V for Vendetta, based on the iconic 1980s comic of the same name, is set in a semi-totalitarian Britain of the near future. The masked renegade V (Hugo Weaving) singlehandedly tries to topple the government. Power has been seized through deception and manipulation. We're tempted to yawn: so what's new? The film's politics are childishly wrong-headed from the start, beginning with the illusion that Guy Fawkes (who is imitated, sympathetically, by V) was a "freedom fighter". In fact, the Guy was fighting not for freedom, but for a state ruled by absolutist religious ideals. The resonance with current events is significant, but in exactly the opposite way intended by the filmmakers.
Seen purely as entertainment, this is a letdown. The Wachowski brothers appointed their favourite Assistant Director as Director, with predictable results. There is no point of view, just soundbites, and people moving around reciting their lines. But behind the scenes, the Wachowskis exert executive control, applying the branding perfected in their last cinematic trainwreck, Matrix Revolutions. There is repetitive, pretentious dialogue, violence glamorized for its own sake, and the design-by-committee philosophy that never makes sense. Even the film's visual styling is unexpectedly cheap and dull.
The actors are wasted, undirected, unable to fill out their shallow characters. Natalie Portman's performance, too tied up with (unsuccessfully) imitating an English accent, stands out as especially wooden. It's off-key, just as the film's portrait of dystopian Britain is implausible and wrong. How strange that Portman publically attacked Spielberg's Munich while giving her endorsement to this stupid film, which thinks that parliamentary democracy means oppression, and confuses terrorism with revolution. In democratic societies, the problem is not that there isn't a mechanism for removing bad governments — it's called an 'election' — it's with the way people are influenced to vote.
The producers, of course, are themselves part of this media circus. In lovingly creating images of destruction for personal gain, they know all about how terrorists think. Both understand that he who gets the biggest audience, wins. But this mediocre, humourless wank of a film is more likely to flop or to do minimum business, at best, than capture audiences' imaginations.
"more likely to flop or to do minimum business, at best"
Weekend Box Office Actuals (U.S.)
Mar 17 - 19 weekend
1. V for Vendetta -- $25,642,340
Posted by: mm | March 22, 2006 at 01:15 AM
The filmmakers have been to play up the "controversial" angle, in the hope that bad publicity will be good publicity (but they don't seem to be mentioning that Alan Moore, the original author, disowned the film). It'll be interesting to see how it does on word of mouth. It got mostly good or so-so reviews, but then so did 'Phantom Menace'.
Posted by: Ian S. | March 22, 2006 at 06:56 PM
matthias jordan was here and he liked what he saw .
Posted by: matthias jordan | March 28, 2006 at 12:52 PM
WTF ALL U DONT EVEN KNOW A FUCKN GFOOD MOVIE WHEN U C IT WHAT A GREAT FILM MAYBE YOU DONT LIKE IT BEACUSE IT SCARES YOU....REMINDS YOU OF WHAT ARE WORLD IS COMING TO
Posted by: heather | April 30, 2007 at 07:33 PM