V For Vendetta
2006
* * * 1/2
In the near-future, England is ruled by an evil totalitarian leader (John Hurt) and his minions. None dare seriously and publicly oppose him? except for one: an eccentric and at least slightly insane man behind a mask known only as V (Hugo Weaving). One day, as his complex but seemingly unstoppable plans to destroy the government are about to begin, he meets a young woman (Natalie Portman) who both aids and impeeds his plans for different reasons. But with or without her, and in spite of a very intelligent and intuitive party detective (Stephen Rea), he will make your remember, remember the 5th of November...
Okay, first of all, I have to say one thing: this movie absolutely rocks. I can?t think of a better way to describe it. But I'll elaborate.
Think 1984 meets Zorro with a bit of both Cyrano de Bergerac and The Matrix thrown in. The action scenes, when the come, are absolute knockouts. Director James McTiegue does an exceptional job coreographing and filming some great fight scenes. And the explosions are probably the most memorable explosions since Die Hard or maybe even The Terminator. It's rare for explosions to actually be memorable, especially when it seems like even the romantic comedies toss a few in there, but these are absolutely unforgettable.
But in addition to style and excitement, what McTiegue really shows mastery of are images and pacing. I especially want to point out the second one: this film seriously moves. The pacing is absolutely lightning, even though in between the opening and closing half-hours, there isn't all that much action. Part of that is probably due to the Wichowsky Brothers' script not lingering on (most) scenes unnecessarily, but some of the most thrilling scenes are ones where people are talking (reminding me of Michael Mann's The Insider, except even more exciting). The domino scene/montage alone makes most entire action flicks look dull. Of course, all of these things in the last two paragraphs are aided by extraordinary work by the many technitions who worked on this (and especially cinematographer Adrien Biddle, whose work on this film was his last - he died a few months after finishing this film).
But brilliant technical stuff doesn't make a film great or even particularly good. The Wichowsky's aren't exactly known for the greatness of the scripts, with underdeveloped romances, confused and inconsistent ideas, and even more confused storylines. But they at least have ideas. And this film is full of them. It consistently asks us questions and makes us think. Both the action scenes and the dramatic ones have intelligent and compelling things lying under the surface --- or sometimes right on the surface. It asks things like the difference between Patriotism and Terrorism (which is an excellent question to ask) and how much freedom can be sacrificed.
Now, I don't necesarrily agree with all the answers the film gives to the questions, but merely by asking them and asking them well, it's thought-provoking. And you don't have to agree with the film to feel compelled by it: one of the greatest films ever made is a Communist treastise (Battleship Potemkin). And this film is powerful. It creates a deeply moving experience. I honestly don't remember another time in a movie where I felt like cheering so hard as I did at the end of this film.
On top of that, the characters are interesting and superbly filled out. Weaving (who, incidently, is one of the very few people out there I can think of who could play Cyrano) does an outstanding job of creating his character without only his voice and gestures (which really is hard). Portman gives her best performance since The Professional, maybe even better than that one. Rea draws us into a man who isn't sure which side really is the right side --- and wonders if there is one. And Hurt plays the polar opposite of Winston Smith, the hero of 1984, just as brilliantly. He is a villain that you deeply, truly despise.
Not that the film is perfect. It's filled with flaws. First, the ideas are rather confused. Like it or not, Totalitarianism is an extreme leftist government, but the leader is an extreme right-winger. (not that extreme conservatism is any good either: that's Despotism, which actually isn't all that different from Totalitarianism, and both of them inevitably end in anarchy, but there is a difference) Also, the whole homosexual issues the film makes such a big deal out of seems to be thrown in just for the pure sake of being "relevant" and "current" and getting in on the hot topic of the week. (although,, in spite of being the extreme of liberalism, Totalitarians probably wouldn't tolerate gays because it adds one more thing you have to control as well as a way of rebellion in at least some slight way; however, in the context of the film, it seems to be a little contrived) The knife-wielding climax is a little bloodier than it needs to be (although it's still an absolute knock-out of a fight scene). And the music during the end credits is totally wrong. It should be the beginning of the 1812 Overture or something similar - a patriotic, inspiring, but very calm piece. Instead, there's some rock song, which is really jarring out of the mood of the film (and especially the end). These are just the more important problems.
But the rest of the things are just nitpicking, really.
Because in spite of these flaws, it's a deeply powerful, thought-provoking, beautifully made, and absolutely exhilerating film which has to be seen, not just for the explosions, but for the ideas it puts forth.
Incidently, it seems kind of ironic that the two best adaptations of George Orwell?s 1984 aren't actually direct adaptations, but ones which are re-filtered and re-interpreted versions which take the world and graft the director's totally unique vision onto the world. Both this and Terry Gilliam's Brazil are far more forceful and entertaining films than Michael Radford's very literal adaptation of that classic book. (Not that Radford's film isn't good; it's very good. It just isn't up to the standards of these two films)
bravenet.com