V for Vendetta: Review By Dan

Are you gay? How about Muslim? Do you have issues with authority figures? Are you out spoken? Well, I'll tell you now, you wouldn't fare so well in V for Vendetta's world. Adapted from Alan Moore's graphic novel series, V for Vendetta is one of those films, like the excellent 'Watchmen', that seemed to divide people into 'love it' or 'hate it' categories. I fall into the 'love it' party, as I could appreciate its story of government suppression of ideas and lifestyles, and the desire for true freedom, not that false sense of security by being smothered by those in charge for 'your own good'. This film felt particularly relevant with the times we live in these days, as it plays on the idea of whether all this "security" we obsess about and the government constantly shoves down our throats is actually healthy for us or not.

The time is the near future, with America in its 2nd Civil War, and England having just come out of it's own. Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman, awesome as usual), a lowly assistant at the BTN (British Television Network) is accosted by government henchman who mean to rape and brutalize her before she can make it to her boss's home, and is saved by a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask named V (Hugo Weaving, always splendid), who has a penchant for saying words that begin with the letter "V". V is a peculiar freedom fighter, spouting phrases and lines from classic literature as he attacks Evey's would be rapists. He then entertains her with a "performance", involving the Old Bailey's statue (a famous court house in England). This triggers events that culminate on the next November the 5th in a grand climax.

What I particularly liked about Vendetta is its story being two-pronged. On one hand we're following Evey as she learns about V's quest for vengeance and his ideals, and on the other we're following two detectives, Eric Finch (Stephen Rae) and Rupert Graves (Dominic Stone), as they piece together, in reasonable fashion, the mystery behind V, discovering hidden agendas and plots by their own government that has far reaching implications. These two story lines eventually collide as both V and Evey have their run ins with the detectives at different points, and do so seamlessly.

Portman gives her usual 110 percent effort here, sporting the shaved head look halfway through the movie as she's being "tortured". Her facial expressions never fail to amuse me as they range from impossibly innocent, to shocked/scared, and I don't believe I've ever seen her look thinner here. In one outrageous scene, she wears a ridiculous child prostitute get-up for a pedophile bishop ("Oh, I love the confession game!"). I always have to give her credit for doing memorable things in her movies, it's what helps her stand out from her peers. And then there is Hugo Weaving. You never get to see his actual face in the movie, the closest being the beginning as he sits at a mirror and puts his Guy Fawkes mask on, but I don't think you'd want to anyways, as shown by his hands while making breakfast for Evey, he is horribly burnt from head to toe. But nonetheless, this detracts nothing from Weaving being his usual charismatic self. His vocabulary of words is impressive, and the way he speaks is elegant, poetic even. As Portman's character says near the conclusion of the film, he is all of us in a way, representing the desire for true freedom; free, non-repressed expressions of ourselves, regardless of what that may be. His blunt attitude is both funny and respectable, as he's a man of convictions and his word, with an obsession over the movie "The Count of Monte Cristo", which draws several parallels to Vendetta, both being about revenge.

Even the supporting cast is not so bad. I liked the detectives, Stephen Rae has a nice character arc from the beginning of the film to the end, as he learns the truth on the cover ups his government has conceived, to the point of barely bringing himself to even stop Evey by the film's finale. It's always refreshing to see characters use logic and reason in the obvious face of what is right and wrong. The use of the villains was interesting, with John Hurt as Adam Sutler, High Chancellor of Britain, Supreme Douchbag dictator, we only see his face on a gigantic screen yelling and dictating to his minions in an obnoxiously dark room at V's successful attempts at foiling their way of controlled life and revealing their secrets, until near the end of the film. The other villain, Mr. Creedy (Tim Pigott-Smith), has cold, shark like eyes, a no-nonsense *sshole of an enforcer for Chancellor Sutler.

Why some probably hated this movie, like Watchmen, it doesn't feature nearly as much action as your typical comic book adaption movie. Vendetta is more concerned about ingraining its ideas into your head than dazzling you with special effects. I think you could prob count on one hand how many action scenes there are in the film, which doesn't bother me, as I like listening to a well stated ideal someone has, it can be inspiring. Evey asks what difference would it make to blow up Parliament, as the real Guy Fawkes attempted to in the "Gunpowder Plot of 1605", to which V responds by saying it is both symbolic to blow the building up, and 'that' particular building, as it represents everything negative about their current existence. By the time the movie was over, it makes one inquisitive over one's own government, maybe wondering how many things that occur in our lives aren't merely coincidence, but orchestrated to someone's benefit? There are those that believe the 9/11 attacks had more going on then was let on, and sometimes I almost believe it with all the doc*mentaries that have come out about that event and how things were strangely handled.

About the only thing I didn't care for in the movie was Dario Marianelli's score. At times it seemed to overwhelm the dialogue spoken, and I never like when movies do that. It was definitely the weakest part of the film. The only time I cared for it was during the climax, as it was fitting while *spoiler* Parliament is blowing up. That got me to grin :P

It amazes me that director James McTeigue could go from directing a smart, well crafted movie such as this, to that garbage called Ninja Assassin. I know they can't all be hits, but damn, what a night and day difference between the movies. The only thing he brought with him from V for Vendetta to Ninja Assassin was the visuals, and even those didn't impress me from his other directorial effort. It boggles my mind how that happened, considering it was the same team up again with McTeigue and the Wachowski brothers/Joel Silver...

While maybe not everyone's cup of tea, I still enjoy this film and what it represents and the questions it asks. There are plenty of visually stunning moments, but again, like Watchmen, don't watch it with the expectation of huge blow out fights or anything of that nature, it isn't that type of animal. A political thinking man's comic book movie, V for Vendetta was one of the better films to come out of 2006.

Also, I have not read Alan Moore's graphic novels, so if the movie veered way off from them, I wouldn't know, I'm just critiquing the movie on its own merits.

(All words, ideas are mine. Any similarities to other reviews is coincidence).