Question for the people across the Pond: How does this movie play in your countries? Seems to me that the glorification of Guy Fawkes may cut against the grain, or am I wrong?

Guy Fawkes was used because he has become a sort of anti-hero in this country, and this is because the legend (a revolutionary) has overtaken the fact (they were out to assassinate the King).

Fascinating how history can change things. The tradition of bonfire night was to burn a representation of Guy Fawkes, so make a dummy dressed in 17th century clothing, sit on a street corner asking 'Penny for the Guy' (not sure where this originates from) and getting enough money to buy some fireworks. Build a bonfire and burn Guy Fawkes, because he's the bad guy.

But the last twenty years this part of it seems to have fallen away, it has almost become a celebration of him, rather than a celebration of foiling his dastardly plan (although he became a representative of a group of people who were caught and executed - I don't think he was the ring-leader even).

Hoping to see the film this week, but the comic didn't cover too much of Guy Fawkes history except to use some parallels, so apologies if the film covers most of this.

As for reaction, none that I've seen. It's a film, and Kate Moss was seen kissing someone recently, so that is much more debate worthy.

And the Conservative issue: the comic was written during the reign of the Conservatives that is why they are used, but I'm sure Alan Moore would be the first to agree that Labour could quite easily slot into that role nowadays (it is Labour pushing for compulsory ID cards...).

Dave

Saw the film last night. I liked it. Got all the major beats of the comic down. Alan Moore's record stands for itself, but why he took his name off of this is beyond me. As interpretations go, I think they did a great job. Films that try and take place over a long period of time (a year in this case) are notoriously difficult to balance, this one worked.

Natalies accent was a little off in places, trying to chanel Keira Knightly, but it didn't detract, I thought she did well. And Stephen Rea was terrific.

The Guy Fawkes intro was clearly for the benefit of anyone outside of Britain, and was not entirely accurate, but hey, it's Hollywood.

And the Conservative issue: the comic was written during the reign of the Conservatives that is why they are used, but I'm sure Alan Moore would be the first to agree that Labour could quite easily slot into that role nowadays (it is Labour pushing for compulsory ID cards...).

One thing I noted, is that the Chancellor began as a Conservative, but he became something else. The pie chart they flashed to emphasise his majority showed the colour black, with red and blue as not enough pie to feed the aforementioned Kate Moss.

And John Hurt as the Chancellor, now that has a certain symmetry to it when you think about 1984...

Dave

And you're mostly correct except in classifying Nazis as socialists (aka left-wing). Please, Biggles, you know better than that.

Of course I know better! But they called themselves "Socialists"; NSDAP (Nazis) were the National-Socialist German Workers' Party. It's not unusual for parties to disguise their true philosophy with deceptive names. What's the term Orwell used in 1984? Newspeak?

Saw the film last night. I liked it. Got all the major beats of the comic down. Alan Moore's record stands for itself, but why he took his name off of this is beyond me. As interpretations go, I think they did a great job. Films that try and take place over a long period of time (a year in this case) are notoriously difficult to balance, this one worked.

Natalies accent was a little off in places, trying to chanel Keira Knightly, but it didn't detract, I thought she did well. And Stephen Rea was terrific.

The Guy Fawkes intro was clearly for the benefit of anyone outside of Britain, and was not entirely accurate, but hey, it's Hollywood.



One thing I noted, is that the Chancellor began as a Conservative, but he became something else. The pie chart they flashed to emphasise his majority showed the colour black, with red and blue as not enough pie to feed the aforementioned Kate Moss.

And John Hurt as the Chancellor, now that has a certain symmetry to it when you think about 1984...

Dave

John Hurt was excellent. Yes, it was kind of disquieting to see him portray the antithesis of his Winston Smith role. It worked well. .... and to see the "Mighty OZ" after they pulled back the curtain.....

I saw "V" today and loved it, loved it, loved it. I was moved to tears. I knew nothing about the comic or the story and just a bit about Guy Fawkes.

Hugo Weaving was terrific and Portman did a great job. Her accent was not an issue for me.

Stephen Rea is one of my favorite actors; he always hits the right note. I saw him first in Neil Jordan's "The Company of Wolves" (1984) and liked him immediately, followed by the notorious "The Crying Game," in which he was stupendous. He's great in "V."

The final scenes when the people come into their own touched me so much, I clapped and cried.

I've got to see this again.

Stephen Rea is one of my favorite actors; he always hits the right note. I saw him first in Neil Jordan's "The Company of Wolves" (1984) and liked him immediately, followed by the notorious "The Crying Game," in which he was stupendous. He's great in "V."

He was great as Bruno Hauptmann (the person convicted of the Lindbergh baby's kidnapping and murder) in "Crime of the Century", opposite Isabella Rossalini. I showed that movie to my Death Penalty class, and it went over really well.

My husband and I saw V for Vendetta and both loved it. There were some things that played out differently from what you expect based on the trailers and I liked that. Sometimes when that happens it makes a movie suck, but not this one. It had enough action and enough explanation that you can sympathize with the characters. Also, I agree that they portrayed the passing of time effectively without awkwardness or confusion. It was a great movie, IMO, and we'll definitely see it again when it comes out on DVD.

Minor SPOILERS!!!!









I loved how V introduced himself. Let's see if I can recall how it went:








“This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.”



After I heard this, all I could think was... Man! I hope he doesn't talk like this all the way through the movie! That was hard to follow!


KRW

Minor SPOILERS!!!!









I loved how V introduced himself. Let's see if I can recall how it went:

......

After I heard this, all I could think was... Man! I hope he doesn't talk like this all the way through the movie! That was hard to follow!


KRW

I agree. That was too much alliteration. I'm glad he didn't keep it up. But I don't think it detracted at all, so ......

I agree. That was too much alliteration. I'm glad he didn't keep it up. But I don't think it detracted at all, so ......

I just Loved his intro! It only added to his charector, I thought. But it was very vexing viewing V venting in such a vexating verse. That's all!


KRW