V for Vendetta

[Anakin Flair 0]

Were they in multiple scenes? It could be assumed that he had been leaving them behind at all the murders he had been committing. I mean, he's kill a LOT of people, it wouldn't be outrageous for the Coroner to see that and go "SHIT! NOT GOOD!"

 

I'm pretty sure they just completely messed that part up. Why would she be worried if she saw a flower at her workplace?

 

They say the flower is extinct in the film. They also show that V leaves them with the people he murders.

 

You still didn't answer my question. Why was the doctor worried when she saw the flower? In the graphic novel, the doctor saw the flower and knew that V was coming to kill her since the man from room 5 at Larkhill used to grow them. In the movie, they didn't even show V growing flowers at Larkhill or even mention that he did. Now again, why would the doctor fear for her life if she didn't even know that V was the man from room 5?

 

 

I answered this in a post at the top, but here it is again-

 

Not sure if it's in the comic, but in the novelization, when Finch is reading the Doctors diary, it explains that V was allowed to grow the flowers because he was such a well-behaved subject. It also explains that V used the fertilizers that he grew the flowers with to make the bombs he used to blow up the facility. They kind of allude to it when they say that the Lesbian couple grew the flowers later on in the movie.

 

Perhaps that will be included in the DVD.

 

...No you didn't. All you did was tell us how she knew in the novelization, which is the same way she knew in the graphic novel. I don't really care if they include that scene in the dvd. The whole point is that they messed it up in the movie and without that scene, there is no way she could have known V was the man from room 5.

 

 

Ah, my mistake. i mis-read your question.

 

And yeah, they fucked that up a bit. I still don't get why they cut that out...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

It was honestly a pleasant surprise to me too. I don't go to movies I think will suck, and I didn't think V would really suck, but I was prepared to be disappointed. However, it was actually really good. I was prepare to hate it since Alan Moore had disowned it, but they actually, in my mind, kept V decidedly a villainous hero, They kept his mad, theatrical flair, I think they did great. And the last action sequence, though tacked on to excite the audience, was the bees' knees.

 

The only recent movie that has pleasantly surprised me like that is Constantine, which I was fully prepared to hate, but was, IMO, very surprisingly good. Not a great mocie, but good. Who knew a blonde, alcoholic, chain-smoking English asshole could be portrayed quite competently by Keanu?

 

 

 

You used the phrase "the bees knees". I've heard this before and think more good things should be described this way.

[Brett Favre 0]

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.

 

Thats a hell of a line(s).

 

Someone should translate.

[Anakin Flair 0]

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.

 

Thats a hell of a line(s).

 

Someone should translate.

 

Roughly translated- I'm going to kill all of those mother-fuckers.

 

 

Roughly translated, of course.

[Special K 0]

Only thing I don't understand is what versimillitude's supposed to refer to in that speech. and the 'held as a votive' clause is lame and could be cut out entirely.

 

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction

 

That's a great line right there, though.

 

Even if I did call it a bouillabaise of bullshit the first time I read it.

 

I thought the lines would be delivered way too seriously. The light-hearted manner in which he read that was perfect, though.

[Justice 0]

Got back from it.

 

I was disappointed. A lot of odd and unnecessary changes in certain areas, and one of the most moronic added-in subplots in the history of adaptations really hurt the whole experience for me. I can understand cutting a few of them, but the huge one they added in pissed me off a lot.

 

The parts I did like were things like the Evey/Valerie (I can't believe you didn't like that, cabbageboy, I thought that was incredibly well done), the end (Which was actually very clever and such, and the acting, which was truly fantastic. I believed they did the parts very well for the changes made. Hugo Weaving, in particular, deserves something for being able to play a character so well without any sort of facial expressions.

 

Overall, as a movie, I'd give it *** of four.

 

As an adaptation, I'd give it * 1/2 of four.

 

My overall opinion: ** of four. Stupid changes, great acting, it balances out.

[cabbageboy 0]

Just wondering but what was the added in subplot that you didn't care for?

 

As far as the Valerie subplot, I think I might enjoy it more on a 2nd viewing. Now I at least know there is a point to it, whereas when originally seeing it I kept thinking "Why is this in the movie? Is there a point?" And then a few minutes later it was explained.

 

And yes, one cannot give Hugo Weaving enough props. He was awesome here under a mask for the entire movie. In fact this week I rewatched the Matrix series and one of the biggest drawbacks of the sequels is the limited screentime of Agent Smith.

[Justice 0]

I think if you had read it before you saw it, you'd enjoy it more. It does help that you know it has meaning (A lot of it, in fact).

 

The subplot I didn't care for:

 

The fact that 1)A plague rather than a nuclear war caused it the whole Facist regime, and 2) That the people in power had caused it. It was just so unbelievably insulting, in my opinion. I enjoyed the original because people turned to the facists because something happened beyond anyone's control and the facists seemed like the true answer. That the people gave up their freedom without being tricked into it is something very powerful. In this one, it was not only too politically allegorical (PHARMECUTICALS OMFG), but it was so fucking cliche. There was something much less "Super-villiany" about the original because it seemed more and more regular people doing what they thought was right, even though it was so horribly wrong. Just... yeah. Plus, to be able to pull it off, they had to change the leader character completely. The yelling High Chancellor was a far cry from the semi-sympathsizeable Mr. Susan.

 

Just... yeah. The whole 'They caused the virus' thing was so movie cliche and didn't really NEED to happen that way. It just really pissed me off, and I can sort of understand why people see it as a political film. I dunno, it's just a lot more black and white, while I loved the shades of grey in the original.

 

Yeah.

[MDH257 0]

I thought "Valerie's Biography" was the best part of the movie.