Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trace

V for Vendetta

Recommended Posts

"Vi veri veniversum vivus vici"

"By the power of Truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

 

That's one of my favorite allusions/quotes in the book. Goethe's Faust says it before striking his deal with the devil.

 

I also really enjoyed V's referencing of Sympathy for the Devil in the beginning, before he dispatches the paedophile priest.

 

However, I don't see how these could be anything but silly in a Wachowski Bros. movie.... Their philisophical/existential dialogue and ruminations are so dumbed-down, pedestrian, and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first is in there-

I think its written on a mirrors edge or something, Evey asks him what it means, and he answers accordingly.

 

The Symphaty for the devil i dont know- But i think the first song of the credits is Rolling Stones- But im not much of a Stones-knower, so maybe im wrong.

In the dialogue i think it isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The society didn't seem particularly repressive compared to the one in the graphic novel. I thought cutting out the part where V knocks out the Ears of the government particuarly weak; instead, he now sends people masks UPS to inspire decent against the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two questions:

 

*Is the bollocks V monologue in the film? The one where everything begins with a "V"? Is it followed by Evey saying "are you, like crazy?"

 

*Does anyone say "eggy in a basket"?

 

Yes and Yes.

 

My one word review: CRAP

my two word review: simplistic CRAP

 

They took every bit of nuance out and made a nice easy connect the dots story with a f###ing love angle. That V monologue was CRAP as was most of the rest of V's dialogue that wasn't written by Moore. The tension that was built up in the book to a brilliant climax was utterly absent. As is the whole notion of V tearing down and perishing while Evey is the rebuilder of a new and better society. It was anything but thought provoking. The characters were caricatures and the repeated imagery that you were beat over the head with was ham handed at best and insulting to anyone with half a brain at worst. DC should be ashamed of itself for allowing one of their best graphic novels to be turned into this film. I hope they cornhole the hell out of Watchmen soon and get it over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Symphaty for the devil i dont know- But i think the first song of the credits is Rolling Stones- But im not much of a Stones-knower, so maybe im wrong.

In the dialogue i think it isnt.

"Please allow me to introduce myself... I'm a man of wealth... And taste" (at which point V removes his hat to reveal protruding devil horns).

P. 54 in my version of the TPB.

In literary form in the early 80's and as presented by Moore and Lloyd it's fun and interesting and ties into V's constant quoting of devils in literature. But if it's in a 2006 film (after many years of Stones songs being used commercially--- remember Interview with the Vampire that featured the G 'n' R remake of Sympathy for the Devil?), especially one written by the Wachowski Bros., I just can't see it as being anything but laughable. So hopefully it isn't in the film.

 

I guess I'll find out for myself when I go see it tonight. My expectations, however, have been considerably lowered.

 

Oh well, X3 and Supes are just around the bend.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately (or, I suppose, fortunately) the Sympathy for the Devil thing isn't in the movie. I loved it in the book, but I think you're right that it's best it shouldn't be in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what it was, soldier, i just didnt know if the song while the credits began to roll was Stones or not :)

The dialogue isnt in there if i recall correctly.

But i know it from the comics, Adrian used that also in one of his spoofs :)

 

Yehaa X3 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyd was mentioning elements that had been added to the film by the Wachowski's.

I mentioned the absence of Moore's Anarchy-Moore then believed it was an actually feasible form of government or paradoxically of order.

Lloyd mentioned that the V of the movie was more pragmatic in that he didn't apply an unwieldly and unworkable idea as Anarchy.

 

He mentioned the paradox of how everyone was expressing their individuality by dressing up as a V (now a Individual rather than an idea).

The scene in the film studio was changed to prelude and incorporate the idea of V spreading.

 

The film was also concerned with the V being more of person behind the idea rather than the contrary of provided by the book.

This was supported by the wedged in sequences of the Count of Monte Christo.

Lloyd was very lucid and convincing in this aspect, however I still dont feel that this was sucessfully incorporated into the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, TestosteRohne, I think one aspect of the film that succeeding was showing that, beneath the mask and the idealism, there really is a man. Sometimes it was very ham-fisted (such as the love subplot), but other times, I think it worked pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In typically hollywood fashion that they neutered V's only love competition by making the comedy host gay.

  The flashbacks to the camp with hugo letting out  primal scream almost made me laugh. It is the blank stare he gave the doctor after he emerged from his cell that kept the doctor up at night.

But thats the mistake right there expecting subtlety and nuances.

Thats generally means something else in Hollywood.

That roughly translates as we dont want to make money. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the movie "based" on V for Vendetta.

 

The Good:

-Hugo Weaving. Very,very good as V. He had the character down very well, with solid acting while under a mask.

 

-Natalie Portman. Not her acting, mind you, which was nothing special, but just looking at her. Very beautiful. And yes even with a shaved head.

 

(creepy side note: a man a few seats back giggled, yes giggled, when he saw Evey in the dress and pig-tails when meeting the Bishop. It was creepy because it was one of those weird giggles that might come from a pedophile)

 

-Good set design on the Shadow Gallery.

 

 

The Bad:

-Everything else in the movie.

-They did a bad job of portraying the state as being oppressive, facist, etc. The book does it perfectly, the movie not so.

-The whole point of Evey transformation was handled horribly. Evey was meant to replace V. She didn't go through the whole fake torture just so she could flip a damn switch.

-The crowd of Vs, while making some sense within the context of the movie, just seemed silly when I thought of how the book ends. So all these people have just been hiding their anger towards their government, but just didn't know what to do with it until they received Guy Fawkes mask? And even from the beginning the people were far too quick to side with V. Bull.

-Portman's English accent. Far from terrible, still not good.

-"Knife-time." That slo-mo knife stuff was just crap. Wachowski's enough already. It was cool in the Matrix. Yeah bullets move faster than I can see, so thanks for the help, but not knives. I can follow them easliy enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to S for See this movie tomorrow, so I'll L for Let you know what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes on all counts.

 

I thought it was shite. Natalie Portman was awful in it.

 

Much like TAF it seemed that the director was more interested in flashy visuals than coaxing any kind of performance from his cast.

 

The script wasn't quite as duff as TAF but it wasn't too far off.

 

However, Stephen Rea was ace as Finch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-The crowd of Vs, while making some sense within the context of the movie, just seemed silly when I thought of how the book ends. So all these people have just been hiding their anger towards their government, but just didn't know what to do with it until they received Guy Fawkes mask? And even from the beginning the people were far too quick to side with V. Bull.

 

That's what i was ranting about earliar.

It makes more sense to consider the book as a reflection of the 80's and the movie as one for the here and now.

 

The masses are literally just waiting for a figurehead.

The trajectory was still quite ludicrous.

 

In the movie, V gives them an answer of sorts, pragmatism or copping out?

The book he is the destructive side of Anarchy. He is there to destroy. Others will create afterwards.

Those are the political tides.

 

I dont know which V we need though.

I agree with your points.

HoW did you find the pace of the film?

 

The only true unforgivable thing in a Hollywood film is for it not to entertain.

As most things are cast aside in favour of creating entertainment, to fail in this category is to fail in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Stephen Rea was ace as Finch.

 

He was the best cast (okay thats my Rea bias).

But the film didn't allow him to do much.

 

Finch really is the soul of the book for me.

He's not a complete party man, and he's disgruntled.

But he does not agree with V's methods.

There's that scene after the great train murders, where he says something along the lines of I dont care what they did, they didn't deserve to die like this, they had families etc.

Admittadly Finch isn't providing the answer either.

An ineffectual intellectual?

Well.

It's important that Finch kills V, after Manhunter style becoming him, or rather excepting the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also disappointed that they didnt mention the difference between chaos and anarchy.

Because this "First destroy, then build"- thing is very imaginative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HoW did you find the pace of the film?

 

 

 

The pacing was ok for the most part, expcept in regards to the passage of a years time. It went too quick. Blink. BAM, it's a year later.

 

I was also disappointed that they didnt mention the difference between chaos and anarchy.

Because this "First destroy, then build"- thing is very imaginative.

Exactly. Is it even mentioned/hinted at in the movie that V wants chaos and anarchy? Then why would he send the mask?

 

 

Aargh, where's my graphic novel of V for Vendetta? Oh wait.......there it is. I am feeling much better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finch was also my favorite character from the comic and I was a tiny bit disappointed with how things changed for him in the movie. But I also have to agree with TestosteRohne that first and foremost the movie has to entertain. Clearly it's not the Sin City of Alan Moore-inspired movies, but I think it did entertain, comic readers (maybe only Ade and myself :lol: ) and non-comic readers. The audience I was a part of seemed to like it, applause at the end etc.

 

Regarding the crowd scene, I was fine with it *except*....!

 

.... When they showed dead figures.  I preferred to see them dead and buried, no need for this "alive in spirit" sort of symbolism.  When the fingerman shot that little girl?  I loved it, the blood, her glasses and V mask falling off, then you see her dead face before the towns people beat the shit out of that cop.  That was a powerful scene for me, so when I saw her at the end alive and well next to Valerie and Gordon and even the gay male couple that was in the movie for like 5 seconds i was just disappointed.  But ah wells, I guess Hollywood felt the ending needed something 'uplifting'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Hollywood felt the ending needed something 'uplifting'

 

Yes because Hollywood fails to realise that the sight of the Houses of Parliament exploding was the most uplifting ending since "Chariots of Fire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shawn: Fich says he wants chaos, thats all. No word about anarchy.

 

chan: yeah, the audience in the cinema where i was also seemed to like it, they laughed on the jokes.

But for me exactly that was the problem: I wasnt really entertained, because there was not much content and so i found it boring.

 

I liked the scenes you described very much.

I think the peoples survival under the masks were only there to underline Eveys speech.

Though i wasnt sure now, were they really dead or not?

Or did they just imagine them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Deitrich's little spot of satire was one of the most uncomfortably embarassing peices of celluloid I've seen in quite a while.

 

If I was Stephen Fry I'd have walked off set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...