Then there's poor Hugo Weaving, an actor with compelling features reduced to the Phantom of the Opera muttering soliloquys in a heavy mask, wig, and hat (all of which, by the way, are available by the tens of thousand in a strictly regulated society under constant surveillance and operating under heightened alertness about a terrorist wearing precisely those items).


Definitely the surprise disappointment of the year for me.

Comments

[barbmg.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on not liking it. (but you probably knew that, since I'm pretty hard to please when it comes to comics adaptations.) I thought Hugo Weaving did a great job given the circumstances, but the whole thing was heavily Wachowski damaged: they wrote and produced it and the director worked with them on the last two movies. (as well as Attack of The Clones!) I now know to avoid anything with the name James McTeigue attached to it.

[bellelvsbeast.livejournal.com]

I never saw it, so I can't tell you what I think yet, hahahaha

[frith]

I liked the movie a lot and I haven't read the book (or graphic novel?). I saw it in the theater and I had low expectations. Maybe I was in the right frame of mind for this kind of movie when I saw it. I don't remember any homosexuality subtext.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

the letter that evey read in 'jail' was by a lesbian who got thrown in jail (as did her girlfriend) for being 'different.' also, the character played by stephen fry was a closeted homo.

[frith]

I think I vaguely remember that. I was more interested in the oppressive atmosphere than the nature of the "crimes".

[zipotle.livejournal.com]

I didn't like it either.

[teratologist.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the movie, but I have to admit that I was a bit disturbed by a subset of the positive reviews and their awestruck admiration for the concept of creating a world where a fighter against tyranny is also a troubling, ethically ambiguous figure. I mean, maybe I'm being snooty here, but do these people read books - or, idunno, observe reality much?

[kryptyd.livejournal.com]

It wasn't great, despite the wonderful Mr. Fry. I watched it in a squat in Utrecht and enjoyed it for that reason.

[seaweedgirle.livejournal.com]

This film was so heavy handed to the point of cliche. I admire Natalie Portman as an individual (at least from what I've read/seen), but I have yet to see her in a role where she is not overacting. Less is more, sister!

To me it was.... meh

[gythiawulfie.livejournal.com]

I had a netural position about the movie.
It did nothing more than make me go hmmm, interesting and then, put it away in the back of my mind.

For a movie, it lacked the umph that makes me go good flick.

However, I must admit the V alliteration(sp?) speech at the beginning was made of Teh Awesome.

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

Huh. So I get to be in the minority of posters who liked it? Yes, it was pretentious, (although I would argue it's supposed to be Shakespearean) but it's amazing it actually got made it the current climate. I can just see the pitch now. We want to make a film based on a 25 year old comic written by a portly anarchist wizard... oh and get this, the hero's a terrorist.

I was particularly impressed with Weaving, who managed to portray some subtle emotions behind the mask. Yes, Portman is mediocre at best, but kudos to her for actually going through with the head shaving.

Here's the part where everyone really gets to jump on me. It's better than it's source. The original was Moore finding his footing in the medium and was written in six page installments and he was obviously making it up as he went along in some points. The film has two writers who are pretty well established paring down the story to it's basic elements. Moore is a much better writer than the brothers could hope to be, but he wasn't quite there yet when he wrote V.

[antarcticlust.livejournal.com]

I remember really enjoying it and finding it very inspirational at the time, but then immediately afterwards forgetting everything about it I liked. Ultimately, I felt really manipulated. Then I watched CHildren of Men and thought, "V for who?"

You're spot-on about Portman, Knightly, etc, too.

[samiraalthores.livejournal.com]

I found it shallow. The stockholm syndrom between the heroine and the hero just fell flat. There was no chemistry between the characters that I could discern so the whole relationship felt contrived.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

all one has to do to find dystopias where queer people were oppressed is read a good history book.

[shadowofadoubt.livejournal.com]

I hated it.

[smallerdemon.livejournal.com]

It's definitely better if you've been up like twenty something hours first and you just watched Donald Duck in a Nazi uniform and you got to use a duck quacker to make noises during the singing of "Der Fueher's Face". That really does enhance the viewing of V in that it gives you the grounding that it's a bit of a cartoon, not a particularly serious movie.

[urb-banal.livejournal.com]

i can't remember much about it. My son liked it. it was a while ago that it came out... I thought Natalie looked good bald, was that the one where she was bald?... i hated her more as an epileptic in that one about the guy on anti depressants, you know the guy from Scrubs... I think it's Scubs.

This is why I don't talk about movies and television shows.

[rudezombie.livejournal.com]

The only good part of that movie was when they busted out the Yackety Sax.

[dragonwrites.livejournal.com]

eh, you're right. they've never made a great film from an alan moore story. which isn't to say they're not trying to destroy The Watchmen right now even as we write. 'cause they are.

[nmsunbear.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty disappointing too, when I saw it last year.

[http://users.livejournal.com/purplebunnie_/]

Thank god I'm not the only one. No, really, nearly everyone's a fan. While I can respect a little "It could happen here" paranoia (sometimes it leads to good deeds), the movie simply couldn't get me interested. I'll read 1984 again, thank you.