As a white, heterosexual, Christian male who happens to be a registered Republican, I enjoyed this movie very much, and didn't feel offended or targeted by this movie in the least. Just because the movie portrays a an evil person in the Christian church doesn't mean it's saying Christianity is evil. Just because the movie's villainous leader is an extremist with conservative roots doesn't mean it's saying conservatism is evil. Us right-wingers need to drop our defensive stances against the current "Bush = Hitler" idiocy and look at this movie for what it really is: a warning against the dangers of political extremism/totalinarianism. It's a historical FACT that extreme conservatism leads to fascism, just as extreme liberalism leads to communism. It's also a fact that fascist leaders like Hitler utilized and perverted conservative and Christian values in order to gain acceptance with and control his people. The movie is about the abuse of those values and the destruction of the important balance between left- and right-wing politics, and if you can't recognize the potential danger there, well, I think you missed a pretty important message.

I enjoyed it, but I wasn't impressed with the propraganda paralleling current events ie. "The Coalition of the Willing/Swastika" poster. I believed in the message, but I truly do not believe we are heading down that road in this country.

127 posts, and no one's mentioned Natalie Portman in the schoolgirl outfit?

First of all, as a I said earlier, I voted Democrat the last two elections, did not support the war in Iraq, and certainly do not consider myself a right-winger.

Sure, I acknowledge that democratic societies can slip into totalitarianism, and that's something to be wary of---again, it's not even the political message I object to, it's the completely one-dimensional, hackneyed stereotypes of EVERYONE. Was there a SINGLE positive comment on religion? Was there a single instance of maybe acknowledging that conservatives had a good point about there being real external threats? No, and we, of course, are told that there had never really been any threat from terrorists, but the conservative government was to blame for ALL the atrocities. My point is this: white men, women, conservatives, liberals, Priests, gays, artists ,etc. are all human, and as humans have a wide range of ethical and philosophical attributes. Not all old white men and conservatives are evil, not all gays noble and pure, not all revolutionaries have hearts of gold, not all artists are selfless and morally upstanding. I would most certainly not have learned that from watching this movie.

But hey, to each his own. I'm sure there are also people on the right who felt that "Red Dawn" and "The Green Berets" were films with astute political commentary.

Oh, and in keeping with the subject, a movie I felt was a fantastic commentary on the horrors of fascism and how it might take hold in the UK was:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s100here.html

Pics? Please?

And this is where I am really stuggling with the film. Part of me wants to respond by saying that the film doesn't present ALL white old conservaties and religious clergy as to blame for atrocities, that it simply presents these specific characters, this specific dystopian society.
But at the same time, I struggle with that argument because ultimately the characters aren't very well developed. By the end of the film, and a message that the film itself makes pretty explicit, the characters aren't important and what are are the power of themes and symbols, and the characters struggle to break out of this idea. The characters struggle between being unique to the story, but also being largely representative of the overall themes. Are the characters unique or simply vehicles? Evey's last lines about V seem to present the characters simply as vehicles.
The story all pulls together in the end, but how we get there becomes inconsequential. A good quarter of the movie is Rhea trying to figure out who V is, only for who he is not to matter, but what he stands for symbolically and thematically.
We spend another large chunk of the film watching V bascially break Evey down so she has no fear, only so she can pull a lever. How fearless! In that respect, Evey seems to be the only personal character of the film, only because she is sort of the cipher to give us a window into this world, but she is almost a let down by not really fully transforming into a revolutionary.

I still think I really liked the film after thinking about it. I walked out of the theater thinking "meh", and am beginning to lean toward ***/**** but a lot of me still doesn't know what to make of V for Vendetta.

That was pretty freakin' hot.

Saw this thing last night, and I enjoyed a lot of it, but like the latter Matrix films, this one thinks it's a lot smarter than it is. It addresses some challenging issues, but it's really heavy-handed and self-important and at times hard to sit through without rolling the eyes. Most of the cast is pretty fantastic (great work from Rhea), although (forgive me for saying this) I think they could have used a better actor than Weaving. I liked him a lot, but he fell short a few times emoting behind that static mask. I'd recommed people seeing it, because it's largely enjoyable as an action flick, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. It's overly simplistic in the way it addresses its challenging questions, and surprisingly (considering its runtime), it drags in parts.

das

Maybe some diehard fanboys expected it to do that well theatrically, but the studio certainly didn't; if they had, they would have saved it for April. "Action" movies expected to make $100 mill simply do not come out in March. (I put "action" in quotes because V's not really an action movie, though the ads try to make you believe it's one.)

It made 26 mill this weekend, though: it will do fine overall.

V is not an action movie. There is probably 15 minutes of action in the movie. Only three real fight scenes. One when he first meets "E""V". Two some stuff goes down in a building. Three the last fight where we find out what is under his mask.

Well, considering it was ORIGINALLY slated for November, typically a time when studios release BIG flicks, I think the studio most definitely expected it to be pretty big. Otherwise, why the HUGE marketing push with "FROM THE CREATORS OF THE MATRIX" slapped all over it? If they were only expecting a $65million return, they wouldn't have advertised the shit out of it. I think it's probably more realistic for the film to be a hit in league with CONSTANTINE, which made $75mil, but I don't know if this will reach that much.

And March isn't unheard of for an "action" picture...Panic Room and the first Matrix flick both opened in March and topped 100mil.

MATT

The overt politics were very heavy-handed, and that distracted from the stronger elements of the film, namely the unraveling backstory of V and his relationships to the city and Evy.

Wrong.

He WAS. That was a very long time ago. And they were all taken away.

Being gay is MUCH better in the UK and Canada...amongst other countries where actual marriage and protection rights are afforded. The US is shit for gays.

I have a feeling word of mouth is going to propel this one.

I know 3 people (other than the 4 I went with last night) that saw it in the last day. They ALL loved it.

As a fan of the graphic novel, I was disappointed with the movie adaptation. Some things were left out and other things added that I felt changed the tone of the story. I can't really put it into words, but the graphic novel had a certain kind of poetry to it that was not in the movie.

Politics aside, I really enjoyed this movie. I've been a fan of Natalie since "The Professional," and thought she did a good job. I was really impressed by Hugo Weaving. I don't know how he did it, but behind that mask he was able to convey everthing with a precise voice coupled with hand and head gestures. Very powerful performance. Yes, John Hurt was over the top, but then he was the power hungry dictator, right? I thought the film did a reasonable job of reminding us that government is a necessary evil, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Glad I saw it.

That's what I thought about "Serenity", but alas...

But in defense of the filmmakers, the GN is nearly unadaptable (and I'm an old school fan of Alan Moore). Trying to put the exact same stuff from the page on the screen would have been a disaster. There's too many characters and too many digressions. While that works in the GN, these boards would have been alight with complaints about the digressions and superfluous characters.
The filmmakers did as good a job as they could have. Someone may come along and remake it in a few decades, but I really hope they don't.

awesome movie!

A lot better than I expected.

I liked it.

I saw it last night and thought it was pretty great.

Matrix: Didn't really care for it. Was okay.
The other 2 Matrix: the Biggest pieces of shit I have seen.

Haven't been to the movies since November, King Kong I believe. Anyway for some reason decided to go see this [prob-ly due to Natalie Portman], eventhough my feelings on Matrix . I thought this movie was great. Gonna get it on DVD, even if fuckin' WB releases a deluxe edition for $10 more [I go for the extras]

This was the first movie to bring me out of my home theater in several months (I even managed to avoid the crowds for King Kong and Narnia). I have to say, I was very impressed. As so many have said, the actors were quite good, especially Rhea, Portman, and I have to say Hugo Weaving did an amazing job. There aren't too many actors that would pony-up for a role, knowing they'd never get their face on screen. (Cartoons and CGI aside, of course).

The story was quite good, and yes...the message was a big heavy-handed, but I thought it played out alright. The final fight scene was incredible...I have to add that.

I'd give it 4 of 5 stars. If you aren't looking for the perfect story, then this might be your perfect movie. Go see it. It's worth the crowds, seat-kicking, sticky floors, and occasional cell phone just to see it on the big screen.

Saw it last night with high expectations which were met. I rarely get out to the movies as of late, but this one I had to see on the big screen.

The politics were heavy-handed, but right in place for the type of movie. Fascist = bad, and the types of leaders and things they were doing made you feel that way. More than just arresting homosexuals, but curfew, surveillance, medical testing while reaping the profits, etc. I didn't spend time making the connections with our own history and it's governments. I know similarities exist, but I focused on the what was being conveyed...this government = bad in this entertainment vehicle.

I got a hoot a seeing John Hurt play "Big Brother" so to speak!

My girly side always love movies with a "Beauty and the Beast" aspect. In this case, how can a man make a woman fall for him without ever seeing his face? With mere words, ideals and body language? Hugo Weaving got it completely right. Even after taking such a morally ambiguous turn, he still came of quite appealing.

And I felt V was morally suspect, I'm not sure how the graphic novel depicted him, but here I felt I couldn't always stand by V's actions.

Can someone spoiler how the ending in the graphic novel differed?

I loved the movie, I would have liked more action, but the scenes of it were great. I give this move an A.

No, I understand you couldn't have all the side plots and characters that were in the graphic novel. I'm saying they didn't have to change the main plot points. Why couldn't they leave Evey's backstory the same? Why did they have to add the St. Mary's and Three Waters plot point? etc. etc. etc.

I guess seeing the way Robert Rodriguez adapted Sin City to the big screen has now left me with unrealistic expectations for other graphic novel movies.