Possible spoilers below
I just saw this yesterday, and have to say that it was pretty good. When I first heard this was coming out, I read all kinds of speculation about how it wasn't expected to be very good, what with Alan Moore denouncing it and the idea that March is a month used as a dumping ground for bad films, but this movie really impressed me. Visually speaking, it was decent but it's real strength was in it's story I thought. The story is very engaging, especially when compared to today's political atmosphere. It's virtually impossible not to see the similarities between the government portrayed in the film and the government we may be on our way towards today.
But even more poignant than it's portrayal of the government I thought, was the portrayal of the media, which I found to be quite similar to the mainstream media of today, particularly the Bill O'Rielly esque TV newscaster. While there is still a considerable disparity between today's governments and the government shown in this film, the media shown in the film was a much more accurate portrayal of what already exists today, IMO. The government depicted in "V" seems like where we could be within the next 10-20 years or so, but the media depicted in the film seemed like a representation of where we already are, in terms of blatant dishonesty, taking cues from the government, and blind nationalistic loyalty. I remember one line from the film that went something like "it's not our job to fabricate the stories, the government does that, we just report them". I found myself laughing all throughout the film at this and similar little quips. The film makers did a very good job at putting all kinds of subtle references into the film, from the politicians invested in pharmaceutical companies (Bush and Eli Lilly) to the strikingly Dick Cheney esque character who's name escapes me, I found the film to be quite humorous in some parts. Actually, I really must say that I enjoyed the film far more for it's political satire than I did for it's action.
I really enjoyed the fight scenes in the film. The concept of V fighting with daggers against police armed with guns was brilliant I thought, and was a fitting commentary on the odds that freedom fighters face when going up against an oppressive, fascist government, even though they are outnumbered and outgunned (the concept is actually very close to my heart as I once tried to write a story with similar ideas, but I can tell you from experience it's not easy to do convincingly). I found V to be a fascinating character in many ways. He's like a repository of everything that is deemed unpatriotic and wrong by the fascist state, from his collection of banned art, music, literature etc. to his bombing of government buildings. Hugo Weaving is perfect for the voice of V and after seeing the film I couldn't imagine it with anyone else in the part. I can't think of anyone else who strikes such a balance between cultured eloquency and necessary evil. Natalie Portman is excellent as well. I find that I usually enjoy her performances (except in the Star Wars films) but she is particularly good here. John Hurt is great as the chancellor as well. He brings a great presence to the screen and even though he doesn't have a whole lot of screen time, he leaves a lasting impression. I think one of the better performances in the whole film though, is the woman who plays the lesbian imprisoned in the cell next to V. Personally, I thought that the sequence with her story was one of the better parts of the film overall.
That having been said, I must say that as much as I enjoyed this film, it is not without its flaws. In all honesty, I was a little dissapointed with some of the action and fight scenes from a visual standpoint. It seemed like there wasn't enough effort put into designing them to me. The cinematography was good but I felt like there was much more that they could have done to make it even more interesting. The scenes definitely carried the mark of an inexperienced director, all though only slightly so, but it was still noticeable I thought. I love the idea of the hero fighting with daggers instead of guns, and while these sequences in the film where done well, I thought that they could have been done better. It also seemed like the pacing towards the beginning of the film was a little off. It seemed like it moved too fast and was trying too hard to get into the story as fast as it could. It wouldn't bother me except for the fact that it was a little distracting. All though, this approach to film making is the way of the future I suppose, and while I personally don't like it, it seems like most other people do like this faster pacing, particularly in action films. Personally, it annoys the hell out of me and reaks of sacrificing solid storytelling for marketability, but as I said, this seems to bother only a small minority of viewers of which I happen to be a member, so this will likely not be a problem for most people.
As much as I admire the film and think that it is a great directorial debut for McTeigue, it is (sometimes painfully) apparent throughout the film that it was made by a first time director. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but the film does seem to lack a certain quality that comes from having a more experienced director. I think that this film is just too big for a directorial debut, if that makes sense. From what I understand, McTeigue has been an Assistant Director for many years on such films as the Matrix trilogy among others, but I think that "V" was a little much for him (or any first time director for that matter) to take on as his first directorial project. Personally, I think that as good as the film was, it would have been better had the Wachowski Brothers directed it themselves. Not to say that I think the direction was bad but... it's kind of hard to explain. Some of it was excellent, but it felt to me like it was just 90% there, and I felt like the story was great and it deserved to have that extra 10%. I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense but it's the best I can do to explain myself. Regardless of how good a director is, their first feature as a director will always carry the mark of a directorial debut, and as good as this film was, I can't help but think it would've been better had it been directed by the Wachowski Brothers themselves. But, all things considered, it was still an excellent film and I will definitly be looking forward to seeing McTeigue's next film.
For those interested in further adaptations of Moore's work
http://www.iesb.net/upcomingfilm/022806.php Apparently McTeigue wants to do an adaptation of "The Watchmen" all though it sounds like it will be a struggle, especially with Allan Moore's apparent disapproval of "V for Vendetta", but you never know. I would definitly be interested in seeing it.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
