V for Vucking Verrible

Rating: 2/10 (10 June 2006)

This film seems to have received very high praise indeed. I hate to fly in the face of such adoration, but it left me cold and rather irritated. Sure, there are a few nice bits and pieces in there, but it's all done in such a cack-handed way that it raised more than a few unintentional laughs with the audience I saw it with. The film is terribly structured and almost completely un-engaging.
I've never read Moore's graphic novel but I can only assume it is a masterpiece beside this. I am not surprised he has since renounced Hollywood (especially after The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell - which are also awful, for similar reasons).
This film is full of big ideas on Britain's dystopian future and the growing dissatisfaction with New Labour and voter apathy. ID cards, retinal scans, curfews, terror laws, media control, culture of fear etc - the film throws in every reference from Guantanemo and the war in Iraq to race riots and the rise of the BNP.
And therein lies the problem - it's all sixth form politics. Politicians are cruel, the police are thugs, there's a conspiracy under every desk etc. We've seen it all before of course (1984, Brazil etc), but this film is so black and white it never has any subtly. Not that this is the main problem with the film - the whole thing is just badly put together.
The acting is pretty awful. Hugo Weaving does his best, but it's all one-note - and listening to a mask talk for 2+ hours hardly makes the cod-philosophical waffle easier to digest. And waffle there is aplenty - almost as bad as Matrix 2/3 put together. As a result the scenes drag - did the film really have to be 2 ¼ hours long? Natalie Portman only starts to act once she has a hair cut. I was never convinced why Evey was helping the freak with the mask anyway - they try to set up a Beauty & the Beast / Phantom of the Opera motif between V and Evey, which falls pretty flat. There is hardly any chemistry between them - and V's not frightening either. Just faintly ridiculous, especially wearing an apron whilst making French Toast. John Hurt is nice casting seeing as he was in "1984", but his scenes are mostly filmed behind a desk and must have taken all of an afternoon.
The police scenes are limp and betray the lack of budget - the country's entire anti-terrorist force are two detectives bumbling around an office. "So what now Chief?" one of them says. Stephen Rea, whose performance is as charismatic as Droopy Dog - stares at his computer for a moment. "Let's go here," he suggests. Cut to Rea and his sidekick standing on a murky soundstage. "Another dead end, let's go back to the office". Etc etc etc.
The worst moment comes when Stephen Fry proudly shows Evey the latest episode of his "satirical" TV chat show where he lampoons the Prime Minister in some kind of Benny Hill romp. This is toe-curlingly bad. Are we, the viewer, supposed to find this funny or scathingly satirical? Because it's neither - just shockingly inept.
Every 15 minutes we get a crescendo of music, dramatic dialogue and grave faces - only for nothing to actually happen. All the start/stopping makes the film trudge to a soggy conclusion where we get another hack message rammed down our throat - we as a people can topple nasty governments if we all act together (oh and blow up Parliament). Great, but replace them with what? This call to revolution is just old hat - the very act of destruction maybe satisfying, but the film gives us no characters that give us any sense that the struggle has been worth it. The film's climax is therefore a hollow victory. And they stick Stephen Fry in the crowd at the end for effect. Sadly, by then I couldn't give a rat's arse.
2 out 10