Not Coming to a Theater Near You

V for Vendetta / UK/Germany/USA / 2005

A fun, if at times annoyingly obvious reflection on George W. Bush (though Moore’s graphic novel was originally written as a critique of Margaret Thatcher, a fact I find mildly hilarious). Stephen Rea and Stephen Fry are both great, as is John Hurt as the Big Brother-esque Chancellor Sutler. Natalie Portman, however, leaves little impression, and V’s mask is so cheerful it becomes painful to look at. The special effects (think The Matrix on a smaller budget) are ridiculous, especially when blood shoots from V’s victims like spit ketchup. And V’s decision to “free” Britain from its present situation by destroying Parliament is a bit ostentatious. I mean, some architect worked really hard on that building…

(Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture,” though, is a nice touch.)

Ian’s Thoughts

Tom’s Thoughts

by Adam Balz | Source: Warner DVD (Full Screen Edition)
02 Dec 2006 2:31 PM | Comments (5)

Comments / 5 total / Submit Comment

1. rob / 6 December 2006 / 3:49 AM / URL

   I wish I could be so forgiving. As a student of political science, few things have pissed me off more this year than the majority of my colleagues adapting this as some sort of revolution of the cinema. Ideas are bulletproof? Governments should be afraid of their people? Great stuff, sure, but you get all these bumper sticker-isms in the preview, and frankly, the movie looks like shit (1 – establishing shot, 2 – close up, 3 – return to establishing shot…). A good portion of the movie strikes me as particularly cowardly, as well. The Wachowski’s probably wouldn’t have made the film if they didn’t mean to comment on present American politics (obvious, like you said), and if their appropriation of the original graphic novel’s government conspiracy plot is a call-out to 9/11 conspiracy theories, then setting everything in Britian is just a big cop-out (like Spielberg setting War of the Worlds in the present, it wouldn’t have been that hard to change the time and place and retained the same themes). So they blow up Parliament, wow – how many American audiences really give a shit? Now, if the movie had blown up the White House at the climax as a cause for celebration, that’d have displayed some ballsiness. I’m a deviant from the crowd of serious moviegoers in that I enjoyed the Matrix trilogy even through its conclusion, but nothing has made me want to swallow this Wachowski-endorsed Anarchy for Idiots.

2. Adam B. / 6 December 2006 / 10:04 AM / URL

   “So they blow up Parliament, wow — how many American audiences really give a shit?”

   As someone who enjoyes weekly Parliament sessions on C-SPAN, I was greatly pissed. Tony Blair engaging in the usual verbose tete-a-tete in a makeshift Parliament warehouse? No way.

3. tom / 6 December 2006 / 10:46 AM / URL

   … and some of us actually see the building itself on a fairly regular basis, and were therefore a little taken aback when it exploded. And besides, we dutifully gasped when the White House got blasted in Independence Day, the least you burgermunchers can do is return the favour. Special relationship indeed.

   I don’t know, this worked as allegory, for me at least. And besides, V was a direct adaptation from source material, as opposed to War Of The Worlds which was more of an inspired- by type affair. The hero in Wells’ novel didn’t have tow-headed moppets, for one. And I don’t remember him singing ‘Little Deuce Coupe’.

   But that aside, I’d much rather have this so -called Anarchy for Idiots than the mediocre Plato for Dummies schtick the Matrix became.

4. Chiranjit / 6 December 2006 / 11:21 AM / URL

   Maybe it was my Canadian indifference pushing aside my American blood, but I didn’t really care that much while witnessing the White House explode in Independence Day.

   Parliament always kicks ass compared to Congress. Isn’t it always fun to watch the leader of your country attempt to match wits with the Opposition while enduring jeers from almost every corner of the room before his/her party cheers fanatically? My imagination envisions Bush not fairing well in such a situation, but then my brain reminds me his opponents aren’t exactly the brightest lights on the Christmas tree.

5. rob / 6 December 2006 / 8:50 PM / URL

   Well, when referring to “Americans,” here I mean your typical popcorn munching IMDb junkie whose never heard of the likes of Almodovar – in other words, nobody who visits and comments on this site. Of course anyone who take movies seriously understood the implications of blowing up Parliament, but as far as goes ID4, blowing up the White House was more ideologically permissable because (1) it was “just” entertainment and (2) the movie is about a patriotic as the come anyway, the act itself being a form of external terrorism and not government-criticising revolution. Now, if a V for Vendetta had a sequel in which the White House was destroyed in a similar manner, Rush Limbaugh would have a years worth of shows right there.

   And as goes the Matrix’s philosophy, yeah, it’s pretty sheepish, and nothing that would keep me around. It’s no hallmark of cinema, but I dig the genre elements more or less (the original, though, is like one wonderfully drawn out cock tease, in my book at least), particularly when Revolutions decided to can it and just open up a steady stream of ammo for a continuous hour. As a harcore liberal, however, it pangs me greatly to see complex ideologies reduced to cutesy phrases that undiscriminating fanboys who get off on being anti-establishment can flaunt like some sort of secret membership code (I know – some of them are my friends). And, I swear to god, the next time I have to sit through an extended zoom in on a character pontificating aloud about how much it would suck if the government were actually corrupt, I just might puke blood. Somebody, please, give these people a copy of Army of Shadows or The Battle of Algiers.