V for Vendetta (15)

Film

Thrillers

migrate.8640.jpg

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

2020: after a devastating viral outbreak has plunged America into civil war, Britain is a repressive fascist state headed by John Hurt’s dictator Adam Sutler. Resistance however, is stirring in the unlikely form of an elusive insurgent known as ‘V’ (Hugo Weaving), whose features hide behind a Guy Fawkes mask. He’s already blown up the Old Bailey, and is promising that Westminster, another emblem of institutionalised injustice, will follow next year. It could be another November 5 to remember, unless Stephen Rea’s dogged state investigator can locate the rebel icon’s secret lair, though the latter may have found an ally in Natalie Portman’s plucky TV researcher, whose bitter past has its telling secrets too.

Alan Moore’s original graphic novel, begun in the early ’80s, reshaped the contours of Orwellian nightmare as an indictment of the Thatcher era, though Moore has disassociated himself from this adaptation by the post-‘Matrix’ Wachowski brothers, who somehow persuaded Warner Bros to bankroll a dystopian anti-Bush onslaught where the bomb-toting good guys cherish the banned Koran and the baddies are the government. Still, audiences may not be rushing from the multiplexes to man the barricades just yet. They’ll have to wake up first, because ideological frissons aside, this is a strikingly soporific debut for the Wachowskis’ former assistant. Tantalising set-up in place, it flounders for the next two hours, desperately piling on exposition and flashback before a truly laughable would-be rabble-rousing finale. Decent performances notwithstanding, this is both visually uninspired (the totalitarian iconography looks like ‘1984’ with LCD screens), and ultimately unpersuasive in its posturing radical chic. For all its anti-establishment esprit, it’s more a case of ‘Z for Zzzz’.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Mar 17, 2006

Duration:

132 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

3.8 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:2
  • 4 star:1
  • 3 star:0
  • 2 star:1
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|7
1 person listening
critic

wow...pretty scary reading these comments, none of these people seem to have the mental capacity to grasp any of the points made in the review. iguess this is proof that all you need is flash and a lot of explosions and you can sucker the masses into thinking you've made some kind of revolutionary statement. can't you people recognize propaganda when you see it? the review is accurate. there are no ideas in this film.

David Ballantine

Not quite tacky, and not quite cinematically serene, but somewhere in between. But that's not important. The central idea of mass revolution by anonymity is warmly presented. There's enough style in the idea and the strangely powerful lead (Hugo Weaving) to immediately forgive and forget occasional clunkiness. It moves well enough under the radar, and succeeds on its own peculiar terms. Portman helps a lot.

R for ron paul

this review sucks and this person must be illuminati asskissing slavloving race/godhating pieace of shit...you will not be able to stop the rise of the free people bilderbergmembers will be on my silverplate!!!

R for ron paul

this review sucks and this person must be illuminati asskissing slavloving race/godhating pieace of shit...you will not be able to stop the rise of the free people bilderbergmembers will be on my silverplate!!!

TB

Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. I thouroughly enjoyed the film and whilst I do not want to repeat what the film is about (we all know) I could not fault the acting. Portman's dodgy voice????? Not really. It was convincing enough. I have nothing but praise for the directors and as there are no systems of censorship....... no black bag men coming for me!!!!!!!

TB

Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. I thouroughly enjoyed the film and whilst I do not want to repeat what the film is about (we all know) I could not fault the acting. Portman's dodgy voice????? Not really. It was convincing enough. I have nothing but praise for the directors and as there are no systems of censorship....... no black bag men coming for me!!!!!!!

yduric

This film is not really bad, the idea of somehow 'modernizing' the 1984 issues is interesting, but clearly underdeveloped and oversimplified. The acting is also decent, but what makes the film finally unsatisfying is first of all an incredible mess, as if the director had wanted to make a 'cocktail' , or a 'multiple ripoff' of all the most famous films of the genre. This gives a terrible impression of 'déjà-vu'. What ultimately sinks the film is its huge pretentiousness, which results in a film that you would literally want to 'compress' to a minimum size, as you do it with video codecs, but in this case, compression would have definitely provided a better quality.