Well, quite by accident, I fell into the V for Vendetta bandwagon, having a length of 3 hours to spare and it being the only movie playing in that timeslot. I must say, the movie was indeed quite good, fleshing out the characters and story and portraying conflict in more than black and white terms, showing an officer caught in between the pursuit of truth and his loyalty to the government.
Quite a few parallels are drawn between the fictional English government in the movie and everyone's favorite Bush administration; hell, even what seems to be a representation of Bill Maher made it in. But what was also shown was the tricks with which "revolutionaries" manipulate their followers. V, the lead revolutionary, (Hugo Weaving) puts Evey, the protagonist, (Natalie Portman) through gruelling conditions, which he later justifies to her as helping her overcome her fear. And although they show him as a a true believer at the end, the ease with which he could have (some would say did) brainwashed Evey is clearly shown. Hopefully, people pick up on both sides of this story.
One thing about the movie was the treatment of the soldiers. Soldiers who just happen to be in V's way by order are cut down like flies. It made me think, what would be the real crime of these people? They are merely doing their job, perhaps forced into it by circumstances. Not everyone has the luxury of following their ideals; some people have obligations to fulfill, people depending on them, situations they must remedy. Is it fair to take these people down in a war?
And now onto the more superficial aspects of the movie :P. The acting was done really well, as was the directing. I heard some complaints of a lack of action, but there was a well-constucted conspiracy mystery for those who wished to overlook the political message. In my opinion, the surprise good performance came from Stephen Rea, the aforementioned officer caught between a rock and a hard place. He was quite good as a man just trying to do his job, but getting caught up in the politics of it all, someone who had no vested interest in tipping the instability either way. Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman, of course, were also quite good, Weaving acting without the benefit of facial expression, solely by voice and body language. Portman is developing into a next-generation leading actress, and there may be an Oscar down the line for her, definitely some nominations. Stephen Fry was also quite good in his brief time onscreen, a victim of circumstances who makes light of all situations because it's the only way he knows how to combat it.
One thing that stunned me about this movie near the beginning was Natalie Portman's clothes (What? I'm a guy, after all :P ) I am unfortunately unable to find any pictures to support my claim, but the first time they show her going in to work, she wears this shirt that's tight around her waist, tight enough to show strain on the buttons. The thought that ran through my mind was "She's skinny as a twig! How on Earth did they find a shirt that was too SMALL for her?" This thought still befuddles me. If anyone has the answer, please, I'd love to know.
Exam season is coming soon, which means I shall be updating on trivial matters once again. Therefore, until next time, Strength Through Unity, Unity Through Faith (This was the slogan of the ruling government in V for Vendetta)