V for Vendetta Reviews

Esta vendría a ser una actualización de las que tengo pendientes hacer; disfruten mientras.
V for Vendetta ha sido citada, cuestionada y analizada de varias formas por partes de varios movimientos políticos o sociales al grado que parece un chiste. A pesar de su fama de antaño como título antisistema, con el pasar de los años y el surgimiento de movimientos como Antifa han traído una mala imagen. Muchos liberales aman la historia porque dentro de su perspectiva la película avala su visión zurda. Por otra parte, gente de derecha o que apoya a entidades dictatoriales han llegado a detestar el film como el causante de estas nuevas olas de zurdetes. Por mi parte, tengo mis propias opiniones políticas en relación a la obra las cuales son las razones de por que no entiendo el parloteo de uno u otro extremo de los espectros políticos.

Convengamos a decir que V for Vendetta es un título distópico en que una sociedad totalitarista gobierna con puño de hierro, lo que da origen a un justiciero, si lo quieren llamar así, que se opondrá al regimen establecido mientras es acompañado por una mujer quien pondrá en perspectiva su visión del mundo y la venganza.
El sistema de V for Vendetta es uno divertido de analizar por todo el contexto en el que fue armado, sus influencias y la manera en que se presenta. La gente común identifica a Fuego Nórdico con un sistema fascista o nacionalsocialista por ciertos elementos que contiene el movimiento. La aparente fascinación con la idea del estado, de que la fuerza es lo que mantiene vivo a la sociedad y que los débiles y degenerados deben ser erradicados, el mismo nombre principal puede darte esa idea, fuego nórdico suena al título que cualquier tercerposicionista se pondría de nombre de perfil. Sin embargo, según menciona el mismo Moore como influencia en la creación del concepto, cuyos detalles son notables al tomar esos datos en cuenta, notamos que el sistema dista en grandes aspectos a lo que sería un sistema fascista.
Algo que nunca he visto hablar es como se maneja la propaganda de Fuego Nórdico; pese a despreciar cosas obscenas como la sodomía o el alcoholismo, es extraño que toda su propaganda vaya de lo bueno que es el status quo político en lugar de enaltecer la cultura inglesa de la que forman parte. Tampoco se hace mención temas como la raza o eugenesia, aspectos vitales que se tomaban en cuenta en dichas sociedades. Sin embargo la mayor diferencia viene en el rol que cumple el cristianismo como parte del gobierno. Cuando los regímenes de Mussolini o Hitler llegaron al poder, la participación de la iglesia como entidad gobernante fue inexistente, los políticos de Fuego Nórdico en contraste son abiertamente protestantes. La simbología del estado de basa en cruces idénticas a la de los ortodoxos orientales, aparte de tener a sacerdotes y predicadores en sus líneas.
La otra diferencia crucial entre ambos sistemas es como los miembros del gobierno poseen un pasado de gran abundancia económica producto de que ellos fueran empresarios relacionados a farmacéuticas o empresas armamentísticas. No sólo es que son empresarios, es también el dato que ellos sacaron provecho del caos luego del colapso de la sociedad. La forma en como se construyó el sistema es otro punto a tomar en cuenta porque notas como los dirigentes no parecen ser gente que se tome en serio el lado ideológico de su país. Siendo que ellos fueron los responsables de la creación de un virus para crear un caos social y entrar en el poder.
Cuando notas todos esos detalles, no veo forma de catalogar al sistema como inspirado en el nazismo, sino en una mezcla de dos formas de gobierno distintas, la primera vendría a ser la del conservadurismo existente en Europa y Estados Unidos. La sociedad enfatiza en el cristianismo como eje central de la civilización, el sistema de una u otra forma termina por favorecer a empresas por encima del propio estado, aparte de declarar como sociedades enemigas a aquellas que no sean abiertamente cristianas, como las musulmanas. Todo lo dicho vendría en relación a lo cultural, a nivel social en cambio es semejante al sistema del Ingsoc o socialismo inglés de 1984, cosa que notas cuando la propaganda alaba al estado como un Dios, declara de enemigos a fuerzas que difícilmente existen para crear pánico, se imponen toques de queda, la información y la historia son manipuladas para ocultar las acciones de los dirigentes con la televisión sembrando falsas noticias de lo ocurrido mientras se imponen fotografías del líder y sus símbolos en varias casas a la par de que patrullas espían a los ciudadanos para eliminar a cada disidente de su sistema.
En términos de construcción, V for Vendetta en su versión fílmica demuestra una buena afinidad para presentar las ideas de su escenario de un modo que puedes decir que es plausible. La parte interesante es que toda esta conspiración es escondida en las sombras mientras los regentes se reservan llamar la atención con sus acciones. Ese es otro detalle que me encantó, algo que odio de muchas sociedades distópicas es la manera tan directa de ser unos infelices codiciosos o unos sádicos. Si bien verás que los miembros del sistema tienen a pedofilos o psicopatas que disfrutan matar, nunca los verás haciéndolo en público. Aquello que por lo menos nos hace ver que el sistema no es completamente podrido viene con uno de los miembros del partido: el inspector. En esta película, ambos bandos no son enteramente malos o buenos, incluso en el bando que puedes saber que es el malo notas como miembros de ese sistema no son otros sádicos, son simples personas que quieren hacer su trabajo pero que desconocen las verdades de su gobierno, del cual irá conociendo y poniendo en duda que tan bueno es mantenerlo en pie.
A pesar de tener un mundo interesante que te habla de varias cosas interesantes de nuestro día a día, no es ese la razón por la que me encantó la película. Muchos piensan que la película está dirigida de tal forma en que sea imposible no oponerse al sistema para que todos por obvias razones busquen su aniquilación y aún con eso en cuenta varias personas no lo hacen a pesar de estar concientes de ello. Eso se debe a que el propósito de V for Vendetta no es tanto una denuncia a la corrupción o a un sistema político en concreto sino una crítica social. Por muy asqueroso que puedan ser Sutler y Creedy, ellos no aparecieron de la nada, son los habitantes de un país lo que hace que dichos sistemas entren al poder en primer instante. Fuego Nórdico entró al poder porque los ciudadanos de Inglaterra votaron por Fuego Nórdico, ese es el punto de V for Vendetta, que la gente tiene que percatarse de quienes son sus líderes, no de buscar la primera oferta de paz que se les dé y no pensar en las consecuencias. Siendo que los únicos que deciden su destino son el pueblo, nadie mas, acto que V les hace ver.
Es esta actitud de saber que vives en la mierda pero no hacer algo para mejorarlo porque causaría mucha muerte en el proceso. Algo que en 1984 no tenía sentido es como todos eran tan devotos al Ingsoc pese a ser tan opresivo, con Fuego Nórdico las cosas siguen siendo opresivas, pero puedes entender que no haya alguna revolución por miedo a las represalias y que en contraste las cosas no estén tan mal. Todo eso se ve reflejado en el personaje de Evey Hammon, chica que sí, sus padres fueron ejecutados por el estado, sabe lo de los toques de queda pero que no se sacrificaría si sabe que es inutil enfrentarse a un ejercito fuertemente armado con nulas oportunidades de ganar. Al menos hasta que V la hace entrar en razón torturándola y quitándole lo que según ella le impedirían dar su vida por una causa. Bastante increíble he de admitir que un título no se abandere de ser el salvador de un pueblo oprimido, en su lugar sería sobre concienciar a la gente que ellos fueron los responsables de su desgracia hasta cierto punto y que sólo ellos podrán salir de la shithole en la que se metieron.
La obra no sólo es una crítica social y una distopía, es una obra de venganza muy bien hecha, de las mejores que he visto. V es un personaje que te pone a pensar sobre la naturaleza de la venganza, que tan valido en cobrar venganza o hasta que punto la venganza se vuelve un acto honorable o enfermizo. V es un ser nacido del caos que creó el gobierno, este le quitó su identidad, su vida, lo usó para eliminar a millones con su sangre infectada con el virus y mataron a miles de en las pruebas. Razones para odiar al gobierno no le faltan al sujeto. Sin embargo, la venganza de V se tambalea entre algo que puedes comprender y admirar como forma de hacer justicia y una pasión psicopática del personaje quien busca a toda costa eliminar a los que lo arruinaron. V está en constante duda por parte de Evey, dando razones lógicas de por que su visión del mundo tiene sentido pero no por completo, Evey obtiene la última aprobación varias veces con no vivir sólo de esa pasión.
El aspecto más débil de la obra es la manera en que V logra burlar las autoridades; no sólo es capaz de repartir miles de máscaras en Londres, el tipo se las apaña para escabullirse de situaciones difíciles sin explicación aparente. También es extraña la manera en como escapó de prisión en primer lugar, o que pueda ser tan sigiloso como para matar al presentador de noticias en el penhouse de un edificio. No es como que me moleste demasiado, la película siembra datos que puedes tomar en cuenta para sus huidas, como robar artículos de primera mano para crear sus armas y bombas, que use el alcantarillado como vía de escape la cual no van a revisar por estar en cuarentena por el virus, aparte de ser un superhumano con grandes habilidades, pero una explicación directa sería mejor a dejar a la imaginación. Este es el mismo problema que tengo con varios personajes que son inteligentes como Johan de Monster que hace enloquecer a la gente fuera de pantalla o se teletransporta de un lugar a otro. Al menos diré a su favor que V sí muestra estrategias en tiempo real, como cuando manipuló a Creedy para que le entregue a Sutler aprovechando las divisiones dentro de la esfera de poder. Es de esperar que no muestren todo eso en pantalla porque hacen elipsis cada que V huye, es una película al fin y al cabo lo que resulta ser su maldición. En el cómic se explica que V saca provecho del sistema hackeando el sistema de datos de Fuego Nórdico y que los policías y soldados dependen demasiado de este al punto que no pueden monitorear sus alrededores sin esta tecnología, cosa que la película posee pero sin esa relevancia.
Y el tiempo no es sólo un problema de las acciones del personaje, también lo es en caracterización. Los personajes son más simples que en el cómic, Evey es más indefensa y con un pasado de prostituta infantil, cosa que le da un mayor peso a que sea ella quien ayude en la revolución. Mismo caso con el inspector, su compañero o varios de los asesinados por V, incluso Sutler es profundizado ideológica y mentalmente pese a lo que hicieron, parecido al caso de Ozysmandias en Watchmen, sólo que este al menos en su adaptación conservó su perspectiva. V también es más oscuro y ambiguo moralmente, que al igual con Watchmen, lo hace ver menos cuestionable de lo que era como con Rorschach. También ocurre lo mismo con el trasfondo del mundo fuera de Inglaterra siendo que el colapso fue producto de una guerra nuclear mientras que en la película se queda en una mención, ni hablar de la simbología que se tiene con la v, el número cinco, las fechas, varios libros de los que la obra sacó inspiración y un largo etcétera.
Tampoco es como que me moleste tomando en cuenta que de nuevo es una película y que lo que presenta en su cantidad de tiempo es meritorio como para que la pueda críticar duramente. Como dije con Watchmen, conserva todas las ideas principales que tenía la novela, siendo las diferencias unas cuantas simplificaciones que comprendes por razones de timing y pacing.
Por último, debo decirles que sí, V for Vendetta es un título del que me simpatizo idelógicamente. Si bien no me gustan los trabajos con ideales de libertad, el contexto y el como maneja varias de sus ideas me han cautivado y si estás en contra y te parece que Fuego Nórdico como se planteó funcionaría en el mundo real, tan sólo dime que tiene de beneficioso un gobierno conformado por pedofilos y psicopatas que buscan poder y que sacan provecho de ideas como la seguridad o la patria para sentar sus traseros en tronos de oro mientras manipulan a la gente, matan a todos los que se les opongan para dejarte en claro que podrían sacrificar al país entero por su protección, que no profesan sus ideales y que empezaron el equivalente del 9/11 de ese mundo. O que hay de matar a quienes merecer morir ¿o es que me vendrán con alguna moral enferma de perdonar a quienes mataron a miles de niños y siguen matando a inocentes en fecha presente? Esto no es Naruto, damas y caballeros, donde puedes revivir a cuanta peña se te antoje porque eres el elegido. Sí, con creces V for Vendetta, ambas versiones merecen ser consideradas de las mejores historias que haya visto y leído. Un título que desgraciadamente es manchado por hordas de descerebrados antifas que actúan igual a Sutler y su escoria.

One of the best movies in human history that full gets u into it and I personally have watched it like 10-15 times (whenever I get fucked up it cheers me up) and it shows one important thing in life and thats. "No matter how fucked up world could be if u are looking for the guilt u just need to look up at the mirror".

A deep political and philosophical message. V is a very likeable character from the moment you hear what he has to say, and what he does to fight for the people in an unjust government.

This is a very complex character, full of motivation and ideas, branded as crazy by some, a terrorist by others, lauded as a hero by some. In short, V is a mysterious being, and that we will get to know in depth, but will be able to inspire all kinds of feelings: sometimes feel dread seeing him appear, sometimes an irrational confidence, even make us laugh. And in certain moments we sense (absolutely positive) that we are attending a recital of humor, without ever losing sight of the context in which the story unfolds. Weaving done (again) papelazo whole, is that despite the mask is able to convey everything you need, making close-ups, which could become really absurd (the failure to see the movement in the protagonist's mouth while talking strangely enough) charge the same meaning as if the mask was not in place.

But V is not only, and that is where Natalie Portman, Evey, a girl of 16 who developed a close and special relationship with the masked man. In addition, a number of characters evolving guide the flow of the film, is that the stories will be mixed in the same way that all the ingredients of this particular recipe, while know the past, present and future London our protagonist and his surroundings. A London in which a strict political regime has taken power cut based freedoms and impose strict control over citizens.

This is a film that, without being revolutionary, is different, entertaining (even though the long dialogues, laden message), addictive, emotional ... A must-see for those who rarely come from Hollywood. To my mind, a masterpiece able to seamlessly combine their different ways, to result in a very resultón and convince most of the public. Public out of the courtroom stunned (especially if no previously known history, something that is not at all necessary to enjoy the film) and reflecting on the implications of the plot and is critical to our own society

This is a very over-the-top kind of film that I enjoyed at the time, but I can clearly see, in retrospect, that it is rather flawed. The acting is actually pretty good--imagine overly-dramatic lines being delivered very well, and you'll have the sense of it-- but the story is a little wierd.
I guess the most obvious wierdness is the heavy Anglophobia--those dreaded Anglo-Saxons and their dread fascist leaders, oh my!--I mean, there's this really concerted effort in the film to transfer Nazi symbolism to the fictional English fascists, and, since, in the real world, the English played a key role, along with many other peoples, in defeating Hitler, playing this British=Nazi game is, well, at the very best, very childish, juvenile, and wierd. Also, there's the fact that the movie is very conspiracy-theory-happy--they put fascism in the drinking water!--and that the whole reason, basically, that the fascists have to be so ruthlessly evil is so that the anarchistic "freedom fighters" can be virtuous little dolls in comparison. It's basically the old moronic one-dimensional black-and-white good-versus-evil propaganda story, from a leftist angle. "V" is supposed to be the "hero" that the audience is clearly meant to cheer on, and he's given plenty of opportunity to air his particular brand of bombastic self-righteous I'm-addicted-to-the-sound-of-my-own-voice voice, and so his criminality is carefully covered over. At his heart, he's little more than a would-be tyrant, the sort of person who wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice people's lives for the sake of his ideas--but I suppose there's really little difference between a "revolutionary"--hurrah! hurrah!--and, basically, an intellectual killer--allow me to rationalize cutting your veins open by quoting from Shakespeare, my, aren't I something, eh?
Of course, there are other characters aside from V, such as Evey and Inspector Finch, but it's really a movie about politics, not characters and interpersonal relations, so of course, it's really all about V and his Idea, and the plot is really just the course by which V and his Idea take over everyone and everything else, even people who initially offered resistence to it--i.e., by questioning it's "justice". But, since V is, perforce, the all-conquering hero, omnipotent and more than a bit, well, un-human, "beyond" human (and, if you think about it, the presence of such an "over-man" in a movie paranoid to death about fascism is more than a little ironic), everyone and everything duly falls into line, as though according to a script. But, one-dimensional plot, aside, I suppose you have to give them credit for the good acting and all the rest of it, that it made it--how else to say it....'look neat', I guess.
There is another thing, though. I mean, I know how little people care about history, but considering how much V seemed to, well--get off on--reciting the old rhyme about the Gunpowder Plot, you'd think he might have some idea what he was talking about. It was not, alas, a failed anarchist revolution. It was actually an attempt to murder the legitimate government of England (although I suppose V doesn't consider there to be any such thing, even if the actual population, those silly non-intellectual, non-freedom-fighter sorts, do) in order to bring the country back into line with Catholic orthodoxy--in other words, to alter the religious, and political, constitution of the country by force, quite against the natural sympathies of the people living there. And, as much as V seems to idealize changing the established order by force, under the leadership of a self-appointed revolutionary, I for one simply cannot see what V's brand of sci-fi-action-anarchism has to do with a fortunately-unsuccessful plot to instigate religious persecution.
But of course, I am here opening myself to the criticism of taking a futuristic movie which is, at one level, just about Hugo Weaving beating the crap out of people, way too seriously. And yes, Weaving did make his dramatic character sound very dramatic and impressive indeed. And, yes, Natalie Portman's performance was very good, regardless of what one thinks of the ethics of her fictional mentor. And, yes, there were some good lines, "God is in the rain" being one of those rare ones which isn't a lot of over-dramatic chest-thumping. (It's delivered by Portman's character, Evey.)
So, I have it give it some credit for having a great cast, full of people who put in a good performance, but the fact that those characters were little more than props in the Grand Plan definitely stopped it from being a good movie.

(6/10)

I remember it very well, before watching this flick, I had some huge expectations. Indeed, from the moment it was released, it became instantly a massive cult-classic. However, somehow, it turned out to be a huge disappointment. Indeed, it took me like 3 or 4 years to watch this movie, it was really high on my 'to-wach' movie list. It was supposed to be great and I was expecting so much but, at the end of the day, sure it was a nice movie with some very neat visuals but the story was not really compelling, in my opinion. Furthermore, I think Natalie Portman is a very good actrice but I didn't really believe in the connection she had with V. I also thought it was rather funny to hear some viewers saying that this movie had ‘a deep political and philosophical message’. Come on… The whole thing was actually rather shallow and it could have been so much more thoughtfull but it wasn't. Still, it is a nice movie to look at and, I have to admit it, it was still fairly entertaining but I seriously failed to see what was so amazing about the damned thing. Anyway, to conclude, it was after all a decent flick and it is worth a look but I really don't get why everybody thinks it was so great and it must be one of the most overrated movies ever made.

A little boring in parts, so boring in fact that I was forced to fast forward through some scenes but the over all movie was good.

I'm a sucker for any romance in movies and even if romance was not the main theme it was present through out the movie. I'm also a sucker for star crossed lovers, which in a way, this movie features. I was kept waiting for V and Evy to get together- and when they finally did - I felt as if it was not enough. His death just left me empty.. I know V dies in the comic books but had they not killed him straight away- I feel a sequel would definitely have paid off.

Overall, the movie was memorable to me, only for the killer sword scenes, romance and the gay love story told... Which I did think was rather random to throw in but it was beautiful.

7/10

It's amazing how easy it is to butcher everything fans hold dear in one of the greatest graphic novels of all time into a simplistic, moronic mess and cavalcade of action scenes and philosophical thoughts that appear to be taken from the things with old proverbs you put under your beer in a local bar. The characters of V and Evey have been stripped of their ideals and replaced with cardboard charicatures that revel in the light of righteousness, and the dim line between good and evil from the comic has been taken away and replaced with a huge red beam to make sure to the viewer who is evil and who is not with the most over the top performances by the bad guys and subtle soothness of all the good guys. V For Vendetta is more reminiscent of a product someone would make if they had just been through film school 101 rather than it's origin, a superbly deep and layered graphic novel about modern society and it's many flaws. The film works barely as an independent picture instead of an adaptation, but it still somewhat fails as it really is a pretty flauently flat film thematically, while still passing itself off as something great and deep. It tries more than it should with this material.

A dystopian british nation must be saved by the tyrannical totalitarian government under which it has become subjected to since a recent nuclear war that has left much of the Earth crippled. And who will act as the people's modern/futuristic Robin Hood, to inspire hope within the masses of a spiritually tattered land of The United kingdom? In this case, it will be the mask vigilante known as "V". And so confident is this anarchist avenger of the masses, that he requires naught but swords to combat gunplay, a name no longer than that of a single letter, and a mask based not on of fear, but one based instead on a visage of a happy but rebellious historical figure.




Alan Moore's storytelling is just so rich in detail, atmosphere & concepts, that it can almost seem impossible to capture even just a sliver of it's essence onto a film adaptation. Therefor, even though this movie quite obviously cannot compare to the comicbook series, just the fact that it was able to retain anything at all from Mr. Moore's work to any kind of degree of consistency to the story
(which, IMO, is the only movie to do so far) is enough to mark it as a success for me.

''Ideas are bulletproof.''

A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally and maybe a companion.

Natalie Portman: Evey

Hugo Weaving: V

Set in a fascist controlled Britain, V for Vendetta is inspired by the graphic novel by Alan Moore. Resulting in this superb grand masterpiece, the film adaptation.
Scarily enough it also has parallels with what is actually happening now, and how this country really is on the same spiralling road into a hell of its own making. Notice the Gordon Brown look alike, the dictator Police-State, the controlling system, propaganda laden News and Terrorists being blamed for the own Governments evil doings. It's thought provoking aspects like these that make V a very interesting piece indeed. This paralleled state of existence not far from our blurry own.



The plot of V for Vendetta is surprisingly complex and expertly stitched together, and I don't want to divulge any juicy details.
Suffice it to say that a masked anarchist (Hugo Weaving) must save a young woman (Natalie Portman) during his attempt to expose a corrupt flawed government.
Weaving is perfectly cast, using his formidable physicality and imposing voice to give gravitas to the insanity of the character.
Hugo weaving although unseen behind the mask shows depth in his masked vigilante V, he portrays his emotion and passion.
Portman has gone from child to teen star and is finally emerging as a talented, adult actress following her Oscar-nominated turn in Closer, which I have yet to see. Here, she gives her best performance to date as the orphaned, Evey.
John Hurt is characteristically impressive as the enigmatic evil government leader, who's more of a dictator than a PM. Stephen Rea gives a wonderful supporting turn as the police inspector charged with finding V - before it's too late. Making us see a flip side and narration to proceedings.

''A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world.''

The Wachowski Brothers former colleague, James McTiegue, takes on the directing tasks here and steers an enormously impressive first feature, using every means available, in a manner reminiscent of his mentors breakout hit The Matrix. Unlike Matrix, McTiegue allows the story to be more of a focus, and as a result the film is a tense yet emotional storm, with outbursts of spectacularly filmed and choreographed action. Showing more maturity and restraint than the Wachowskis ever did, McTiegue doesn't show off, and his trickery isn't self conscious. When slow-motion overtakes a late action sequence, it seems extremely natural yet believable. The late cinematographer Adrian Biddle (V is dedicated to his memory) does an outstanding job, Oscar-nominated Dario Marianelli's score is a fantastic accompaniment to the piece, setting your emotions ablaze like V, and the visual effects are astonishing, terrifying, and deeply moving, especially in the climatic moments.

With solid acting, great action, and fantastic technical wizardry, it sounds just like another Matrix clone. But the biggest difference in V is that it is a story of real ideas - not a fantastic, science fiction creation, but a genuine examination of the human condition. The power of fear takes centre stage here, the fear of war, of disease, of famine. Fear is a basic human nature, and has been exploited as a weapon, a method of control, for centuries. And for those who would use it against the innocent, a masked avenger waits in the shadows to deal justice and vengeance.

There was also a strange debate over the quality of adaptation the Wachowski Brothers offered to Alan Moore's original graphic novel. Moore has publicly separated himself from the film, quoting in the New York Times at the time, that ''the screenplay's rubbish''. Well, before we all walk away from the project, remember primly that Alan Moore will be the first to tell you himself that he is a selfish, pretentious prick. He knows it, we know it, enough said. Moving on... The screenplay's fine which you may have determined from what I have said already. In fact, it's again a masterpiece, and I cannot stress this fact enough. What the Wachowski Brothers have done is find the right balance between the theatrics of the graphic novel, and the solemnity to the richly Victorian narrative. They form a dynamic that plays to both sides, allowing for a story that sparks both political debate and giddy entertainment. We'll first shake our heads at the sentimental, soft-focus flashbacks and intriguing sub-plot for nuclear human experimentation but when mulled over, we realize it's just the comic book mentality showing its true colours. After all, V wouldn't start all his sentences with v-words had this film shunned its comic roots.

Revolutionary, thought provoking, V for Vendetta isn't just a comic book/graphic Novel adaptation but a political stab at the world we live in. Yet again a powerful idea can prove the most moving aspect!
Music is atmospheric and the scene with Natalie in the rain, with arms held high, in a pose of rebirth, is phenomenal, mirrored with V's rebirth by fire. Very emotional, very deep and hits home inside with its own humanity.
Ideas are bulletproof, says V, I say this film is bulletproof.

''People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.''