V for Vendetta

This commercial variation of Brazil is rather pleasantly surprising in the end. And although this is a very simplified insight, it isn’t at all dumb. Almost no action, very TV standard in visual terms, the actors have thankless roles (especially poor John Hurt, but who else could have given such a great performance?). And it is even more surprising in that it works rather well overall. The greatest positives are the main vocal performance by Hugo Weaving, the soundtrack and the pretty daring act of grafting of the story onto the contemporary political situation with thoughts that are currently not in fashion. At least in commercial America. What brings this picture down is that it doesn’t manage to create a convincing atmosphere of a nation under a dictatorship which would make the term “big brother" a reality. In the end, V stays in the realm of an entertaining Hollywood spectacle. (04/23/2006)

V For Vendetta stands or falls by the comic book original which I assume is far more complex and, let's say, smoother than the movie adaptation. However, the idea is brilliant, as are the acting performances - Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving are excellent, even though one of them has a mask on his face the whole time. Unfortunately, the poorly adapted screenplay and the unbalanced directing took something away from it. I don't know how much the movie would have changed if the Wachowski brothers had put everything they could into this project and didn't settle for mere, albeit extensive, cooperation. Could they have portrayed the environment of a dictatorship better? Could they have given more energy to the first half of the movie? Couldn’t they have maintained the standard of filming Vendetta deserves throughout? Let me put it this way, I will remember Mr. V well, and November 5th will never again go unnoticed on my calendar, but you will not hear me applauding the screenplay. (08/11/2006)

Although the visual strives for the highest heights and the concept appeals to me, V for Vendetta works only as a comic book in terms of effect. Just after it ends, all the stronger moments evaporated from my mind, and with a few years of distance, I only recall the totalitarian-British atmosphere and the always amazing Natalie Portman. A wasted opportunity, which is especially regrettable. There were so many potentially strong ideas. (05/07/2006)

I was quite surprised by how grounded the film is, especially considering it’s a comic book adaptation. When the action happens, it’s pleasantly modest—no grandiose explosions or anything like that. The story maintains a slower pace, with no rush; even with minimal attention, it’s easy to grasp what’s going on. The Wachowskis’ screenplay is almost perfect, with sharp, entertaining dialogues. Natalie Portman definitely doesn’t play a secondary role; in emotionally intense moments, she fully demonstrated why she is one of the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood. The story’s realistic portrayal of a totalitarian regime was reminiscent in many ways of Orwell’s "1984." On top of that, there are some quality suspenseful moments. The action sequence in the subway at the end left me with my mouth agape (the Matrix style was noticeable), and the ending was, in a word, satisfying. For me, it’s 8.5/10 (I didn’t expect that). (12/30/2020)

This film has an excellent atmosphere, which basically doesn't let up at all throughout, but also a rather leaky and unclear script. I felt that the director was trying to impress the viewer with an awful lot of big ideas and lessons only to end up serving a slightly above-average effective stew without a meaningful point. It's a shame, because apart from an interesting idea, the film also has high quality actors, yet their skills are somewhat wasted when most of the dialogue is based on a very poorly delivered totalitarian theme. Still, I rate it positively because I've seen much worse three-star films. (07/30/2011)