wjohanb

Most movies are a give and take proposition, meaning what you get out of it depends on the extent that you let yourself go into the films world. It's very rare that a film can force you to care. V for Vendetta is the most extreme example I've seen in a long time of a film that can either be tremendously exciting or as equally disappointing. At first I was nonplussed. The story seemed forced onto the screen, both in camera work and pacing. But about 30-40 minutes in I said "F*@# IT"! to myself, and settled back to enjoy what was there. And dammit, I was downright exhilarated. For all it's faults, V for Vendetta manages to capture something unique in todays action flicks, and that's an actual soul. Alan Moore wrote the original book as a cry of outrage against Thatchers Britain, both the politicians and the passive populace, and where he feared they may be headed. Many people in America and all over the world hold the same sort of rage as they view the New Bush Regime. It's telling that the best, fiercest lines are taken verbatim from the book. Truth be told, V for Vendettas politics are simplistic unto silliness, and Moore himself has cut his name from the movie like it was a third nipple. But then again, Moore is a pompous, self righteous, difficult bastard, and V for Vendetta wasn't made to answer questions like, "what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter"?, and "when is violent protest the answer, if ever"? What the movie was made for, and does very well if you let it, is energize and galvanize, pump up your mind and body, stimulate your own questions. It helps that great actors like Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, and Stephen Fry are there to help you. Weaving especially does grand, forging a connection from V to the viewer without a single facial expression or ever seeing his eyes. The rabble rousing score is also damn good. V for Vendetta is an idea, not a foreign or domestic policy blueprint. And like any idea, it needs people to stand behind it for it to work. Oh yeah, does anybody actually read these f*#&ing things?

I'd heard so many good things about this movie, I was rather stunned to find myself, well, bored. Please don't confuse me with someone who thinks horror means blood guts and false scares. Indeed, Kairo has, at times, a delicious brooding unnerving sense of dread, and some undeniably classic visuals and moments. But I found myself becoming less and less affected as the movie progressed, irritated even, that such a tantalizing idea was being drained of it's primal effectiveness. In the end, the haunting deeply felt fear that Kairo sporadically creates is left stranded, and the only thing that I talked about after-wards was how it should've been better.