Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > March > 17 > Entry
V for Vendetta
Calling V for Vendetta the best movie of the year means nothing right now, considering 2006 has produced very few films that are even good, much less great.
While I can’t quite call V for Vendetta a truly great movie, it is certainly the first film of 2006 that matters – and it will certainly go down as one of the most misunderstood movies of the year, because pundits will review the politics, not what’s onscreen.
Some have complained that the movie makes terrorists into heroes. Some, like the friend who saw the movie with me, say it’s a giant middle finger to the Bush administration — and I’m using a more polite phrase than he did.
Neither of these statements is completely wrong — but they’re not completely right either. The Alan Moore graphic novel on which it’s based was published in 1988, long before current events were current events.
I prefer to think of the movie as an exciting thriller that just happens to have prescient timing. It is also something even most great comic book movies are not: genuinely disturbing.
V for Vendetta takes place in the near future, when London appears to be in the grip of a dictator (John Hurt) who looks like a cross between Hitler and Big Brother of George Orwell’s 1984. Out of the shadows emerges a renegade named V (Hugo Weaving), wearing a mask with the impassive grin of Guy Fawkes, who attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605.
V saves a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) from a band of thugs, dispatching them with cold, ruthless efficiency. What V does not count on is that he will fall for Evey, and she for him, leading to potentially disastrous consequences.
James McTeigue directs with a strong and confident hand, but the true authors of this film are the writers, the Wachowski Brothers, who made the Matrix trilogy. Even though they’re not behind the camera, their fingerprints are all over the visuals, from the eerie depiction of a ruling class to the trippy scene in which a talk show ridicules the dictator to the tune of The Benny Hill Show.
V for Vendetta doesn’t sport the kind of revolutionary effects work or fight scenes that made the original Matrix such a breakthrough. If you’re expecting wall-to-wall action on that level, you might be disappointed. This film is more of a statement against conformity. It’s a heck of a way to tell the audience, “Think for yourself.�
That’s not to say V is a drag, but it is a rarity: an action movie that thinks. Because it’s so cerebral, it doesn’t have quite the emotional power of Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2 or The Hulk, which seems to keep popping up in this blog. When it comes to comic book movies, the mainstream titles appeal to me more than the cult ones like Spawn or Hellboy, though V is the best of the lot, after Sin City. It also helps that V isn’t as philosophically windy as the Matrix movies – and yes, that includes the first one.
Portman’s moving performance gives the movie much-needed warmth. Her work reminded me most of her first movie, The Professional, in which she also fell under the tutelage of an assassin/mentor. Considering Weaving (AKA Agent Smith) has only his voice and body language at his disposal, he gets a ton of mileage out of them.
Initially, though, V for Vendetta will be most remembered for its message. People may not agree on what V for Vendetta has to say, but whatever they think it is, this is a film that ought to inspire conversation far beyond that famous “whoa� the Wachowskis came up with earlier.
GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By SRCputt
March 28, 2006 6:57 AM | Link to this
…and Thatcher was Prime Minister 1979-1990, so 1988 would indeed be at the end of her reign.By ed
March 24, 2006 7:55 PM | Link to this
except the book was written in 1988.By SRCputt
March 24, 2006 9:58 AM | Link to this
If you leave politics at the door, then you won’t see the film its makers intended. I found the film a strong repudiation of our government’s current “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” attitude, although that is just part of the fish the makers wanted to fry. It is informative that the original source was a response to the end of Thatcher’s reign, and it is a scream against the repressive policies of governments like Thatcher’s and Bush’s. You can pretend that it isn’t, but then you’re just hiding your head in the sand.By Joe M.
March 19, 2006 10:02 PM | Link to this
I wonder why so many seek meaning and understanding of something that is fictional and make believe at its core. Writing a fictional account of the future gives the author unlimited control to create a reality all his own. I saw a movie that let me escape the worries of the world an travel to a distant land….for enterainment sake. I prefer to seperate fact from fiction. I give the movie an A-….but leave your politics at the door, you will enjoy it better!By brad kochunas
March 19, 2006 1:16 PM | Link to this
I often evaluate movies on the basis of my feeling state at the conclusion of the film. How moved was I by the film experience? In the case of V, I haven’t felt that radicalized and empowered since seeing Costa-Gavras political film “Z” in 1969.I too offer it an A- and hope people will become more open to the idea when looking around at our current situation, “If your not outraged, then you’re not paying attention.”By Allie D.
March 17, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
I agree with this assessment. I saw the film last night and was wowed, although there was just something about it that didn’t strike a chord with me. Im’ not sure quite what that is yet. It’s not that I disagree with the movie’s message or politics- in fact, I happen to agree with them- but I walked out not quite giving it an A, but giving it a solid B+. I think I need to see it again.