Best Picture: The King's Speech versus Inception

Why am I writing this, you ask? What do The King's Speech and Inception have in common? If you are asking this question, then clearly you are one of those not following the Oscars this year. Of the Best Picture nominees, The King's Speech and Inception stand out (to me, at least) as the two top contenders.

I bring up this match-up because I've talked with a lot of friends and family recently about it. Truth is, I hope that Inception wins, and I'm about to make the argument why it should. I'm going to do this by summarizing the awesomeness of the respective movies, then analyzing their pros and cons in terms of their overall greatness and their likelihood of winning. I watched both of them again recently, so my accuracy should be pretty spot on. Well, at least in terms of my own opinion on the movies!

.

The King's Speech

The King's Speech is a dramatic rendition of Prince Albert's (Bertie!) rise in becoming King George VI of Great Britain around the time of WWII's beginning. The primary focus is on Albert's speech impediment, and how he overcame that through the unorthodox ministrations of failed Australian actor Lionel Logue. Being a standard feel-good period piece of a movie, one can gauge from the trailer alone (and history) that Prince Albert succeeds in overcoming his speech impediment in a manner that makes you smile, encouraged all the way by his caring wife.

What makes The King's Speech brilliant is two things in particular. First, the acting is great. Prince Albert (Colin Firth) alternates between inducing pity, making you laugh at his temper, and showing a quiet inner strength that speaks to his future as a king. Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) is spectacular in how open, blunt, encouraging, and teasing he can be with teaching the Prince how to speak properly; his role is the funniest and I think Mr. Rush deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for it. Prince Albert's wife (Helena Bonham Carter) and brother, Prince Edward (Guy Pearce), round out the cast superbly. Arguably, The King's Speech has the best acting of any movie out there this year.

Second, The King's Speech nails the feeling of the old cultured high British society perfectly. I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, but the movie seems to capture the very essence of what makes the best of the Brits so likable. There is the upright, well-bred politeness and there is the deadpan, subtle dry humor. The detail of the sets and the awesome costuming only help to support this atmosphere of refinement and charm. I've never seen a movie that just feels so British. However, that might be because they portrayed all the stereotypes so cleverly, hence my wondering of historical accuracy.

.

Inception

Inception, on the other hand, is a whole different kind of movie. First and foremost, this is a movie about dreams, the subconscious, and the psychology of how people work. It is a science fiction film taking place in a near future where technology has been invented that allows one to travel into people's dreams. Through this, people can cleverly take away people's most private secrets, extracting them from the deepest corners of the dream. In addition, though much more difficult, it is possible to insert ideas of your own into people's minds, though this process is significantly harder.

Inception has a plot that is so multi-layered that it is much harder to explain in a short space than that of The King's Speech. It follows one man, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), and his companions as they seek to, essentially, pull off an incredibly difficult heist. But instead of taking away secrets from this man's dream, they try to implant an idea of their own; they want the man (heir to a vast corporate empire) to dissolve his recently deceased father's business. This is because, if Dom Cobb and his team can do it, he will be allowed to return to the United States where his children are.

That is the barest bones plot summary I could come up with, and that glosses over a truckload of details. I would advocate this as one of Inception's greatest strengths. The plot is so rich with depth and design that there is never a boring moment. Dom Cobb's own psyche and past play a central role in the movie, as the memory of his deceased wife actually serves to work against him in the dreamscape. The psychology of the corporate empire's heir, Robert Fischer, is also examined and worked in immense detail. Because the movie deals so heavily with dreams and psychology, one is able to get a much more intimate view of the characters than is typical for a film. If the theme of The King's Speech is expressing the difficulty of overcoming a fear of public speaking, the theme of Inception is how difficult it can be to let go of memories and how people and their motivations can be incredibly complex yet always ultimately good.

The other thing I found impressive about Inception was its strength in taking an incredibly new and tricky concept (being able to travel through multiple layers of dream in order to manipulate human psychology) and portraying it to the audience in a way that made it easily understandable and ultimately very intense. The inception of the idea ends up taking place across what is essentially five different levels of reality, and tying them all together sounds horrendously difficult, yet was done successfully just the same. The writer in me also appreciated how incredibly interesting the concept is; with the ability to enter people's dreams and alter the way they think, the storytelling possibilities are endless.

.

Assessing the Two

Now I'm going to end up repeating myself a little bit, but this is to further pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of each film.

The King's Speech Pros and Cons -

+ Superior acting that dwarfs the competition. Inception's acting was great, but even I have to admit that it wasn't quite at the level of The King's Speech. The King's Speech made you feel like you genuinely knew Prince Albert and Lionel Logue. By contrast, Inception had a great cast and, even though you get an intense psychological look at a number of them, you never really feel like you 'know' them to the extent that you get in The King's Speech.

+ An atmosphere of British class and humor that can easily resonate with anyone. Everybody knows the archetype of the polite and droll British gentleman. By contrast, the complex nature of Inception and its dreams, while portrayed in a manner that made it easy to understand, has the capacity to hoodwink a significant portion of America's daft populace.

- It is a typical period piece and a predictable feel-good drama. Did it surprise anyone that Prince Albert overcame his speech impediment? And I'm not talking about those who knew the history ahead of time. The King's Speech's weakness is that the movie does not have much depth; watching it again lets you see and enjoy the funny scenes again, but ultimately does not stick with you. There are not many details to it outside of the main plot of overcoming the speech impediment and then becoming king. By contrast, Inception has more subtle complexities and details than you can shake a stick at.

Inception Pros and Cons -

+ Does something we've never seen before. Have you seen a movie that juggles so many different scenes/levels of reality at once? And does so in a manner that makes it readily accessible, yet with depth enough to keep you wondering and thinking? I don't think I've ever seen a movie as intense as Inception; the personal/psychological depth to it and fervid balance between multiple levels of dream and reality keep you on the edge of your seat for the majority of the film.

+ Portrays an incredibly detailed and fluid setting where architects can shape dreams and manipulate reality in order to do extraordinary things. The special effects of this movie are almost beyond compare, and it isn't just eye candy. Everything that the characters do in this film make you think about how we perceive reality, dreams, and each other. Deception, conning, persuasion, fooling the senses... All of these things help to make every moment in Inception both exciting and intellectually engaging.

- At times it can be difficult to follow, and the acting is not quite at the level of that of The King's Speech. Not much I can add further to this one.

.

My Argument

While I'm hoping that, from reading these details, you've been able to come to the same conclusion as I, I'm going to spell it out for those still rooting for The King's Speech.

In a match-up where both movies are fantastic, we have to choose the one that does the most extraordinary things. I think that, in this case, that movie is Inception. While The King's Speech has stellar acting and a brilliantly snarky atmosphere of British style and humor, it is, as a story, unexceptional. By contrast, Inception gives us a setting we have never seen before that is both incredibly nuanced, with multiple layers, and with a stunning attention to psychological and physical detail. You could probably watch Inception a dozen times and still pick out things you didn't notice before; there is just that much going on in the film. And it portrays this complicated dream structure in a way that makes it easily understood, which can't be understated as an impressive accomplishment.

I won't begrudge the acting of The King's Speech, but I think that the Best Picture Academy Award should go to the movie that challenges our perceptions, does something new and innovative, and tells a great and incredibly elaborate story that is not difficult to follow.

However, despite my argument, I fear that Inception will probably lose. Fact of the matter is that Inception is a science fiction movie, which automatically makes it less likely to succeed given society's stigma against the sci fi genre. Additionally, The King's Speech came out more recently, resulting in the seeming outpouring of critical acclaim for it. It seems to be sweeping every other award ceremony out there, which is bad news for our dear Inception. But I still have hope that Inception will be chosen; if it is, then that will encourage the industry to make more movies that take on innovative concepts that we have never seen before. And that would be magnificent.

Of course all of this could be moot and The Social Network might sneak in to grab the award and crush my dreams. Bastard Facebook...

Assassin's Apprentice

The best way to describe Assassin's Apprentice is to note it as being akin to Game of Thrones, but with a more intense, psychological focus on character and character development. Like Game of Thrones, that esteemed titan of fantasy fiction, Assassin's Apprentice shows us a fantasy world that is heavily dosed with realism. Certainly, magic and fantastical elements exist, but they are minimalist and quite rare. Instead of fireballs being flung around, this book shows us an immensely detailed medieval world where daily life is difficult and politicking for power and influence is paramount.

It is a world with an incredible amount of depth to it and, I have to admit, that at first this turned me off, to a certain extent. The writing has an astonishing attention to detail that, if you are unprepared for it, can seem nauseatingly excessive. I actually have tried to read this book before, but petered out when over halfway through as I simply was in a mood for faster and more vibrant fare. But, if you have the patience for an epic tale (and this is the first in a trilogy), then this is quite possibly the best fantasy book I've read since Game of Thrones.

.

Strength in Character

I have to admit that I'm a sucker for great, detailed characters and epic character development. Thus this book was right up my alley. Just about every single character in this book feels absolutely real, with complicated behaviors, motivations, and mannerisms that are unique and memorable. They feel just like they should for people living in a harsh medieval world, and the book is all the better for it. But what makes the book such a rarity is how intensely psychological it can get. I'll expand on that point shortly.

Assassin's Apprentice (and presumably the entire trilogy) follows the life of one Fitz-Chivalry, a bastard of a noble prince who is brought up in less than ideal conditions. For, accurate to life, the life of a bastard-born in a medieval time period is not a good one, and a great deal of conflict comes from this unavoidable fact. Fitz is raised by a stable-master, trained as a disposable assassin for the royal court, and largely disrespected and frowned upon at every turn, not allowed to leave to make his own life because of the threat his bloodline represents.

The psychological aspect comes from how the author follows his life directly from birth to young adulthood. It is written in the first person, and the author effectively portrays his thoughts as they would sound at his age. Thus, when Fitz is six years old, his thoughts are curious, simple, and wandering. When he is a teenager, his thoughts become more rebellious, self-absorbed, and occasionally depressing. In practice, this turned out to be a double-edged sword; I enjoyed the accuracy and appropriate cadence of Fitz's thoughts, but Fitz as a kid could get quite annoying and Fitz as a teenager occasionally had feelings of overblown tragedy that made me want to slap him. But, overall, I thought that it was effectively done and I wouldn't have it any other way. It is through this personal lens that we see very intimately what Fitz goes through; this is a book that does not shy away from difficult dilemmas and mature themes, which is what helps to make this story truly intense and magnificent.

.

The World of the Six Duchies

Another thing I particularly appreciated about the book was the vivid world it provided. Assassin's Apprentice mostly takes place in a kingdom known as the Six Duchies. The majority that we see makes it look a bleak place with windswept bluffs and a constant flow of sea spray. Consequently, it reminded me yet again of Game of Thrones; the rocky islands of the Greyjoys and the cold wilderness of the Starks.

But what had even greater appeal was the fact that clearly the author spent a lot of time thinking over how the cities of the world would react to events such as raids and shifts in royal policy at the capital of Buckkeep. The economy of the Six Duchies makes perfect sense, and the keeps and holdings seem to act just as nations and states do in real life, with a keen attention to their self-interest and working to economic and political gain. At the same time, personal desires and goals affect the kingdom as well; at one point, Fitz travels with a prince's coterie to address the inability of a landholder to adequately man his watchtowers because of his obsession with his new bride. Political problems such as this kept me quite interested in the world of Assassin's Apprentice, not a huge surprise given my politics degree from college!

.

Conclusion

In the end, Assassin's Apprentice is a book that took some getting used to for me to truly appreciate it. Once I was prepared to take on a story chock full of details and with an epic sprawl to it, I was then able to see how amazing it was. This is definitely something to keep in mind for those curious about the series and writing style. As for me, I very much look forward to reading the sequels and I hope that the great trend will continue.

Frozen

Written by Joe the Revelator

It’s strange to watch a movie and find that halfway into the plot you’re hoping for the characters to shuffle off their mortal coils; that you’d rather watch wolves gnaw on their bones for another forty-five minutes than listen to their whining, insipid dialogue until the credits roll. I suppose I would feel differently if I fell into Frozen’s target demo, namely college students with delusions of grandiosity. But in today’s Reality-TV generation, there’s plenty of that to go around.

The concept of Frozen takes a mixture of “dude, but what if...” scenarios and blends them together in a juicer, expecting you to swallow it. And that’s not to say I demand complete realism from movies. I expect surreal, far-out notions to take me, the viewer, to interesting places. Instead I felt like I was privy to a conversation between two stoners stuck in a cross-country car ride.

The Question:

So what if you, your best friend, and your girlfriend got stuck on a ski lift for a week? Dude, but what if nobody knew you were up there, because you bribed the lift operator? And what if, like, a blizzard rolled in? And what if it was too high to jump without breaking both your legs? Dude, but what if there was a pack of wolves circling the ground under you? And what if the lift chair was going to fall off after a while? And what if the cable above you was too sharp to climb? Oh, and dude, you peed your pants, so your bits-n-pieces got frozen to the chair.

I wish I was making this up, but all of the above are valid plot points in Frozen.

The premise itself isn’t too hard to swallow- people get stuck in the mountains all the time and die of exposure. And dangling vulnerably from high-up seems to be a pretty universal fear amongst humans. But if you eliminate all possible escape routes and give your characters less than stellar drives to survive, you’re left arguing semantics over what would kill you quickest; wolves or frostbite.

I’ll give the movie credit for this, however; it took itself and every wacky turn very seriously. It may have been the ominous majesty of the snowcapped mountains, or the isolated feeling of seeing the lone ski-lift and its occupants face another dawn, but Frozen manages a few moments of dread, right before its characters do something irredeemably stupid. One of the leads sleeps with her hands on the cold steel bars of the chair, unprotected from the weather. They huddle away from each other more than staying together to conserve heat, and on a ski-lift that means going out of your way to avoid contact. They let the hoods of their jackets flap loose in the wind during many of the scenes, and as I mentioned before, one of the characters actually urinates themselves.

I won’t spoil the ending for you. But I will mention that the most driven, strongest willed characters are met with swift, gruesome deaths. Whereas the survivalist who contributes nothing and does the least, gets rewarded.

After the thaw:

I personally know people whom I could recommend this movie. People who would listen intently as coeds discuss the tangle of their social lives before getting stuck on a ski-lift. People who will feel sorry for the young man who thinks he can walk away from a 50+ foot drop unscathed. There are people who cringe at heights, at chilly temperatures, and at wild animals.

For me, ski-lift + wolves + blizzard + falling cable, didn’t do it. However, if there’s an impending sequel; raptors + robots + bears + sharks... that I could get onboard with.

Team of Rivals

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln is one of those books. You know the kind. Whenever you enter a Barnes & Noble, a Borders, Powell's, this is one of those history books which is always in the best seller section right up at the front, staring at you with beady eyes. A handful of prominent sounding book awards adorning its cover. By virtue of it being everywhere, that makes it less appealing, and thus you move on. But inwardly, you know it will probably be good. You just don't want to hop on the bandwagon.

But lo and behold, I did. Not because of boredom or anything, but because the American Civil War is in fact a time period I know rather little about. I knew the details of a few of the battles, but the overall picture was sketchy. So, upon additional recommendation, I turned to Team of Rivals, a tome of near-painful length. A book focusing on President Abraham Lincoln's presidential cabinet and the politics that went on leading up to, during, and after the Civil War.

.

The Good

What this book did especially well is establish the character and personalities of Lincoln, William Seward, and Salmon Chase. The latter two served as Lincoln's Secretary of State and Treasury respectively. It was impressive the level of detail that is established in rendering this dramatis personae; the author tells us stories of their youth, their dreams, their worst moments, their wives, their families, and their political aspirations. I felt like I knew these figures, and I felt as if I had met people in my life who mirrored their personalities. I also was able to compare my own self to them; I came to the conclusion that, of all of them, I probably had most in common with Seward. Consequently, the book comes across as a psychological study, assessing motives and ambitions as these men clashed against one another and then ended up working effectively together as a team.

The book also impressed me with an effective and detailed description of how the Civil War came to be. I was surprised to learn that, while slavery and the expansion of it was a clear issue, the emancipation of slavery entire was on almost nobody's mind at first. Lincoln himself did not advocate against slavery, merely arguing that it needed to be kept where it was and not expanded into new states. His position was that slavery was something that would dissipate by itself in time, but that the preservation of the Union was more important than emancipation. Speaking of Lincoln, I was surprised to learn that, in the end, one of our greatest presidents was almost entirely centrist. He was a labeled Republican but, in today's terms, his actions in office were more similar to that of a moderate liberal/democrat than anything.

.

The Bad

The problem with this book, though, is that while the psychological analysis of these figures is quite intimate and enlightening, it distracts from what is going on. Really, I shouldn't be knocking the book on this; it is called Team of Rivals and it focuses upon the rivalry between these men. But once the war starts, it is like reading about the squabbling of children. I read page after page of cabinet members feeling unappreciated and then Lincoln stepping in to calm people down. There are endless stories of cabinet members bickering with each other. After the first few, I understood; yes, Lincoln was a political genius. But when it went on and on and on, I found myself getting irritated with the author and with these men. Given the backdrop of a gigantic Civil War, their childish temper tantrums were exceedingly annoying to hear about. I found myself wanting to slap them and say, "Hello? There's a freaking war going on out there. Shut the hell up!" But I couldn't.

Another relevant complaint I had was about the wives and daughters of these men. Especially when the war is on, the author decides to spend pages here and there describing what the women were up to. Shopping trips, decorating the White House, seeing friends, etc. Now I have no problem with women at all, but I could not understand why the book spent so much time on these figures given the circumstances. First off, the women were not a part of the presidential cabinet (the stated main focus of the book). Secondly, after describing the horrors of war and the stresses of maintaining a government during a civil conflict, hearing about Mary Todd Lincoln's expensive grocery trips was very jarring. Thus it did not make sense why so much of the book was devoted to these women. I'm sure their daily lives were compelling stuff, but it wasn't why I was reading the book.

.

Conclusion/The Ugly

In the end, though, I couldn't finish this book. It wasn't for lack of readability; this book is quite well written. It was because, once the Civil War began, the author made minimal effort to explain what was going on. Important battles were given mere pages next to chapters-worth focused on immature political bickering. The Battle of Gettysburg, the single most important battle of the war, was covered in less than a page, returning almost immediately to one of the cabinet members being a dumbass. Consequently, I tried, but I lost interest.

That isn't to say that this book was not good though. Like I said earlier, it was incredibly interesting to read about the varied personalities of Lincoln, Seward, and Chase, and how they made their way through life. This book also does an excellent job of explaining moment-by-moment how the Civil War came into being. But when it came to the cabinet in office during the war, I quickly lost interest and wanted to hit things. If the war itself had been covered in better detail and if the cabinet's infighting weren't so stupid, I would've gone on to finish this. Perhaps someone will who will have more tolerance than I.

The Disappearance of Alice Creed

Written by Joe the Revelator

It isn’t often that kidnapping movies have truly surprising twists. They’re like bank robberies; the villains either get away with the money or they don’t. They may or may not kill the hostages. And almost without exception, someone in the group will turn and try to take the money for themselves. Alice Creed, the fictitious kidnapping victim for whom the movie is named, gives the audience an unexpected shock midway through the film. What makes the revelation so startling? Its simplicity.

We begin by witnessing the creation of an oubliette. We watch as the walls of an apartment (flat) are covered with soundproofing material, and anchors and eyelets are screwed into bed framing like a macabre Ikea furniture set. Plastic is hung on the walls of a moving van. Bundles of nondescript outfits are folded, worn, removed, and changed throughout every stage of the kidnapping. For fans of the serial-killer show, Dexter, this movie is the counterpart for ransoming a human being. The attention to detail is superb, and wholly supports the first act.

Demands:

Enter Alice Creed, the only daughter of a faceless millionaire, snatched off the streets by the kidnapping duo. They shuttle her off bagged and gagged to their casa-de-abduction and rope her to the bed. The process of stripping her down to refit her with generic jogging clothes and bringing in a bedpan for her personal needs are especially tense scenes. They feel vulnerable, and the lack of characterization of the kidnappers early in the movie keeps you wondering, and just as in the dark as the blindfolded damsel. There’s no way to know how violent or depraved the two men are.

Inevitably, one of the men know Alice Creed from earlier in their lives, and therein lies the seed of drama which sets this movie apart. Without spoiling too much I’ll simply say that a strange love triangle emerges, built on remnants of past relationships prior to the kidnapping, and the word ‘love’ becomes a weapon and an excuse for almost all bizarre behavior. “...because I love you” is thrown around so many times I fully expected the on-set cameraman and lighting-grip to get in on the lovefest.

The most impressive part of this movie is the emotional content (far better than Ransom; Mel Gibson screaming red-faced into a phone). Its relatively unknown cast does a superb job. Creed is played by Gemma Arterton from Prince of Persia and Clash of the Titans, alongside Eddie Marsan from The Illusionist and Martin Compston. The three deliver their lines with believable force, regardless of how strained the credulity of the situation. You can almost taste the independent brands of psychological disorder woven into each character.

The money or your life...

I can certainly recommend this movie to first time viewers. It’s interesting, it’s tense, and it’s unpredictable. But I would suggest renting it or watching it on Netflix, not necessarily purchasing it. The depth of the movie is limited to its stunning developments. Unless you have a very short memory, watching The Disappearance of Alice Creed more than once feels like staring at Hot Wheels cars circling a plastic track.

V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta is a stunning film. It is set in a near-future totalitarian Britain where the government's power is absolute. Curfews are strictly enforced. Special police make examples of those who question. The media and newspapers are tailored and falsified to support the government's point of view. Clearly, this is a situation that needs change.

V for Vendetta follows the actions of three people:

.

V is a mysterious masked figure who, for reasons revealed in the movie, believes utterly that the government of this fictional Britain needs drastic change. Channeling the charisma and flouted nobility of Zorro, V seeks to shock the people of Britain into action, inspiring them to take control of their own destinies from a government that merely wants to control them. And, channeling the revenge-focused inhuman determination of Edmund Dantes, V also desires vengeance upon those who have wronged him, forcing him to wear a mask and act alone.

.

Then, on the other hand, we have Chief Inspector Eric Finch. Finch heads the government team tasked with finding and arresting or killing V. Through his eyes, we, as the audience, see firsthand what makes the government flawed and also what makes V an extreme and manipulative figure. Finch himself wrestles with his conscience throughout the movie, unable to decide on which side and which idea is the right one. Will stopping V restore stability? Or will supporting him allow a chance for real change?

.

Finally, we have Evey Hammond, a girl who unintentionally becomes embroiled in the center of it all. She is perhaps the most interesting character of all, a symbol of the people. Her every waking moment is in fear and, through V's extreme tutelage, she is able to understand that perhaps that is no way worth living. She is in an interesting position, able to learn of the individual who identifies himself as V, and similarly able to realize that V is not entirely sane. Without her, it feels as if the film would have been far more two-dimensional; the forces of anarchy and change versus the enforced stability of government and leadership. But, with her inclusion, the characters become more multifaceted and the sides more complex and real. She is the lens through which the world and people of V for Vendetta become enhanced and brilliant.

.

A World Consumed by Fear

On the surface, V for Vendetta is an extreme reaction to the events in the George W. Bush administration, where the issue of security became paramount, issuing in a number of controversial changes such as the Patriot Act and increased government surveillance powers. V for Vendetta is an extrapolation of the fears that arose from that time period; what if the need for security was exacerbated to its maximum?

However, that is also an oversimplification of what V for Vendetta seeks to do. Fears of totalitarian regimes are hardly original or uncommon. George Orwell's 1984 is an earlier example. It is taken for granted that the regime is a dark and terrible evil; countless images evoke similarities to the extremes of the Nazis and the Soviet Union. And the reason for this is that the totalitarian government is not the focus. Instead, what makes V for Vendetta unique is its emphasis on empowering people to do what they believe is right. Time after time, the movie illustrates that, through the power of ideas and standing up for what you believe, even the most ordinary person can change the world. And this is an inspiring theme.

.

Rebirth and Renewal

But perhaps even more interesting to me was the character of Evey and how, through facing her fears, she is able to move on and grow as a person. This is actually one of the more crucial scenes of the movie. She undergoes enormous psychological and physical trauma and, despite all that, comes to learn that nobody can take away her spirit unless she lets them. In a sense, it helps us to see that, when it comes down to it, fear is merely something of the mind that can be conquered when worse comes to worse. This is of direct correlation to life and follows the quote, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." Even the worst things that happen to us in life can result in making you a better person for them. And, through the suffering and rebirth of Evey, we are reminded of that.

The character of V himself is also another example of this, although his path and end is a different one. Through V we see that, sometimes, it is better to allow yourself to open up to others instead of relying on yourself. V focuses on his goal with such fearlessness and such determination that it is hard to do anything but admire him. But the truth is that he is a deeply flawed character, and the movie definitely points this out, if you are paying attention. His focus is so powerful that his idea essentially consumes him; he does not even identify himself as an individual anymore. Thus does the most powerful and charismatic figure of the movie become the most tragic one.

.

Conclusion

In the end, it is clear to see that V for Vendetta a favorite of mine. It features deep themes both personal and political. It features characters of unsurpassed depth and interest. You can see yourself in any of them, be it the uncertainty of Finch, the growth of Evey, or the obsession of V. The dialogue is smart, the filming intense and exciting.

My only warning would be to point out that this is a very dark movie. Torture, emotional and physical, is present. The totalitarian government of the film is a nasty one. And V himself is an extremist who kills a lot of people. However, the ending is wholly inspiring and the overall message is a great one. Thus does this movie come with my highest recommendation.