No idea on either. It’s never explained what exactly happened to him, or what his face looked like. The “no eyes” thing is a movie creation. In the book, the doctor asks to see his face again. He shows her, and she’s says it’s beautiful. But we have no idea what he looks like.
I had no knowledge of this story beyond what I’ve seen in the trailers. I just saw it tonight and I loved it! I thought the performances were outstanding (Hugo Weaving is my favorite actor, and he proved again how great he can be by portraying such a multi-layered character with just his voice) and Natalie Portman was quite impressive as well. I loved V’s opening monologue. Is there a script of that scene online? (Was it verbatim from the graphic novel?)
I thought the scene where we find out it was V who had kept Evey prisoner was very shocking and unexpected. That was a very bold move to have your main title character do in a big Hollywood film, IMO. I like that I didn’t know what to make of the character at that point. The mental torture he put Evey through was pretty harsh. I thought it would just be a typical hero scene where somehow he broke in and killed all the guys and is now rescuing her, blah blah, and was quite happy to find the exact opposite! I knew the last interrogator (the one that says she is free) was Hugo Weaving from his voice but now I want to see the film again to see if I recognize him as the earlier ones.
I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. I wasn’t expecting it to be that intelligent or well-written. It was very well done. I was grinning right off from V’s opening monologue when he meets Evie. Of course, the facts that Natalie Portman is one of the hottest women alive (in the first half, anyway) and Stephen Fry is one of my favorite actors didn’t hurt any, either.
As for your questions, Baldwin, I haven’t read the book, but no, you didn’t miss any dialogue. I think we were supposed to believe both of those things were true, but they left it ambiguous.
What is the movie about? I saw the trailer and thought “wow, how lame”. I thought it was just an action flick featuring a cartoonish masked guy who goes around kicking ass – like a warped male version of Aeon Flux or something.
But now some of you are saying it’s good… and it has Natalie Portman. Hmm. So is it actually something more than what the trailer suggested?
That’s sort of the first half hour or so, then it becomes more intelligent and meaningful. It’s set in a fascist future Britain, controlled by an evil dictator. V is the cartoonish masked guy out to bring about regime change via acts of terrorism. Natalie Portman’s character gets caught up in his plot more or less by accident. There’s a lot of social commentary (sometimes a bit overly heavy-handed, IMHO) and just general subversiveness. It’d be hard to explain too much more without giving stuff away.
Hit submit too soon…
But it’s definitely not just another action flick. Think how Fight Club seemed like just another action movie from the trailers. This isn’t the same level of depth, but it’s kind of similar in the way there’s more going on underneath the surface.
Cool, thanks. In that case, I might go 
And I gotta remember to rent Fight Club too.
Alan Moore - who is a fucking master of his craft - wrote it in the mid-80’s, at the height of Thatcherism, when it seemed all too prescient. Damn me, but we need an Alan Moore thread.
three snaps in V formation
Loved it! Uncool me, I didn’t know it was based on comics until the beginning credits. Even if you don’t think you like comic-based movies (because to be honest, I don’t dig comics either), don’t let that stop you from seeing the movie.
It had all the elements I like in movies:
-intelligent dialogue
-a good guy who does questionable things
-a bad guy who switches teams towards the end.
-a guy kicking ass in a long flowing cape, dressed in form-fitting clothes, not afraid to show feminine as well as macho qualities (he looked so cute with his apron!)
-girl shedding away her pretty trappings and finding her inner strength
-rebellion against tyranny and oppression
-timely message relevant to our politics and current events
-humor that’s neither forced nor over-the-top
-unanswered questions that leave room for the imagination
-explosions set to classical music
But I did have a question:
How did V get a hold of Evey right before she was imprisoned? Did he have his own goon ready to kidnap her the moment the government busted in to get the other guy? And who did her interrogation? Was it V?
I believe he knew where she was hiding and came to get her, because he knew the police would arrest her friend. So he just snuck in wearing a commando outfit and no one noticed. And yes, he was the one who interrogation the whole time.
I saw it last night, and loved it. I knew it was based on a graphic novel but had no familiarity with it. I thought it would be an amusing action movie, and was absolutely blown away by the way that it was much more. Question:
In the original novel, do we know what happens after V’s death - do the people rise up and all that? What happens to Evey?
I very much enjoyed it. I hadn’t read the source material, so I had no base to compare it and therefore I just enjoyed the film.
If you haven’t read the original comic*, you really should. Certain aspects of it haven’t dated very well (most of them have either been updated or excised for the film), but in general it’s a powerhouse piece of writing that still holds up, and it’s tremendously influential in the field.
That being said, to answer your question, at the end of the original book:
[spoiler]V is killed rather earlier than happens in the movie, and his death is announced on the speakers. People begin to gather, but they do not wear “V” masks, and they are not really his “followers.”
The most significant difference: Evey takes V’s mask and cloak and assumes his identity, making a public appearance in which she says, “Reports of my death were exaggerated.” The crowd reacts forcefully.
Then she returns to the underground, places V’s body on the explosive-laden train, and sends him on his way, as in the film.
Parliament is destroyed in the explosion, but it isn’t really a centerpiece; it’s shown in just a couple of panels. The cop played by Stephen Rea, for example, is walking through the city after having left his agency, and glances over his shoulder at the rising fireball. Then he turns and resumes his wandering.
In a park, he runs into the wife of a high-level official who has been seen trying to manipulate people through the book (she doesn’t really appear in the movie; the infighting among the power elite is radically simplified for the film) and abandons her to the human vultures who are coming out of the woodwork. And then it ends on a panel of the cop walking down a dark empty street into an unknown future.
The V of the book is much more explicit about simply wanting to tear things down and take the lid off the pressure cooker. He doesn’t care what kind of world comes from the ashes; he just wants to destroy the current one. This is softened somewhat in the film, and the different ending reflects this. The book has V’s objective fulfilled by Evey, and that’s it, The End. The movie strongly hints that the people will again be taking responsibility for their society, which is quite a different message to go out on.[/spoiler]
*This is an asterisk because it’s a debate point among genre people. Strictly speaking, V for Vendetta is a comic, not a graphic novel, because it was originally published serially, in comic-book installments, before being collected in book form. By contrast, a graphic novel, technically, is written specifically to be published as a book. It’s a legitimate distinction, but one only the pedants and purists make a fuss about. Just FYI.
Sorry, this was a response to NinjaChick, but Khadaji sneaked in while I was cleaning up my coding.
The movie’s ending is significantly different from the ending of the book. There is no popular uprising with lots and lots of masks in the book. When V is shot and killed, Evey takes his mask herself and becomes V’s heir, the next V. I found the scene in which she takes the mask very moving in the book- but you really should read it for yourself for full effect.
I quite enjoyed it. I haven’t read the book (yet), but I’ve got a high opinion of him in general. I think he was being just a wee bit immature with his rather vocal disowning of the film, but that’s his right, I guess. It’s strange to see the illustrator creditted and not the writer.
Very good. It’s nice to see a film that’s willing to take a chance, not only politically, but with some moral ambiguity. One point that I didn’t like: [spoiler] Okay, clear paraells were being built between Norsefire and certain current political powers. That’s fair enough for satire and allegory.
But, I didn’t like that Norsefire was built around avenging an atrocity that they themselves committed. It’s a fair mirror to Hitler’s rise, I suppose, but it also reminded me too closely of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Is this in the comics, and am I being too sensitive? Or did anyone else get that vibe?[/spoiler]
I have never read the book or comic or whatever it’s original form was, but really enjoyed the movie. I was expecting something with a lot less depth. But I do have a question for those that know the story from the original:
When V was in the bedroom of the doctor, she said that when the cop gave her the rose to examine that she knew who it was. Why? The only other reference to the particular variety of rose was that Valerie’s lover grew them. How did the doctor know about that or that Valerie had been sending V the messages?
I saw the film last night after having just read the graphic novel at the recommendation of some Dopers (I’m usually not really a comic book guy…I think V is the first graphic novel I’ve ever read). Most of the changes didn’t really bother me much but there were a couple of changes which seemed unnecessary and which I thought were better in the novel. For instance:
One of my favorite parts of the novel was V’s television speech after he takes over the network. I liked his extended metaphor of talking to humanity as though it was an emplyee at a company ("I’ve been reliably informed that you always hurt the one you love’). In the movie the speech was completely (and unnecessarily, IMO) rewritten). Also (and this is a small thing) they changed the Violet Carsons to Scarlet Carsons for seemingly no reason. That missed the whole point that so many of the things which were important in V’s life started with a V.
I did think the actions scenes and the explosions were well choreographed, though and there were also some changes that I thought worked [spoiler](Changing the “Voice of Fate” guy from simply being a newsreader to being a Limbaugh-style demagogue, for instance[/spolier].
There was one extra touch which I thought was a surprisingly pointed (even borderline offensive) jab at GWB…The poster reading “Coalition of the Willing” with a swastika on it.
I was very glad that they left Valerie’s story intact. I agree with vibrotronica that it’s the heart of the story and the movie rendered those scenes very well.
Over all I thought it worked well as a movie. I was entertained.
Left Hand of Dorkness, if you’re reading this thread, thanks for the recommendation of the novel. I liked it a lot. I intend to pick up The Watchmen now.
In the novel it was explained that the prisoner in room 5 (room V) had been conscripted to grow vegetables for the staff at Larkhill. After proving himself to be a “genius at it,” he was given some small concessions and priveleges, one of which was that they allowed him to start growing roses. The reader knows (but not the staff) that he was growing them in memory of Valerie.
9
I just saw it tonight, and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie despite never having read the comic.
I thought it was intelligent and poignant.
The ending seemed a little rushed and out of place with the rest of the movie, but V’s vehement, vociferous verbalization was brilliant, as was Weaving’s ability to express emotion and character, with only his voice and subtle head movements, whilst wearing a mask (if only Marsden as Cyclops, impeded by only an eyepiece, could do half as well).
Natalie Portman is indeed a hottie, but also impressed me with her acting chops; up until now which I’d been doubtful of.
For what it’s worth to the rest of you, I highly recommend it.