whoever posted the original ending in the GN did a pretty lousy job with description. i'l explain it a little more thoroughly.

********spoilers**********

first off finch goes to larkhill and swallows lysergic acid diethylamide, the same stuff given to v. he states if he's to catcch v, he must get inside his head, and the only way to do that is go through what v did. so he starts hallucinating and gets an idea of what v is thinking. it's then that he stumbles upon the subway (of course after he's left larkhill) goes down and encounters v who stabs him, but finch fatally wounds v. here we have the "i shot you" "there no flesh beneath this cloack, only an idea, and idea's are bulletproof." finch sees blood and assumes he's killed v and announces it. v goes back to the shadow gallery and confronts evey. he's dieing. after some talk he tells evey "you must know who's face is under this mask, but never take it off." of course this is another riddle. she visions her self taking off his mask and sees black man, she says, no that's not right, she imagines again and sees an older man, again, that's not right, she then sees her dad, and says, no, i know you're not my dad, then she sees her face, and finally understands that v is everyone willing to fight. of course the government got word that v has been murdered and they are blairing it over the speakers. but teh people still gather for v, they don't believe it anymore, they want to see for themselves. the cops all say, v is dead, and once the people see it, they'll all leave. at midnight big ben chimes and the cop says "ahhh, the sound of big ben, isn't it grand. wait...big ben was destroyed 12 months ago, the sound is coming from the speakers. someone must have..." and lo and behold v has arrived. v gives his speech and the crowd riots. of course we all know v is dead and that this is indeed evey, but the crowd doesn't, and they think v is here to lead them all to a brighter future like he promised. evey finally understands why v did what he did to her and she now follows his beliefs.

in the diary, the doctor referred to v as a male. i doubt he's a woman.

At the risk of being stabbed with a shiv by Alan Moore, I actually liked the movie's ending more.

Thank you for your post.

This is exactly why I LOVED the movie.

Intellegence, character development, attention to detail, SOME action, loved the politics...and a little gayness all mixed together for a fantastic film.

In the book and the film the possibility is raised that the diary is a forgery V made, though in the film it comes off much more as disinformation to keep Finch from reading too much into it. I read a recent interview with David Lloyd where someone asked him point blank if V was a man or a woman and Lloyd was pretty evasive in his answer.

To be fair it was probably only ten minutes, but I agree regardless. It was laughable how clunky the whole sequence was. Talk about pandering to your audience - a seperate shot of the baby picture falling into the trash - just in case the audience was too stupid to figure out what was happening I guess.

It's like that thru the whole film - John Hurt looked like he was gonna have a heart attack at any moment with his ranting and raving. Subtlety works wonders if filmmakers would use it occasionally.

interesting. never took that into consideration.

how sad is it that a movie requiring intelligence to enjoy is now a complaint? yes, i realize that your primary beef is with the lack of action - but i don't take much from complaints of what a movie isn't. not enough fights/blood is hardly a valid criticism of a film like this.

Thank you.

Very sad when people go into movies with expectations like this.

It means you're not a fan for films-sake. You're a fan of spectacle which is EXACTLY the problem with movies today and why most of them suck. All spectacle and zero substance.

While I thought "V" fairly faithfully brought the ideas of Moore's graphic novel to the screen, it was clear that the execution was severely lacking. This movie just sits there inert for most of its screentime, like some middling BBC mystery, plodding along, breaking the cardinal rule of narrative fiction: telling us the story, rather than showing us the story. If "middling BBC" was the "look and feel" they were going for, then bravo, they achieved it in spades. For much of the film, a still-frame slide could have been inserted in the projector and a narrator could have filled you in on the "plot." That's never a good sign for any movie, let alone one being touted to the rafters as a honest-to-God follow-up to "The Matrix."

This film desperately cried out for a distinctive visual style and McTeigue, even with the Wachowski's assistance, was just not able to deliver. This film needed a "Dark City" type creative edge to succeed. Too many scenes looked like they were shot in the cubicle-land of the film's production offices. Too many scenes went unscored. Far too many static set-up shots, cheaply evoking other more visually arresting films, take up the bulk of the production. I couldn't help but think this would've made a spectacular "B" picture in the mid-70's. The unnecessarily repeated "dark council" shots with the High Chancellor, the dead-space that occurred every time V launched into one of his monologues, the incredibly tedious internet research of Rea's detective character - all of these mundane, stagey and otherwise flat sequences truly called out for a director with some visually kinetic panache to make the whole thing "sing."

Of course, it doesn't help when you've got Natalie Portman - one of the most overrated young "personalities" in Hollywood, giving yet another of her wooden princess performances. Her Evy is nothing more than a raccoon faced cypher - just as unconvincing as a television studio "gopher" as she is a tortured beyond fear "black-bagger." The only moment of genuine anguish she delivered was when her "these are to prove I'm not a pre-pubescent boy" curls were shorn - a moment that comes out more "reality television" show sincere than "masterpiece theater." "God is in the rain," indeed.

Overall, the high's in the film aren't high enough and the low's never much better than standard PBS fare. It's not an abysmal film. It's just not the revolution its authors were hoping. Too many symbols, not enough passion. What I wouldn't give to see the same material visually reinvigorated and expanded, bringing back in all the literary asides from Moore's original work - perhaps done as an HBO mini-series. Of course, it'll never happen.

So let me get this straight. Movies about white men who abuse gay rights, artists and muslims are unrealistic while movies about 3 prognosticators who can predict exactly who will commit crimes in the future are "very realistic" and "believable"? Are you even listening to yourself or are you to busy choking on the neo-con kool-aid?

I went to see this yesterday. A few notes:

-I lean more to the right.
-I've never even really heard of the comic, so I obviously have never read any of it.

That said, I really, really enjoyed the flick. I wasn't offended by anything, and I must say that you would have to go in wanting to hate it to get to that point. I loved the speech of V also, that was fantastic. I can't really think of too much to say right now other than I really enjoyed it, and like Inside Man, I'd be willing to check it out again on the big screen. I was a huge fan of the visuals - from the effect used when V would use his weapons and the blood (the blood reminded me of Zatoichi, 2003) to the scene of everyone with the masks. It wasn't a perfect flick, certain things seemed rushed to me and even at over two hours I felt like it was far too short. I agree with the poster who said that this will be a DVD that will have tons of extra footage, and maybe even an extended cut version of the film that fleshes certain things out even more. I'd buy that in a second, and I can't wait for it.

Brett he's referring to how the ideas (and characters) were presented and structured within the futuristic setting. I touched upon the absence of subtlety in V in my above post also.

While it's great that V goes for story and a message of some kind, it delivers them in an almost cartoonish fashion.

Uhhh...it was based on a comic. Very similar.

I thought that might come up... are comic adaptations not capable of having multidimensional characters or thought provoking ideas?

I loved the movie. Not much more I can say.

Sure they are. For an example of both, check out the recently-released "V for Vendetta."

-JP

I went to see this again to see if my love of this film could wane at all with a 2nd viewing. I enjoyed it even more. This is one of the only films in the last 5 years that I'm considering seeing a 3rd time in the theatre.

Weaving was mesmerizing as V. The small nuances, movements and voice inflections brought the character with only 1 facial expression to life.


I cannot wait for this movie on DVD. Extended version, 2-disc...whatever comes out...it will be mine!

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I just wish they'd used more than a black and white brush.

Watched it last Friday. The movie was good. I expected some super crazy action movie and it wasn't. Yes folks, for those who thinks that V for Vendetta is some action packed film --- it is NOT.

I really, liked V as a character. The way he spoke, the tone of his voice and his manners, body movement. What an amazing character.

However, what striked me most was the dialog of V. It was freaking awaesome. I felt as if I was watching some play on Broadway, the caliber of dialog is that good. Hugo Weaving is GOD! :P

Portman's character was ok. Portman was a little "meh". I don't know, she seems "the same" in every movie she makes.

Soundtrack (movie's score) was good. Some sweet themes must be heard. I have cd soundtrack, not bad.

DVD, hurry the f... up.

Overall, B+.

P.S. V is NOT gay!

Trust me brother. It gets better every time. I'm waiting for a friend to get free passes so I can go see it for my fifth. Even knowing the dialogue verbatum does not detract from Weaving's delivery (the anticipation adds to the effect actually). And his physical nuance is so fun to unravel with multiple viewings.
What a testament to his skill, that even being disadvantaged with no face, his performance still owns the movie and makes the lead character truly the focus of the entire show.

Creedy was great too.

And I'm crying for the DVD. I want it now so I can show this to friends of mine that will not endure the theater experience for anything (even this ).

I don't know what leads us all to such varied opinions, but I haven't enjoyed myself quite this much since Hellboy was released.

I saw this movie twice in the cinema and V for Vendetta is easily as good as Batman Begins. Hugo Weaving was well suited to his role as V and I could listen to his silky voice for hours, I thought John Hurt was another heavy hitter in the cast and he chewed up the scenery as the rabid High Chancellalor Sutler, even Natalie Portman was excellent as Evey (I did not even mind her vague accent). However the most surprising supporting members in the cast was Stephen Rea as the world wary Inspector Finch and Tim Pigott-Smith as the vile secret police chief, Mr. Creedy.

I thought V for Vendetta was restrained in it's action sequences, but more than made up for it in it's decent dialogue, mostly engrossing storyline and exotic setting. The action scenes were short but sweet and did not seem as tasteless or as crass as the action sequences in The Matrix.

However the fly in the oinment for me is the highly confused (and in some ways patronising) political agenda V for Vendetta is trying to plug to audience; to start with Gordon Dietrich (Stephen Fry) is one of the Norsefire propaganda chiefs who happens to be a closet homosexual that also keeps a secret copy of the Muslim Koran. That strikes me as rather silly, since Islam strongly preaches against homosexuality and Islamic dominated governments in real life are just as terrible as the fictional (Christian dominated) Norsefire government in V for Vendetta.

I am surprised the Wachowski bros are behind this movie and I really hope this is a sign that they've got over their "little setback" with the Matrix sequels and go back to making decent, geeky, films again.

Cancer Man,

From what I gather, Gordon Dietrich keeps a Koran, not because he is a Muslim, but because he has a rebellious nature in him where he keeps a lot of banned materials in his basement.

Just got back and I loved this movie. All the performances were great and the politics never bothered me.