V for Vendetta

6

JackM.Mar 16, 2006

Commendably subvertive and has plenty of ideas, but is marred by some suspect acting and pretentious dialogue akin to that in the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy. Still, a pleasant suprise and certainly worth seeing on the big screen.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JimboH.Mar 25, 2006

The bottom line to any movie is how entertaining it is and for me, I felt downright bored at times due to the "talking head" syndrome this movie displays. If anything they wrote the plot around the message they wanted to get across. Its good The bottom line to any movie is how entertaining it is and for me, I felt downright bored at times due to the "talking head" syndrome this movie displays. If anything they wrote the plot around the message they wanted to get across. Its good but could of been a lot better- it feels a little rushed. I actually saw 3 people walk out about 20 minutes in because of how politically biased this movie is. If you liked Farenheit 911 then you'll probably like this one. One thing does sum up this movie though: confused. Sometimes its just preaching. Other times its action. Other times it contradicts itself. For example, the future is very nazi-ish (one flag shown is american/british/with a swashtika on it). yet the government also resembles Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The bad guys are the conservatives governing under fear, and they blame things on religious extremists when its really the government to blame. There are also mass graves. Sorta like things that happened in Iraq. The logo for the new-future british government is a cross with an extra line across the t, and the Quaran is banned to the point you'll be executed if you have one. This movie will be very dated very quickly. Remember when some kids died because of cops in France and people rioted because of it? You probably wont a few years from now. If this movie had a more realistic plot with more realistic characters rather than self-promoting its own ideals I'd add 3 more points to the rating. For most people who dont disect movies like I do though, this should be a decent one to watch for it gives at least some good conversation material later on. Sorry this review is so jumpy, there is too much to comment about in such a short block.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DavidS.Mar 29, 2006

I can't understand people who call this movie "captivating and philisophic". The ideas in this movie are the current pop culture standard, and are terribly unoriginal and boring. I already know that America is fed government initiated I can't understand people who call this movie "captivating and philisophic". The ideas in this movie are the current pop culture standard, and are terribly unoriginal and boring. I already know that America is fed government initiated fear, and that CNN feeds me paranoid garbage. Hello! did anybody see Faranheit 911! I'm sick of movies pretending to be original and deep when in fact they're just the opposite. If this movie was made before Sept 11. and before everyone saw Faranheit 911 and instantly became world political experts, then I'd say this movie had some original ideas. Unfortunately, it's just another movie glorifying what everyone already knows! You'd think that despite these shortcomings the movie might provide some good action sequences, or some resembelance of a plot. NEGATIVE! The movie plods along at a snail's pace. The quasi love story isn't believable,(Portman's character finds the burnt dude in the mask sexy?C'mon!) and there's only one action scene at the end involving knives that I can clearly recount. Overall, this movie is a complete waste of money and more importantly a waste of your time!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChrisU.Apr 16, 2006

This movie had some good acting. This movie had an interesting premise. This movie neglected to share many of the details of how V is able to do what he does. This movie becomes redundant at times. This movie left me with mixed emotions.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChadSweeMay 16, 2007

V for Vendetta, an action movie from the Wachowski Brothers (the matrix trilogy), is a film that ultimately doesn't live up to the expectations i had for it. Revenge seems to be in every blockbuster movie nowadays, and V for Vendetta isV for Vendetta, an action movie from the Wachowski Brothers (the matrix trilogy), is a film that ultimately doesn't live up to the expectations i had for it. Revenge seems to be in every blockbuster movie nowadays, and V for Vendetta is no exception, hence the word "Vendetta" in the title. The acting is nothing to brag about. Natalie Portman plays Evey and shows no talent whatsoever. Evey accomponies V, the masked man, for the majority of the film. Hugo Weaving plays the role of V, and since he is behind a mask the entire movie his acting skills aren't displayed. However, what V for Vendetta lacks in acting talent it compensates for with a good futuristic story, one that is full of cover-ups, wars, and government corruption. The action is fairly weak, especially when being compared to the matrix trilogy, but it's satisfying enough. Lastly, the directing is on par with any other movie out to date, nothing is fancy or dull about how it was directed. Overall V for Vendetta is an above average film, but could have potentially been better. To put it simply it wasn't a film i regretted watching, but it isn't a film i will brag over. On a scale of one to ten, five being average, i would give V for Vendetta a six.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

OliverC.Mar 17, 2006

Its hard to write a review for the movie, the politics are completely one sided (thankfully the right [left] side.. but honestly?) and the directing was fairly hit or miss. Some great explosion scenes with the orchestra in the background, Its hard to write a review for the movie, the politics are completely one sided (thankfully the right [left] side.. but honestly?) and the directing was fairly hit or miss. Some great explosion scenes with the orchestra in the background, but why didn't her hair grow back? How come it doesnt go into the characters pasts?? anyway the first 30 minutes were a good setup and the fighting scenes (3) were interesting but overall it was weak. Better than ultraviolet at least...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChrisCurtisMar 21, 2006

Oh, man. This could have been so much better. I'm so disappointed in Portman's acting. She was great in Garden State, but her delivery here reminded me more of her Star Wars performances. Those who gave favorable reviews wereOh, man. This could have been so much better. I'm so disappointed in Portman's acting. She was great in Garden State, but her delivery here reminded me more of her Star Wars performances. Those who gave favorable reviews were obviously forgiving of her poorly developed British accent in this movie. It was bad. Then again, I'm a stickler for detail.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DanB.Mar 23, 2006

Kind of uncomfortable with the film taking a piss at 'terrorists' as if they're not real. Also, I think the movie might come off like it's msg is "vigilante mass destruction is okay if the government's really Kind of uncomfortable with the film taking a piss at 'terrorists' as if they're not real. Also, I think the movie might come off like it's msg is "vigilante mass destruction is okay if the government's really *really* bad"... but then like, would it be okay for some dissident to blow up a palace in Saudi Arabia? Or for some masked dude to blow up half of Pyonyang? Would that be 'okay'? I dunno. All that said, the movie itself -- aside from a few digressions into sap/cheez -- is pretty darn tootin', and, having seen it on an IMAX screen, I must say that, Natalie Portman's face, 8 stories tall, is wonderful.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AndrewM.Mar 23, 2006

Watered down Hollywood crap. Read the comic book.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

kenje13Dec 4, 2013

To be honest. The movie has it's weaknesses, one of them being incredibly large plot holes towards the end which most people seem to dismiss rather easily I do not dislike the movie. In fact, there's a lot to like, but I somehow find thisTo be honest. The movie has it's weaknesses, one of them being incredibly large plot holes towards the end which most people seem to dismiss rather easily I do not dislike the movie. In fact, there's a lot to like, but I somehow find this movie a bit pretentious and preachy. Been a long time since I've seen it last but I found this movie a bit overrated. It's best you see it for yourself. I will write a longer review the next time I see it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DenisManuOct 12, 2014

V for Vendetta is a really dark and gritty movie about a futuristic fading society full of crime and murder.With thought provoking moments and great acting this movie is definitely worth anyone's time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

superbatMay 29, 2021

V for Vendetta is an interesting film which warns about the dangers of totalitarianism. It isn't the most remarkable film; the story seems uneven in some areas. The pacing is off at times as well. There are many good aspects to this filmV for Vendetta is an interesting film which warns about the dangers of totalitarianism. It isn't the most remarkable film; the story seems uneven in some areas. The pacing is off at times as well. There are many good aspects to this film though, mainly Hugo Weaving's stellar performance as V. The fight sequences and visuals are also done well. V for Vendetta is a good film, but not a ground breaking one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Onlyclassicvg1Jan 25, 2021

Summary: Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V for Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (Weaving) known only asSummary: Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V for Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (Weaving) known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

JonA.Mar 18, 2006

Not bad, not good. I appreciate that the filmmakers tried to tackle some social/political points, but they focus on ideas that have been studied for many years. The plot, action and subtext are derivative of other films and books. V is an Not bad, not good. I appreciate that the filmmakers tried to tackle some social/political points, but they focus on ideas that have been studied for many years. The plot, action and subtext are derivative of other films and books. V is an interesting character, though I don't know why he has to carve his initials like some others I've seen before...maybe we should call him Voro. Also, sort of boring for an action movie. Nice try though.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

AndrewK.Mar 20, 2006

Politics really shouldn't even come into the equation. This is about rating a film. Was it well made? And the measure of that is whether people are entertained. Obviously, many people were, and a few were not. I enjoyed certain parts of Politics really shouldn't even come into the equation. This is about rating a film. Was it well made? And the measure of that is whether people are entertained. Obviously, many people were, and a few were not. I enjoyed certain parts of the film, excited to see the characters and events from one of my favorite books. I try to distance myself from the source material when I see an adaptation, but I couldn't help thinking all the way through the film that it would've been so much better if they'd left a lot of things as they were. I agree that this was billed too much as an action film, and its really not. And that's not a bad thing. But to me, knowing the original text, I was dissapointed in the actual content and dialogue of the film. The "message" is not delivered in anywhere near as intelligent a fashion as done by Alan Moore. Few can match his talent. I tried to view the film as a piece by itself, but while it wasn't neccesarily a bad film, it just didn't do it for me. The only acting that really bothered me was John Hurt, chewing the misc en scenery. For the record, this is the director's first film. Someone on here called it his worst film yet. How can that be if its the first one he's made? I also agree with the comment that some scenes were "Matrixy." If you were at all moved by this film, I urge you to go read the original graphic novel, and see how much more intense and meaningfull it is. All that being said, and while I hesitate to bring up the political aspect, it must be addressed. I felt it was a little too obvious that they were trying to make references to our current political atmosphere. And that cheapens the original story. I know very little about Margaret Thatcher, but I don't believe that Alan Moore shoved any references down people's throats. This movie also might've been much better if it had been made pre-9/11, or much further in the future. Nothing that comes out these days can speak about the government or terrorists without being labeled as a statement on politics. Lastly, why are there so many comments from the editor being stuck into our own reviews? They seem to be conveying the editor's own opinion of our reviews, when this is supposed to be our way of openly expressing our opinion. Just edit. Don't give us your opinion on our thoughts. Thank you. [Ed: Well said.]… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

MarcB.Mar 19, 2006

An enjoyable popcorn movie with a very weak, sad, and ultimately unfulfilling story. This is a movie that cant be deemed important or deeper than it claims to be unless you are 15 or younger. Some good acting from Portman and a very suttle An enjoyable popcorn movie with a very weak, sad, and ultimately unfulfilling story. This is a movie that cant be deemed important or deeper than it claims to be unless you are 15 or younger. Some good acting from Portman and a very suttle Stphen Rea. John Hurt is over the top creepy. Weaving is dashing although you never get to see him, but I couldnt help feeling that this movie was trying to make a statement. I ssues about the Koran and repression of gays, etc.. But how do they answer these problems? By blowing up buildings and killing people! Not only that but once the biuldings are blown up and people are killed(many through out the film) where do they go from there? A question this movie fails to answer and chooses to ignore. I couldnt help thinking how Osama bin Laden would love this movie's dim message and how Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. would be rolling in their graves. Go see it if you want to have to be entertained for a think free price, but if you are looking for a moral lesson on violence while be engaged visually, check out Munich or A History of Violence.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

MichaelD.Mar 24, 2006

Entertaining? Yes. Smart? No. I was hoping that this movie would mix the two, but alas, it didn't. I'm glad I saw it, because it was a feast for the eyes. But not for the brain. It's thoughts are actually quite shallow, though Entertaining? Yes. Smart? No. I was hoping that this movie would mix the two, but alas, it didn't. I'm glad I saw it, because it was a feast for the eyes. But not for the brain. It's thoughts are actually quite shallow, though at times exciting. If you want to see it, watch it in the theatre, but I wouldn't waste the time renting it unless you have a really sweet sound system and TV.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

PisforPropagandaMar 21, 2006

Visually seductive, this movie is about sending you the "other" message. Very 70's ish to me. Funny how Rolling Stone, Portland, and San Francisco newspapers all rate this so high...this is a movie for WTO rioters. The movie is not bad, Visually seductive, this movie is about sending you the "other" message. Very 70's ish to me. Funny how Rolling Stone, Portland, and San Francisco newspapers all rate this so high...this is a movie for WTO rioters. The movie is not bad, but it lacks examination of why those in power fear those they enslave. And why those who live and let live fail to maintain organized and safe societies. Why do people want tyrants, they obviously provide something and then degrade into something else. Hippies had their day and it didn't work. Life is a balance like the left and right hemispheres of the brain. People need to stop fighting other people as much as they need to start discipling themselves. This movie throws out a grand statement and then fails to get to the root of the truth...it blames others. Yawn. Still if you are smart enough to take a spoonful of what is said and displayed and realize this is just a graphic novel that requires large egos and bizarre material to keep you entertained then you can enjoy some of it. To me this is kind of a weak Stanley Kubrick movie that tries to sell a bit of nonsense as truth.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

TottoBoomMar 27, 2006

Repetitive, slow, incoherent...I wanted go to sleep or better read a book.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

JMApr 22, 2006

"V" is unsatisfying as an action flick and laughably facile as a "thought-provoker". All the cleverness here is placed in the margins -- the details of V's art collection, the mentioned-in-passing political backstory -- leaving the "V" is unsatisfying as an action flick and laughably facile as a "thought-provoker". All the cleverness here is placed in the margins -- the details of V's art collection, the mentioned-in-passing political backstory -- leaving the central plot to flounder with "philosophical" dialog between V and Portman's Evey that seems like a rehash of every late-night dorm-room bull session you've ever had. The intended "controversy" over the fact that V is a "justified terrorist" who blows things up to make a point is lost as V's escapades are somehow bloodless towards civilians while the authorities manage to kill dozens of innocents trying to stop him. Portman seems lost here while Weaving is wasted behind the mask; Stephen Rea's standout performance is nearly ruined by the weirdly-anticlimactic ending.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

AlexB.Mar 17, 2006

I was really looking forward to seeing this movie but when I saw it, I found it lacking in my expectations. It was hyped as an action movie, but focused more on the dectective story element. Several decent stories were lumped together and I was really looking forward to seeing this movie but when I saw it, I found it lacking in my expectations. It was hyped as an action movie, but focused more on the dectective story element. Several decent stories were lumped together and the ending seemed rushed and rather anticlimatic. The jury's still out for me, but I felt sorely disappointed when I came out of the theater, thanks to false advertisment.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

TyranianApr 14, 2019

Has some cool visuals and acting but the plot completely lost me halfway through.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Bradyboy12Aug 11, 2013

an average adaption on an excellent book, the movie gives it an almost satirical spin opposite from the deep book, entertaining but nothing more then that

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

RyanMar 31, 2006

Boring, long, and yet again proof that the Wachowski's are terrible writters who somehow fluked into the first Matrix movie. If you like little to no action, and dialog that is all exposition then this... still would be a bad movie.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

4

PatC.Sep 6, 2006

I give it credit for expressing its own art. Nonetheless it remains a political thriller without all that stressful intrigue and zing.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

4

JDMar 22, 2006

Makes christians look like crazy right wing fundlementalists. Christians have been repressed to. Sure they don't agree with some of the things in this world but they're not as narrow minded as portrayed.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

4

BillT.Mar 25, 2006

"Governments should be afraid of their people"? Hmmm. Yeah, maybe in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. But in the US & the UK, the government IS the people. You don't like the government? vote them out. No need to blow up the "Governments should be afraid of their people"? Hmmm. Yeah, maybe in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, etc. But in the US & the UK, the government IS the people. You don't like the government? vote them out. No need to blow up the Capitol Building or Parliament. Just go freakin' vote, you idots!! This movie should have been set in Saudi Arabia or a country that truly puts down its people. But the UK and the US??? What next, update "Mommie Dearest" with Mother Teresa in the lead role?? It didn't make logical sense to me.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

MartinS.Mar 26, 2006

I was very disappointed. They try to make it seem relevent to world events today, and that's its downfall. It does it so badly.

0 of 7 users found this helpful

4

martinApr 5, 2006

"V"--vacuous.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

MyronB.May 10, 2006

Somewhat better than run-of-the-mill comic book action, somewhat worse than Sin City and even X-Men, this is a pastiche of explicitly borrowed elements -- as though some writer thought it would be real cool to insert The Crow into Somewhat better than run-of-the-mill comic book action, somewhat worse than Sin City and even X-Men, this is a pastiche of explicitly borrowed elements -- as though some writer thought it would be real cool to insert The Crow into Orwell's 1984, with a sprinkle of post-modernity -- no wonder the Wachowskis drooled over it. Unoriginal and shallow but mildly pretentioous, with great camera work and editing, just like the Matrix. Whomever this "resonates" with, they're sorely simplistic.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

CherylC.Sep 4, 2006

Decent acting. Sophomoric attempt at political philosophy. Actually, just plain stupid when all said and done.

0 of 13 users found this helpful

3

PyeMar 18, 2006

Boring. Unengaging. While watching the film, I found I couldn't care less about the characters -- no pathos. Don't waste your time.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

3

SigwahMar 18, 2006

Rolling Stone hypes up the film and poor me, I see the damned thing. This film is The Political Matrix. There's an attempt at making it seem like this will happen to the world in the next couple of years and that we will have to blow up Rolling Stone hypes up the film and poor me, I see the damned thing. This film is The Political Matrix. There's an attempt at making it seem like this will happen to the world in the next couple of years and that we will have to blow up government to make it better. Natalie Portman even has a Keanu Reeves moment in the train, when she just stares. Guns are better, and so was the Matrix. F... this movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

RyanJMar 19, 2006

Turd on a stick. If you're interested in the drama side of this story, read 1984. If you're interested in the action side, rent Demolition Man.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

WongitMar 24, 2006

I didnt know what to expect with this film, i did not however expect to see a terrible film...which is exactly what i got. boring. pure boredom is what i got out of this movie.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

NathanF.Mar 26, 2006

Im not saying Hugo Weaving didn't do a good V or that Natalie Portman cant act all those features were what might this movie okay instead of lying in a gutter what i'm concerned about is the story. what were they thinking what kind Im not saying Hugo Weaving didn't do a good V or that Natalie Portman cant act all those features were what might this movie okay instead of lying in a gutter what i'm concerned about is the story. what were they thinking what kind of government what do that besides comunists and who does V think he is blowing up random monuments to show he means business I'm sorry but it's a load of worthless action... NOTE: do not see this movie unless you enjoy raw action then go ahead.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

MikeAug 1, 2006

The movie started out badly and it ended even worse!! An intresting idea, but badly excuted.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

3

JohnN.Aug 16, 2006

Hard to imagine why all of the good grades here for V. Must be an age gap, because I cant think of any reason why anyone over 21 would like this movie. At least Natalie Portman is in it, but then they cut her hair and ruin that too. Very Hard to imagine why all of the good grades here for V. Must be an age gap, because I cant think of any reason why anyone over 21 would like this movie. At least Natalie Portman is in it, but then they cut her hair and ruin that too. Very shallow, undeveloped plot that takes to long to go nowhere.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

3

BlancoA.Mar 18, 2006

I have to agree with the user who stated that the best part of the film is the ending credits. Seriously, "Street Fighting Man" by the Stones and the artwork accompanying it were brilliant. But seriously, people, admit that you had toI have to agree with the user who stated that the best part of the film is the ending credits. Seriously, "Street Fighting Man" by the Stones and the artwork accompanying it were brilliant. But seriously, people, admit that you had to struggle a little to like this movie. It has MAJOR pacing problems. At least 7 or 8 times I looked at my friend and said, "Damn! They're got to keep this thing moving!" And I loved the subtle propaganda of such items as the poster that read "Coalition of the Willing" - which featured the American Flag & British Union Jack superimposed with the Swastika. Yeah, attemped to remove a dictator and free 30 million people to create democracy, and you're compared to a regime that exterminated 5 million jews in concentration camps. That's reality. Folks, if the US and the UK are the biggest enemies in the world, the rest of the globe must be a utopia.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

MattB.Mar 25, 2006

This film is pedantic and takes itself way too seriously and the effect was to make it unintentionally humorous. The writers thought the audience would be too stupid to see the self-inherent evils of a fascist regime, so they needed to This film is pedantic and takes itself way too seriously and the effect was to make it unintentionally humorous. The writers thought the audience would be too stupid to see the self-inherent evils of a fascist regime, so they needed to manipulate us by portraying them as ugly, shifty-eyed rapists. It would have been more thought provoking and real had they been portrayed as charasmatic or, better yet, like your co-worker or next door neighbor, the average Joe. What a cliche that the antagonists were motivated, really, by power and not their ideology. True Belivers are always the most freightening. The writing was hackneyed and overly Verbose in an apparent attempt to give the film some sort of legitimacy through seeming literary. Thick melodrama made it impossible to empathize with the characters or care what happened to them. Five minutes into the film I had a vision of the writers hunched over the 'V' section of Webster's frantically trying to shoehorn every word into a coherent sentence. What exactly is the film's message supposed to be? Buildings can be blown up without killing innocents but instead be capped with an uplifting fireworks finale? Replacing the devastation caused by blowing up a building with a tame 4th of July display is a bone chilling piece of apologist propaganda. Anyone who thinks this film blurs the line between terrorists and 'freedom fighters' is a few cards short of a full deck. The fact that the writers needed to portray England as some sort of cartoonish neo-Nazi dictatorship to gride their political ax proves the lameness of their position. However, Natalie Portman does a nice job despite the poor script. Stephen Rea was the highlight of the film.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

RMJun 18, 2006

I do not want to sound over the top and completely slag this film off but it is officially the third time I walked out of a film because it got embarassing to watch (the last was AI). I thought it would be interesting because I quite enjoyed I do not want to sound over the top and completely slag this film off but it is officially the third time I walked out of a film because it got embarassing to watch (the last was AI). I thought it would be interesting because I quite enjoyed books such as '1984', 'Clockwork Orange' and 'Brave New World', all set in dystopian sociaties, but thought this was a really dumb effort, and it's almost laughable that people can even respond to the message that the film conveys when it is done by such silly means. Perhaps then I can enjoy the action, acting, settings etc instead. Well no actually. The action scenes were just as ridiculous as 'The Matrix' which is partly why I cannot take it seriously. And the acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I appreciate when people hate a film and write a review they tend to say the acting is bad even if it isn't because they're in rant mode. But here it really is. English people really don't talk like that - i.e. they don't all sound like snobs. The way English accents are done in Hollywood films can be terrible. It was just all very unconvincing and cringeworthy at parts. So not only is the message ruined by how unrealistic it all is, it is difficult to enjoy the story when you are constantly reminded that the characters are all just actors trying to put on a silly accent. Seriously, the British accents here are almost suitable for a comedy. To mention a few postives. There were the odd funny moments - it was not taking itself to seriously thank god. Some of the visuals were also quite impressive. And, in fairness, maybe the actors were not actually that bad and it was just the rubbish dialogue that made them seem like they were. It is a dumb film that wants to be clever but not everyone is like me and enjoys dumb clever films anyway.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

NKMar 30, 2006

Very dissapointed, most of the Anti-Bush down with America crowd will resonate with it and give it high marks, I personally thought it was rubbish, I was nodding off. One or two CGI scenes that were done well, the rest was just pretty poor. Very dissapointed, most of the Anti-Bush down with America crowd will resonate with it and give it high marks, I personally thought it was rubbish, I was nodding off. One or two CGI scenes that were done well, the rest was just pretty poor. Too bad, I was hoping it would be much better.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful

2

TomO.Mar 20, 2006

Look. Alan Moore had his name taken off the credits for a reason. The original comic is a magnificent piece of subversive, political and social commentary; this film is cynical action fodder, pandering to the feeble idea that we the public Look. Alan Moore had his name taken off the credits for a reason. The original comic is a magnificent piece of subversive, political and social commentary; this film is cynical action fodder, pandering to the feeble idea that we the public are all 'good people' who rise up when oppressed by the forces of evil. Give me a break. Moore tackled issues of complicity and how fascism can be taken as a viable system of government. He created a piece of work that demmands introspection from its audience. This film removes any value from its original source and replaces it with another empty piece of 'entertainment', peddling the usual nonsense that 'good people' (us) only let bad, destructive people into power when they have been tricked. This film is a cop out on every level.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

RobR.Aug 11, 2006

This is a simple movie for children, posing as "art". It takes more than a 130 minute running time to make a movie compelling. You'd have thought that after the dreadful Matrix sequels, the Wachowski brothers would have realised that.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

ColbyS.Jul 1, 2007

I was expecting a lot better, maybe. It turned out to be a liberal, leftist propaganda vehicle first, story second. The only good press it got was from mainly liberal publications. Go figure. Beyond my disagreement with the beliefs I was expecting a lot better, maybe. It turned out to be a liberal, leftist propaganda vehicle first, story second. The only good press it got was from mainly liberal publications. Go figure. Beyond my disagreement with the beliefs expressed, this could've been made so much better, as the concept could've been riveting. Instead it was boring as all hell and preachy to boot.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

MitchC.Mar 19, 2006

I was just bored out of my mind by this movie. And did anyone else think the finale was reminiscent of the end of "Caddyshack", when Carl blows up the golf course? It was funny! I don't think that's what the director was going for.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

JanB.Mar 20, 2006

Marxists and anarchists will love this movie. The basic theme? Christians are fascists who seek to round up all the gays and Muslims, USA and UK "Coalition of the willing" are nazis who kill their own people with bio weapons to create a Marxists and anarchists will love this movie. The basic theme? Christians are fascists who seek to round up all the gays and Muslims, USA and UK "Coalition of the willing" are nazis who kill their own people with bio weapons to create a police state. The looney left's beliefs brought to the big screen at last!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

MarkS.Apr 3, 2006

What a disappointment! Part rambling, babbling political rally drivel, mixed with Natalie Portman dealing with the affections of older men (yuck). Earth to Wachowski brothers!: if you're going to have a man with a British accent, What a disappointment! Part rambling, babbling political rally drivel, mixed with Natalie Portman dealing with the affections of older men (yuck). Earth to Wachowski brothers!: if you're going to have a man with a British accent, wearing a mask, give numerous monologues, please tone down the background music so we might be able to make it all out.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

JamesQ.Aug 19, 2006

Catholic fascists take over England, put up big black and red crosses, repress gays, execute people for possessing the Koran, and rule by fear. Only a masked wierdo can save them. He does this by--well, that would ruin it. Suffice it to say, Catholic fascists take over England, put up big black and red crosses, repress gays, execute people for possessing the Koran, and rule by fear. Only a masked wierdo can save them. He does this by--well, that would ruin it. Suffice it to say, the ending is absurd. Written by the Wachowski brothers and produced by Joel Silver.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

DavidOct 17, 2008

An all-around dreadful film. Terrible dialogue, subpar acting, wrapped in a story filled with absurd, juvenile politics with obvious and obligatory nods to the present-day "War on Terror" for easily amused critics to fawn over. Provoked noAn all-around dreadful film. Terrible dialogue, subpar acting, wrapped in a story filled with absurd, juvenile politics with obvious and obligatory nods to the present-day "War on Terror" for easily amused critics to fawn over. Provoked no emotional or visceral reaction from me, other than laughter at its banality, and when it ended, astonishment at how such garbage could be so widely praised. If you're out of high school, and like good films, pass on this.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

2

JasonDApr 16, 2008

A waste of time. Tries too many directions at once: arthouse, action entertainment, and moral message. Without any clear direction it failed to make sense or even entertain. I can give up the money for a rental, but I felt robbed of my time.

1 of 2 users found this helpful

1

SverreE.Mar 20, 2006

Argh! Forget the politics! This simply isn't a very good film!

0 of 2 users found this helpful

1

JayN.Mar 17, 2006

Horrible movie. One of the worst from McTrigue yet!!

0 of 2 users found this helpful

1

EuroMar 23, 2006

I cant believe there are people that actually admire this movie. Its the same people that probably never took a political science class or read a book about history of politics. It over simplifies a totalitarian regime and makes a terrorist I cant believe there are people that actually admire this movie. Its the same people that probably never took a political science class or read a book about history of politics. It over simplifies a totalitarian regime and makes a terrorist look like a hero. If you can make money with such crap..says a lot about the majority of people.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

TomS.Jan 25, 2007

Over the top trash unbelievable trash. Revolution? I'd like to see what happens next... It's tried to be too clever. Theres nothing to tell us why the government has seemingly gone crazy and decided to shout at everyone... Over the top trash unbelievable trash. Revolution? I'd like to see what happens next... It's tried to be too clever. Theres nothing to tell us why the government has seemingly gone crazy and decided to shout at everyone... ;Portman's performance is awful, not sure anyone who has reviewed this is English but to me its pretty blatant from the start her voice is dodgy . Silly action sequences where V can withstand 5 billion bullets. Doesn't make you think. Sound is bland. Anything else? Oh yes, its all very well blowing buildings up but it really won't sort anything out. I can see that humankind is supposed to be united under tragedies like oppression but this just wouldn't happen. Not even in a world where people where gimpy masks. There is a reason for law! Anarchy in the UK? No thanks. It's more of a personal thing to express oneself in a rebellious and sometimes stupid way but this film captures what the UK would be like if everyone had taken crack and then decided to terrorize parliament. Ridiculous! Probably the worst film I have seen since Revolver! 1 star because the DVD didn't break.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

KellyD.Mar 18, 2006

V is for very tedious and tiresome. Totally derivative crap.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

JillJ.Mar 23, 2006

I cannot believe the good reviews this movie has gotten. It ignores the interesting characters (the bad guys) and never tells us how in the world V does everything he does. That would have been more interesting. Poor Natalie Portman, either I cannot believe the good reviews this movie has gotten. It ignores the interesting characters (the bad guys) and never tells us how in the world V does everything he does. That would have been more interesting. Poor Natalie Portman, either looking scared or lost. Stating the obvious in line after line. We spend much time on back stories of people we do not care about - their fate is sealed.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

CraigAaen-S.Mar 20, 2006

V for Very Very Bad Film - As a fan of the comic, my opinion might be considered biased, but the FIVE people I took with me to the cinema had never heard of Alan Moore or V for Vendetta and we all roundly thought that this film was utterly V for Very Very Bad Film - As a fan of the comic, my opinion might be considered biased, but the FIVE people I took with me to the cinema had never heard of Alan Moore or V for Vendetta and we all roundly thought that this film was utterly rubbish. Don't be fooled by the trailer, there isn't enough action to provide half-decent entertainment. Instead the Wachowski Boys are trying their damnedest to be intelligent and they just make everybody sound stupid. There is a fine line between poking fun at the British and being completely patronizing. Maybe that can explain the good reviews of this film over on that side of the Atlantic, but I can't explain the good reviews of it that we've had over here. There is nothing to recommend this film apart from a mildly amusing Benny Hill type sketch in the middle. Utterly cringeworthy. I was embarrassed that I had recommended going to see it.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful

0

KristinaSApr 6, 2009

The film won

0 of 4 users found this helpful

0

SudhirMar 19, 2006

Just got back from V for Vendetta. Bad bad acting (Portman's pretentious accent sucked) or the boring buildup; the really dull action scenes or the one sided cliched dialogue. And it ran for like three hours. Not to mention HUGE plot Just got back from V for Vendetta. Bad bad acting (Portman's pretentious accent sucked) or the boring buildup; the really dull action scenes or the one sided cliched dialogue. And it ran for like three hours. Not to mention HUGE plot holes. At the end of it all I was completely disoriented. What's with the Tchaikovsky music, or the TV infatuation? Or the overuse of 'bollocks' ? If there was *any* pseudo philosophical symbolism hidden in the movie someplace, they did not make an effort to get the message out.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

ChrisS.Mar 20, 2006

The worst thing about this film is that it makes the ideals of Anarchism and the Libertarian-Left sound completely stupid.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

0

ShellyC.Mar 22, 2006

I feel this movie skimmed the surface of several American political issues without explanation or justification of any of them. I perceived blame being assigned to the US for terrorism and tyranny. Had this movie's political agenda been I feel this movie skimmed the surface of several American political issues without explanation or justification of any of them. I perceived blame being assigned to the US for terrorism and tyranny. Had this movie's political agenda been properly billed I would have never given my money for such psycho babble politics. One of the "good guys" had a nazi flag with the Koran in his secret room. This movie was pure garbage!… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

JosiahR.Mar 20, 2006

I'm dumber for having seen this movie. Incoherent, lacking in style, over-wrought pretentious dialogue. Like a pissed off teenager who can't get laid wrote it. Geez.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

0

LukeD.Jun 3, 2006

a quixotic piece of orwellian gargage. watching this movie is like eating bananas without peeling them.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

PaulW.Feb 27, 2008

A completely farcical take on Orwell's 1984 with one of the worst 'acting performances' by Natalie Portman to date. Superficiality of characters, plot and politics and not even in a entertaining way. Special mention must go to A completely farcical take on Orwell's 1984 with one of the worst 'acting performances' by Natalie Portman to date. Superficiality of characters, plot and politics and not even in a entertaining way. Special mention must go to the cringe worthy script with a fetish for sophomore-level alliteration starting with the letter 'v'. In short, the perfect film for a general acclaim and fit to shelve next to other recent entries in the IMDb top250 such as Million Dollar Baby, Children of Men and Labirinto del Fauno which most dreadfully shows the abysmal decline in good taste and cinematic appreciation which is sweeping the Earth like a virus.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

ChrisB.Mar 18, 2006

movie was awful. If you have people you cant stand, suggest this movie to them. The only part i enjoyed were the end credits!

0 of 6 users found this helpful

0

AaronA.Mar 19, 2006

The whole point about fascism is that it's driven by nihilism. I don't like George Bush either, but maybe if the Wachowski brothers understood this, they wouldn't have spent quite so much time fetishizing Nazi aesthetics and The whole point about fascism is that it's driven by nihilism. I don't like George Bush either, but maybe if the Wachowski brothers understood this, they wouldn't have spent quite so much time fetishizing Nazi aesthetics and celebrating senseless violence for its own sake.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

KelR.Mar 24, 2006

WARNING: This movie is a diabolically conceived slew of hate propoganda, don't be fooled. Does terrorism seem cool to you? Yet, we see the ultra left, the so called champions of peace, poison the minds of young americans (who is the WARNING: This movie is a diabolically conceived slew of hate propoganda, don't be fooled. Does terrorism seem cool to you? Yet, we see the ultra left, the so called champions of peace, poison the minds of young americans (who is the target audience) with this tripe, glorifying evil.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

AdamX.Mar 26, 2006

Horrible, horrible movie. Everything in it seemed to be so poorly executed it was quite embarrassing and cringe worthy to witness. It wasn't even engaging enough to be a brainless entertainment flick, just boring pacing, plot, direction Horrible, horrible movie. Everything in it seemed to be so poorly executed it was quite embarrassing and cringe worthy to witness. It wasn't even engaging enough to be a brainless entertainment flick, just boring pacing, plot, direction and acting. The good responses this film has gotten astounds and confuses me.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

DavidHammerFeb 21, 2007

Scarcely a single redeeming quality. Managed to see that other piece-of-shit juvenile myopic lefty vision of a future fascist dystopia Britain Children of Men for I saw this (for the record, I'm left-wing too), but this one, although tooScarcely a single redeeming quality. Managed to see that other piece-of-shit juvenile myopic lefty vision of a future fascist dystopia Britain Children of Men for I saw this (for the record, I'm left-wing too), but this one, although too calamitously silly to be as bland as the aforementioned film, takes biscuit in the laughable stakes. Jurn Hurt LITERALLY has the same expression on his face every time we see him (while he's alive). Portman spends the film sitting in people's living rooms and being tortured and generally struggling to conjure up an convincing facial expression (why is this woman allowed to work in film?), Weaving talks in awkward, pretentious riddles, and stabs people.

It didn't seem possible that the Wachowski Bros could something more cringemakingly awful than the Matrix Revolutions, but it appears they have truely outdone themselves.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

AnonymousMCAug 11, 2006

Entirely self-contraticting, whoever came up with this movie and wrote the script simply wanted to make themselves seem smart by stealing real ideas from people like Orwell, but they werent smart enough to know what to do with those ideas, soEntirely self-contraticting, whoever came up with this movie and wrote the script simply wanted to make themselves seem smart by stealing real ideas from people like Orwell, but they werent smart enough to know what to do with those ideas, so they just used a bunch of verbage to make it sound like they knew what they were talking about. It was hard for me to sit through this movie without tearing its "ideas" apart, and the write snuck in a couple social commentaries that had nothing to do with anything. If you think this is thought-provoking and smart, read Orwell's 1984 to find out what those words really mean.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

V for Vendetta

User Reviews