Today on Blogcritics
Home » Movie Review: V for Vendetta

Movie Review: V for Vendetta

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I thought after attending the stinkfest Date Movie and the painful Ultraviolet in consecutive weeks I would finally enjoy a movie in V for Vendetta. How cruel the gods of entertainment truly are. If I were to watch this film again, I would sneak a sleeping pill about a half an hour beforehand, enjoy the first explosion in the opening scene, sleep through the middle then have someone wake me up for the final explosion. Explosion, nap, explosion; maybe then I wouldn’t have objected so much to having put forth money to see this film. That wasn’t a spoiler either, as we know from the trailers what the ending of the film shall be.

Natalie Portman plays Evey Hammond, a Londoner who works for the state sanctioned television network. It’s a London with obvious Orwellian rules regarding behavior, and Evey is caught after curfew by some non-uniformed enforcement officers who are preparing to rape her. V, played by Hugo Weaving, intervenes and incapacitates the men before they can harm Evey. He’s wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes, an anti-Protestant terrorist from the seventeenth century who tried to kill off the Protestant government of England by blowing up the Parliamentary building in London.

Soon enough, Evey Hammond is knee deep with V and is forced into hiding after helping V take over a television network. I guess there’s some plot in the movie, since we need to understand how we get from the beginning explosion to the ending explosion. Fascists are involved, evil pharmaceutical corporations are involved, as well as hypocritical priests, and I think they even kill off a Rush Limbaugh-type character in the mix. The message the film sends about the evils of conservatism (of which I personally am one) is heavy throughout the film. It’s an unfair caricature for sure.

The obvious political message of the movie could be forgiven if it were simply a better film. Natalie Portman’s performance is unbearable. It’s hard to believe you’re in London when the main protagonist can’t maintain a British accent. Portman feels almost lifeless in her role. I guess that can be understood when you realize the other protagonist is a guy trying to act through a mask. Hugo Weaving does his best; however it only takes a short while to be completely frustrated by the mask. Not only do we never see any facial expression, Weaving’s voice is muffled and difficult to listen to behind the mask. Eventually it’s simply easier to give up trying to pay attention to the dialogue.

Not that the dialogue is bad. There are some wonderful soliloquies and exchanges in the film. Some. V is put forth as an extremely witty and verbose former actor who delivers theatrical performances as he’s starting the revolution. Those exchanges disappear about twenty minutes into the film.

There are some action sequences in the movie. V carries around long daggers with which he fights. The expectation of these sequences is very high considering the magnificent history the Wachowski brothers have had in special effects and cinematography with their Matrix trilogy. However, all the action sequences (excepting the explosions at the beginning and ending of the film) come off as flat and uninteresting. The special effects are lackluster. Huge disappointment.

V for Vendetta is an over-hyped movie with occasional brilliance in dialogue combined with lazy special effects, tired action sequences, fatigued performances, plot holes, slow pace and a weak script. Take a pass and save yourself the time and money.

Powered by

About Marty Andrade

  • http://www.dorksandlosers.com Tan The Man

    It gets pretty hard to emphathize with a character with a mask on. As eloquent as Huge Weaving’s voice can be, even it doesn’t make up for the lack of facial expression.

  • http://trinimansblog.blogspot.com/ Triniman

    This movie seems to divide people. You are either really impressed or not impressed much at all. I’m with the latter camp for some of the same reasons you are. I think the whole dystopian society with fascist / totalitarian gov’t and a rebel, has pretty much worn out its welcome with me. Those who haven’t had thier fill, however, really like this film.

  • http://martinandrade.blogspot.com Marty Andrade

    I was trying to think of some good dystopian films. The recent movie “The Island” would be one, the classic “Fahrienhiet 451″, the conservative “Red Dawn.” I know there are plenty in the Sci-Fi realm, but there aren’t many good ones. In fact, I can’t think of one good dystopia produced by Hollywood.

  • Paul

    I don’t mind the entire totalitarian theme. I just felt it was another movie aimed at Christian Conservatives. I wouldn’t have liked it to bash the liberals either. They could have taken a different route and not alienated one side or the other. Beyond that, the movie just did not have me glued to the screen.

  • Isaiah

    “The message the film sends about the evils of conservatism (of which I personally am one) is heavy throughout the film.”

    He considers himself an evil of conservatism? How interesting.

    I thought the film was great, but I do agree it was unnecessarily politically biased.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    V for Vendetta says nothing at all about the ‘evils of conservatism’ and everything about the evils of an all-controlling and oppressive state, something which is far more likely to develop out of a left-wing pro-government tradition than the individualistic tradition of American conservatism.

    As for ‘unnecessarily politically biased’, I think it’s always necessary to be biased against totalitarianism.

    dave

  • http://ruglobster.livejournal.com Ruglobster

    I agree with David about the film being about the totalitarian state, but disagree that this comes from the left rather than the right. Go too far in either direction and you end up in the same place.
    The problem I had with V for Vendetta was that the coup at the end was absolute and had nothing to do with a popular uprising or revolution. By the time the people gathered at the end, V had already assasinated the chancellor and the chief of police. So ostensibly there was still just one guy making the decisions for the nation. I just have problems with that, know what I mean?
    I also thought Natalie Portman gave a bad performance and her character was pointless.
    And regardless of motive or sentiment, V locked her up, tortured her and brainwashed her!
    I was left with the feeling of having been preached at and wondering what kind of point the Wachowskis were trying to make!