Reviews for 'V for Vendetta'

[Joe]

-I thought the girl with the who spray painted "V" on the wall in the movie was a cute edition, no matter what happened to her.

That actually was in the book. It was black spray paint, though. That was her only appearance, though.

-Speaking of which, I really wish they hadn't altered Valerie's message and just left it whole, rather than changing it as they did.

This annoyed me. They left out the bit about Valerie's girlfriend selling her out and killing herself out of shame, and Valerie's forgiveness of her. I thought it was beautiful and it should have been in there.

[Joe]

Another thing - the bit with the people marching with the Guy Fawkes masks. Leaving aside the issue of whether not it really jives with the idea of V, it did not make sense. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of apparently unused, brand new masks, it appeared to me. How were these all made? Is there a factory? If so, how does V get away with producing the masks in a command economy and not get detected? Does he make them all himself? If so, then how is this possible? He still has to buy the materials and equipment necessary to make the masks. If the Britain portrayed in the movie is indeed a fascist police state, someone would notice - hell, someone would notice in modern-day America, with data collection technology being what it is.

I keep thinking of more things that bugged me when I think about the movie - the scene where Finch talks to the other cop (was it supposed to be Dominic? Didn't catch the name) about the truth of the St. Mary's incident and says that "this conversation will not leave the room". Uh, HELLO, it's supposed to be a surveillance state! There's no way they could get away with that in a damned government building without someone noticing.

[Gil Hamilton]

That actually was in the book. It was black spray paint, though. That was her only appearance, though.

I know, I remember. She was spray painting "Bullocks" until she found something much more offensive to the government to paint. That's why I thought it was cute.

This annoyed me. They left out the bit about Valerie's girlfriend selling her out and killing herself out of shame, and Valerie's forgiveness of her. I thought it was beautiful and it should have been in there.

Important too. Remember, after reading Valerie's letter, Evey no longer sought revenge as well.

[Gil Hamilton]

Another thing - the bit with the people marching with the Guy Fawkes masks. Leaving aside the issue of whether not it really jives with the idea of V, it did not make sense. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of apparently unused, brand new masks, it appeared to me. How were these all made? Is there a factory? If so, how does V get away with producing the masks in a command economy and not get detected? Does he make them all himself? If so, then how is this possible? He still has to buy the materials and equipment necessary to make the masks. If the Britain portrayed in the movie is indeed a fascist police state, someone would notice - hell, someone would notice in modern-day America, with data collection technology being what it is.

V appearantly had magic resources in the movie. Busy guy, he also managed to clear the Underground tunnels to Parliment and lay new rails by himself too.

I keep thinking of more things that bugged me when I think about the movie - the scene where Finch talks to the other cop (was it supposed to be Dominic? Didn't catch the name) about the truth of the St. Mary's incident and says that "this conversation will not leave the room". Uh, HELLO, it's supposed to be a surveillance state! There's no way they could get away with that in a damned government building without someone noticing.

Yeah, it was supposed to be Dominic, though they kind of made Finch the Dominic character in the movie.

I think that little device they set up was supposed to prevent surveillance, but I have a hard time understanding myself how a little device like that could stop a microphone or block a video camera.

[The Grim Squeaker]

V appearantly had magic resources in the movie. Busy guy, he also managed to clear the Underground tunnels to Parliment and lay new rails by himself too.

To be fair, his resources in the book were roughly as impressive, he took over FATE completely, the surveillance systems and had every piece of destroyed literature in the gallery as well as a large home made surveillance system for which he somehow acquired the pieces.
Not to mention all the explosives (Although he did build most of those by himself, he certainly could based on Larkill).

I have'nt sen the movie yet, I want to but:
A) It isn't here yet.
B) I Have'nt got any spare time for it.

C) I'm terrified of it ruining V for me, the book is Moore's best work in my opinion, Watchmen may be technically better, but V is more interesting.
[Kafka for example can be very boring but he's so much above a hack like Grisham that it can't be compared, even if Grisham's books are more readable/feasible than something like metamorphosis]

[Fire Fly]

Spoiler Review:





































Not having read the comics, my judgements are free of preconcieved ideas notions. I enjoyed the movie; some parts bothered me but most entertained me. There's plenty of current events weaved into the movie and they're apparent when they show up.

The quasi-Hitler High Chancellor annoyed me a bit. Could they really have created someone so dumbed down? If they were going to create a Hitler-esque figure, at least make him not look like Hitler and have the same obvious black and red colors.

I enjoyed the tee tottering detective, who questions himself and the ideas which he works for. Nothing over the top and they didn't make him give in completely until the very end. His character was made more complex and more understandable that way.

I enjoyed the simplicity and the complexity, the genius and the poetic prose that is V. His alliteration was a thought tickler and his persona complex. He was cruel and caring at the same time. I always expected him to suddenly do something terrible when ever he was doing something kind, something Machiavellian. The slow motion sequences didn't bother me much, no major Matrix overtones. What somewhat bothered me was the mass masked marching at the end. It seemed out of place, for some reason.

Overall, an enjoyable popcorn movie. I was hestitant to see the movie at first, but my hesitation quickly melted away once the movie began. Definately worth watching.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I know, I remember. She was spray painting "Bullocks" until she found something much more offensive to the government to paint. That's why I thought it was cute.

The term's "bollocks", and yes, she was a cute addition because I can't recall the girl from the book too well.

Important too. Remember, after reading Valerie's letter, Evey no longer sought revenge as well.

For what time they had with it, I expect it still got most of the message across to those who hadn't read the source material. I'd have preferred it to be exactly like the original too, but since I nearly expected them to have truncated it down to just the one paragraph before Evey got taken away again, I was almost mortified. So it was a relief they had as much in as they did.

I'm still thinking I'd have preferred it if Evey was caught trying to exact her revenge on the Fingermen when she got captured by V, as opposed to simply escaping Deitrich's house. They should've had at least one broad Scots accent there too.

I think we can all agree the march at the end was a tad out-of-character for the story and probably came about from reading something incorrectly into the ending by the Wachoskis.

I'm wondering how this movie will be remembered given the time we're living in today where a "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are often terms found in the news now in a world powered more and more by fear. As mild as the movie is next to the book, it was still a risky idea to produce it today with the attitudes some people have. Perhaps the book should be mandatory reading at school.

[Vendetta]

The term's "bollocks", and yes, she was a cute addition because I can't recall the girl from the book too well.

It's there. Start of Chapter 7. (Pages 188-189, if you have the collected version).

Only she spells it "bolucs".

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ah, so it is. Guess that just didn't burn into my mind as much as seeing it on celluloid.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah, so it is. Guess that just didn't burn into my mind as much as seeing it on celluloid.

She wasn't shot or anything in the comic. She only appeared on 2 pages and was doing a bit of graffiti once she realized the cameras weren't on anymore.

[Gil Hamilton]

And incidently, I really wish that the ending credits song was "One Vision" by Queen. But that's just me.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Heh, at least the score was quite good. I expected Don Davis though, given he often works with the Wachowskis.

[Quadlok]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a Christian cross, just not the usual one, it was more like an orthodox cross. The second crossbar would be the sign reading 'king of the Jews.'

I liked it, myself. It was a hell of a lot better than I would have expected from the Wachowskis, certainly.

Did anyone else wonder how many janitors bit it when the bailey went up?

[Quadlok]

^
oops, forgot to quote to provide context, the symbol of Norsefire is the cross I'm referring to.

[Srynerson]

Just got back from seeing it. While obviously not as good as the book, I do think the adaptation was about as close to the original as one could reasonably expect from a "major motion picture". Also, some of the changes, while weak, were understandably necessary -- the post-apocalyptic world of the original story doesn't make much sense these days, so some new explanation had to be given for Britain's turn to totalitarianism.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In the book it was essentially WWIII, and the way things are going, you could easily imagine some massive destabilisation of the global economy and multiple regions down to this "War on Terror" crap instigated by the US. Factor in actual terrorism and nations backing those parties, and you could arrive at the chaos in V, albeit, not like the original because of a Cold War heating up, but close enough.

[Gil Hamilton]

Just got back from seeing it. While obviously not as good as the book, I do think the adaptation was about as close to the original as one could reasonably expect from a "major motion picture". Also, some of the changes, while weak, were understandably necessary -- the post-apocalyptic world of the original story doesn't make much sense these days, so some new explanation had to be given for Britain's turn to totalitarianism.

I don't know about that.

Which makes more sense:

-The Soviet Union sending troops Poland, causing an escalation that ends up destroying Western Europe and North Africa in a nuclear exhcange - something that historically was very plausible, since use of nuclear weapons would have been the likely result of the Soviets invading Western Europe. Britain survives because Labour won the '82 election and managed to make themselves a non-target, but the war causes the climate in the region to periodically go to shit and, combined with the Thames river barrier failing and London getting flooded, leads to mass food shortages and a breakdown of order, which is restored by the rise of a fascist party, largely due to being the only game in town and promising order after several years of riots and starvation. A NAZI style purge ensues of immigrants, non-Christians, homosexuals and political offenders. Not unlike the current British National Party or some of the more radical Thatcherites of the time(hint hint) except on steroids thanks to no political opposition.

-"America's War" somehow causes things to go to shit in a largely undefined manner, with the "Conservatives" doing the whole purge thing but without the huge break down in order. A ranting Big Brother type takes over, but unlike 1984 and most realistic totalitarian states (not to mention despite the folks shown to be in charge), things are pretty bright and shiny, except for the odd black bagging, which you don't talk about. The government releases a plague on some British, for ill defined villainous reasons and generic people scaring.

[lgot]

Of course it would never be perfect when we compare Blair to Tatcher, but this last year a Brazilian was killed by the English police because he would be a terrorist (and the only thing he did was having a jacket and be dark skinned) when they started a "shoot to kill" style of action (not very usual with english police, so, no wonder they lost control of the sittuation) and when the thing was discovered they failed miserable to justify it and false accounts are given to try to justify it (of course, they are clumsy) but the paranoia was all there and it justificated a more authoritarian approach to the sittuation. Too small compared to a country who is open about several things that clearly are crimes in V's world but I would think that the reason why the state turns in the totalitarian is not as relevant to Moore than the fact it turned.

[Srynerson]

Just got back from seeing it. While obviously not as good as the book, I do think the adaptation was about as close to the original as one could reasonably expect from a "major motion picture". Also, some of the changes, while weak, were understandably necessary -- the post-apocalyptic world of the original story doesn't make much sense these days, so some new explanation had to be given for Britain's turn to totalitarianism.

I don't know about that.

Which makes more sense:

I never said the adaptation's "history" made more sense in terms of relative probablities from initial start points of 1982 and 2006 for book and film respectively, and then advancing 15 years. The original backstory "doesn't make much sense these days" because it was premised on a nuclear war between the USSR and US. The USSR is, of course, noticeably absent from existence these days. Thus, to keep the original backstory it would be necessary to set the entire story in an alternate universe, which kind of depletes the "cautionary" aspect of the story.