V for Vendetta

One of the most fundamental comics that Alan Moore wrote and David Lloyd illustrated has been transformed into a form that certainly won't disappoint. The ideas that Alan Moore had here, although not in their full extent, are captured here and the film clearly delivers the message that the government of the people can take different forms. A political film that is action-packed and yet retains an important idea. The combination of the Wachowski siblings (then brothers) with James McTeigue worked brilliantly. After "Watchmen", the second-best adaptation of Moore's work. (26/05/2014)

The comic book of the same name, written by Alan Moore, is considered one of the most famous comic works on the edge between classical superhero and alternative comics. At one point, I couldn't resist and bought it, only to be thoroughly disappointed afterward, although it is a successful work from an artistic point of view and several characters or motifs are also interesting. However, the comic "V for Vendetta" fails in two very important aspects for me, which are primarily the unbelievable portrayal of the authoritarian state, its origin, support, the whole system, and finally its downfall. It is evident in the story that this dystopia was written by a person from a nation that has not experienced true tyranny since the first half of the 17th century. That world is simply lifeless and unbelievable. The second negative aspect lies in the romantic hero who wears a theater costume and a mask in the middle of a city filled with informers and cameras, making him look like an undercover police officer trying to infiltrate a criminal gang. The film version, at least when it comes to the first problem, is much better because a film requires significant costs, and therefore it is necessary to make things easier for the viewer from a commercial perspective, and the script is therefore more explanatory and logical than its literary source. However, the second problem remains, namely the mysterious hero capable of defeating the dictatorship on his own. The comic source allows for the film to be perceived as an action-packed spectacle, but fortunately, the creators took a different path - after all, those two action scenes, especially the final one where the avenger has the 15-member police team fill him with bullets before slashing them with knives, sounds very stupid, like from the dumbest action movies. The film's weaknesses are the weaknesses of its comic source. Natalie Portman in the main role is only average in terms of acting, but naturally still beautiful and with a decent dose of personal charm. And no one can even recognize Hugo Weaving under the mask. Overall impression: 55%. By the way, the comic and the film do differ in many respects despite the basic plotline. The character of Chief Inspector Finch is crucial in both the comic and the film, but in the comic, he is more multi-layered and ultimately more tragic. He is a person who understands that he served a terrible system and did bad things, but cannot overcome his own shadow. (08/01/2010)

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. (11/08/2006)

The film is at its weakest in the action-packed beginning and ending, everything in between is a surprisingly thought-provoking narrative, full of reflections on the individual's struggle against dictatorship, their right to be different and non-conforming (an interesting take on the fate of a lesbian woman, probably the most emotional part of the film) and their willingness to submit to the fight against evil and totalitarianism, even at the cost of losing their own lives. Yes, thought-provoking, but ultimately somewhat contradictory, because I really don't think blowing up historic buildings in the manner of terrorists is the right and effective way to fight the establishment. The action scenes weren't anything great, and their lack was more of a plus in my eyes. The film's main problem is its unconvincing depiction of totalitarianism. The allusion to the omnipotence of the media and its ability to manipulate the crowd is obvious, but I missed the Orwellian despair, the heaviness of life in a totalitarian system. That's also why the overall emotional impact of the film on me was somewhat negligible. On this subject, next time I'd rather reach for Radford's 1984, Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451, or Kachyna's The Ear. (24/09/2006)

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. (30/07/2011)