dgeer80

V For Vendetta is a peculiar movie. Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore (who, for some reason disowned the project) it has been adapted to contain a rousing beginning and ending, but gets too talky in the middle. This comes as no surprise, however, as the screenplay was written by the Wachowski Brothers - the same guys who directed The Matrix Reloaded, which suffered from similarly flawed storytelling. It seems that handing the directing job over to James McTeigue was not enough.

But this is not to say that the film is a total dud. It is not. It contains an interesting tale of a man who calls himself "V," (played by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings films) who stands against a totalitarian Great Britain of the not so distant future. He wears a mask reminiscent of Guy Fawkes, who on November 5, 1605 attempted to blow up King James I and the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, V means to blow up similar landmarks of Great Britain on November 5th in order to get his point across - that totalitarianism sucks, and freedom should reign supreme. In the meantime, he seeks out his revenge on his enemies who have wronged him in the past.

Crossing paths with V is Evey (Natalie Portman), a woman whose family was persecuted because of this new regime, but for some reason stills lives an ordinary life - up until she meets V, that is. From that point on, V helps her cope with her past and ultimately side with his ideals. Unfortunately, her character does not offer more than that. Good thing Natalie is a good actress (aside from her poor attempt at a British accent), or there would be nothing going for this character at all. It seems that her character just gets us from A to B, with nothing really all that exhilarating in between.

Much has been said about this movie being anti-George W. Bush or anti-conservative. This can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, it appears to be nothing more than just be a reflection of Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein and their ideals, since the leader of this future Great Britain, Adam Sutler (John Hurt), is labeled as a conservative (in the same sense Hitler was and Saddam is, which is more extreme), and this totalitarian state he governs seems to reflect similar ideals - especially with a scene or two in the film where people are killed, stripped naked and piled into a ditch like the holocaust.

On the other hand, the people who he persecutes and/or censors are not Jews or Kurds. They are Muslims and homosexuals. Even though James McTeigue claims this film is "an allegory of all governments," it does come off as more of an allegory of the United States and its conservative leaders, because our current conservative leaders are mostly Christian, and the Christian faith teaches that other faiths and homosexuality are wrong. This is not to say that Christians commonly persecute Muslims or gays. This film simply presents a vision of what could happen if leaders in government became extreme in these ideals like Hitler and denied people the freedom to believe and live as they wish.

Whether this movie anti-Bush or anti-conservative is up to the individual viewing the film. But one thing is for certain: the whole idea of this film is to preach freedom. So while comparing conservative Christians to Hitler may seem extreme, our right to even say this in our country is a privilege to treasure.

Political differences aside, this film does get its point across and delivers some exciting moments. Hugo Weaving brings a delightful (and sometimes humorous) performance as V, and we're treated to some great visuals and action sequences when the film gets exciting.

But sadly, the film's exciting moments are few and far between, as uninteresting characters are given more screen time than the much more intriguing V character. And like what was said before, we are given too much dialogue and not enough show. The Wachowskis still have not found their way back to the proper balance between show and tell, and could take some lessons from the Wachowskis of 1999 who made the first Matrix film. Seeing this film was not a regrettable experience - just a forgettable one.

I must confess that I was never much of a King Kong fan. It somehow slipped past me when I was growing up, therefore I never got the chance to really like it or not like it. I was always more of a fan of the classic Universal monsters, so neither Dracula nor Frankenstein let me get the chance to view Kong with the appreciation I should've had as a kid. But now I've seen Kong a couple times since this revelation of mine, which helped me to realize that I truly missed out in my youth. The original film of 1933 is a historical landmark in film-making, and no film freak should ever miss out on the marvel that director Merian C. Cooper and pre-Harryhaussen special effects wizard Willis O'Brien created.

Nevertheless, Peter Jackson, director of the new King Kong, is a different story. The original film is what inspired him to make movies in the first place. This big ape is his childhood hero, and making a new version of Kong is the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, after just finishing The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson has never been more ready to accomplish this goal, as he has earned the ability to do anything he wants.

This can be both good and bad. It is good because he cares about the source material so much that he does not want to mess it up, and he can now do everything Willis O'Brien wished he could do back in the 30s. He can create all the monsters he wants, tweak the story and realize Kong to the fullest. But the ability to do anything can also cloud one's judgment, thus the reason this movie ended up being over three hours long.

Now, I'm not saying that I think a long movie is bad. I loved Jackson's Rings movies, which were all at least three hours (or longer with the Extended Edition DVDs). But in that case, I felt that each and every minute of those films was needed to do the books justice. With Kong, at least a half hour could have been cut and the movie wouldn't have suffered one bit. After all, the original was only a little over an hour and a half. Depending on the individual viewing this new version, this might turn people away. I can already hear people saying "A three-hour movie about a giant ape? Huh?"

But despite the fact that my butt was getting numb, I actually did enjoy practically every minute of the film, even though some parts weren't needed. And I do feel that most of the first act was necessary, despite it being slow-moving. Jackson decided to take his time with developing the story and the characters here, as it takes somewhere around a full hour before we even see the hairy beast. This is something not done very often in film anymore, as modern audiences tend to not have much patience. (But they have no need to worry, since the rest of the film consists of two more hours of monsters and action, which is sure to wake up the masses.) ...

So what happens when one takes an almost forgotten MTV anime series from the early 90s and transforms it into a movie? Something wonderful.

No, this isn't Peter Hyam's 2010, but rather a film that takes place in the 25th century entitled Aeon Flux. "Aeon what?" Is it "A-on, or E-on?" This is generally the reaction of people who find out about this film, considering that the title doesn't exactly let us know right away what this movie is about. It hasn't been massively marketed either, so not many people outside the fan base of the anime TV series know much about it anyway. But if one is open-minded enough to check it out, that person should at least like something about it, particularly if one is a fan of true sci-fi.

The story begins by telling us that in 2011, a disease kills every human being save for 1%. Fast forward to 400 years into the future, and the remaining population now lives in a supposedly perfect society called "Bregna," which is ruled by a regime under the authority of Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Bourne Supremacy). This man found the cure to the disease, and has isolated the remaining population inside a city surrounded by giant walls where on the outside grows an endless jungle ruled by wildlife.

But not everyone agrees with the way things are run, which is where the "Monicans" come in. Highly skilled with unique technology and acrobatics, they seek to turn Bregna upside down to empty out the trash. But when Aeon Flux (Oscar winner Chalize Theron, of Monster fame), the top operative in the Monican rebellion, finally gets her chance to take out the infamous Goodchild, she finds out that there's more to him, Bregna and ultimately herself than she realized. From there, the plot unfolds into many twists and turns that aren't easily predictable to newcomers of Flux, making it as airtight as Aeon's wardrobe, and should please both the fans of the series as well as people who don't know anything about it.

Theron as Aeon (pronounced "E-on" in the film) is more than just another hot chick in tight leather like Hally Berry's Catwoman, or Carrie-Ann Moss' "Trinity" in The Matrix Trilogy. Aeon Flux is highly skilled all on her own, without the need of computer programs or sex appeal (although she does have much of the latter), and she only lives to fulfill her mission. Theron really shows off her amazing versatility as a actress here, considering the other roles she has played which weren't quite so action-oriented (and considering she injured her neck during filming a stunt, halting production by a month).

What I found the most amazing about this film is the incredible direction and creativity that director Karyn Kusama brings to it. She has only directed one other film (Girlfight - a movie I had never heard of until now), so I am really taken back by how much skill she has.

For instance, most futuristic films feel too familiar. Even Star Trek, set centuries into the future, still feels like it only takes place maybe 100 years from now at the most (aside from the whole "beam me up, Scotty" thing). In this film the future is portrayed as quite foreign to 21st century viewers. The way technology works and society thrives is very bizarre, so much so that only some things are immediately recognizable (like human beings themselves, the English language, etc.), while other things don't make much sense until you pay closer attention. Maps are embedded into the skin, and they don't even look like maps. Bombs can come in the form of many marble-sized balls that roll around and unify to create an explosion, all of which are controlled by someone whistling. Blades of grass spring up tiny lethal knives for security purposes. The Monicans commune through telepathy and some little woman called "Handler" (Frances McDormand) inside their heads. One can even surgically replace one's feet with hands, as Aeon's close Monican friend Sithandra (Sophie Okonedo) did.

Yes, the future is quite weird, but that's what makes this film work so well. Our way of life now, and the technology we have would look quite strange to someone from the 10th century, for example. It only makes sense that the future portrayed in Flux doesn't make total sense to our 21st century perceptions at first.

This movie has a warped, but familiar feel - characteristics any sci-fi fan would love. It's not dark and gritty, but simply unusual and ominous in the concepts it portrays. Charlize Theron doesn't give us an Oscar-worth performance this time around, nor do any of the other actors. However, they were real enough for the film to be believable, and that's what counts in sci-fi.

If this film does not do well, it's only because the title looks like an anagram, it surprisingly did not screen early for critics, and Harry Potter, Aslan and King Kong all have her cornered this Christmas season. I'm afraid that with all the amazing skill Aeon has, she'll probably be no match for them at the box office. But don't let the hype of those other films shy you away from this film. Flux is probably just as entertaining.