V for Vendetta review

POSTED BY: pingjing
UPDATED: Saturday, September 20, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 24020
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
And CTC, I get what you're saying about comparing movies and books. I read The Queen of the Damned years before the movie came out and when I went to see it all I could do was scream in my head. "NO this wrong, all wrong! What is that?!? What is going on here?!?!". I saw it with several friends who had never read the related books and thought that it was a decent type of Vampire flik. I thought it was horrible. To this day, I can't make any kind of judgement on it without getting upset.

Yeah, like I said I know that had I read Starship Troopers first I would have hated the movie. Even seening the movie first, and liking it, I feel the need to point out, sometimes too loudly, that it was nothing like the book.

ZOID

Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:58 AM

From the 'For What It's Worth' department:

I saw the movie today with my 12- and 16-year-old children. It's rated 'R', but it's hard to see why. One presumes violence (though by no means gratuitous or gory), language (they say, 'bollocks' 2 or 3 times and drop the 'F-bomb' precisely twice), and brief nudity (unclothed dead bodies, no sex scenes).

For those who see only the surface of things:
This is an action-y computer-effects movie, that you will probably enjoy, if the philosophical bits don't bore you too badly.

For those with a deeper ken:
This is a great film. It strives to predict what the world may be like in the next decade or so, and succeeds admirably. But more than that, I believe it is the true successor to "The Matrix". "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" were not, in my opinion; they lacked the essential subtext that infused the original.

That subtext was, in specific, that challenging the appearances of one's life could lead to a profound change within oneself. Sometimes, stepping out of the box of 'approved thought' can leave a person in a vast wilderness. But is the Truth worth the pain, worth the separation from the rest of the 'somnambulant public', worth the separation from the creature comforts of a life lived in societal conformity?

Since "V for Vendetta" resonates with these same questions, these same existential undertones, it is a worthier companion piece to "The Matrix" than its sequels ever were. In "V", the 'black bag' of lies pulled over everyone's eyes is a societal one, rather than one that's AI-generated; but, the parallel is unmistakable. In fact, I believe "V" has given me fresh insights on "The Matrix", which I will be rewatching tonight.

If you are a deep-thinking person -- and especially if you liked "The Matrix" for its subtextual content -- you should do yourself the favor of seeing "V For Vendetta" in a theatre. It is money well-spent. If you are a person who enjoys letting pretty pictures play across your eyeballs, you might still enjoy this film; but, I think there may not be enough explosions or wire-fu to make this a completely compelling film. You may grow sleepy.

Glowingly,

zoid

P.S.
The entire cast does a wonderful job. I most strongly identified with Stephen Rea's police inspector character.

P.P.S.
If you think gay people are defective and don't deserve to live, you will probably find yourself on the wrong side of the moral war in this movie. Ultra-Conservative Christians definitely want to give this one a miss. ...Unless you have an open mind; but then you wouldn't be an 'Ultra-Conservative Christian', would you?

P.P.P.S.
One of my favorite 'tidbit' lines from the movie; non-spoiler, but encapsulated in spoiler tags, for the nit-pickers:

Select to view spoiler:

Stephen Rea, listing the war record of one of V's murder victims (paraphrased): "Served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria -- before and after."

_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I saw the movie today with my 12- and 16-year-old children. It's rated 'R', but it's hard to see why. One presumes violence (though by no means gratuitous or gory), language (they say, 'bollocks' 2 or 3 times and drop the 'F-bomb' precisely twice), and brief nudity (unclothed dead bodies, no sex scenes).

You know I have a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary from the seventies, and it doesn't contain the word fuck. It's got shit, but no fuck.

I know that the current version has "the most versatile word in the English language" but no amount of research so far has shown me when they saw fit to add it.

People are too uptight, if the word were not proper to use it would not exist. If leaving it out of the dictionaries couldn't stop it then the entire English speaking population has spoken.

(I appolize to any who are offended but I refuse to disrespect four hundred years of my elders who thought fuck was a worthwhile and important word and 1200 who though shit was. I just can't do that I love languages too much. [Yes I have a screwed up way of looking at the world, but it has served me well so far.])

Quote:
If you think gay people are defective and don't deserve to live, you will probably find yourself on the wrong side of the moral war in this movie. Ultra-Conservative Christians definitely want to give this one a miss. ...Unless you have an open mind; but then you wouldn't be an 'Ultra-Conservative Christian', would you?

I so want them to stop calling themselves Christian. Jesus said what the two greatest commandments were in any bible you come across, if it is their holy book why can't they read it? They'd nail him to a cross themselves if they got the chance, and they call themselves Christian.

-

Sorry about this entire post, I said in another thread I needed to go to bed, and I really do.

KAYNA

Sunday, March 26, 2006 5:01 AM

I like your view on swearing. The way I look at it, words only have the power you give to them. If you don't think of it as a negative thing then it's not. Now if only I could convince the rest of the world of this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

RELFEXIVE

Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:40 PM

On the subject of the swearing thing, can anyone say why 'shit' is worse than 'crap'? Means the same thing, but one can be said at 8am on a national radio station and one can not.

Does that seem right to you?

"My God - you're like a trained ape. Without the training."
"Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all..."
"SUMMER!!"
http://www.theshadowdepository.co.uk/index.htm

PINGJING

Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus:
In response, I offer my review. I'm not official at all, but I like to think I am.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=197686&e
ntryid=304910&view=public

Long story short, I loved it.

That was a much better review than mine - of course, I didn't want to spoil anyone, so that's my excuse. The only part where I disagree is about Natalie Portman - occasionally, a girl needs a female lead she can identify with and possibly even look up to. Portman was that for me. You're not entirely wrong that she was a pawn in the movie - V made a lot of decisions for her. But she made two very important decisions herself.

Select to view spoiler:

When she maced the cop at the beginning, and when she pulled the lever at the end.

Another couple of posters have said they were upset by how she was treated, and that she forgave V too easily. I don't think she quite forgave him, actually.

Select to view spoiler:

When she came back to see him, she still seemed to blame him for having changed her so completely that even her former colleagues didn't recognize her anymore.

That's just my $.02, which I think brings me to $.04, so I guess I should scram...

Julia

PINGJING

Sunday, March 26, 2006 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
From the 'For What It's Worth' department:

I saw the movie today with my 12- and 16-year-old children. It's rated 'R', but it's hard to see why. One presumes violence (though by no means gratuitous or gory), language (they say, 'bollocks' 2 or 3 times and drop the 'F-bomb' precisely twice), and brief nudity (unclothed dead bodies, no sex scenes).

For those who see only the surface of things:
This is an action-y computer-effects movie, that you will probably enjoy, if the philosophical bits don't bore you too badly.

For those with a deeper ken:
This is a great film. It strives to predict what the world may be like in the next decade or so, and succeeds admirably. But more than that, I believe it is the true successor to "The Matrix". "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" were not, in my opinion; they lacked the essential subtext that infused the original.

That subtext was, in specific, that challenging the appearances of one's life could lead to a profound change within oneself. Sometimes, stepping out of the box of 'approved thought' can leave a person in a vast wilderness. But is the Truth worth the pain, worth the separation from the rest of the 'somnambulant public', worth the separation from the creature comforts of a life lived in societal conformity?

Since "V for Vendetta" resonates with these same questions, these same existential undertones, it is a worthier companion piece to "The Matrix" than its sequels ever were. In "V", the 'black bag' of lies pulled over everyone's eyes is a societal one, rather than one that's AI-generated; but, the parallel is unmistakable. In fact, I believe "V" has given me fresh insights on "The Matrix", which I will be rewatching tonight.

If you are a deep-thinking person -- and especially if you liked "The Matrix" for its subtextual content -- you should do yourself the favor of seeing "V For Vendetta" in a theatre. It is money well-spent. If you are a person who enjoys letting pretty pictures play across your eyeballs, you might still enjoy this film; but, I think there may not be enough explosions or wire-fu to make this a completely compelling film. You may grow sleepy.

Glowingly,

zoid

P.S.
The entire cast does a wonderful job. I most strongly identified with Stephen Rea's police inspector character.

P.P.S.
If you think gay people are defective and don't deserve to live, you will probably find yourself on the wrong side of the moral war in this movie. Ultra-Conservative Christians definitely want to give this one a miss. ...Unless you have an open mind; but then you wouldn't be an 'Ultra-Conservative Christian', would you?

P.P.P.S.
One of my favorite 'tidbit' lines from the movie; non-spoiler, but encapsulated in spoiler tags, for the nit-pickers:
Select to view spoiler:
Stephen Rea, listing the war record of one of V's murder victims (paraphrased): "Served in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria -- before and after."

Well put, Zoid. This film is a bit of a wake-up call for the many Americans who don't think their vote makes a difference. A ruler can only rule when he has a majority of the people behind him, whether out of fear or love. If the ruler commits a crime, the people need to stand up and say so. That said, it's not that easy to do, as we've seen in the past.

Select to view spoiler:

It must have taken a lot of courage for each of those people at the end to put on a mask and start walking. They didn't know whether they would be shot or whether they would become heroes.

As for the R rating on this film, I think it deserved it, not for the swear words, but for the violence. That fight scene at the end was gruesome; both my sister and I closed our eyes, and we're 24. I guess age doesn't really matter, though. I'm sure there are kids far younger than me who are more desensitized to violence than I am.

Julia

p.s. That was one of my favorite lines too. Made me laugh out loud.

MANAPEGONEWRONG

Sunday, March 26, 2006 5:13 PM

I loved the film, the ending without spoiling anything I thought was very powerful. One minor complaint though, Hugo Weaving is an amazing actor not only because of his voice and vocal talents but he can also pull some great faces and if you've seen the matrix this makes him all the more effective. It would have been wrong for him to take his mask off just to say "ha ha this is what i look like" but if he took it off to do one of his great speeches and really used his talents it would have been worth it.

when you get cancelled you find someone to carry you

ZOID

Monday, March 27, 2006 2:19 AM

pingjing wrote:

Quote:
...This film is a bit of a wake-up call for the many Americans who don't think their vote makes a difference. A ruler can only rule when he has a majority of the people behind him, whether out of fear or love. If the ruler commits a crime, the people need to stand up and say so. That said, it's not that easy to do, as we've seen in the past.

I had no intent to make a political statement about the movie. The movie itself does, and many see that message as directed at the U.S. of A., and specifically the current Chief Executive. Fair enough. We see what we want to see in the mirror...

But I believe it's a statement against totalitarian governments in general, in whatever part of the world they may take root. The U.S. does not (yet) have a totalitarian government. "Saturday Night Live" comedians do not get 'disappeared' for making spoof of political figures in this country, or for outright calling them racists. Dissident authors do not get sent to gulag, or given a standing death warrant for writing books that are critical of the State's official religion.

There are other parts of the world where that is most definitely the case. Ask Salman Rushdie...

But, if you'd like a political statement, here it is: The Democratic and Republican Parties of U.S. politics are nothing more than flip sides of the same wooden nickel. The currency of American politics is not worth the paper it's printed on. Although I'm not a supporter of his, the very fact that Ralph Nader was barred from even entering the studio to sit in the audience during the last Presidential debates is not only a disgrace to the ideals of democracy, free speech, and the right to assemble peacefully, it is a clear indicator of how far the reigning two parties are willing to go in order to retain their hegemony.

You say an American's vote is not useless. I say it is, unless you use it to destroy the two-party system. The political machinery of this country needs an enema. Only a healthy third party will accomplish that goal, forcing the other two to pony up some real, proper governance for the first time since Lincoln was elected.

The slide began after he was assassinated and has been accelerating in fits and starts ever since. One bad decision after the next, all abridging the freedoms of the common man, until now our government is an ever-tightening straightjacket of arcane laws and regulations. The same self-righteous pricks who today malign Bush for orchestrating a war, were the ones who used armed assault teams on their own citizenry at Waco. Did those citizens, regardless the severity of the crimes of which they were accused, not deserve the right of due process? Was it not, then, a crime to summarily execute them?

I'm not saying that makes either party better than the other one. I'm saying it makes them both wrong.

"The Matrix" showed us images of humans, raised from birth in cocoons that gave the illusion of freedom, while feeding them on the liquefied remains of the dead 'generators' who have already been used up by the system. Or did y'all not understand that symbolism, my little Coppertops? Do you reckon you are more free than those sleepers? Or is it all a carefully maintained illusion? And who stands to gain by feeding you that illusion? Do the math, and wake up.

Both sides of the American political aisle are nothing but rich crooks -- usually classmates at the law schools of Harvard or Yale -- and I'm tired of getting screwed over by both sides.

There ya' go. Remember, you started it. Want your vote to count? At the next general elections, don your Guy Fawkes mask, go to the polls and vote a straight-ticket Independent ballot. That will accomplish what wanton acts of violence never could, what demonizing the other side of the wooden nickel never will...

Politically (and despising myself for it, thanks very much),

zoid

P.S.
"Serenity" was more violent than "V". I know, because I've seen both and kept my eyes wide open throughout.

PINGJING

Monday, March 27, 2006 4:06 AM

Wow, ok. I don't remember asking for a political statement, much less a political tirade. I posted my response to yours because I thought we agreed on what we saw in the movie. Apparently, I was wrong. Your political views are somewhat more developed than mine, and most definitely more pessimistic. I don't really want to hijack this thread any further, since it actually belongs in the real world forum, so I'll just leave it at that.

Julia

p.s. Yes, Serenity was violent, but it never made me want to close my eyes. Maybe it was the blood flying everywhere? Sure, Wash got impaled, but there was no blood. I guess that makes the difference between a PG-13 and R rating...

p.s. I don't believe that that line is an apocalyptic message from Hollywood, but rather the state of our country followed to its logical conclusion. However, like I said, I'm more optimistic than you, so I don't actually think we're going to go to war with any other countries. Bush doesn't have the time or the money. And that, my friend, is why that "tidbit" line can be funny.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE