V for Vendentta
Wachowski brothers’ new production V for Vendetta had generated some controversy before its release, but if V is for Vendetta, then P must be for Preposterous.
The movie is set in futuristic Britain under a totalitarian government that very much resembles Hitler’s fascist regime; even the leader is given the title of High Chancellor instead of customary Prime Minister. V is a freedom fighter/terrorist that both challenges the authorities and plots his personal revenge. As a tactic to terrorize the government, V chooses to bomb important historical buildings. It is laughable to think ordinary citizens would enjoy those explosions as some kind of firework and distressing to realize that filmmakers have V present people hope by destroying part of our history.
Wachowski brothers wrote the script based on the graphic novel and helped produce the film without directing it; however, it is clear that first time director James McTeigue is a protégé of Wachowski brothers. Like Wachowski brothers’ best work The Matrix, V’s story happens almost entirely in the dark and out-of-this-world kung fu is the weapon of choice for the hero. Once again the climactic fight scene reflects heavy influence of Hong Kong kung fu films on Wachowski brothers. They simply love the slow-mo bullet-time technology they revolutionized in The Matrix.
In the movie, V wears a Guy Fawkes mask at nearly all time and it is annoying to see the main character with only one emotion on his face. Natalie Portman plays Evey, a girl rescued by V, and eventually she becomes V’s ally and protégé. Portman has a beautiful and delicate face, but her acting has always struck me as raw. She seems to put too much effort into her performance and in the end all she really accomplishes is a half-decent British accent. Stephen Rea plays another of his trademark world-weary characters. From the very beginning, you know his Inspector Finch will come around to V’s cause. John Hurt is the constantly yelling dictator Adam Sutler. Is shouting a prerequisite for all tyrants?
In the end V’s strategy of using violence to fight violence is just not convincing and it only makes me appreciate Gandhi even more.
The movie is set in futuristic Britain under a totalitarian government that very much resembles Hitler’s fascist regime; even the leader is given the title of High Chancellor instead of customary Prime Minister. V is a freedom fighter/terrorist that both challenges the authorities and plots his personal revenge. As a tactic to terrorize the government, V chooses to bomb important historical buildings. It is laughable to think ordinary citizens would enjoy those explosions as some kind of firework and distressing to realize that filmmakers have V present people hope by destroying part of our history.
Wachowski brothers wrote the script based on the graphic novel and helped produce the film without directing it; however, it is clear that first time director James McTeigue is a protégé of Wachowski brothers. Like Wachowski brothers’ best work The Matrix, V’s story happens almost entirely in the dark and out-of-this-world kung fu is the weapon of choice for the hero. Once again the climactic fight scene reflects heavy influence of Hong Kong kung fu films on Wachowski brothers. They simply love the slow-mo bullet-time technology they revolutionized in The Matrix.
In the movie, V wears a Guy Fawkes mask at nearly all time and it is annoying to see the main character with only one emotion on his face. Natalie Portman plays Evey, a girl rescued by V, and eventually she becomes V’s ally and protégé. Portman has a beautiful and delicate face, but her acting has always struck me as raw. She seems to put too much effort into her performance and in the end all she really accomplishes is a half-decent British accent. Stephen Rea plays another of his trademark world-weary characters. From the very beginning, you know his Inspector Finch will come around to V’s cause. John Hurt is the constantly yelling dictator Adam Sutler. Is shouting a prerequisite for all tyrants?
In the end V’s strategy of using violence to fight violence is just not convincing and it only makes me appreciate Gandhi even more.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home