The Book Was Better: V for Vendetta Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.พ. 2019
- Krimson is joined by Kytana from KytanaFilms in this special collaboration! ...Just pretend it's November.
Video edited by Kishtiann Davis
KytanaFilms Channel-
/ @8pagesdeep
Timothy Howard links-
Website: orranadventures.wordpress.com/
Goodreads: www.goodreads.com/author/show...
Amazon: www.amazon.com/Buried-Man-Dea...
Become a Patron: / thebookwasbetter
Merchandise- www.redbubble.com/people/krimsonrogue
Rogue Bros Gaming Channel: / roguebrosgaming
Discord Link: / discord
SilvyChan’s Gallery: / silvysgalleryart
Follow on Twitter: / krimsonrogue
Join the conversation on Facebook- KRMthebookwa...
Micro God- www.amazon.com/Micro-God-K-R-M...
DISCLAIMER: FAIR USE. Title 17, US Code (Sections 107-118 of the copyright law) All media in this video is used for the purpose of review and commentary under the terms of fair use. All footage, music and images used belong to their respective owners. - บันเทิง
Very vitalizing video. Verdict: Victorious!
Verily.
Vain vamps valiant verdict. Vacating valetudinarian vanes, voraciously verifying. Vital vindications!
Nice job. I like the alliteration.
@@AkanamesMalestrom the hell does that mean?
Releasing a video on V for Vendetta without releasing it on the fifth of November. For shame.
Yeah, we're a little behind schedule. :P
@@KrimsonRogue I mean the alternative is that you're way ahead of schedule lol
MasterJayShay The movie itself wasn’t released on November 5, tho. It was scheduled to (actually November 4), but it was decided that was too close to the 7/7/2005 bombings in London. It got bumped to March 17, 2006.
@@elinorwinchester9067 it was a joke XD
I think the biggest change, aside from the tone and atmosphere, has to be the book's concept of anarchy, and fascism. As Alan Moore described it, *"...here's this anarchist, he's the good guy; here are all these bad fascists, they are the bad guys. That's trivial and insulting to the reader."* The themes and problems described in the GN are seen in a very nuanced fashion. While there are fascists who have committed horrible atrocities, they are also some who are portrayed as ordinary people who have made questionable life decisions. And V is portrayed as just as crazy as the fascists running the government despite his revolutionary justifications. I felt the movie kind of simplified it to a good vs. evil kind of scenario, where in the book, it's a little bit more morally complex.
They even took out V's explanation as to what anarchy is in his words:
*"Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires; make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world. Rubble, once achieved, makes further ruins means' irrelevant. Away with our explosives, then! Away with our destroyers! They have no place within our better world. But let us raise a toast to all our bombers, all our bastards, most unlovely, and most unforgivable. Let's drink their health... then meet with them no more."*
Ryan Hartwell ughhhh I love
While I absolutely agree that the film did not capture the written word in its true intent; I feel like it's almost insulting to the film makers that Alan Moore felt such distain towards the adaptation. It was in no way perfect, but as a stand alone film; I thought it was great. I I know that's absolutely a personal opinion; but if you compare V for Vendetta to other adaptations of his work, it was a down right masterpiece!
Plus there's so many restrictions when creating a Hollywood film. Not only are there the obvious time restrictions, but you have to adhere to a much wider audience than those who are already fans of the series. While I wish the Wachowski's could have simply appealed to what should have been the target audience, they simply wouldn't have garnered the same popularity if they did. They had to dumb it down to bring success.
I feel like Alan Moore will never approve of an adaptation as long as he sells the rights to his work to become a film. It's almost not fair to ask that much of a filmmaker. He's a fantastic writer, but he does not understand the film industry.
@Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem Absolutely fair point! You're completely right that it's not a necessity to dumb down a story for the general public. I just genuinely believe that the film did capture the material well with the medium it had in the time (sorry awfully worded sentence)
I don't think there could be a feature length film that could capture the source material in a satisfactory way. I believe that certain materials are too much to be translated to film. There's not enough time to fully flesh it all out.
I think I worded my initial message badly (I probably did the same here). I hope you kind of get where I'm coming from :)
@@hannahkellaway While there are aspects that it caught well, on the whole I don't think the Movie version of V for Vendetta delivered on much of the book. Thematically, it's more about waking up the middle class, almost to the point of removing the working class and poor from the movie- which is a 180 from Moore's work. The "Vendetta" aspect of the book is trivialized. The movie's V is scripted too sanely- though Hugo Weaving did a great deal to inject a bit of madness into the character. Evie is a completely different character, and that does kind of cut at the message a bit, but I do understand why she was changed given the target audience. The other issue is that too much is spelled out in the movie. One of the more intriguing aspects of the book was that in it's serialized run Lloyd had a habit of removing the borders on word balloons to make the reader try to work out who said what. Once it got colorized, that aspect of it was removed, which is kind of a shame.
I honestly prefer the film as I feel it makes the character of v into more of an actually interesting and compelling character as opposed to a creepy monster
I love how book V says he has a special rose separated for the dictator, and later the dictador is murdered by rosemary. It took me a day to finally understand what he meant
The Book was Better: Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and Bram Stroker's Dracula.
If you haven’t seen it yet The Dom did the beam stoker one
YES PLEASE!!!!!
I think I would rather have the original 1930 movies instead of the 90's ones. Just to show how different they are.
The Phantom of the Opera book vs the 1924 version or the 2004 version.
All the hell's yes. The question is: which versions? Both stories have been adapted countless times.
The movie actually kind of muddles things a little by making V into a more heroic type. In the book, there was always this sense of "Does he really care about the people or just view them as a tool in his revenge scheme?" or "For all this talk, is this crazy nutter actually making matters worse, not better?" V talks about how the land of do as you will, will eventually transform into the land of do as you please, but chaotic conditions tend to be a breeding ground for strongmen, not anarchistic communes owned and operated by the people. The Russian Revolution is the depressingly common outcome for revolutions: you overthrow the tyranny of the Czar, only to wind up with Stalin. Or in other words, take out a bad guy, only to wind up with an even worse guy in power.
To say nothing of what would happen to vulnerable groups during all this chaos. How likely is it that the elderly or those who depend on medications to survive, will be able to get what they need to survive? That's the problem of the "Burn it all down" ethos: the powerful people who deserve to lose everything, will use their powers/resources to escape and survive the chaos, while those endangered by the powerful people, will often be just as endangered, if not more, by the chaos. Better to dismantle an oppressive system, piece by piece, rather than just burn it all down.
I think the book was better but that being said I quite thoroughly enjoyed the movie! In my opinion it is the best adaptation of any Alan Moore work including Watchmen.The thing I never understood though was why was Guy Fawkes was chosen as the symbol of the fight against oppression,he was no freedom fighter!What he was trying to do was kill the oppressive Protestant King James 1 to replace him with just as oppressive if not more oppressive Catholic religious monarchy.
It's Guy Fawkes, not Fox. Can't blame you for the misspelling, though. American and English accents are wildly different in terms of pronunciation. In U.K. English, Fawkes is pronounced more like 'Forks'.
Pete Hill Thanks for pointing that out,once you mentioned it I remembered but I guess I’ll have to do a better job proof reading next time lol!
Originally V was going to wear heavy doll make-up, but neither Moore nor Lloyd were really happy with it, nor with more conventional super-heroy looks Lyloyd came up with as alternatives. So eventually Lloyd proposed using a Guy Fawkes costume instead, as it had a similar look to the doll make-up, but was more symbolically tied to the political themes as Fawkes was still seen as a popular symbol of rebellion in parts of Northern England independent of what the man himself actually fought for. In short, it was chosen for the idea of Guy Fawkes, not the actual man Guy Fawkes, which is thematically relevant in it's own right.
England was a Catholic monarchy for nearly 600 years and suddenly they started murdering Catholics because of a fat bastard who had problems getting a son.
That was kind of the point. Moore wanted to portray both the good and the evil inherent to both extremes.
Doesn't Alan Moore distance himself from every adaptation of his work though? I mean, I can't really blame the guy most of the time.
Michalina I think he was hands on with the Spirit film
Michalina
He’s such an asshole to every adaptation of his work.
Cassidy Jay Williams true, but after the league of extraordinary gentlemen movie, I can’t blame him much
@@tedgruver7618: Not really. He liked the animated For the Man Who Has Everything adaption for example. I've never understood why so many people get angry at him for not wishing to have his seal of approval put on adaptations that he not only had absolutely nothing to do with, but usually haven't even seen.
And, still, after being dragged into a b.s. lawsuit because he allowed "LXG" to use his name, and after the producer of V for Vendetta refused to retract a public statement about Moore being involved with the production when he was not, only to then brush him off at every turn when he later tried to actually get involved with the project, I don't see how you can blame the guy for playing it safe.
@@brennabrodbeck5183 The Spirit wasn't based on his work, and the film was made by Frank Miller, who Alan Moore hates more than adaptations of his work.
Fun fact: Hugo Weaving did not play V for the entire movie. The original actor, James Purfoy, had actually shot some of V’s scenes, but ended up having to leave the production as he was having trouble breathing underneath V’s mask. Hugo Weaving came in late in production to replace Purfoy, and shot the rest of V’s scenes. Scenes featuring Purfoy as V still remain in the film, with dubbing by Weaving. The first scene featuring V is actually Purfoy.
This biggest problem with the movie was that it showed V as heroic.I always read it as that the book was Order vs Chaos, with the government wanting absolute control and V wanting everyone just to do what ever they want even if that meant robbing and killing.
But anarchy vs oppression isn't as relevant as the themes of the movie.
That's not really what I took away from the book.
V to me is an anarchist in line with thinkers like Pieter Kropotkin in terms of what his end goal is; a classless society.
The violent acts he commits are a necessity because of the nature of the state that oppresses the people.
He sacrifices himself and passes the mantel on to Evie because he recognises that being violent and destructive is worthless by itself.
By being reborn via Evie, V as a concept can be an ideal by which the disenfranchised populace can construct a society on their own terms; creating something new instead of just being destructive.
@@casanovafunkenstein5090 which is what the movie v was doing.
@@christiancrusader9374 I was replying to the OP regarding their assessment of V, though I realise how you could come to think that I was responding to your comment.
@@casanovafunkenstein5090 sorry.
19:40 Psh. South Park... I, for one, am going to rewatch the scene from Helsing Ultimate Abridged where Alucard first meets Anderson. That or Seras' line about why attempting to seduce him would be a waste of time.
Just go ahead and be funny and say "my vagina" a lot.
“Hey there, Padre! How’s little Timmy?!”
This is such a great channel. Lately, I’ve been going back and watching your old videos. Nicely done.
Yeah I agree. It's a shame he doesn't have more videos for me to binge on.
Could you do a The Book Was Better on The Hitchhickers Guide To The Galaxy?
Yes!
I was thinking the same thing when Stephen Fry showed up and I remember The Dom’s epic meltdown at the end when he reviewed it.
He did
One-touch I liked in the movie was how when V was essentially reborn, it was in a firey explosion reflecting how he was driven by revenge and rage. Eve on the other hand was reborn in the rain and is motivated by freedom and compassion. Nice detail
It was pretty funny to see John Hurt on that screen, since he played Winston in 1984 a few decades prior. It makes me think of a fan theory - that after the end of the movie (and book), Winston joined the party and slowly rose to power, becoming the new Big Brother. (I know it's stupid and it doesn't make sense tho. Still, it's a crime you people didn't make any 1984 jokes after seeing him on that screen. For shame.)
Hugo Weaving was a similar Big Brother type in the Wachowskis’ Matrix Trilogy and yet here Hurt and Hugo are in opposite characterizations to their Matrix/1984 roles. And of course, both characters were named: Smith!
John Hurt was the only good thing about this film imo
5:27: Oh hey, I love horrible histories.
OH SHUT UP LOUIE [SLAP]
Here is my theory on how V was able to predict the government's every move in the movie: After he escaped from Larkhill, V went underground for a untold number of years. He tracked every move of the key players in the conspiracy for months at a time. He conducted surveillance, dug up dirt, files, whatever he could find to get inside the heads of his targets. Once he had everything he needed, he began formulating his plan to bring down the government. He created his persona, he then began searching for someone who would be his legacy, to pick up his cause when he was gone. He came upon Evie Hammond, a young woman who is content with the world but on the inside wants change. I also theorize that V was an investigator or secret agent of some sort in his previous life.
I felt Evey in the movie didn't have that much of a character arc. While granted she is stronger and can fend for herself throughout the movie, but aside from a difference in philosophy, it isn't that much of a transformation.
Evey in the book started out as very vulnerable and inexperienced, but became a stronger character, and a completely different person, towards the end (both emotionally and psychologically).
Bonfire night is when we burn an effigy of guy Fawkes. Yep. And we say saying the pledge of allegiance before school is creepily patriotic, bordering on state worship.
(It is)
21:05 "You're going to kill me now?"
V: "Omae wa... mou shindeiru"
Holy crap you made mention of The Dom!! Does that mean you might one do a crossover with him?!?!
Also, surprised no cameo from Linkara..
Having both seen the movie and read the book, I kinda have to agree with Kytana more on his conclusions as an adaptation. It's not a bad movie, but if you compare it to the book, it kinda falls apart more often than it holds up. Especially if you read it, much like Watchmen, as a deconstructionist story of the superhero genre.
I will give the movie this much, looking back on it and having learned more about the Count of Monte Cristo, the comparison is actually surprisingly apt. A man wronged by those in power, though for a much less personal reason, seeking revenge on those who wronged him the most.
And then there's the omission of things like the Rosemary subplot, while not necessarily detrimental to the movie, I rather enjoyed that subplot myself and kinda wish it had made it into the movie. This idea of V manipulating the events like some Chessmaster to push Rosemary to the point of killing Susan was a well-executed plot point, ultimately I felt played out better than the movie's version because it felt more personal than the head of the Secret Police.
Ultimately, it's a movie that if it was a stand-alone film with no connection to the Alan Moore Story, I wouldn't have as much problem with it. It's just... not very good as an adaptation to me, though far from the worst thing I've ever seen.
And yes, Hugo Weaving and John Hurt do an amazing job, that doesn't hurt either. That's not even going into the kind of casting gag of John Hurt as the Fascist Dictator when he also played Winston Smith in the adaptation of 1984. Very good review really, I enjoyed it like I did all your other reviews, just, not my favorite movie really.
I think Krim comes off as a person who watched the movie before reading the book, while Katana was a person reading the book before the movie.
Normally, I wouldn't say the order is important. But in this instance, the movie spun it's own take on the source material and emphasized some of the strongest elements even if they had to cut some parts that were also great, but couldn't be adapted well.
So, yes. I agree with what you're saying. But the movie is so overpowering that it colors your expectations of the book when you read it. (I personally saw the movie first, and it just made the book that much more enjoyable.)
Also, adaptations are difficult. Even under the best of circumstances, there's going to have to be changes made. That's the Adapt or Die philosophy. I think Krim is just trying to acknowledge the difficulties in creating a movie that both works as an adaptation and manages to stand on its own as a movie.
I see both scores as being valid. Nay even definitive. I don't think either would've let the other leave a scoring if they truly disagreed with the other's conclusion. Meaning, at some point, both of them agreed the dual score was a more accurate representation than just giving one.
@@jay.hartman1789 You bring up an excellent point really... though interestingly enough I actually saw the movie first and read the comic second myself, and I still prefer the comic.
The way I see it the biggest problem with the movie is that it tries to take a story that is a product of its time and adapts it to a 21st century scenario. It works fine as a standalone, but when you look at it that way it has its problems.
We have to take into consideration that, at the time the movie was released, there really was not that much precedence for a movie that would run up to 3 hours, especially for a comic-book adaptation (and even a 3-hour long feature film would not be long enough to create a completely faithful movie adaptation--whatever that means--i think). Could it have been made as a trilogy? could it have, at the time it was released, have achieved box office and critical success while retaining the nuances and more of the moral gray areas that were present in the themes and subplots of the graphic novel? the answer to both is, who knows?
but now, at our times, could this graphic novel be more faithfully recreated and gain success as a mini series? the possibilities are tempting, and if enough fans push for it, and if enough passionate creatives band behind it, such an idea might indeed take root...and ideas are bulletproof...
Unm... the speech in the book was meant as political commentary for the audience to reflect on. It is one of the few times Alan Moore spells out the message: this has happened before, it could happen again. What are YOU going to do about it?
The Doctor nothing :)
V for Vendetta is actually a clever satire, just not in the comedic sense. It lampoons authoritarian governments through an extreme dystopian fascist state, while also contrasting that with the violence and chaos of a revolutionary like V. It asks the audience if fighting fire with fire (or in this case, fighting extremism with extremism) is a necessary of standing up to tyranny.
Essentially, do the ends justify the means? It creates an extreme dystopia based on elements of real world authoritarian dictatorships and asks us to consider how we would go about opposing such an evil. Real world Anarchists like myself don't necessarily advocate for violent revolutions (we're more interested in workers owning the means of production and direct, horizontal, stateless democracies), but we also recognise that those in power (the state) can and do use their monopoly on violence to maintain their position, even in (supposedly) democratic countries like the US and UK!
When the average person thinks of an Anarchist, they may well think of V. It's easy to just write him off as a stereotype, but I think to do so misses the point of his character. He's as much a satire of Anarchism as the Fascists he opposes. Does he have a point? Or is he as bad as the fascists he opposes? When is violence necessary, and is all violence created equal?
Examining these questions, then framing them against the countries we live in, can be a great way to think about and discuss political philosophies.
I love movies. Of all the forms of entertainment they're actually my preferred medium. Over the past few decades I've noticed that there has been a terrible shift in the characterization of people both good and bad. There's no more purity in any form. We no longer have pure Goodguys and no more pure bad guys. This can in many cases be a wonderful thing. Everything has become so homogenized. Nuance is a very important thing in storytelling. You want to have characters that are rich and developed that have motivations that are Beyond mustache-twirling evil or righteous goodness however not all the time. It's even gotten to the point where we have deleted that from old media. The perfect example is Hannibal Lecter. He used to be the quintessential out of nowhere evil. He ate people because he likes to do it and he had no reason to do that. And then Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal and Hannibal Rising and they gave him that horrible backstory. Krim I would very much appreciate it if you did an episode on that. I don't think anyone else could cover them the way you could.
Very much agree
Ray Ruckus definitely, in the world there are good guys (those who sacrifice luxury, comfort, and pleasure in the sake of helping others) and bad guys (those who do the opposite. Killing and torturing others because that provides pleasure, and comfort) and those in between (those who wish for comfort, might not enjoy killing but do it anyway, has good reasons and bad to do either) and recently people focus to much on those in the middle since that seems relevant and realistic and while that’s good. Hitler and Stalin and MLK where a thing so why not focus more on the bad guys and the good guys for a bit? Makes those in the middle better all the same when we focus on them again
It's like v for Vendetta in the UK now.
Are the all wearing the mask?
@@ShadowWolfRising Orange ones yeah
No.. it is not
Owen Feye found the Tory
Bubbles are you implying that the British government that is currently fighting itself harder than anything is somehow running an entire surveillance state and has issued a curfew and has fingermen running around? No. Dumbass.
awesome. Just awesome!
the intro alone is exciting everytime, the humorous interludes, plus of course the great content. I love this channel 😍
Fun Fact: Weaving replaced Purfoy in the role of V because Purfoy was apparently having trouble breathing beneath V's mask. Several of the scenes with V actually still have Purfoy playing V with dubbing by Weaving.
I wouldn't say the Britain in V for Vendetta was better after what V did. It went from a functional autocracy to a country filled with riots and food shortages. Also as there wasn't anyone who was going to lead the country after the previous government fell it was likely to remain dysfunctional and possibly spawn another authoritarian regime.
Perhaps but that's a point that V addresses in the book, saying that all he cares about is that the world to follow the Norsefire regime be one of the peoples making, whatever world it may be
A great book and a great adaptation by Krimson? Hell yeah!
Oh, wow! This November weather is something else am I right? =P
Thank you so much for this review! I kept requesting it and it's here. Good job Krim 👌
I've been waiting for this!
You're both my favorite book review channels and I love to see you collaborate!
I seem to be in the minority in that I didn't enjoy the film. I found it dull. The book however was amazing!
The book works far better in my opinion because V's intentions were virtuous, but his methods were extremely questionable. He truly was a terrorist rather than film V's almost unquestionable chaotic good nature. Though, I still really liked the film. 7/10
The pair of you are possibly my favorite youtubers
This has made my month
thank you for this i needed it
Oh my God that opening! Since I'm subscribed to both of you I had to do a double-take to check whose video I was on!
Best review from my two favorite internet reviewers. I've been sick in bed all day and this cheered me up alot.
Kytana's really cute! Btw I only discovered your The Book Was Better reviews only a few months ago, but they are VERY entertaining. And even if I'm only vaguely familiar with the movie, I still enjoy how funny and insightful it is.
Yay! Two of my favorite channels coming together!
I would’ve liked to see V do the whole doll thing with Prothero in the movie. The scene itself could be really well done.
I remember studying the graphic for my Grade 11 English class. I also doing a major comparison between the movie and original graphic novel for the final project of my Pop Culture Studies dual credit last year. I have to say I indeed enjoy the graphic novel as it seems more complex with pretty much every main character coming from a criminal background. (like they changed Evey and Gordon's backstory too much and made V too sympathetic.) I also enjoyed the ending with Evey eventually becoming the new V with her wearing his disguise and picking a new recruit herself after the society falls into anarchy. I actually find the book to have a way more realistic ending than the book.
While the movie pretty much felt like a sappy love story between V and Evey and many of the plot points and characters were oversimplified. Might as well call the movie "V did nothing wrong rather than V for Vendetta. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy many stories that deal with conflicts in society but I felt like the movie kind of sugarcoated some of the harsher aspects of rebellions and wars and idealizing the cycle of revenge. While rebellion and war are sometimes necessary the outcomes are not always pleasant.
OMFG I WANTED TO SEE *SOMEONE* TALK ABOUT THIS FANTASTIC THING
Krimson careful, I LOVE this movie :)
Great video as always. 👏👏
OH MY GOD! My two favorite book reviewers doing a crossover?! Christmas came early this year! 🎄 (BTW, I know I’m extremely late to the video and I recently subscribed to your channel but I’m already a fan.)
I don't know if I never noticed them or if they are new to the "in frame" part of the bookcase but I wanted to say that I love the inclusion of the Christopher Moore books in the background. Great choice
Would love to see a review on “A Silent Voice“ the film adaptation of the seven volume manga. The DVD is finally being released in the states in April and I would love to see your view on the story.
Yessss I’ve been waiting for this since krimson announced it on Facebook
So hey, can anyone tell what the song that starts playing in the background of the video at around 21:16 is called? Because I keep hearing around and nobody seems to know.
Also the political commentary was a direct criticism of the Thatcher Ministry. In the movie they made it more like American political issues at the time and it was... weird.
Sai no it was about fascism and anarchy. Not Margret Thatcher
@@Cyborg-zg6ml same thing
He never said he was in love with Evey in the source material? OH THANK GOD
6:08 Where is this from?
Seriously though, great work boys. Great analysis and comparison/contrast.
New to your channel and i absolutely love how you own your cringy edginess and mix it well with a great comparison of the comic vs movie
15:59
"With two unconscious bodies to do with as he pleases" 😏
Am I the only one that sees too many similarities between the begining of this review and the begining of Nostalgia Critic and Lankara's of Superman IV?
That said, amazing review.
I read Ready Player One a year before the movie came out and felt as tho the movie lacked a little. I said to myself it was fine because the book lasts years, but I would love to hear your opinions on the matter. The movie is also toned down from the seriousness to get more attention from younger audiences which I feel was a bad move, for example, the death of Daito, and how ruthless the Sixers were.
Also Evey forms a V when she rises up her arms after the fake imprisonment segment.
"Remember...Krim''s making revenge stew tonight! "Hack Author!" Azale-fuck-yeah!"
I don't know if this is a complement but I always watch these videos while cleaning
Loved the review! Do you think you can do a review on Neil Gaiman's American Gods? I'm currently reading it right now because my mom loves it, and I know that it's been adapted into a T.V. show with several things changed, but I still hear good things about it. In short terms, I want to know what other people think of American Gods and why they like it.
25:25
.....Was that Omnibeneficial?
So which did you like more Krimson?
I was wondering when this review was going to come out. Now, I got my answer.🍻
Look at the time now! Get out your book, pop in the DVD, sit back, and enjoy some super awesome TBWB...yeah!
Gonna look at this for a college class this semester. Granted it isn't until the very end, but this video still has me hyped.
I keep discovering more of your stuff!
What's the theme at 8:20? We watched the movie in 9th grade and I loved it!
Why are videos after this one not in a playlist?
Interesting bit on the Guy Fawx mask: I cannot confirm, but I believe that aspects of traditional Japanese theater were used during the filming and molding of the mask. It’s very similar to an Hannya mask in Noh theater. The trick with the mask is that from certain angles the demon looks malicious, gleeful and grinning, while from other angles, the Hannya looks almost mournful.
I wouldn’t be surprised to discover it was in fact inspired by the Noh theater. The Wachowski’s have been heavily inspired by eastern cultures before
What was everyone's favorite scene in the book? Mine was the dolls
V's alliterative introduction speech, it perfectly set up the eccentricity and obsessive nature of his personality
Evey's prison sentence and her discovery of the letter on toilet paper + V's input.
The letter, without a doubt. I was sobbing by the end of it, and I will go back and re-read just that section sometimes.
I was waiting for this since november
Also i think you should review sahara and battlefield earth
Thanks to your parons eh?
Good video Krim and cool collab.
V reminds me of Sebastian Michaelis from Black butler
Who’s next, The Crow?
No way! I was just staring at the comic thinking "This would be a cool episode"
Does anyone know who does the thumbnails? Cause they're really good.
Our title card artist's handle is Silvy Chan. Check the description for a link to her work.
More than 6x the number of subscribers in only 1 year. Nice going Krimson.
I wish they did the movie V for Vengeance and we see Evie take up V's mantel.
I love Krims reviews. I just think he should have as many subs as The Nostalgia Critic
I would love to see him review the Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter movie, it's not great but it's pretty fun
As exciting as a RLM video, let's do this!
what a amazing review so what is next
My birthdays on november 5th so my brother would always wanna watch this movie with me on my birthday.
What’s the credits song?
For such a rainy place you would think London would be less flammable
hey, krimson if you have the time it would be fun to see a review of The long ships (or Röde orm as its known in Sweden). the movie version of that book is the worst one I have ever seen.
The Seeker tv series would be fun to it basically brakes the continuity of the books in the first 30 seconds.
Great review by the way I always look forward to them. keep up the good work :)
I enjoyed this a lot. I'm a person that loved both the book and the movie and feel that the two can coalesce well together.
So excited to see this!!!!
The movie was a bit annoying cause it was like... Evie when through all that just to give him a kiss and pull a lever? Her triumphant reappearance as V at the end of the comic is epic.
I read somewhere that was over a million Domino's. Anybody who screwed that shot up was more than likely...called...wait for it..."A PIZZA shit!"
what is the intro song?
0:13 what's the song called
I wasn’t expecting this😆 hi mate👋 I LOVE crossovers
Ok, the relevant South Park quip got a laugh out of me
#GoRogue Where’s your review of Da Vinci Code? I can’t find it.
I had to hand in my final thesis on the 5th of November and no one got my V for Vendetta references I made the whole week prior.
The only thing I can hear when Sutler is talking is the dragon from Merlin XD
Have you done good omens?
what you couldn't wait for the 5th of November for this review. missed a goldened opportunity KR
The dark secret is that this review is 3 months late. :P
So that explains that one shin Chan joke where Shin was giving examples of hot bald people and included Natalie Portman
Will you please read Twilight Eclipse and review the film Krimson.
Finally someone said it! The movie is great in its own right, but all the changes to Evey and the streamlining of the plot turns it into a whole different story for