The 5th of November. I just got back from seeing V for Vendetta. Two words: freaking wow.
The movie is based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore. It takes place some 30 years in the future, in a distopian England. The United States’ various wars eventually ripped the world apart, and the power-hungry religious-oriented leader of England made radical steps to rid the country of immigrants and undesirables (gays, rioters, Muslims, and the like), and built a new position for himself as High Chancellor. As the movie unfolds you siwftly realise that this future is not a happy place, and people are under no illusions that all is not right in their country. V is the result of an experiment gone wrong, and begins to insight violence against the regime, all while wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.
Honestly, this movie blew me away. There are a load of great themes brought out, and tough questions asked. What’s the difference between good violence and bad violence? Do the ends justify the means? How do you violently rebel against a corrupt bureaucracy, but not end up the same as the original perpetrators? Things like that.
And of course there’s ass kicking. Ass kicking of the wildest kind. Hugo Weaving, the excellent Nigerian born, Australian actor plays the man behind the mask. I was commenting to my family on the way home that putting him behind the mask was a really great idea, because after The Matrix Trilogy, I had a really tough time seeing him as anyone other than Agent Smith. I never liked his being cast as Elrond in Lord of the Rings for this reason. (I still think Liam Neeson quite possibly IS Elrond.) So, you put him behind a mask and you get the benefits of his name, his voice, and his truly great acting skills. (If you’ve never seen Priscilla Queen of the Desert, you should rent it.)
Natalie Portman was also great, as she’s always been in anything other than Star Wars. She plays a young girl who’s rescued by V early on, and later decides to join his mission.
Right now, I give this movie a 5/5. I do have the weakness of falling in love with a movie immediately, and overating things, but I was really impressed with this one. I’m going to try and see it again in theatres, and maybe then I’ll have a more balanced approach. But I hope not.
Favourite quote:
V - “A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.”
P.S. The soundtrack was hawt!
Perhaps this film will require some greater freedom of speach, than will be afforded elsewhere?
didn’t know elrond was agent smith, thought never crossed my mind. can see why he had this dark and sinister edge now….wooo. my subconscious was playing tricks on me. sounds good, will have to see it sometime…when it comes out in uk.
“What’s the difference between good violence and bad violence?”
I found on line text, of the book I was trying to tell you about before (as Pavel, but the cat’s out of the bag so yeah, that was me)
Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective by Jacques Ellul
interesting thoughts in conection to V, Ellul is (or at least he was, he died a few years back) an anarchist, and fought against the nazis as a member of the french resistance. (though that was in his younger years, he might have still been a marxist at that time)
ya, i want to see that flic bad!
Interesting stuff Haze. I looked through Amazon at the books that guy’s written. I might pick that Violence one up some time.
Cheers!
just saw it today-like you, I tend to really fall in love with a film right after seeing it. I’ve thought about it a bit since then, and I have one big nit (and some smaller ones), but not big enough to nit me out of loving it and possibly even buying it.
What I got out of it was that this is neoconservatism to its final conclusion. If countries such as the U.S. keep going down this path, it will ultimately lead (power corrupts) to a dictatorship of man in the name of Christ. This will most surely force the (largely) Atheist left to eventually take up arms and overthrown the government, leaving in my mind an equally detestable situation: anarchy (or at the very least, blatant libertarianism). As Jon mentioned, people in power are often quick to discard the ladder they climbed up on, and this is pretty much a law of history, most clearly in France in the 19th century. So we either end up with anarchy, libertarianism, or most likely yet another dictatorship. The people then revolt, and repeat cycle.
However, the film’s great strength comes from other things, namely, the question of good violence vs. bad violence raised a great point (which I didn’t really notice until Jon pointed it out), the “freedom from fear” theme was excellent, the whole thing of looking at the people behind the idea/movement, and I think most importantly the message that the Church of Jesus Christ has really got to get out of this paralytic muscle-lock we call neoconservatism that we seem think has the number on righteousness and really just start loving people.
So see it-be challenged. It’s what the filmmakers want and its what I want-I have a slight inkling that its what God wants too.
haha.. i agree
yup hawt (soundtraK)+ movie!!!!
i gotta see it again to absorb it all… and take noteS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
haha…. this post makes me loti