While the marketing of the film relies far too much of trying to convince the would-be viewer of the film being an action-oriented film, it's much more contemplative in its approach in telling a story of using anarchy against the government to right the political wrongs on its own citizens (i.e., don't expect it to be wall-to-wall action, it's more like sprinkles of action sequences here and there, but filled with much more in terms of setup, ideas and wordplay).

Don't go into the film expecting a solid re-telling from its graphic novel source (actually, originally published as a maxi-series of comics, then collected as a graphic novel), it's an adaptation of the source material, so many side subplots are left out, and its conclusionary tone is more uplifting than its source material.

It took a little while to get used to the character of V on-screen because you hear Hugo Weaving distinctive voice, but you are just looking at the mask with bits of body language to support the dialogue from V, but the strangeness go away as the film rolls along. Weaving's alliterative recitation of the "v's" in the early part of the film was entertaining.

Natalie gives a pretty good performance as Evey, though it feels like her character is underwritten in the 3rd act, but has plenty of material in the 1st and 2nd act.

So, if you keep you expectations in check, I think most people interested in this type of material would enjoy the film, though it's not quite a home run, it's a stand-up triple.

I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.

Well, I learned one thing from this movie: As a white, heterosexual, Christian male, I am the source of all evil in the world, and am to be considered the primary enemy of all that is good and decent.

I just thought the politics in this movie were laughably ridiculous, shallow and one-dimensional---basically Leftism 101. Evil, venom-spewing old white men, oppressing everyone----the noble gays, perceptive, compassionate artists, and completely peace-loving Muslims. Hmmm....could they have been pointing at conservative parties in the US and UK? I don't know, but that flag with the caption "Coalition of the Willing", with the US and British flag juxtaposed against a big central swastika was a pretty subtle hint. And of course, in the background we need to see the pedophile priest who oversees evil medical experiments. I just really thought this vision of the future had about as much depth, resonance and substance as the ones in Judge Dredd, Freejack or The Running Man.

I think it's particularly lame when you contrast it against a movie like Minority Report, where you had a very realistic, believable future, and the movie was able to very intelligently deal with complex issues like the government abusing power and people's individual rights and privacy in the name of protecting them and keeping order. Even with superhero movies, I thought films like Batman Begins or Daredevil had much more nuanced, believable "dystopian" societies than this one did.

And man, I'm not British, but if I was I would definitely be a bit offended by this film. Parliament could have been shown a bit more respect---this was the scene of a lot of great moments in Western civilization, not the least of which was Churchill delivering his rallying speeches as Britain was bombed nightly when they stood alone against the Nazis......I can see why this movie would not have been released too quickly in the wake of the Islamic terrorist bombings of London last summer.

For those that know the graphic novel - was there anything to do with homosexuality in it? Just curious - a simple yes or no will do with perhaps some explanation on what/how it was used if it did.

Ky Fi - I understand where you're coming from, and believe me I was on the lookout for what you're reacting to - but to me the government depicted was much closer to Nazi's than anything else. Sure you can look at it the way you are - but I can't help but wonder if it's drawing more attention to the (potential) comparison by being so vocal about it. If it is in fact so far off base - than why the concern would be my question. Personally I feel the "other" party would be much closer in comparison...

Also I don't remember any muslims in there...the guy who owned the Koran specifically said he wasn't muslim.

All right, I'm probably going to take some flack here for my opinions, as I seem to be in the minority in disliking this film. I'm not familiar eith the graphic novel, but yes, there were a couple fairly prominent characters who were homosexual. And that kind of goes along with my general complaints of the movie---I felt their homosexuality was not addressed in order to add depth, complexity or nuance to their characters---but instead to only reinforce their role as stereotypical victims of the anti-gay fascist oppressors. I just felt the politics in this movie were relentlessly ham-fisted.

Well, like I said about the flag with the "coalition of the willing" and references to one of the fascist leaders war record in Iraq, and the specific mention that the chancellor was from the "conservative" party---I took this to be much more an indictment of modern Western conservatives than 20th century Nazis.


Oh, and the Koran thing---that's another complaint. The filmmakers had to go out of their way to demonize ALL religion---the (heroic) character specifically had to mention that he wasn't religious---he only liked the Koran for it's poetry. THe implication being that the fascists (read:conservatives) were so intolerant of Islam that mere possession of the Koran was a capital offense.

And by the way, I voted for Gore and Kerry the last 2 elections, so these complaints aren't coming from a hard-core conservative --I just don't care for hackneyed political stereotypes.

The movie raises serious issues and then treats them irresponsibly. My understanding is that Moore's work made V a complicated morally ambiguous character. McTeigue and the Wachowskis turn him into a "rooting interest" which is a predictable Hollywood response to the material, but a completely inappropriate one considering the intervening historical events and the relevance to those events that the filmmakers here clearly believe this material has.

There is room for significant artistic commentary on the emerging security state, and on the new war without a clear end or even clear parameters. But "V for Vendetta" doesn't make a serious attempt. It assumes what it's trying to prove, essentially equating the security state with the fascist or totalitarian state. I don't think people who directly compare Bush to Hitler are people with serious ideas, and I think this movie more or less compares Bush to Hitler.

Modern commentators seem to think that the balance between liberty and security is a new problem of the post-September 11 world, but it was a pervasive problem of the Cold War, a problem of World War 2, and a problem of the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights and jailed newspaper editors for speaking out against his government.

"Good Night and Good Luck" had a lot more to say about vigilance against the excesses of a paranoid government run amok, and "Munich" had a lot more to say about the necessity of violence and its price.

The Wachowskis have always imagined their works to be more philosophically complex than they were, but they always fall short of the big questions. This has been the case since the first "Matrix" when Cipher posited a serious challenge to the moral legitimacy of Morpheus and his entire mission, and was promptly killed, along with the argument he represented.

Extremely well-said.

Interesting to see so much love in here but not that much from mainstream critics, though the reviews I read in Time and Rolling Stone were pretty positive.
I still think negative word of mouth from conservative Middle Americans and people who feel they were promised an action movie might hurt this movie in the long run.

I really liked it (surprising since all Allan Moore adaptations have been crap), but that it's not performing too well isn't too surprising:

V for Vendetta is a box-office disappointment. Tracking on the Warner Bros./Wachowski Bros. release showed a projected $25 to $30 million, but Friday's figures are indicating only a $21 million weekend haul, and it could wind up a bit lower. The reviews were mostly positive with some pans from major names mixed in, and the the film's radical-leftist political metaphor probably isn't playing as well in the boonies as it is the cities...

"Modern commentators seem to think that the balance between liberty and security is a new problem of the post-September 11 world, but it was a pervasive problem of the Cold War, a problem of World War 2, and a problem of the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights and jailed newspaper editors for speaking out against his government."

Exactly. Neither the subject nor the work is new. The V for Vendetta graphic novel, to which the movie's core plot is fairly faithful, wasn't something Alan Moore dashed off after 2001. It's over twenty years old, and yet the problems it discusses have become more pressing than ever. What's old is new again, blah blah blah.

Neither the movie nor the original graphic novel were terribly good at deep political analysis. Basically they both boil down to "fascism sucks, anarchy r00ls!" (V was arguably even less morally ambigous in the book--there he literally had Fate on his side and he was quite explicit for his desire to create anarachy. "From rubble we can build.")

But while its politics are not subtle V for Vendetta is not simply some knee-jerk potshot at Bush. It's an expression of long-standing concerns about freedom and corrupt government authority and the childish but persistent desire for an avenging angel who will make everything better--a wish that goes back at least to Robin Hood if not earlier.

You can cluck your tongue at a thousand years of outlaw hero tradition in literature and call it shallow, unrealistic and irresponsible. Won't make it go away, though.

Considering it was a relatively low (for the genre) $50m movie, I don't think it's going to be a huge disappointment. Plus word of mouth on the movie has been quite strong. But then, what do I know, Batman Begins made $74m in 5 days and was considered a flop. The movie is tracking for $20 - $24m, depending on Saturday slip/gain.

A lot of the people slamming "V" the film, exalt Moore in the process, and cite his demand that his name be removed from the film's credits as a jumping off point for their critique of the Wachowskis' treatment of the material.

I don't really see the need to follow suit. Moore seems to be much more of a private eccentric than a public intellectual, and from what I've read about him, I expect he'd be among the first to admit that. I think his comparison of Thatcher to Hitler suffers the same defect as the current version's comparison of Bush to Hitler. However, he was writing a comic book as a form of protest, rather than producing a major film as a vehicle for "big ideas."

Additionally, Moore's imagery in the 80' evoked Guy Fawkes and the Count of Monte Cristo. As appropriated by the Wachowskis, it evokes Osama Bin Laden, and it makes an action hero out of him.

And even before the terrorist theme became so completely intertwined with real events, Moore's telling was less willing to present V as the hero; instead it left open the interpretation that he was a monster, a crazed, single-minded deviant with a sadistic streak and a talent for killing. The Wachowskis seem to see that as the precise definition of a hero.

Of course, if Moore's V was a monster, he was a monster created by the government, and that becomes another ridiculous conceit of a fringe ideology when mapped onto the current symbolic parallel.

This film doesn't have the intellectual heft to stand as a meaningful political indictment of Bush or Fox News, or whatever targets the filmmakers think they've sent up. It's just a pastiche of bullshit that panders to the prejudices of those who already agree with its worldview, pieced together prettily enough to satisfy action-movie audiences who don't think about it too much.

The portrayal of a totalitarian government is nothing new. I just find it funny that when it happens today, people automatically assume that it's some sort of backlash at the current administration. Would people have walked away from the movie with the same conclusions had it been released in 1998?

I guess what I'm saying was better put a few posts back..

Basically because Alan Moore, while being a great writer, is absolutely 100% batshit insane. The man will hunt for the slightest reason to take offense, and will then scream like a raped virgin when he finally finds it. For example, he signed a deal to work with Marvel Comics again after finally getting over some (probably imagined) slight in the past that led him to say he'd never work for them again. Much fanfare was made in the comic media, Joe Quesada (editor in chief at Marvel) kissed Moore's ass constantly in interviews. Before Moore could do anything beyond contribute to the 9/11 comic book, a trade paperback of his Captain Britain material was released by Marvel, and due to a printing error Moore wasn't credited for character creation. Quesada apologized profusely for the mistake and said it would be corrected in the next printing of the book, but Moore didn't care. He proceeded to lash out and scream that it was obvious that Marvel hadn't learned its lesson and they didn't give a damn about him and he'd never work for them again. I swear, this is the man that must have been in mind when the phrase "burning your bridges" was coined.

They could have given V For Vendetta a treatment like Robert Rodriguez gave Frank Miller's Sin City, and Moore would have found something wrong with it.

In checking the Wiki article on Moore, there's a further explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mo...lm_adaptations

A wonderful example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I liked it for the most part. Didn't have nearly as much action as I thought it would. It also was a little to one sided in the political department. I haven't read the book and I'm not sure I will but maybe.

It is interesting that V uses the Count of Monte Cristo as inspiration but I see little of the count in him except for his pursuit of his enemies. It has been a while since I read the count of monte cristo but I don't recall him being so much the mindless killer. V is taking out cops that are just doing their job and he uses people to escape some of which get badly hurt. Then there is the torture he did to a good person. The film has him clearly as the hero but I think they should have had him also as a villain.

Well, it's sort of supposed to be one-sided. I don't think they could find a way to put a positive spin on fascism, and that's what the government in the movie has become.

True, but the MARKETING cost for this flick were easily in the $50million range. I think it is going to do OK theatrically, but word of mouth is going to HURT the film. I know people I saw it with (myself included) thought it was interesting, but not enough to recommend...in fact, the main points of conversation is how the movie seems to be attacking anything controversial just for the sake of being controversial, glorifying terrorism and of course, my main problem with the marketing, the severe lack of action for an action flick.

Most of the reviews I've read have been pretty positive, but I don't think that's going to help the film much. I think next week it will drop at least 50%, and with lots of stiff competition starting to come out, I see it finishing in the 60 million range. Of course, DVD is where it will do pretty well, but theatrically, it's going to be a far cry from the $100mil plus that I think Warner was hoping for.

MATT

One of the best movies I've seen in years, without a doubt. I hadn't even seen a trailer for it, just some TV spots and was enthralled from beginning to end.

Can't imagine people from the fly-over states going to see it though.

Had to fill out an audience reaction card at the end and they had a ton of questions, one of which was what your political views were.
They also asked if I would buy a DVD for the movie for $19.95. I told them I'd buy a Blu-Ray of it for that price.

The ONLY criticism I have of it is Natalie Portman's accent. Should have been much stronger.

Very good film...and I plan on recommending it to everyone I know.

Uhh...what happened in SF? Sorry but gays in this country are treated like 2nd class citizens. I saw the US and without a doubt, the Nazis all over this movie.

Exactly...I will admit one of the few things I didnt like at times was some of the heavy handedness of the movie, but got over that. The only other thing that I didnt like was some of the slo-mo shots, but other than those 2 slight critisicms, I really liked this one. I dont know what it is about Portman, she either does a great job, or is just flat out bad. This was a strong role for her, and Weaving is great. Even my wife liked this one, so there ya go .

The mayor in San Fransisco is illegally allowing gay marriage and tons of people have gone there for it.

I don't see how a movie could go over so well with the internet geek crowd and still be a disappointment with the masses. One must also consider that it had March Madness to compete with this weekend, but I have the feeling most people going to see this movie aren't that deep into basketball.
Can't say I'm surprised though, while I liked the movie, it didn't have enough of what the kind of people who make movies major hits consider "cool."

I dunno, most people I've spoken too that aren't computer literate seemed to enjoy it as well. Won't really know what the masses think til next weekend.

Yes (for a Hollywood production only) and yes. Though, aside from her lack of an accent, she played a fantastic role as did Weaving and the supporting cast.

Going in, I knew extremely little about the film and nothing about Alan Moore. I was expecting the reverse of some others in that I would be let down by unnecessary over the top pyrotecnic sequences and such. Thankfully I was not. When it existed, it was interwoven throughout with balance.

I took the political and philosophical natures of the film with a grain of salt. Were there messages there? Yes. Were they delivered? I'll leave that up to you. Was the film effective? To me, yes .. in that it was highly entertaining, balanced, thought provoking and hit on a number of levels. There were a few times that I could not even move in my seat I was so floored by the development of the story line.

It was close to being the best 7.50 that I've ever spent to see a film on big screen .. and in general, a fine example as to why some films should be seen in a theater with an audience. Though, I am somewhat partial to the subject matter .. and was very happy with the result.

Actually, there was never any deal signed, though Quesada was quite vocal about wanting to get Moore to work for Marvel again.

Moore said that Quesada was quite gentlemenly about his apology, but that all it did was put him back at the same disposition he had been at before: with not real intentions of working for Marvel.