Was fucking brilliant, and the Watchoski brothers are equally brilliant. I fucking loved this movie, (pardon me for just now seeing it). It is a bit misleading, I thought it would be an action packed superhero'ish movie, I was pleasently surprised to find a much deeper and meaningful meaning in it. Alot of that movie resembles reality. Our government is in alot of ways like the government in the movie, only less obvious, and they dont use terror to keep us subbordinate, they use lies. In reality, our government has committed atrocities against society to advance their selfish causes. Back in the late 50s early 60s the CIA considered attacking either an American city, or sinking an American ship to justify a war against Cuba. Before World War 2 the government sank a ship (actually blew away an entire harbor) testing a bomb in San Fransico and killed hundreds of people. They blamed it on something ridiculous, I dont recall right now. Most intelligent people who have taken the time to do any research about the twin towers knows the government was either involved, or passively involved in letting it happen, (I believe they played a role, to again warrant a war). Anyone who has done any research knows about al CIAda killing JFK. While this movie wasnt about that, it brought all them things to light in my mind, and it does show some truth as to what our government may some day become.
It was a good movie don't get me wrong but its one of those movies where at the end you say, "that was good and yet horrible at the same time." There are too many flaws in v for vendetta its unreal. First of all the subway was a little dumb when you think if the government was that controlling and had that much surveillance then why didn't they look underground where there was a subway loaded with explosives, the guys house, and why would there be a subway right under the parliament? Nothing made sense about the subway. And then the girl was taken to a fake prison where she got her hair cut and was given messages to by a lezbian, which in my opinion could have been left out completely. And if it was V who brought her to the prison why didn't she recognize him, if he was all burnt up and wasn't in his costume, then wouldn't she recognize him. It made no sense.
1. The subway tunnels were supposedly fully filled with cement many years before. 2. In the prison if you watch it's dark, and the only part of V that is ever in light are basically his arms. And the lesbian story made a fitting element to the plot and theme.
I don't see your point of view when you say the fake prison scene and the woman's story should have been cut out completly. It added so much more to the movie in that being tortured like that was the way that Evie no longer feared death. Only after being in that situation could she have pulled that switch. The woman's story gave her hope while she was there. Even though it was a "fake prison" can you imagine what going through that torture must have felt like to her? It gave her hope to keep surviving, to keep hoping. V passed down the story to Evie because while he was in that detention center, that story kept him going. Either you did not understand that scene or you had a personal issue against it, either way, I'm kinda curious about your reasoning.
Listen, I had no issue with that scene at all but in the end it should never have even been included, at all. Yes it did work with the movie and the point it was trying to make but I just thought it was unneeded. Like I said before the movie was good but it could have been better and what killed its potential was the flaws it included which I mentioned.
I like it because, although it takes place in england it's a metaphor for how this country might turn out.
*Spoiler* What would be the strength of this movie without that scene? The alternative to this scene either seems another scene that would fill in a gap. Cut this scene out, Evey would either escape or get captured. If Evey were to get captured, she would not be there to pull that switch in last scene. If she escaped, she would probably not want to pull that switch. Without this scene, the movie would be very different.
It was, like all the others, a piss-poor adaptation of the original material by Alan Moore. That aside. I thought it was a great film. But I'm a comic geek so I'm biased. Much love to Hugo Weaving for projecting through that mask.
The is a brilliant rebel movie, probably one of the best comic book movies I've seen. I admit that the ending left a little something to be desired, but all in all it is one of my favorites.
Itorginally had more anarchistic themes but of course, Warner Brothers (AOL Time Warner being one of the 6 corporations who own all media outlets) would never release a movie promoting or supporting anarchism. Search on YouTube for A for Anarchy or visit www.aforanarchy.com and have yourself a good read.
why don't you just thank tres for the thoughtful and accurate response to your meak understanding and overly judgemental post.
biased to thinking no movie can live up to the original material? Well I guess in comic land they don't so your bias is understandable. comic book movies suck because they start with comic book plots.
yes...and what confuses you about that?? Ive always been a fan of anarchy(but at the same time, I realize that people are not smart enough as a collective whole to rule themselves) and I love Hendrix
