V For Vendetta: The Movie

http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_87460_sey_12.jpg

The thing about that Valerie letter, and some of V's speeches, was that they dangled profundity in front of you, which didn't sit very well with the hokum of the rest of it. It was frustrating. Easier just to write it all off as enjoyable exploitation flick, as Mark Kermode did, but I couldn't quite do that.

Anna Paquin would have made a good Evey, I think.

I don't mind the idea of V being mad and not a hero, and he suggested as much himself when he said that for every reaction there was an opposite reaction, that he was a monster born of their monstrosity. But there's accepting that idea in principle, and then there's feeling like a film coherently conveys it, and I don't think it did. It cast him as the clear-thinking, righteous crusader too often. It's not a problem if V himself is incoherent – but the film shouldn't be.

who was it who said every superhero movie is really about the moment the main character goes from being a "normal" to being a superhero?

i think every superhero movie is sort of a let-down after the "becoming a superhero" scene. def for me, the climax (and best part of this film) was evey in the rain, and just like "batman begins" once that point had passed the movie wasn't so great anymore.

it's too bad that the cop's imagined ending (the girl getting shot, brixtoners retaliating, riots starting, etc) was so much more exciting than the actual ending.

as for the poster who asked what and how had made the family political after st mary's ... i think they showed the little girl (evey) passing out biohazard-marked fliers. i guess the family just became hardline greens or something. or maybe the turned into "us gov't did 9.11" type crazies.

or, do we need to know EXACTLY HOW bruce wayne ends up in rural tibet? and how the the league of shadows tracked him to rural tibet? etc etc.

if you measure v for vendetta by the superhero yardstick it makes good sense. if you try to treat it like a police procedural, you're being unfair.

But there's accepting that idea in principle, and then there's feeling like a film coherently conveys it, and I don't think it did. It cast him as the clear-thinking, righteous crusader too often

you can say what you want about bin laden, but you can't argue with "clear-thinking" and "righteous". why should he not be clear-thinking? i mean, part of what makes him the particular superhero that he is is his singleminded doggedness about his revenge. he's a moral juggernaut! and anyway i think that "monstrous" doesn't need to mean "confused and wrong". you can be "clear-thinking, righteous" and still be monstrous! (see: bin laden, bush, etc)

well. v never said "i'm out to spread valerie's message of love". he wanted bloody revenge for her death (and his own mutilation) and that was it. there's no reason why v shouldn't be the inverse of valerie's ideal (every action produces it's opposite, right?). the person who really ended up picking up that thread and going with it was evey, who lived out valerie's happy ending in real life: shaved-headed but safely underground (in the fake ID sense), doing her own thing, watching old movies.

does it make me a bad person that i was disappointed that the soldiers stood down?

i think every superhero movie is sort of a let-down after the "becoming a superhero" scene. def for me, the climax (and best part of this film) was evey in the rain, and just like "batman begins" once that point had passed the movie wasn't so great anymore.

oh yeah, i was thinking the exact same thing about BB today... i was loving it up to the point where he becomes batman, then i fell asleep. but i think i already said that exact thing upthread so never mind!

i don't understand why they didn't have the scene of evey putting on the v mask! and i was NOT onboard for the crowd of "V"s. i hate crowd/mob scenes in movies, they're always so corny no matter what.

-- vahid (vfoz...), March 19th, 2006 9:09 PM. (vahid) (later) (link

No, it would have been a WAY BETTER ENDING if the soldiers had just opened fire on everyone.

you can say what you want about bin laden, but you can't argue with "clear-thinking" and "righteous". why should he not be clear-thinking? i mean, part of what makes him the particular superhero that he is is his singleminded doggedness about his revenge. he's a moral juggernaut! and anyway i think that "monstrous" doesn't need to mean "confused and wrong". you can be "clear-thinking, righteous" and still be monstrous! (see: bin laden, bush, etc)

See, this would make more sense if the word you repsonding to was "self-righteous". Righteous actually means, y'know, right.

Cracking heads when you're outnumbered 20/30-1: not such a bright idea. Also, cracking masks.

Huh? Valerie didn't act on V - the government did.

I think we were meant to assume that the regime had disintegrated from within, like in East Germany or Czechoslovakia, only in a more telescoped fashion to suit the demands of a film. i.e. the regime had been acting more and more erratically, demoralising the soldiers, and without some senior regime type shouting "shoot the fuckers" down a radio it was enough for the soldiers to just give up.

This was not the part of the film that required greatest suspension of disbelief.

Oh for fuck's sake.

It would have made more sense if they actual people had been riddled with bullet holes then.

http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/

maybe thats were all the bollocks in the film came from

e.g. the whole "order from chaos" bit.

Let's keep in mind that everyone slamming this film for deviating from the GN is aligning themselves with Charles Manson.

http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/images/main2.jpg

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/photo/2006-03/22487024.jpg

Codsarnit, i thot elves couldn't grow facial hair!

from this L.A. Times bit

Doubtless I'll eventually see the film but I agree that this would have been a cool road to go down.

(xp)