movie review: V for Vendetta
Mar. 18th, 2006 11:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonAt the risk of pissing off every hardcore Moore fanboy/girl out there, I'll say it:
"V for Vendetta" is a good action movie. Maybe even the best action movie released this year so far.
Having said this, it is NOT Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta". If you go in knowing that the movie, like the movie version of "From Hell", is best seen as a separate, "inspired by" entity than the book, you should enjoy it.
More could be said, but IMHO the movie falls down on two major counts:
1) Failure to world-build.
We know that this is supposed to be near-future English dictatorship, but we aren't given the feeling that it's as BAD as it really is. There is a curfew and surveillance is suggested, but the invasiveness and desperation isn't conveyed at all.
This plays itself out in the introduction of Evey - far from being the poor factory girl from the book who gets caught out after curfew trying to turn tricks, she's got a job at the British TV Corporation (ok, at least she's not an executive) and a fairly nice apartment. Maybe this was a change to get the largely middle-class target audience to identify more with her character, but that's speculation on my part.
"Undesirables" are mentioned, but we're largely left guessing as to what an "undesirable" is. We get the inkling as the movie goes on that the grouping includes political dissidents and homosexuals, but nothing is mentioned about the total absence of people of color on the streets.
There were any of a dozen moments where the writers could have cleared this up, and I was waiting for it so keenly that I was even looking at Finch's take-out packaging in one scene, hoping they'd show us that it WASN'T Indian take-out :P
2) Humanizing of V.
First rule of "V for Vendetta" - V is an idea, not an individual. He's well spoken and deadly, but beyond searing rage he's a cipher - he's supposed to be, because he could be anyone. Showing him flipping egg on toast in an apron(!) is like putting nipples on Batman - it trivializes the character and is totally unnecessary. Goofing off while watching "Count of Monte Christo" is more in keeping with his character, but still - I didn't sign up for "At Home With a Masked Madman" - I don't care what he does "off-duty" :P
I was willing to be forgiving, because most movies of books make a huge mess of them, but the one thing I can't forgive the Wachowski(sp?) bros. for is the romance (! wrong wrong wrong!) between Evey and V. No smoochies for V, no falling in love for V, no no no! He's beyond all that. Yes, he's got the moves and Hugo Weaving gives V a sexy voice, so I can see where Evey might fall for him a little, but V should NEVER have been written as reciprocating, not even if it's Natalie Portman (but still, V's not supposed to be sexy or sexual in any way! Damn my eardrums!)
There were a few good points though:
The action was riviting and solid. Hey, if it's got knives and swords I'm happy; motion trails with the knives? Even better.
Valerie's story was just beautiful, I even shed a tear. Some reviewers wondered what the hell it was doing there: Read the book, dammit!
THEY DO NOT SHOW V'S FACE. Turns out I wanted a bit more from the movie that was offered, but I stand by my original assessment - I'm happy that they didn't try and identify V.
Dietrich (Stephen Fry's) satire of Sutler. Not from the book, but fairly funny. Really, if the directors needed a teensy bit of comic relief in this otherwise very grim story, I'd have traded them this scene if they'd just take out V's frilly apron!
Coupling actor-spotting - can you tell me who? Hint: it's the donkey.
Overall, the movie "V for Vendetta" is like an impressionist painting of the graphic novel, lots of bright colors that miss much of the detail that makes the original such a tough act to follow. I continue to grind my teeth over the Great Big Paint Glob I described under the cut, but no doubt purists will be tearing their hair and rending their garments for weeks.
If you've read the book, yes - you will be disappointed. All I can say is try and enjoy it for what it is. If you've not read the book, you'll probably enjoy - maybe even love - this film about sticking it to the Man, but please go read the book. A local comic book shop had a poster advertising it at the theater exit, and I'm hoping at that the movie inspires at least a few of the viewers to go get it.
"V for Vendetta" is a good action movie. Maybe even the best action movie released this year so far.
Having said this, it is NOT Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta". If you go in knowing that the movie, like the movie version of "From Hell", is best seen as a separate, "inspired by" entity than the book, you should enjoy it.
More could be said, but IMHO the movie falls down on two major counts:
1) Failure to world-build.
We know that this is supposed to be near-future English dictatorship, but we aren't given the feeling that it's as BAD as it really is. There is a curfew and surveillance is suggested, but the invasiveness and desperation isn't conveyed at all.
This plays itself out in the introduction of Evey - far from being the poor factory girl from the book who gets caught out after curfew trying to turn tricks, she's got a job at the British TV Corporation (ok, at least she's not an executive) and a fairly nice apartment. Maybe this was a change to get the largely middle-class target audience to identify more with her character, but that's speculation on my part.
"Undesirables" are mentioned, but we're largely left guessing as to what an "undesirable" is. We get the inkling as the movie goes on that the grouping includes political dissidents and homosexuals, but nothing is mentioned about the total absence of people of color on the streets.
There were any of a dozen moments where the writers could have cleared this up, and I was waiting for it so keenly that I was even looking at Finch's take-out packaging in one scene, hoping they'd show us that it WASN'T Indian take-out :P
2) Humanizing of V.
First rule of "V for Vendetta" - V is an idea, not an individual. He's well spoken and deadly, but beyond searing rage he's a cipher - he's supposed to be, because he could be anyone. Showing him flipping egg on toast in an apron(!) is like putting nipples on Batman - it trivializes the character and is totally unnecessary. Goofing off while watching "Count of Monte Christo" is more in keeping with his character, but still - I didn't sign up for "At Home With a Masked Madman" - I don't care what he does "off-duty" :P
I was willing to be forgiving, because most movies of books make a huge mess of them, but the one thing I can't forgive the Wachowski(sp?) bros. for is the romance (! wrong wrong wrong!) between Evey and V. No smoochies for V, no falling in love for V, no no no! He's beyond all that. Yes, he's got the moves and Hugo Weaving gives V a sexy voice, so I can see where Evey might fall for him a little, but V should NEVER have been written as reciprocating, not even if it's Natalie Portman (but still, V's not supposed to be sexy or sexual in any way! Damn my eardrums!)
There were a few good points though:
The action was riviting and solid. Hey, if it's got knives and swords I'm happy; motion trails with the knives? Even better.
Valerie's story was just beautiful, I even shed a tear. Some reviewers wondered what the hell it was doing there: Read the book, dammit!
THEY DO NOT SHOW V'S FACE. Turns out I wanted a bit more from the movie that was offered, but I stand by my original assessment - I'm happy that they didn't try and identify V.
Dietrich (Stephen Fry's) satire of Sutler. Not from the book, but fairly funny. Really, if the directors needed a teensy bit of comic relief in this otherwise very grim story, I'd have traded them this scene if they'd just take out V's frilly apron!
Coupling actor-spotting - can you tell me who? Hint: it's the donkey.
Overall, the movie "V for Vendetta" is like an impressionist painting of the graphic novel, lots of bright colors that miss much of the detail that makes the original such a tough act to follow. I continue to grind my teeth over the Great Big Paint Glob I described under the cut, but no doubt purists will be tearing their hair and rending their garments for weeks.
If you've read the book, yes - you will be disappointed. All I can say is try and enjoy it for what it is. If you've not read the book, you'll probably enjoy - maybe even love - this film about sticking it to the Man, but please go read the book. A local comic book shop had a poster advertising it at the theater exit, and I'm hoping at that the movie inspires at least a few of the viewers to go get it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-18 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-18 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-18 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-19 12:51 am (UTC)It was also interesting seeing John Hurt playing Sutler after earlier playing Winston Smith.