What a peculiar, infuriating mess this British-set, American-made graphic novel adaptation is. Set in a future London ruled by a Big Brother-esque John Hurt through his grip on the media, it concerns the pseudo-fascist government being undermined by the actions of "V", played by Hugo Weaving (and perhaps also Rome's James Purefoy?), an eloquent, thespian Guy Fawkes lookalike with a love of explosions and kung fu. This preposterous setup is confounded by a terribly drawn analogy with the original Guy Fawkes, which paints him as some sort of 17th Century Che Guevara and completely ignores any of the multitude of conspiracy theories.
The novel apparently centres on the clash between fascism and anarchy, an interesting and reasonably unexplored area of political analysis. In the film there is no such consideration; the state is certainly fascist but there is no attempt to explain the cause or motives of such a system, rather it is a pantomime villain embodied by (the, as ever, brilliant) John Hurt. On the anarchist's side, there is no cohesion to V's political doctrine, only a perfunctory attempt to tack on a sense of rebellion. The fact that the encircled V symbol used repeatedly so closely resembles the symbol for anarchy seems completely lost on the film-makers.
On the positive side, Natalie Portman in the lead role, V's would-be apprentice, is as interesting to watch as ever. While her accent is somewhat suspect, and tends to drift around a bit, the sweetness and ultimate toughness that she portrays is extremely watchable. Hugo Weaving is given little acting opportunity, permanently glued behind a gurning mask, but neatly wraps his tongue round his complex dialogue. Its nice to actually see some local actors as well, especially a rare appearance from Stephen Fry in an interesting role. Stephen Rea adds unneeded but efficient comic relief as well as a sense of pace, playing a conflicted detective.
I had been somewhat suspicious of the positive critical reception the film recieved, given the Wachowski brothers last couple of films - while The Matrix remains a (post-)modern classic and a personal favourite, the two sequels were uninspired, insipid pieces of blockbuster fodder that I only wish I could describe as brainless. The fact that they attempted to fill the scripts with the same philosophical and, in particular, religious symbolism present in the first only served to hammer the final nails in their respective coffins. In V for Vendetta's case I am again, and to my ongoing horror, forced to agree with Jonathan Ross's disapproval of what I see as a total artistic failure, rescued only by a strong cast, and relying at its core on a huge, unbelievable twist which is in no way explained or justified.
2/5
The novel apparently centres on the clash between fascism and anarchy, an interesting and reasonably unexplored area of political analysis. In the film there is no such consideration; the state is certainly fascist but there is no attempt to explain the cause or motives of such a system, rather it is a pantomime villain embodied by (the, as ever, brilliant) John Hurt. On the anarchist's side, there is no cohesion to V's political doctrine, only a perfunctory attempt to tack on a sense of rebellion. The fact that the encircled V symbol used repeatedly so closely resembles the symbol for anarchy seems completely lost on the film-makers.
On the positive side, Natalie Portman in the lead role, V's would-be apprentice, is as interesting to watch as ever. While her accent is somewhat suspect, and tends to drift around a bit, the sweetness and ultimate toughness that she portrays is extremely watchable. Hugo Weaving is given little acting opportunity, permanently glued behind a gurning mask, but neatly wraps his tongue round his complex dialogue. Its nice to actually see some local actors as well, especially a rare appearance from Stephen Fry in an interesting role. Stephen Rea adds unneeded but efficient comic relief as well as a sense of pace, playing a conflicted detective.
I had been somewhat suspicious of the positive critical reception the film recieved, given the Wachowski brothers last couple of films - while The Matrix remains a (post-)modern classic and a personal favourite, the two sequels were uninspired, insipid pieces of blockbuster fodder that I only wish I could describe as brainless. The fact that they attempted to fill the scripts with the same philosophical and, in particular, religious symbolism present in the first only served to hammer the final nails in their respective coffins. In V for Vendetta's case I am again, and to my ongoing horror, forced to agree with Jonathan Ross's disapproval of what I see as a total artistic failure, rescued only by a strong cast, and relying at its core on a huge, unbelievable twist which is in no way explained or justified.
2/5
