[Janos]

Just got back from seeing it and I loved it. Haven't read the graphic novels but I'll probably look into them now

In comics, V is much more unpleasant and interesting character. He is really distant and cold, a ruthless killer actually. He is not a man making speeches how populace should rise up; he is a man berating them for not having done so already. He is anarchist to a point of being complete chaos instead of democracy.

[ZmaN]

I think that V for Volition would have been a MUCH better movie... 

[karajorma]

Yep. I'd heard that he was more of an anarchist in the original.

BTW Loved the irony of having John Hurt playing the Big Brother role

[Mefustae]

BTW Loved the irony of having John Hurt playing the Big Brother role

Indeed, those Hitler-esque speeches were bloody well done.

Can't wait to see the movie... damn late Aussie release date 

[Rictor]

Great movie. Well worth the admission ticket; there were some really epic and/or moving scenes in there. Not one for the history books, but a very, very decent film nevertheless. I'm glad to see that the pungent stench of Hollywood is barely noticeable.

Though for the comics...I'm as much a comic fan as you're likely to get around here, and after looking at the graphic novel I have to say that the artwork is too 60s Batman-ish for me to really get into it.

[Rictor]

One thing that sticks out is that when Eavy is being held "prisoner" by V, there are clearly others who act as guards and so on. That either means V has henchmen or that he's a completely normal middle-aged guy with glasses, as seen here:

[Corsair]

You know, I just went and saw it for the second time and I have to say... it got even better.

And, most badass line ever: "No, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I am no longer standing, because if I am... you'll all be dead before you've reloaded."

[Unknown Target]

Loved the movie. Smart and funny, made you think.

[BlackDove]

I saw it.

What exactly about it was thought provoking? People keep saying that.

Anyway, my impressions:

Skillfull editing.

Great costumes.

Abysmal story (especially when it starts nearing the end, when it turns to fantasy more than anything, and the overly predictable course it takes).

Abysmal script (right from the get-go when he utters his first soliloquy, I see that old habits of Matrix 3 die hard when you need to find complex words as to try and obtuse the viewer - Mission:Failed... "Insipid").

Good acting execution, the actors squeezed the most out of it, especially Portman, she could play anything with a good amount of credibility. Skillfull.

Special Effects were as per usual predictable, although I believe they stole the knife thing from somewhere (I guess D&D games - not exactly proficient in the whole "blue halo around blade", but that's where it screams from - like in the Lord of the Rings 1 with Frodo's auto-detecting sword)

And that's it.

Rather... not worth my time. I didn't need to see the movie to know that Hitler is bad and that Homosexuality is good. I can see that whenever I turn on regular television.

My final review:

**** this ****.

[Rictor]

The "weapon trail" is mostly used in games (fighers and 3rd person action-adventure). Yeah, it's a cheap effect but so what. If that's the film major failing point then you're overly picky. As for the story....look, you knew going in that it wasn't going to be War and Peace. For an action flick, not only is it far more entertaining and more masterfully done that Mission Impossible 9 or The Transporter 4 but it offers an engaging setting and plot to follow along. The sad fact is that whenever Hollywood gets their paws on an intellectual property, they always, always lean towards explosions and elaborate fight sequences.

And for the love of God, Frodo's "auto-detect sword" as you so eloquently described it, was concieved of half a century ago.

In conclusion: you're wrong, the film is great, Hitler rocks and homosexuals are bad.

[Ford Prefect]

The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.

As for the script's terminology, it was meant to establish him as the archetypal rogue; not original but still somewhat nuanced, as is the case with the film as a whole. It's not meant to be subtle-- it's pure, unadulterated political rage.

[Rictor]

It got to the point where I kind of felt bad for America, the film was bashing them so much. And coming from me, that's saying quite a bit.

[Blue Lion]

I'd like to know how he found the time to purchase a ton of masks (or make them?) without drawing suspicion. Haul them into a newsroom (again without drawing suspicion) and then have the time to put them on every person in there by himself.

[Kie99]

They were sent in in boxes of paper.  Evey opened one of them and saw the mask then left in shock, just before V came in.

[Janos]

The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.

As for the script's terminology, it was meant to establish him as the archetypal rogue; not original but still somewhat nuanced, as is the case with the film as a whole. It's not meant to be subtle-- it's pure, unadulterated political rage.

Why is it about America and not about power-mad dictators and totalitarian states? Please tell me.

[BlackDove]

The movie wasn't about Hitler; it was about America, (just as the comic book was directed at Margaret Thatcher.) If you didn't pick up on that you must have been getting a two-hour blowjob. I mean, good for you, but you sort of forfeit your right to analyze it.

Actually it was comparing Bush to Hitler, but going into that is retarded as the plot itself.

[karajorma]

It did nothing of the sort. America was barely mentioned in the plot. The only comments were that America had bankrupted itself with the war against terror.

If you see Bush being reflected in the movie you need to think long and hard about why.

[Rictor]

C'mon. Avian flu, colour-coded alerts, cracking down on Muslims, the government fabricating an attack on the country. Even the Voice of London guy was clearly created in such a way as to allude to the right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly. The comic may have been created with Thatcher in mind, but many of the same themes are relevant with Bush, and the film version clearly pointed the finger at America.

[Ford Prefect]

Exactly. The signals were so explicit it was almost funny. It was just screaming that the social and political trends in America are characteristic of what leads to a totalitarian state. Obviously they weren't saying that this is America now; they were saying that this is what we're allowing America to become, and that totalitarianism isn't just something that happens to other people. The only reason it was set in England is because the comic book was set in England. And the comparison to Hitler was not supposed to be concrete or one-to-one. They were using images associated with Hitler because Nazi Germany is commonly viewed as the archetypal totalitarian state, and thus the symbolism would be sufficiently overt to resonate with a large audience. (And we know the Wachowski brothers have no reason to take any interest in Margaret Thatcher, as horrible as she might have been.)

[karajorma]

See that's the thing. You watch the film from an American viewpoint and see it as attacking America. But if you're from the UK you notice that many of those things are in fact attacks against the UK government far more than than you've noticed.

Avian flu for instance is a bigger story over here. The Television company is obviously based on the BBC rather than Fox (which would be the logical choice if they were taking a stab at America). Britain has had it's own clamping down on muslims even going so far as to imprison several without trial. You see Bill O'Reilly in the Voice of London but Brits are more likely to see Enoch Powell.

You see it as an attack on Bush but Brits will see it as New Labour getting its way.

As I said before if you see America in that there are reasons for it but it's not as cut and dried as you may believe.