Tuesday, October 8, 2013

A Negative Review: V for Vendetta Sucks

Terrorism is really cool, guys!

Okay. So we're in Britain, about 20 or 30 or something years into the future (although technology has not advanced, apparently), and the government has been overtaken by what the movie passes off as the conservative party, even though by the movie's portrayal, said party is much more akin to the Nazis that the former historically stood up against. Anyway. None of the streetlights work, ominous shadows are gloomily cast along every dark alley, and the police is everywhere and out to get you. Now, enter Evey – a character so ineptly acted by Natalie Portman that she is often equating "the U.K." with "England" and commanding a British accent one would expect from someone having just thrown up a lump of charcoal. No matter. Petty trivialities. As one would come to expect, the "V" character is soon on-screen and prancing about, spewing out tirade after meaningless tirade until eventually the movie decides it's had enough and some substance needs to be given. It is at this point where everything slowly goes wrong...

The government, as we come to learn, is what your typical college student would write against for his/her term paper in a given political science class. Homosexuality, Islam, and free speech are all frowned upon, as well as many other things that are protected by the ideals of the West of today. Naturally, V opposes this, embodying with a pompous air the desires of the previously mentioned students to fight for what is right – and accordingly, he is well-educated, keeps irrelevant worldly paintings in his secret hideout, and listens to a lot of classical music. V gladly and openly admits to Evey to being a terrorist. He really doesn't have to. Over the course of the movie, he will hijack a television station to broadcast his propaganda, kill, kidnap and torture those who disagree with him, and eventually blow up parts of Parliament. But don't forget guys! He has a softer side too! He constantly quotes literature! Oh and he also really likes Guy Fawkes because he wears a mask of the guy's face 24/7. So yes. Precisely. This movie is a trite, grandiose, and politically irrelevant wad of anarchist bullshit – the conservative-right doesn't control Britain; the present-day ideals of the West this movie cries out are being hindered have only been increasingly recognized in recent times; and terrorism is certainly not a valid means of achieving one's political goals.

So perhaps this movie merely fails as far as delivering its message goes – but oh no. You would be wrong to say that. So exceeding is its ineptitude that the creator of the eponymous graphic novel from which the movie is derived demanded that his name not be associated with it. V for Vendetta is full of illogicality on a technical level as well – in what country does a simple police detective investigate a case with implications reaching far above political corruption? In what country is the police so poorly trained so as to completely miss the un-shielded head of a stationary target from 5 feet's range? In what country do the tunnels lying beneath the government's main buildings entirely avoid continuous inspections for safety, or, you know, a shitload of explosives? The list goes on.

I mean, really, the only thing this movie has going for it is its visual style, which of course is only achieved because its directors dumped an obscene amount of money into it. And when finally it comes time for the final action scene, the same guys who brought you bullet-time give you... KNIVES WITH VISIBLE AIR-TRAILS! Yeah.

I don't even want to talk about this anymore. 


  1. I just found your website and I love how every (spot-on) review is titled "... sucks". Please marry me. Or at least never stop.

    1. Yeah, I mean, at least as far as me stopping goes, you don't have to worry. My obsession for unearthing new things with which to be disappointed never lets up.

      Marriage: I may contact you for this, eventually. I am quite sure no one else would have me. Thank you, anon.

  2. Honestly, it was such an inappropriate way to depict revolution. The fact that so many disenfranchised people will see this as a significant contribution to the filmmaking world and political world at large, is, quite frankly, frightening.

    Although I must disagree with your bit about the politics. As a critic I wouldn't even consider the politics of the movie. It was so flimsy and banal; I'm still not entirely sure what the political message of the film was at all.

    I will redirect your readers to a real revolutionary text outlining the dangers of ideology: