> A more likely sequel to Episode III than the optimistic Episode I is _V
> for Vendetta_ (cf. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta> and
> <http://madelyn.utahgoth.net/vendetta/vendetta1.html>), which will open
> on "Nov. 4, which happens to be the day before the 400th anniversary of
> Guy Fawkes Day" (Sarah Lyall, "From the Wachowski Brothers, an Ingénue
> Who Blows Up Parliament" [New York Times,
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/movies/19lyal.html>, 19 Jun. 2005] --
> see, also, <http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/>). V, the first
> anarchist terrorist hero in the history of cinema, is a more fitting
> sign of the times than a fair-haired boy from the galactic Midwest. _V
> for Vendetta_ ends in a general insurrection. Natalie Portman -- who
> plays Evey, V's protégé who steps into V's place -- says of the ending:
> "It has a hopeful ending, because the revolution finally comes" (qtd. in
> Lyall, 19 Jun. 2005).
Well, this is bizarre. I knew nothing about this upcoming movie, other than the fact that Natalie Portman shaved her head and it wasn't for Star Wars. I was thinking this morning about how the Wachowski Brothers totally botched the sequels to The Matrix by watering down the anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian theme of the first movie. I wondered if this decision had anything to do with 9/11. It is only fitting that The Matrix sequels be remade one of these years.
I miss the anti-capitalist moment of 1999, which brought us Fight Club, The Matrix, and American Beauty.
Perhaps the Wachowski Brothers will redeem themselves with V for Vendetta. I doubt it. I'm too cynical about Hollywood.
Chuck0