proselytizing polemic

Rating: Null/10 (23 March 2006)

V is likely satisfying for fans of graphic-novel or anti-hero action movies. Hugo Weaving maintains character through his physical camouflage and manages the center of gravity for the movie. If the movie had concentrated on the thematic depiction of how seeds of revolution were planted (someplace/somewhere) in the midst of a dying autocracy, it might have been a great movie. The movie fails in developing an allegory of how disastrous circumstances will develop in familiar England and America. I spent cycles sifting through the American politicians that must have been on McTeigue's hit list. It was easy to loose track of the story within the movie (was this Fahrenheit/911 redux?). The movie makes no effort to explain the "coast-to-coast" civil war in America and how the conflict bled into Europe. A discriminating viewer is expected to take much for granted, if the viewer is to buy into the film's story. The villainous British bureaucrats fanatical religiosity runs counter to any demographic trends in the UK. The screenplay's connection between current political situations and those in the movie just produces confusion. The viewer is distracted comparing real trends to developments in the screenplay, many of which run counter. The screenplay requires so much taken for granted based on the director's fantasy vision of the future. Regardless whether you liked his message; Michael Moore succeeded in making a focused production in Fahrenheit/911. McTeigue had a choice; develop a genuine anti-Utopian, anti-heroic saga, or make a political statement and he tried both. In order to develop both tracks within the movie, the running length should have been doubled. As it stands, I felt as if two hours of introduction were left on the cutting floor.