A for Anarchy

April 15, 2006 11:45 AM

A for Anarchy: Exploring and enjoying the anarchism that many think was lost in the movie version of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta.
posted by homunculus (50 comments total)

Moore and V were previously discussed here and here.
posted by homunculus at 11:47 AM on April 15, 2006

V was watered down? Crazy. I thought it ran pretty far counter to everything you're 'supposed' to think these days. I was really amazed. Ah well.
posted by delmoi at 11:51 AM on April 15, 2006

Oh god yes, the film version was watered down.

Although, I would say that the FPP missed at least some of the point of Moore's original work. V was an antihero -- Moore was not so much endorsing anarchism as he was illustrating that it inevitably rises as a necessary reaction to fascism. Both anarchism and fascism are extremes of society, giving rise (respectively) to wanton destruction and cruel oppression.

At the end of the novel, as V passes the torch on to Evie, he calls it a necessary act -- because she (a representation of the awakened "common man") can build whereas he (the radical anarchist) could only destroy.
posted by xthlc at 12:07 PM on April 15, 2006

I should add that Moore is a bit coy about what, exactly, he thinks would constitute the post-fascist society that Evey would build. I don't think it's anarchy, but then neither is it a US/UK-style liberal democracy championed by the film.
posted by xthlc at 12:10 PM on April 15, 2006

Am I the only one who thought the film was, you know.... sucky?

Was I the only one who was confused by character motivation and gaping plot holes?

Why was Evey braking curfew at the start of the film - surly she could have left earlier? Where did all the 'V' costumes come from? Who manufactured them and arranged the fed-ex style delivery? Why did the people all file in an orderly manner to the big explosion at the end, rather then riot in the streets? Why did the chancellor let himself be kidnapped by his henchman so easily- surly he had bodyguards? Why was Stephen Fry's Character so surprised at the chanceller's reaction the the TV program?

Why was the direction so flat and rubbish? - oh wait, i know that one, - the guy worked on the matrix sequels...

So many questions...
posted by Meccabilly at 12:25 PM on April 15, 2006

This reviewer thought the anarchism was pretty apparent.
posted by homunculus at 12:37 PM on April 15, 2006

Am I the only one who thought the film was, you know.... sucky? Was I the only one who was confused by character motivation and gaping plot holes?

Nope. I felt the same way. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still disappointed.
posted by homunculus at 12:38 PM on April 15, 2006

Plot holes... Hell, I'm still wondering why an anarchist would identify so strongly with a roman catholic. Recusancy seens too tied to religion to have any strong parallels with anarchy. Maybe it's a british thing I wouldn't understand.
posted by mischief at 1:06 PM on April 15, 2006

Am I the only one who thought the film was, you know.... sucky? Was I the only one who was confused by character motivation and gaping plot holes?

Well, I thought the characters were all very unbeliveable. I liked the story though.
posted by delmoi at 1:12 PM on April 15, 2006

Why was Evey braking curfew at the start of the film - surly she could have left earlier?

I'm assuming she just made a mistake, you know, it does happen. Why do people keep speeding when they have marijuana in their cars?

Where did all the 'V' costumes come from? Who manufactured them and arranged the fed-ex style delivery?

China? That would be very easy to arrange today, at least in the first part where they are sent to the TV station. In the second part, they could be smuggled in off the coast over the year, then shipped from central locations. But obviously it would take hundreds of people to do such a thing. But it's doable, just look at the :CueCat

That part was rather unbelievable, though, I agree.

Why did the people all file in an orderly manner to the big explosion at the end, rather then riot in the streets?

Maybe they rioted later? Maybe they didn't riot because of all the people with guns standing around? There was no reason to riot because the military was letting them do what they wanted.

Why did the chancellor let himself be kidnapped by his henchman so easily- surly he had bodyguards?

His bodyguards were in on it. Or more specifically, he was being guarded by people loyal to the VP.

Why was Stephen Fry's Character so surprised at the chancellor's reaction the TV program?

That was the most shocking thing, I think. Why would he ever have taken such a risk with all his contraband and even putting Evey in such risk? That part was just totally unbelievable.
posted by delmoi at 1:21 PM on April 15, 2006

I don't think he was surprised at all. He wanted to stop hiding his true self, and this was the spectacular manner in which he decided to do it.
posted by goatdog at 1:47 PM on April 15, 2006

I quite enjoyed the film, and find the site linked in the FPP to be rather disappointing. The deleted scenes section makes no reference to deleted scenes or major variations between the graphic novel and the film. Instead it (briefly) discusses how three of the characters are a bit watered down and how the lines of collusion between state and business weren't clearly drawn (although I found them rather apparent in the movie and I've never read the graphic novel).
posted by furtive at 1:47 PM on April 15, 2006

C'est la "V"

More views here, here and here. Having printed and distributed a quantity of the flyers available from the A for Anarchy site, it's pretty obvious where I stand.
posted by sfslim at 2:26 PM on April 15, 2006

Moore, from the interview at Comic Book Resources:

they said, would you like to do some comics for us. I said yeah, you know.. just to see if I can do it. I looked at some of these comics. I thought, there's no story. There's no character. I've been away for five years, and comics have turned into some bizarre super steroid mutant hybrid that I've got no familiarity with at all. and the artists all seem to demand all big full page panels every 2, 3 pages so they can show off their skills. You know… So I spent a long time trying to work out what the audience wanted, what this new audience wanted, what would please them. This was completely stupid. I mean, I must have somehow misplaced my arrogance. Because actually its not my job to work out what they want. Its my job to tell them what they want.

Maybe I should go back to reading some comics after all..
posted by Chuckles at 2:37 PM on April 15, 2006

More Moore, about V's anarchy and villainy, from the Mile High comics interview (pt1, pt2, this is from pt2):

THE BEAT: Do you think V is a hero?

MOORE: No, we called the first chapter "The Villain" where we introduce him. I don't want to say he's the hero any more than I really want to say he's the villain. He's a force. It's funny with fascism or anarchy, yes, they are the two poles of politics but neither of them are actually, strictly speaking, a political system. Fascism is a kind of weird mystical system and anarchy is an attempt to move beyond the need to be politic, the need to manipulate large masses of people. So I tend to think V is pretty much an allegorical force, an idea given human form. And, obviously I have a lot of sympathy with some of his basic ideas. But I think that killing people is wrong.

THE BEAT: Some of the things he does to Evey are dubious.

MOORE: Well…that was the bit where, I could get behind what he does to Evey – this is probably telling far too much about me – I could get behind that far more than I could get behind killing people. Because it seemed to me that even though, yes, he was actually torturing Evey, this was in his own mad way, an attempt to heal her. An attempt to push her to a point where she has to wake up to herself as an individual with its own will and own wants and destiny that is not just part of the carpeting of the world, but is a person, is a fully human being. And yes, he does use rather extreme methods. I suppose what I was doing was if I were to actually go-around and imprison all the people that I wanted to mentally and spiritually set free, and subject them to torture for a couple of months, I'd probably get locked up, wouldn't I? Nobody would understand that one. Whereas, if I put it in a comic then I can to some degree take the reader vicariously through the same experiences and give them the same revelations without risking a jail sentence which is one of the delights of fiction.

posted by Chuckles at 2:42 PM on April 15, 2006

From sfslim's first link:

"I still think Moore is a bit of a prima donna about his work. On the other hand, once, just once, I'd like to see someone take a graphic novel and use it as a scene-by-scene movie script. Just film the whole thing as it was written, and how it looks. You never know how well it could work -- how many embryonic movies could be sitting meekly on the graphic novel shelves -- until you try."

Uhhh...
posted by basicchannel at 2:43 PM on April 15, 2006

In short (for those who prefer not to follow links) I was surprised that "V for Vendetta" remained as subversive as it did, and in my more optimistic moments I actually think it might serve to open some people's minds to (at least some limited facets of) anarchist thought, and the possibility of direct resistance to fascism.

Sure, it's glossed up in a neatly-wrapped Hollywood package, and all of V's explicit speeches about anarchism were excised (along with a number of other significant plot points), but what remains is still an impressively compelling folktale of sedition in the face of immoral and unjust state.
posted by sfslim at 2:45 PM on April 15, 2006

Good point Basicchannel! But I think the idea can be taken further. Much further.

The era of the wikifilm awaits!
posted by sfslim at 2:47 PM on April 15, 2006

re Meccabilly:o I should point out that none of these plot issues were present in the original graphic novel; they all have to do with the changes made for the movie version.

(Specifically: In the comic Evey was offering herself to the fingermen for prostitution; there were only a handful of V costumes; citizens do riot in the streets; the chancellor is assassinated rather than kidnapped; Stephen Fry's character didn't exist.)
posted by neckro23 at 3:07 PM on April 15, 2006

I thought the film was appauling. The acting was weak, Natalie Portman does a terrible English accent, the police repeatly say "bollocks" or "crikey Guv'nor" or other stupid stereotypical phrases, and the only good actor in the film is Hugo Weaving who has to do the whole thing behind a mask. I know it's part of the thing, but please. How am I supposed to care about a person who I never even see the face of? Aside from that, taking their frustration out on architecture is pretty stupid. Then there's the way all the police drive Rover 75s in 2020 (the company went bust last year - maybe they were going cheap or something) and everybody uses Dell desktop PCs, naturally. The script was just terrible ("Not so funny now, funny man...") and the plot was full of holes. The whole thing reminded me of the Bill Hicks sketch:

"But what about the facist connotations..."
"No no no no no no... piece o' shit! Walk away."
"But what did you think about the..."
"STOP! PIECE OF SHIT! WALK AWAY!"
posted by Acey at 3:07 PM on April 15, 2006

The comics, as I am assured by my friends who read them after seeing the film, were considerably better. The Wachowskis screwed it up again.
posted by Acey at 3:09 PM on April 15, 2006

Also, for the record, I absolutely LOVED Sin City. A comic can be adapted properly, this one definitely wasn't. Sorry about the semi-derail.
posted by Acey at 3:10 PM on April 15, 2006

I haven't seen the movie so I'm not going to say much here, but from what I have seen of the trailers, reviews etc... err... you're kinda barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for realism here, aren't you? This is a heavily and deliberately stylised, broad-strokes fable, right? Where did the get the masks from? Why are they "taking it out on architecture"? Really. A lot of the criticisms levelled here could be applied equally to, say "A Clockwork Orange" and, umm, they generally aren't. Not that I'm saying this movie is as good as ACO, of course.
posted by Decani at 3:19 PM on April 15, 2006

My point on them taking it out on architecture was more that the film was just an excuse to have their CGI department blow up famous landmarks in London. They did that 10 years ago in Independence Day... it's not that it's unrealistic, it's just old. It made no sense to the plot either... Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament to kill the politicians. In V for Vendetta, this was not the case.
posted by Acey at 3:26 PM on April 15, 2006

From one of the reviews

I still think Moore is a bit of a prima donna about his work. On the other hand, once, just once, I'd like to see someone take a graphic novel and use it as a scene-by-scene movie script. Just film the whole thing as it was written, and how it looks. You never know how well it could work -- how many embryonic movies could be sitting meekly on the graphic novel shelves -- until you try.

Isn't that basically what they did with Sin City? And wasn't it-bad ass?
posted by delmoi at 3:43 PM on April 15, 2006

The comic was a confused mess of good ideas, poor execution, bad to brilliant scripting, and some astoundingly crap art mixed in with Lloyd's more serviceable norm.

The only real glitch in the movie (the movie certainly requires less suspension of disbelief than the comics, that's for sure) is V's motivation for imprisoning and torturing Evey--the comic makes it clear that it is to help mold her into V's successor, while V claims in the movie it is to "set her free", something she asked him to do, and he "knew no better way" (and then it later articulates it a bit better, when V grants her the choice to fulfill his vision or not, implying that succession was really the goal). That's a pretty big problem, but one I could easily see cropping up through edits and not enough focus on the script's continuity--the spirit and ideas are certainly present, and I'd rather have the spirit of Moore's work

The one classic bit from the comic left out of the movie was V's speech to Madame Justice, before he blows up the Old Bowery--that was pretty great, but not very necessary, and certainly not lost in the movie's remixing.

Natalie Portman did suck, but then again, she always sucks (though I'd love to be proven wrong). Hugo Weaving played Hugo Weaving, again. Great. The rest of the actors are classic British character and theatre actors--they were swell. Did anyone else love the irony of John Hurt playing the chancellor? I sure did.

Deitrich's (Stephen Fry's character) shock at the government's overreaction to his script makes sense, as V himself claimed to be surprised at his eventual treatment. Now that he mentions it, though, I like goatdog's view of this part much much better...

Anyway, this is comparing the best work the Wachowskis and McTeigue might ever do to some of Moore's first and most muddled. I'm impressed the film was as watchable as it was--plus, a summer-ish blockbuster centered around a lesbian romance? Wtf? The mess of lesbians I saw it with in Oakland when it came out were pretty damn surprised and pleased, and so was I. Beats Brokeback Mountain any day of the week...

(I only counted four "bollocks" in the whole film, and as for the "Jesus Christ"s thrown about, what, would you rather hear "fuck" a lot more? Such a minor quibble. As for the Dell computers and product placement--I didn't even notice the bit about the cars--who cares?)
posted by hototogisu at 4:38 PM on April 15, 2006

I think it's kind of silly to expect a major motion picture in 2006 to be a flat-out anarchic as an obscure graphic novel from the 1980s.

Like Sin City, the V for Vendetta movie is a single adaptation of a series of several episodes. The graphic novel was made by a British guy largely in reaction to the Thatcher government. The movie was made by Americans largely in response to the Bush administration. Of course it's goinng to be different.

This reminds me of how people complained how Volkswagen "ruined" Nick Drake by using "Pink Moon" in a commercial. No one had ever heard of Nick Drake before the commercial. (Except you, you're cooler and you have much better taste.)

Before the V for Vendetta movie, most people hadn't heard of the graphic novel. Now many more people know about the graphic novel, some of them will buy the graphic novel, and some of them will think it's better than the movie.

Uhhh...
Errr...?
posted by kirkaracha at 5:00 PM on April 15, 2006

The thing I find most interesting about the movie is despite a mainstream movie about terrorism, politics and the above-mentioned blowing up of buildings - there's been very little static in the media about it.

You'd think after the London bombings and the usual dictator-in-waiting remarks about Bush that there'd be a leeeetle bit up an uproar about the movie - either for or against.

Instead, blanket silence.

Doesn't anyone find that a little curious?

(removes tinfoil hat)

Why do people go see a Matrix & Co movie and then complain that it was like a Matrix & Co movie? What were they expecting? Divine intervention??

(gets off soapbox)

(wanders off, grumbling...)
posted by ninazer0 at 5:03 PM on April 15, 2006

Having printed and distributed a quantity of the flyers

Watch out, the DHS doesn't like flyers.
posted by homunculus at 5:08 PM on April 15, 2006

C is for Cookie was almost as entertaining as the actual VfV trailer.
posted by mrbill at 5:09 PM on April 15, 2006

Why do people go see a Matrix & Co movie and then complain that it was like a Matrix & Co movie? What were they expecting? Divine intervention??

The problem isn't that it had Matrix style speacial effects or that it didn't show the true face of Anarchy.

The problem is that every decision the Wachowski brothers made that deviated from the source material made it worse. I wouldn't be bothered if they found clever ways to shorten the plot or neat plot devices that allowed them to wow a larger audience. The issue is that they made the story worse by their creative input. Much much worse.

Granted the source wasn't perfect, but at least it made sense. Evey risking imprisonment by a government she knows first hand can be cruel just to go on a date? V controlling the postal system and manufacturing base without the help of Fate made the story worse. These weren't adaption techniques used to make it more palatable to a modern audience. These were dumb plot holes the Wachowski brothers didn't think through.
posted by aburd at 5:46 PM on April 15, 2006

I missed the whole priest scene, with the cyanide hostia...

And that "She's older than you like" stuff would've had a lot more effect if they left Evey as the original 16-yr-old...

The movie deviated greatly from the comic. Generally, when they do this is because the comic book aesthetics allows for some quite unrealistic stuff, but, in this case, almost every change they made created a huge unrealistic plot hole that didn't exist in the comic (for example, the mask stuff).

Nevertheless, as a movie, it was still good. I liked it a lot, and if I hadn't read the comic, I would possibly classify it as one of the best I've seen. I liked the fable-like storytelling, and (perhaps in a self-protective move) saw the unrealisms and exagerations as more of a fantasy-like storytelling style than a flaw.

And the blow-ups... oh, the blow-ups... Yeah, Independence Day (argh!) been there and done that. But (1), it was a simple collage of scenes, not an apotheotic 5 minute apreciation, with epic music on the background, and (2), this time it was done by the protagonist, not evil aliens, or something like that.
posted by qvantamon at 5:49 PM on April 15, 2006

Why was Evey braking curfew at the start of the film …

It's a long time since I read the comic, but I'm pretty sure in that version this was her first night out as a prostitute (in addition to her regular job.)
posted by rjt at 6:08 PM on April 15, 2006

The problem is that every decision the Wachowski brothers made that deviated from the source material made it worse.

The alliterative monologue is possibly the best speech in any movie ever.
posted by kafziel at 6:22 PM on April 15, 2006

Still haven't seen the flick, but Moore's a deep resource that delivers pretty much no matter what you pick up. I recall hearing that he's working on a second novel; I realy loved the first one, Voice of the Fire. From Hell, the graphic novel, is at least as challenging and visionary as Ware's Jimmy Corrigan.
posted by mwhybark at 6:26 PM on April 15, 2006

The bit about the mask and costume delivery I can ascribe to V's control of the computer system. It's only hinted at in the film, but updating that plot point to the internet era worked better than keeping the very 80s comic-book supercomputer Fate.

My major problems with the changes made were the marginalizing of both Finch and Evey, and the real lack of a coherent timeline: why give an ominous one-year expiriation date and then never reference how much time is passing until it's nearly up?
posted by ipe at 6:35 PM on April 15, 2006

I saw the flick with another comic reader, and we were both pleased (though not ecstatic) with how it came out.

First, because the Warchowski brotheres refrained from turning it into Matrix 4. The ultraviolence was limited - there were far more 'talking heads' in the movie than I expected and those talking heads were more or less 'on message' even if translated slightly for the times.

Second, aside from the inevitable streamlining of character backgrounds the characters were who they were supposed to be. Plot changes were mostly, again, streamlining so that the already talking head-heavy movie didn't devolve into a morass of exposition.

On the other hand - The 'prison' scene should have had more impact - it seemed to dribble a little, and I thought the the ending was weakened by the way it turned into 'the bad guys have been defeated, hoorah!" instead of "a number of obstacles in the way of everything not being a pile of turd have been removed, it's up to you now - shiny new turd, or something different?" - especially seeing as how they had kept choice as such a prevalent motif prior.

I haven't read the comic myself for a little over a decade, so I thought it was interesting that the parts that had stuck with me the most (the prison scene and the ending) had been so noticeably changed in tone and meaning.
posted by Sparx at 7:17 PM on April 15, 2006

The issue is that they made the story worse by their creative input. Much much worse.

The alliterative monologue is possibly the best speech in any movie ever.


Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it was pretty cool. And the decision to have Gordon be killed by the government and Evey be kidnapped simulataneously was probably an acceptable compromise to save some time. And I saw their nods to The Count of Monte Cristo as an appropriate homage to the original comic actually; Moore takes several opportunities to give shoutouts to his favorite works of literature, and it seems fitting for filmmakers to, in the same spirit, give shoutouts to their favorite underrated works.

But yeah, the deviations from the comic much more massive than those, and almost all do severe violence to the original message. The decision to have Evey leave V immediately after her transformation robs it of almost all its meaning. V's romantic angst makes him more human, but V isn't supposed to be human, he's supposed to be a symbol. And the decision to make Gordon special (an art afficionado, and a member of an oppressed minority) takes away the choice and sacrifice Evey faced by seeking him out... instead of having to choose between the prison of submissive, everyday life and her ideals, she gets to choose between one revolutionary and another, which doesn't take nearly as much courage. As with the Matrices, the movie provides powerful, effective entertainment, but it provides only the illusion of substance.
posted by gsteff at 8:50 PM on April 15, 2006

the only good actor in the film is Hugo Weaving who has to do the whole thing behind a mask

Stephen Fry is non-horrible as Finch.
posted by gsteff at 9:11 PM on April 15, 2006

I was very happy with the movie in all, its hard to put the entire story in the movie and the movie was already long enough..
posted by IronWolve at 9:33 PM on April 15, 2006

I just got back from seeing it and I have to say that you all are pretty tough on movies. For a big popcorn movie I thought that it was surprisingly subversive and literate but then I haven't read the comic. I don't usually get too bothered by plot holes or logic gaps in general, almost all movies have them so if you get too uptight about them, you'll never enjoy any of them.

Did anyone else catch the Emma Goldman reference in V's line about a revolution not being worth it if you can't dance?

incidentally, I saw it in IMAX which is totally worth paying the ten bucks a ticket that it costs.
posted by octothorpe at 10:05 PM on April 15, 2006

I didn't see the movie because I knew it was going to be garbage from the moment I read the "V" alliterative monologue. Too much was going to be lost or changed or softened in the translation. I know, I know, you'll always lose something, but I had no interest in seeing it in a degenerated film form - the comic was cinematic enough.

Same with Sin City - I saw it and I thought it was TERRIBLE. They totally miscast everyone, the filming wasn't as good as I wanted it to be, etc.

As for anarchy - I've never believed in it.

But that's not to say it was a bad post or anything, thanks for bringing it all up.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:23 PM on April 15, 2006

Not really interested in seeing V for Vendetta (just hearing a clip of Natalie Portman's attempt at an english accent on the radio was enough to put me off) and it's one of those intellectual properties that I don't really think is suited to Hollywood (like Hellblazer, look how that turned out). The comic is superb though.

The Sin City film looked nice, but although it was very close to the comic I felt Rodriguez has cut a lot of the moments that worked best in the comic, the moments that undercut the characters or gave them a bit more depth. Things like Marv sneaking around his Mother's house, or his realisation he's killed a priest, and Hartigan's wife pleading with him to deny the accusations levelled against him. The film left these (and more) out, seemingly in favour of making the characters cooler. I thought that was disappointing.

The best comic to film adaptation is still Ghost World IMO.
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 7:51 AM on April 16, 2006

On the other hand, once, just once, I'd like to see someone take a graphic novel and use it as a scene-by-scene movie script. Just film the whole thing as it was written, and how it looks.

Why? If it works as a comic book then why does it need to be remade as a film? The best comic books are often untranslatable into film because they exploit the medium to its full advantage, just as the best films would suck if reworked as books.

There are similarities between the two mediums but there's no reason why it should be believed that one should graduate from comics into film.
posted by drezdn at 8:48 AM on April 16, 2006

drezdn wrote: There are similarities between the two mediums but there's no reason why it should be believed that one should graduate from comics into film.

I agree completely. But in an industry where "leveraging properties across mediums" is SOP, and original creative thoughts seem inexplicably hard to come by, this ravenous process of adaptation will only continue, regardless of philosophical support of or opposition to it.

drezdn wrote: Why? If it works as a comic book then why does it need to be remade as a film? The best comic books are often untranslatable into film because they exploit the medium to its full advantage

In agreement, again. I assume that you've read it, but for anyone who hasn't, Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics is utterly indispensable reading for any fan of comics, graphic art, or sequential media in general (including film). Every year I give out 3 or 4 copies as presents to people who haven't read it yet, and no one has been disappointed yet.
posted by sfslim at 1:43 PM on April 16, 2006

Thanks for the interview links, Chuckles. Helps explain a lot to me about what I felt was missing from the movie. I wondered if I was the only one who felt that there lacked any kind of suggested plan for the future beyond a little architectural destruction.

I enjoyed the movie, but I still fear for the Watchmen.
posted by dreamsign at 9:54 PM on April 16, 2006

For the record, those interviews were linked at the bottom of the Deleted Scenes page at A is for Anarchy.



I have very ambiguous feelings toward V the movie. It had a ton of potential, but it misses on many levels..

For example, didn't the McTeigue learn anything from George Lucas about how you make a masked man talk to the camera? Oh ya, stupid question (especially so, considering that he worked with the anti-george, on episode 2).. And then there were the plot/philosophical problems.

On the other hand, from the 'I have some free time to kill, what should I do' perspective, it was fine. And for a Hollywood vehicle, it was pretty subversive, which is kind of cool.

Watchmen will be a disaster..
posted by Chuckles at 11:18 PM on April 16, 2006

My response to the film was immortalised a few days ago in my friend's birthday present to me. (spoiler)
posted by Wataki at 11:44 PM on April 16, 2006

Your favorite comic sucks (as a movie).

Actually, I'm in the "so much better than I was expecting" camp. And I agree about the initial "V" monologue. I also really liked Stephen Fry and his final show. And boy, I did not miss that misogynist wife character from the comic.
posted by Squid Voltaire at 5:17 PM on April 17, 2006

The Ultimate Fighting Anarchist
posted by homunculus at 7:42 PM on April 24, 2006