V FOR VENDETTA MOVIE REVIEW

[Seth Kim]

<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/dc/vertigo/v1.JPG" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/dc/vertigo/v2.JPG" hspace=10 align=left alt="V for Vendetta Poster"></a>Reviewer: Seth Kim, loki@darkhorsemail.net

Enter, the villain.

CAST
Evey Hammond: Natalie Portman
V: Hugo Weaving
Finch: Stephen Rea
Adam Sutler: John Hurt
Dominic: Rupert Graves
Creedy: Tim Pigott-Smith
Deitrich: Stephen Fry
Lewis Prothero: Roger Allam

CREW
Writers: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Director: James McTeigue
Producers: Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski, Grant Hill
Co-Producers: Roberto Malerba, Henning Molfenter, Charlie Woebcken
Executive Producer: Ben Waisbren

The thing is, I went into V for Vendetta prepared to like it. To get a glimpse of my mindset prior to entering the theatre, click here (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?p=1194187#post1194187). I'd be lying if I were to say that all of the positive press heading into opening day had nothing to do with it, but mostly it had to do with what I had seen before I stepped into the theater. I am afraid to say that once more, my expectations have been officially crushed. I hate to be the wet blanket, but for me, the Alan Moore curse has struck once again.

For once, I don't know where to start. I think this is because of my fervent passion for the graphic novel that is V for Vendetta. While I have always maintained the philosophy that a comic to film adaptation should be approached both as an adaptation and as its own film, I find that it is impossible to do so with V for Vendetta. This is due to my utmost respect for the book, and to the fact that I truly believe that V for Vendetta cannot, and does not, for that matter, work outside of the context of its original material.

<a href=" http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/misc/v2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/misc/v2-t.jpg" align=left hspace=10 alt="V for Vendetta"></a> So by this point it's pretty apparent that I firmly believe that V for Vendetta doesn't work. What's worse though, is that I believe that are very few parts things wrong with the film; it's that those few parts are immensely crucial to the story. I am not so naive as to believe that any and all material adapted to the silver screen can be left without change, but in the case of V for Vendetta the changes have been made in all the wrong places. They could have even kept the same cast, the same crew, just as long as they had stuck more to the original story.

Then what exactly is it that I am alluding to? V for Vendetta is just too easy. While the world of V for Vendetta was one painted in shades of grey, everything in the film is in starch strokes of black and white. There is no middle area. There is absolutely no question as to who the protagonist and who the antagonist is. See, they haven't really butchered V for Vendetta, which is why I think artist David Lloyd didn't take his name off of the project while co-creator Alan Moore did. It isn't unrecognizable; it's just incredibly watered down, and in turn, dumbed down.

Being that V for Vendetta is one of my favorite pieces of literature (not in just the comic world), I've made it a habit to enlighten as many people as possible with its existence. Whenever I brought the book up in conversation, I would never say that it was an "entertaining" or a "fun" book. Not that it isn't, it just always seemed that such terms didn't really describe the book properly. V for Vendetta is entertaining, and it is fun at times, but more than anything it is intelligent and it is thought-provoking.

While the book always has us second-guessing, there is no such activity going on within the audience's collective brain while they are viewing the film. Everything is neatly wrapped and digestible, with very few questions posed. What I have to bring up at this point is the marketing behind the film. The trailers and the media have repeatedly brought up Hugo Weaving's and the Wachowskis' involvement in relationship with The Matrix. While one of my initial worries was that there would be too much action in V for Vendetta, I was surprised to find myself thinking there was much too little.

With very little for the mind to chew on, the viewer has nothing to latch on, and with the running time at two hours and twenty minutes, you actually find that V for Vendetta is a bit... boring. Try to fathom what I'm saying here. V for Vendetta. Boring. The ironic thing is, that if our fears had been realized, and they had played up the action bits, then V for Vendetta would have been a more enjoyable film. Sure it still wouldn't be anything near the graphic novel, but at least it wouldn't have been boring.

For me to properly discuss the more severe problems behind V for Vendetta, I need to pick an appropriate point of entry, and that would be the characters themselves. It is here that the most inexcusable of changes have been made, and it is through them that we can truly see why the film has failed.

<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/misc/2005_v_for_vendetta2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/misc/2005_v_for_vendetta-t.jpg" align=right hspace=10 alt="Codename V"></a>To me, V was one of the most enigmatic characters that I had ever witnessed on the written page. V approached us as he approached Evey; it was impossible for us to know what went on in his head and where his true motives lay, all the more symbolized by the Guy Fawkes mask. The film V, however, while still charismatic, is explanatory and apologetic... In other words, he's human. There are key moments and pieces of dialogue that are conspicuously absent in the film, and subsequently the character of V suffers direly. On the other hand there are pieces that were never in the graphic novel that are there in the film, and through these small omissions and additions V is a different person. What I stress here once more is that he is a person. He is a person who feels and is thus vulnerable. While he is something untouchable, something unknowable in the book, there is no room for questioning in the film. We knows where he comes from because we see it, (there are a few scenes that are much too revealing of the physical aspect of V, subsequently rendering the mask pointless) and we know what he is thinking because he tells us. While the word "terrorist" is spouted continuously throughout the duration of the film, V hardly shows that unstableness and mercilessness that make us doubt his true motives as well as his sanity. For once the blame does not fall upon the actor, as Hugo Weaving presents as best a V as he can, which is really quite good. The writing however, is not.

Evey. Evey. Evey. Evey. Evey. I had brought up Evey's change of age before I had seen the film, hoping that Portman's being 25 to Evey's 16 was irrelevant. I'm afraid that the changes in V for Vendetta's protagonist go further than her age though. Like they say, age is just a number. While everyone speaks about the interrogation scene I would like to address a few other key sequences that most do harm to the film. The opening scene, where we initially meet Evey and then V is the first that I would like to bring up. It is evident when Portman first graces the scene in her underwear that this is not the nervous 16 year-old of the graphic novel. There is never that sense of fear in not only Evey, but also the entire world of V for Vendetta, a point that I will further address later on. There is never that uncertainty, especially in Evey's initial choice when she is given it. While in the book Evey almost acquiesces to V, sheepishly following him upon her rescue in Westminster, Evey is much more hands on in the film. Her aid of V is more of her own choice, and therefore another grey area of V for Vendetta is neatly divided. There is no question as to whether Evey truly invests in V and his crusade in the film, unlike the book. The fact that they left out the most powerful moment with the character of course helps nothing, and I don't mean the interrogation scene. I’m talking about the entire ending and the sequence leading up to it. They did however in the process, pull off one scene that I did feel strongly about, and that scene would be the film’s ending. Too bad those feelings weren't positive ones.

What I was pleasantly surprised about V for Vendetta was that they understood that Finch was also a key player. Finch gets his equal screen time, and plays a pivotal part in the story. But as things would have it Finch too would go under a few changes. The most important element of Finch in the book, and the one element that they missed is that he was aware of what his government was capable of doing and had done. Despite this, Finch believed that Fate was ultimately right, and held true to his beliefs and his party. By taking that inch away from him and from the film we have yet another question that is answered for us. What would we have done if we were in Finch's position? And is Finch a bad person for taking up with Fate? In the film he apparently is not, as he is ignorant to the evil that his government is capable of. Furthermore, Finch is never really given any characterization time. Finch plays the role of the investigator and he plays it well but he never truly comes out as his own character and therefore is unable to truly fill the boots of his comic counterpart.

It maybe a more cosmetic change, but I wonder why they decided to change Leader's name from Adam Susan to Adam Sutler. Speaking of, I also wonder why they've changed his title from the much more totalitarian Leader to the Star Wars prequel like title of High Chancellor. Now I understand that they couldn't include every single scene of Leader, especially his private moment with Fate, but I don't understand why they have made him into such a hateful, one-dimensional, banal dictator as opposed to the troubled, multi-faceted character he is in the book. There is no room for pity or understanding in V for Vendetta; the parallels between Sutler and Hitler are much more pronounced and it is obvious where the audience's sympathies are supposed to lie. Without delving too deep, I also have to say that I absolutely loathe the changes that have been done to Sutler’s storyline, especially the entire ordeal with Creedy. Furthermore, the entire plotline with the Saint Mary’s terrorist attack is pointless, as if putting all of the minorities and gay citizens of England into concentration camps wasn’t enough. Despite that particular piece of overkill, what I find most queer about V for Vendetta is that for such a world ruled under an iron fist, the people sure do seem to be content.

There is no sense of urgency in V for Vendetta. Right from the opening with Evey and the fingermen (with V’s slightly overdone monologue, I had no idea there were so many words starting with ‘v’) to the montage of sequences of England's populace you never get the sense that the country is truly suppressed. This is just another reason why V for Vendetta comes off as boring. If the fault must be placed anywhere, I would have to say it's the overall look of the film. There's most certainly something wrong with the set design, as the Shadow Gallery looks much more like someone's attic than the massive, nauseating, and mysterious lair of its equally mysterious owner. More relevantly, the citizens of England seem to be much more well off, as the average family seem like they would fit much more in contemporary England rather than a fictional fascist England. One of the main culprits in this case is the change in the Mouth of Fate. While the Finger is intact (if not barely) in V for Vendetta, there is no mentioning of any of the other departments. The Mouth however has been changed into a TV news network, complete with an extremely modern looking television station. Prothero, the Voice of Fate, is now a pseudo-Rush Limbaugh, speaking of the nations’ events instead of being the key instrument in the well-oiled machine that is Fate. The cinematography helps nothing, as it is incredibly bright, much more than what we are led on to believe from what we see in the trailer. The result, added only to by a much less effective ending, is that it is almost as if the revolution is due simply to boredom, rather than a true desire for freedom.

As the atrocious ending faded and the credits began to go up I felt the incredibly strong urge to buy as many copies of V for Vendetta to hand out to anyone who had seen or had any intention of seeing the film. It was also at this point that I wondered to myself if it was just me, a hopeless fanatic of the wonderful tale crafted by David Lloyd and Alan Moore who found the film dull and flat. One look around the theatre, and I knew that even though I was the only enlightened one, I wasn't the only disgruntled one. Of course, as always, I do encourage you to try the film on for size by yourself. If you do however, I do also encourage you not to read the book first.

STORY:
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg

DIRECTION:
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vhalf.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg

ACTING:
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg

SPECIAL EFFECTS:
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg

OVERALL:
http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vfull.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/reviews/vnone.jpg

V for Vendetta is in theatres now.

[Anthony Devlin]

Excellent review Seth. :)

I do also encourage you not to read the book first.


Says it all really. :(

[Ryan Day]

Spot-on review, Seth. While I still enjoyed it more than you, I was disappointed in the stark black-and-white morality of the film. V comes off as a tragic hero instead of a man who might just be totally insane, and the Government had the conspiracy story heaped upon their already abominable behaviour just in case we weren't sure they were the bad guys.

I can live with changes - the particular form of totalitarian government, looking more like our everyday life than 1984, was believable. I liked Natalie Portman's character despite the changes; it would have been much harder to convery her entire character journey in a two-hour film. Though by far the highlight of the film was the interrogation sequence and Valerie's letters, which was almost note-perfect from the book.

It's just the obsessive need to spell everything out - Good Guys, Bad Guys, oh, that was V dressing up, just in case you weren't sure - that dragged a lot of the spark and life from the movie. Changing things can be fine, but there's no reason to dumb things down.

[RingoStarr]

I really think you should have two reviews for this film. This review seems biased (and with reason) because of course it can't be as good as the book. The book is heavy stuff that wouldn't traslate well in many ways to the screen.

But this movie wasn't made for us, it was made for everyone. And most people I have spoken to loved the movie and had never read the comic. I don;t think its fair to say the movie only gets a 2 because the comic was so good and the movie took the easy way out. In my opinion, they took the path that would be most accepted and liked by the most amount of people.(and that isn;t always a bad or lazy thing)

The movie, from what I have seen, never claimed to be the great piece of entertaiment that the graphic novel was. Instead, it was a thill ride that I think most reallyl iked.

[Ryan Day]

But the problems that make it a poor adaptation also prevent it from being a great film. It's overly simplistic, and reduces political revolution to a man in a mask fighting the evil government. Only one character in the film has any sort of development, while nearly everyone else is a cardboard cutout of a necessary role. Everything is spelled out in big, bold letters for the audience, who never really has to think about the plot or the characters.

It's stylish and well-executed, for the most part. But it's ultimately hollow and doesn't really say anything beyond "totalitarian governments are bad, democracy is good."

[Anthony Devlin]

I really think you should have two reviews for this film. This review seems biased (and with reason) because of course it can't be as good as the book.

How is it biased? If anything your getting a very well rounded opinion from someone who clearly loves the material, who has read the book, and seen the film. If anything, I’m more included to listen to Seth’s review, knowing he knows the subject matter to a higher degree than someone who loves the film because "I thought the scene when parliament blew up was, awesome". They clear understood the message behind the film; and the whole point of the book, which, if I remember correctly, this film is an adaptation off.

The movie, from what I have seen, never claimed to be the great piece of entertaiment that the graphic novel was. Instead, it was a thill ride that I think most reallyl iked.

Your last line clearly sums up why people who have read the book, appear to be the most critical of the film. The book isn’t a ‘thrill ride’, nor does it attempt to be, and the fact the films comes over that way shows they really missed the point.

[impulseucf]

How is it biased?

....by definition :).

I don't think he is attacking you, but by definition, your review is influenced by a prior experience and love for the inspiration, thereby preventing you from evaluating the film objectively as its own piece. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I was similarly let down by the fourth Harry Potter film as I am a recent convert and had very recently consumed all of the books... I was extremely disappointed by what was cut out, but the general reviews were overwhelmingly positive.

Agreed, it is difficult to see an adaptation of something you care so much about that has meaning changed, altered, or "dumbed-down" for mass-consumption, but keep in mind that the point isn't really to simply take the exact same thing you enjoyed in one form and copy it in movie form. At least more people will likely be exposed to V and will be more likely to investigate the source material... this could easily win more converts :).

As it happens, I am a HUGE X-Men fan, starting all the way back from when they were regularly good (and had both good writing AND art at the SAME time!) and I think the changes they made for the movie were very forgivable and still made for a great experience.

[Kavalier]

I really think you should have two reviews for this film. This review seems biased (and with reason) because of course it can't be as good as the book. The book is heavy stuff that wouldn't traslate well in many ways to the screen.

But this movie wasn't made for us, it was made for everyone. And most people I have spoken to loved the movie and had never read the comic. I don;t think its fair to say the movie only gets a 2 because the comic was so good and the movie took the easy way out. In my opinion, they took the path that would be most accepted and liked by the most amount of people.(and that isn;t always a bad or lazy thing)

The movie, from what I have seen, never claimed to be the great piece of entertaiment that the graphic novel was. Instead, it was a thill ride that I think most reallyl iked.


But shouldn't this be the perspective of a review on a Comic Book website? I'm pretty sure there are other reviews out there from different perspectives if you look for them.

[spam]

I really think you should have two reviews for this film. This review seems biased (and with reason) because of course it can't be as good as the book. The book is heavy stuff that wouldn't traslate well in many ways to the screen.

But this movie wasn't made for us, it was made for everyone. And most people I have spoken to loved the movie and had never read the comic. I don;t think its fair to say the movie only gets a 2 because the comic was so good and the movie took the easy way out. In my opinion, they took the path that would be most accepted and liked by the most amount of people.(and that isn;t always a bad or lazy thing)

The movie, from what I have seen, never claimed to be the great piece of entertaiment that the graphic novel was. Instead, it was a thill ride that I think most reallyl iked.

This sort of mirrors my thinking - I mean, I liked the movie, I'm not sure why, but I did. As anything supposed to bear any actual relationship to the original, it was a horrid piece of filth - yet I still liked it as a movie. I mean, it ruined the theme, and all the characters, rendering them into trite and easily digestible hollypeople, yet I still liked it. What's wrong with me????

[Anthony Devlin]

. At least more people will likely be exposed to V and will be more likely to investigate the source material... this could easily win more converts :).

I can live in hope, but if people only liked the film for the “thrill factor”. Well, they arent going to take well to the book; which isn’t about the thrill, it’s about repression and a fight to free people from it. It’s about extreme censorship over every aspect of your life, and from the reviews I’ve read, and the people I’ve spoken to, these elements were lost in the film.

. As it happens, I am a HUGE X-Men fan, starting all the way back from when they were regularly good (and had both good writing AND art at the SAME time!) and I think the changes they made for the movie were very forgivable and still made for a great experience.

You can’t compare the X-Men to V. X-men is such a vast story, which you could take from any angle and you would still end up with something that resemble the X-Men; in some fashion, you cannot do that with V. So were the X-Men movies are loosely based, they don’t have to be totally true to the material. V isn’t the same, it’s a self-contained story, you lose elements of said story, and then you do lose the essence of V

[RingoStarr]

How is it biased?

Look, I'm not trying to attack anyone...but that question just seems silly. When you feel so passionate about something as the reviewer obviously does about V, then it is hard to have an unbiased opinion regarding the movie.

This topic is a review of V for Vendetta, not a review of how V for Vendetta compars to the comic book. For that season, while I understand mentioning its differences, the movie should not live or die by the comic.

[James Groves]

But shouldn't this be the perspective of a review on a Comic Book website? I'm pretty sure there are other reviews out there from different perspectives if you look for them.

Spot on. :)

[Kevin Sutton]

I haven't seen it yet, though I hope. My little brother said it was okay, (oddly he felt that the book was more boring than the movie) and even with the criticisms levelled against it, (and my belief that they're probably accurate) I still hold out hope that V could still be a pretty good movie.

[Anthony Devlin]

Look, I'm not trying to attack anyone...but that question just seems silly. When you feel so passionate about something as the reviewer obviously does about V, then it is hard to have an unbiased opinion regarding the movie.

You could claim this over any given review that doesn’t sound in favour of your own opinion. There is no more bias here than a favourable review of an X-Man comic, on a site teaming with x-fans.

This topic is a review of V for Vendetta, not a review of how V for Vendetta compars to the comic book..

No, I agree, it’s not a review for the comic. But when the movie in question, is an adaptation of arguably one of best told stories in comic book history, then there are bound to be comparisons, to think otherwise if bordering on ridiculous IMO.

[Radiate]

Well to play devil's advocate (and throw in my 2 cents) i've read the comic and seen the movie.

The comic was good; the story was relevant to, not only the society of England at the time (1980s) but is also a timeless tale that has a moral of fighting for freedom no matter if the sacrifice is personal security etc. I do regard this comic as one of the best comics to have ever been written,from a literature point of view.

Yet,i too enjoyed the movie.Yes,certain aspects were changed; the ending where Evy should've become the next V; the St. Mary's Massacre; the change of The Leader. But,although the movie had some changes, it stayed surprisingly well to other aspects of the comic.

I understand that whilst the movie was overly blatant in its message of "totalitariansim bad,democracy and freedom good" and that V was diluted, losing part of the morality of the story,the underyling message of the comic book is still retained in the movie,albeit a diluted,watered down version.

Whenever it comes to books/comics adaptation the translations to the big screen are hard to do.The scenes of Finch's investigations in the comic were compelling,yet on the movie it was just plain boring.Something is always lost in translation,but i don't believe the MESSAGE was lost.

It all comes down to what a good adapation,by definition,means to you.Does it mean that panel by panel,story by story it stays true?Or whether the characterisation and certain elements are true but the overall story is changed somewhat?

I cannot answer that question for you.But i can tell you this;the movie (and i hate saying this i really do) had,to in some ways,change in a climate like todays political situation.I may get lambasted for this comment,but i feel that the film holds a sort of political relevance today as the comic book did in the 1980s,hence all the inclusions of the Avian Flu; America etc.

My friend and i had a very poignant political conversation after watching that movie;talking about ideologies etc. and stuff like that.And if the movie has managed to make people do that (despite the blatant and obvious message of "freedom good,oppression bad) it has succeeded in doing what the comic book did;sparking off intelligent and relevant conversation.The movie has (in my experience) made people think.A lot (and maybe that's cos we're living in the UK).

And i do have to admit,i did like the millions of Vs walking in London and the blowing up of Parliament.

RADIATE!

[impulseucf]

I can live in hope, but if people only liked the film for the “thrill factor”. Well, they arent going to take well to the book; which isn’t about the thrill, it’s about repression and a fight to free people from it. It’s about extreme censorship over every aspect of your life, and from the reviews I’ve read, and the people I’ve spoken to, these elements were lost in the film.

Well, people may go into something like this for the "thrill factor" but end up finding something else that captures their intrigue. I assure you, I have found out about many a great thing in unexpected ways.



You can’t compare the X-Men to V. X-men is such a vast story, which you could take from any angle and you would still end up with something that resemble the X-Men; in some fashion, you cannot do that with V. So were the X-Men movies are loosely based, they don’t have to be totally true to the material. V isn’t the same, it’s a self-contained story, you lose elements of said story, and then you do lose the essence of V

Well, I agree with you to a point, but at the end of the day, even with X-Men, the core essence of what it is is most certainly contained within a certain set of it's run. I mean, anything before 1974 may as well not exist for practical intents aside from the things that came from it (ie. everyone exists). Most of the 90s was tedium and more of the same... the core interactions, etc are fairly universal, and the rest is throwaway garbage.

However, I will say that you are right in that the essence of what defines the X-Men was not lost in translation. Point ;).



This topic is a review of V for Vendetta, not a review of how V for Vendetta compars to the comic book. For that season, while I understand mentioning its differences, the movie should not live or die by the comic.

Exactly. And it is for this reason that two reviews may be prudent here. Obviously, a review of a lackluster translation by a tremendous fan of the source will be incredibly biased, but that is to be expected at comic forum such as this. However, for a well-rounded approach, having an impartial party review the movie with no association would allow for a more objective review of the film as its own entity. It's an adaptation, after all, not a translation.


You could claim this over any given review that doesn’t sound in favour of your own opinion. There is no more bias here than a favourable review of an X-Man comic, on a site teaming with x-fans.

...

No, I agree, it’s not a review for the comic. But when the movie in question, is an adaptation of arguably one of best told stories in comic book history, then there are bound to be comparisons, to think otherwise if bordering on ridiculous IMO.


Granted, but it's safe to say that there is a fair amount of bias in both, then.

Also, of course comparisons will be made, but the simple fact that they are being compared precludes the review from being non-biased.

Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing that it is biased... I am certainly at a favorable advantage to you, because if I were intimately familar with the source, I am sure I would be letdown with the film, as well. It is for this reason that any time a high-profile adaptation is announced for which I have not yet read the source material, I intentionally wait until the movie so that I can enjoy both.

Harry Potter 4 again... the heart, soul, and honestly, the point of the book were sloppiled hacked away and left out of the film, including all of the "unnecessary" details that defined the environment and world as Harry Potter versus any other generic fantasy setting. I feel your pain.

[russbrett77]

It's stylish and well-executed, for the most part. But it's ultimately hollow and doesn't really say anything beyond "totalitarian governments are bad, democracy is good."

Anarchy.

Anarchy is good. Not democracy (though that is likely to follow).

By the by, I saw this with two others. We all loved it, and we had all read the GN previously.

I felt the changes were unnecessary, but did not ultimately change the moral or theme of the movie.

[Anthony Devlin]

Well, people may go into something like this for the "thrill factor" but end up finding something else that captures their intrigue.



I do see your point, but if the person is unfamiliar with the source material then in essence he isn’t giving a fair account of it being a truthful adaptation; which is why I don’t think there is a need for a second review. This review echo’s most reviews I've seen over here, from people familiar and unfamiliar with the material; I will admit though, most reviewers seem to have done their homework and read the book first; but I’d expect that, and had hope the person who wrote the adaptation might have done the same. :P – now I’m just being catty :kitty:

[Wil Kitchenmaster]

I liked it. A lot. So much as to see it twice. I couldn't tell you why, I've read the GN and enjoyed it incrediblty, and obviously this isn't anywhere near that level, but I liked the movie a helluvalot. Hate mail can be left at the end of the next Swimming Upstream.

[M-Angel]

The movie is a loose adaptation, yes.

Some stuff is never properly explained (like the meaning of the roses)
and some very important stuff was omitted (The Fate)

Some ideas were replaced by others (Aleister Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" is replaced with The Sex Pistols' "Anarchy in the UK")

The ending is a bit of a turnoff since in the comic book in seems..deeper. but the character that gives the leader what he had coming was also omitted from the film.

But..the movie works

I had to say that I had a good time at the movies and that the message of nonconformity is heard loud and clear through the movie, the movie has a very decent amount of style and substance and some parts are just told in a wonderful way (The Dominoes, Valerie)

Daredevil comes to mind, it was loyal to the source material for the most part and it didnt work, while V is for Vendetta is not as loyal but it works just the same as the book in it's own way

Great movie and I have to say your review was a little biased and fanboy-ish in the sense that "no movie can be as good as the comic book"

[Robb Welch]

I have not read the V For Vendetta GN yet.
I wanted to badly, I know now that I did the right thing in waiting for the movie first.
As V has now become one of my top 20 movies.
Loved it.
Girlfriend loved it.
Friends love it.

[Seth Kim]

Excellent review Seth. :)

Spot-on review, Seth.

Thank you very much, guys.

But the problems that make it a poor adaptation also prevent it from being a great film. It's overly simplistic, and reduces political revolution to a man in a mask fighting the evil government. Only one character in the film has any sort of development, while nearly everyone else is a cardboard cutout of a necessary role. Everything is spelled out in big, bold letters for the audience, who never really has to think about the plot or the characters.

It's stylish and well-executed, for the most part. But it's ultimately hollow and doesn't really say anything beyond "totalitarian governments are bad, democracy is good."

That's exactly my point.

At least more people will likely be exposed to V and will be more likely to investigate the source material... this could easily win more converts :).

I have to agree. Even though they've dumbed the material down and made it easily digestible, the source material is getting attention that it hasn't seen for years. If people watch the movie and like it, that's their own thing, and if they go out and get the book then I'll be content. I won't be content with the film, but I will be that they decided to check out the book and decide for themselves.

But shouldn't this be the perspective of a review on a Comic Book website? I'm pretty sure there are other reviews out there from different perspectives if you look for them.

There are. I tried to stay away from them so I could keep my own voice in the review. I do want to remind everyone that I'm a film nut before I'm a comic freak. It was hard trying to be objective to the film as opposed to objective, but I think that's why I gave the acting such high marks, because I could recognize it for what it was.

However, I still think the film fails, because had it been entertaining even outside of the context of the source material, I would have given it a higher rating. Need proof? Check out my Constantine review. Constantine was universally dumped on and I still enjoyed it. I should also point out that I enjoyed it despite my love for John Constantine, which actually rivals my love for Codename V. There's food for thought.

This sort of mirrors my thinking - I mean, I liked the movie, I'm not sure why, but I did. As anything supposed to bear any actual relationship to the original, it was a horrid piece of filth - yet I still liked it as a movie. I mean, it ruined the theme, and all the characters, rendering them into trite and easily digestible hollypeople, yet I still liked it. What's wrong with me????

There's nothing wrong with you. You understood what was wrong with the film but you enjoyed it despite its flaws. Same with me and DD, Constantine, and the X-Men films.

This topic is a review of V for Vendetta, not a review of how V for Vendetta compars to the comic book. For that season, while I understand mentioning its differences, the movie should not live or die by the comic.

I'm not really saying that the film should live or die by the comic, but I am trying to use the graphic novel as a sort of standard. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but it should still uphold the ghist of what the book is trying to say. In this case the changes go beyond just cosmetic differences; they fundamentally make the film an entirely different bag. Like I've said before it's no longer thought-provoking and intelligent. It's just flat. To quote Anthony who quoted someone else, you're really just passing the time when you're watching V.

Hell they could have thrown in a few more elaborate action sequences and I would have been entertained out the ear. Look at Equilibrium, it's pretty much the same, but with much better action and a cooler protagonist. [ Yes I like Cleric John Preston much more than the film V... the irony. ]

Yet,i too enjoyed the movie.Yes,certain aspects were changed; the ending where Evy should've become the next V; the St. Mary's Massacre; the change of The Leader. But,although the movie had some changes, it stayed surprisingly well to other aspects of the comic.

I absolutely despise everyone involved for changing the ending. All through my mind the one thing that I wanted to see most was the scene where they highlighted Evey's all-knowing smile. Had they left that entire sequence intact I swear I would have liked this film at least two-fold.

It all comes down to what a good adapation,by definition,means to you.Does it mean that panel by panel,story by story it stays true?Or whether the characterisation and certain elements are true but the overall story is changed somewhat?

To me, no. Or I would have despised Constantine, DD, and the X-Men films.

My friend and i had a very poignant political conversation after watching that movie;talking about ideologies etc. and stuff like that.And if the movie has managed to make people do that (despite the blatant and obvious message of "freedom good,oppression bad) it has succeeded in doing what the comic book did;sparking off intelligent and relevant conversation.The movie has (in my experience) made people think.A lot (and maybe that's cos we're living in the UK).

Yeah I think is the case with many people and I think that even if the movie's crap to a handful of fans, it's served its purpose if it's gotten some people to think.

For me, it just made me think how much I was bored.

Great movie and I have to say your review was a little biased and fanboy-ish in the sense that "no movie can be as good as the comic book"

Man you haven't seen me in geek mode... This was nowhere near fanboy, for reals. Plus, again I never said that "no movie can be as good as the comic book" or again I would have dumped on Constantine, DD, and the X-Men films.

[Veritas]

I just watched it and have unfortunately exausted myself from reading your ideas and now need to re-think mine own...Completely happy I saw it. I think some of the symbolism was overtly obvious but the movie was over-all very well done.

[Zachary Ayotte]

I have to say that I totally appreciated your review. I'd say that I enjoyed it more than you did but I still needed to hear this angle from someone who has read the GN. Your points are very valid. And the ending was disappointing. I would have even been happier to simply hear the words "Viking’s funeral."

After the movie, a friend of mine said, "I'm confused." I asked her about which part and she said "Why she would love him and go with him." and I think what you talk about in regards to the opening scene with Natalie Portman is very important in answering her question. Anyway, good job.

[Ryan Day]

Anarchy.

Anarchy is good. Not democracy (though that is likely to follow).

In the book, yes. In the movie, it's pretty clearly framed as democracy.



I felt the changes were unnecessary, but did not ultimately change the moral or theme of the movie.

Of course, the problem is that the book doesn't really have a moral, at least not a very clear one. V isn't really a hero, but a dangerous lunatic; the film turns him into Robin Hood. The government is bad, but still human and understandable (and doesn't need fraud and mass murder to come to power). People didn't need to be tricked into electing a fascist government, they flocked to it willingly.

If there's a moral, it's that there is no black and white, and that no solution is perfect. It's decidedly not that we should all hold hands and stand up to the bad men in power.

[Orr]

While I don't have the time or energy to devote to such a lengthy review, I couldn't disagree with this review more.

The movie was an incredible peice of cinema and is a great movie.

You can't compare it to the comics, its "based off" the comic book,its an adaptation of the book, just like any other comic, such as Sin City, X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys great films.

[Karla]

I really enjoyed the film, but I went to see it for Natalie Portman as I have never read the comic nor have I seen the Matrix trilogy ^^;; Though she was my initial reason, I really loved the film. I didn't find it boring at all :)

Anyway, unlike other movies that are adapted from comics, this one actually made me want to go buy V for Vendetta and check out Alan Moore's other works, and even Vertigo's line... which really shocked me because I am a die-hard marvelite.. :scared:

[Ryan Day]

You can't compare it to the comics, its "based off" the comic book,its an adaptation of the book, just like any other comic, such as Sin City, X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman.


Of course you can compare it. It's called "V for Vendetta," and is an adaptation of a specific story. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

And X-Men, Spider-Man, and Batman weren't really adapting anything; they were just using existing concepts and stories. No actual story was adapted, unless you want to count the Year One influences on Batman Begins. V for Vendetta, however, is an adaptation of an actual story.

Anyway. Most people aren't actually complaining about the changes to the plot or characters; if that were all, I could certainly live with it. The main complaint I've seen, and that I have, is that it's dumbed down and overly simplistic. That makes it both a poor adaptation and a so-so film. Is it entertaining, even enjoyable? Sure. But it's certainly not great by any standards.

[Anthony Devlin]

You can't compare it to the comics, its "based off" the comic book,its an adaptation of the book, just like any other comic, such as Sin City, X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman..

Yes you can, V more so than the other films you list. V is a contained story; therefore should have been an infinitely easier project to transfer over to film. The other’s you list are plagued with years of continuity, so movie’s based on these will lend ideas at best, and weave them together to create something that is similar to the original concept, but not a truth adaptation; which would be near on impossible for a franchise like X-Men, Batman or Spider-man.



Anyway, unlike other movies that are adapted from comics, this one actually made me want to go buy V for Vendetta and check out Alan Moore's other works, and even Vertigo's line... which really shocked me because I am a die-hard marvelite.. :scared:

That’s a very encouraging statement, I’m glad the film has had this impact on you. And I hope you enjoy it. :)

[that dude]

I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was well adapted considering it had to appeal to everyone and updated to match the time period (the cold war is over). While symbolism is whatever you see in it, I saw more than just totalitarianism bad; democracy good. I saw becareful what you are willing to give up in the name of security. The people of England gave up their freedoms and rights in the name of security which echos some of the major debates about secuirty going on in the U.S. today. It also said to me that one man’s terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Had our founding fathers failed to win the revolution the history books would speak of them as terrorists rather than revolutionaries. What I felt V was trying to say was freedom is everything and that without freedom life has no purpose. That was what I saw in the movie, but like I said symbolism and depth are up to you and what you personally see.

[Phasmal]

Right from the opening with Evey and the fingermen (with V’s slightly overdone monologue, I had no idea there were so many words starting with ‘v’)

I'm pretty sure that most of those "V" words were chapter titles in the book. Nice nod to the source material.

Yes, the review is biased. Yes, it would be cool to see a non-fan write a review (Perhaps a Comixfan regular that hasn't read the book yet). The book was LONG AND INTROSPECTIVE in a way that could NEVER be captured in a movie, especially one by the Wachowskis. They eliminated extraneous subplots and characters very well in my opinion.

As for the bad stuff, Natalie Portman was never really scared like she says she was, there was never a moment when you might have been against V and with the government (maybe he should have killed some innocents) and they beefed up the evil of Sutler to cash in on the Bush allegory.

It could have been a lot worse. They managed to avoid showing his face, which I was very scared of. I left the movie not knowing what to think of it, just because it was so much like a condensed version of the book. I think my anticipation and making my mother read the book before watching it with me put the text too far at the forefront of my thinking, and I wasn't able to take the movie as anything more than a replication (which I think means it was a pretty faithful translation).

Since I have no closer, I'll end with the most annoying few minutes of the movie: watching V knock down the dominos into his insignia, when they already showed his insignia when they were standing up. What a waste of time.

I definitely plan to see it again.

[Seth Kim]

I have to say that I totally appreciated your review. I'd say that I enjoyed it more than you did but I still needed to hear this angle from someone who has read the GN. Your points are very valid. And the ending was disappointing. I would have even been happier to simply hear the words "Viking’s funeral."

Thank you very much.

After the movie, a friend of mine said, "I'm confused." I asked her about which part and she said "Why she would love him and go with him." and I think what you talk about in regards to the opening scene with Natalie Portman is very important in answering her question. Anyway, good job.
Anyway, unlike other movies that are adapted from comics, this one actually made me want to go buy V for Vendetta and check out Alan Moore's other works, and even Vertigo's line... which really shocked me because I am a die-hard marvelite.. :scared:

Despite what I think about the film, I am glad that it has people talking and again, looking back to the source material.

While I don't have the time or energy to devote to such a lengthy review, I couldn't disagree with this review more.

Maybe if you did find the time or energy you might agree with me more. :)

Of course you can compare it. It's called "V for Vendetta," and is an adaptation of a specific story. If you want to do something different, call it something else.

Yes you can, V more so than the other films you list. V is a contained story; therefore should have been an infinitely easier project to transfer over to film. The other’s you list are plagued with years of continuity, so movie’s based on these will lend ideas at best, and weave them together to create something that is similar to the original concept, but not a truth adaptation; which would be near on impossible for a franchise like X-Men, Batman or Spider-man.

I could just kiss you guys. I couldn't have said it better if I tried.


Anyway. Most people aren't actually complaining about the changes to the plot or characters; if that were all, I could certainly live with it. The main complaint I've seen, and that I have, is that it's dumbed down and overly simplistic. That makes it both a poor adaptation and a so-so film. Is it entertaining, even enjoyable? Sure. But it's certainly not great by any standards.

This is basically my point, but I think people are missing it. I'm not saying it's a bad film just on the basis of it not following the source material letter for letter, panel for panel. I am saying that it is bad because after all it is an adaptation, and not an interpretation, which are two completely different things. Furthermore not only does it fail as an adaptation, but it's boring even looking outside of the context of the graphic novel.

These aren't just cosmetic changes that they've done here. Through fundamentally changing the characters they've neutered the story of what was just as important as the main plot of the people and their governments; there is no ambiguity anymore, there's no room for thought. This isn't on the level of the Kingpin's skin color, or organic web-shooters. Again I'll bring up Constantine, because the change in nationality there also changed that character and story from one of the more intelligent, thought-provoking bits in comics into something much more... sophomoric. Even so, I still enjoyed the film because on its own it's still a fun, enjoyable film. Thing is, it's also forgettable, unlike Hellblazer.

I'm pretty sure that most of those "V" words were chapter titles in the book. Nice nod to the source material.

Yes, the review is biased. Yes, it would be cool to see a non-fan write a review (Perhaps a Comixfan regular that hasn't read the book yet). The book was LONG AND INTROSPECTIVE in a way that could NEVER be captured in a movie, especially one by the Wachowskis. They eliminated extraneous subplots and characters very well in my opinion.

I agree that they left out most of the right parts. I'll stress most. But what gets me most is not what they left out, but again what they changed.

And I think the monologue in the book is much better than the 'V' speech. [ Big surprise there :P ] It just felt a bit too forced while everytime I read, "Me? I'm the King of the Twentieth Century. I'm the Bogeyman. The Villain. ...The Black Sheep of the Family." I get goosebumps.

It could have been a lot worse. They managed to avoid showing his face, which I was very scared of. I left the movie not knowing what to think of it, just because it was so much like a condensed version of the book. I think my anticipation and making my mother read the book before watching it with me put the text too far at the forefront of my thinking, and I wasn't able to take the movie as anything more than a replication (which I think means it was a pretty faithful translation).

To me the entire scene with V cooking breakfast and the Larkhill flashback sequence was far too much revealing since we basically get the idea that V is Anakin Skywalker beneath the mask. Plus they never beefed up the identity element other than that one dance. This is another reason I believe they should have left in the original ending sequence because the entire dilemma that Evey faces was one of the most powerful moments for me.

[J.E.S]

GN is better period. But then again movie adaptations very rarely out shine their source material.

It was a good movie, but not a great adaptation.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

my friend Adam, who's about as big a V fan as i am, enjoyed it. so that gives me hope for when i do finally get over my trepidation and go see it. ;)

[ZoomJay]

I'd say that i have to disagree with the review. I have both read the novel several times and seen the movie. And as the changes are obvious. I do believe that the film is very effective. I have tried time and time again to bring up V For Vendetta in conversation with some of my more "literary" friends, only to be brushed off because its "only a comic book". After watching the movie with a few friends we talked about it, and found that they had a lot of the same questions and feelings about the movie that I had about the novel. In this, i feel vindicated that although i DO admit that the movie is a watered down version of the novel (which is ALWAYS the case) the overall tone of the movie comes through. I do believe that this was the goal of the movie...it was designed to reach a much broader audience. The book may be superior to the movie, but the movie is still great. The content may not be there, but i feel the essence of what is being said is. And overall, i feel that is more important. It is still raising questions, as we can see in the media, and still making people think, and bringing respect to a relatively new genre of literature, the graphic novel.

[Jon Hancock]

The film was incredibly different to the novel apart from the central themes but I still really enjoyed it. Well shot, no hollow acting IMO and a powerful story. It was never going to be a carbon copy or even faithful to the source text but the things that have been changed make sense and the story still works. Watched it with a friend who's never heard about the story or read a comicbook before and she loved it as a film. Seperate from the original it's a fantastic watch. If you went there expecting the novel then you're either naieve, relentlessly optimistic or desperate to have a moan.

[Dazzler]

The movie is a loose adaptation, yes.

Some stuff is never properly explained (like the meaning of the roses)
and some very important stuff was omitted (The Fate)



the roses....it's explained. the lesbian actress said in her letter to V and subsequently to Evey that her girlfriend grew scarlet carsons in their windowbox. because V sort of used the actress as a jumping off point with his revolution, he took up her scarlet carsons as a symbol. (the people responsible for her death were all given roses before he killed them.)

i loved the movie. i saw it opening night and then went with my boyfriend on saturday. he loved it too. the friends i went with on friday all loved it. and about half of us are V gn fans and the rest are not. I just decided that i wasn't going to be one of those comic book fans who really have problems with everything.

as for alan moore. i love his work, i really do. i think he's very brilliant. but he certainly needs to lighten up. he's bordering on pretentious in his dealings with hollywood. if he really has such problems with his work being "butchered" by h'wood, he should take a page from Neil Gaiman and make it off limits. or do H'wood specific work. *shrug* sure, a lot of the movie was changed, but i definitely do believe that it still is a great work and infinitely better than most of the crap being put out these days.

--Dazz :dazzler:

[citizenx]

as for alan moore. i love his work, i really do. i think he's very brilliant. but he certainly needs to lighten up. he's bordering on pretentious in his dealings with hollywood. if he really has such problems with his work being "butchered" by h'wood, he should take a page from Neil Gaiman and make it off limits. or do H'wood specific work. *shrug* sure, a lot of the movie was changed, but i definitely do believe that it still is a great work and infinitely better than most of the crap being put out these days.

--Dazz :dazzler:

Problem being is he can't with things like V for Vendetta because he doesn't own the rights and doesn't have a say in whether it gets made into a movie.

[Dazzler]

Problem being is he can't with things like V for Vendetta because he doesn't own the rights and doesn't have a say in whether it gets made into a movie.

that's true. but Gaiman doesn't own the rights to Sandman or Death either. and he manages to make sure they don't get made (yet).
i'm not even going to pretend like i know how it all works, so.... :) however, i'm not even sure where the actual right lie, since V wasn't even originally published by DC, but Warrior magazine.

--Dazz :dazzler:

[James Groves]

I haven't watched this yet, but it strikes me that it's an action-oriented version of V for Vendetta? I doubt they would overintellectualise the film because it's trying to reach a broader audience, where it would appeal to both teens and grown-ups respectively, and to people who have never heard of V for Vendetta, the GN.

[Jon Hancock]

I think it was intellectual James, just not as involved as the GN. It's certainly not a Kill Bill hack slash, there's symbolism and meaning in there. Just not as intertwined as the novel

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

since DC aquired the rights to publish and distribute V, they also have the legal right to license it. that is, until they stop publishing it when the rights will revert to Moore and Lloyd. but of course, they'll never do that. which is part of Moore's reason for not wanting to work for DC anymore. so DC doesn't have to worry at this point about keeping Moore happy. because he's already unhappy. with Gaiman, they want him happy and agreeable so he'll continue doing work for them. so they let him end Sandman when he wanted to, they consult him on any Sandman or Tim Hunter related books, and they don't try to create a movie deal without him. Gaiman was just more fortunate, to come along at a time when the editors at DC weren't quite so sheisty. he also managed to write an incredibly seminal work right out of the gate, which has translated to success in both comics and other media. in other words, DC would be stupid to jerk around Gaiman.

and Moore really didn't care about Hollywood adapting his work until just recently, with the whole LXG debacle (not the movie itself...though that too was a debacle) and Joel Silver bending the truth like a non existent spoon about Moore's "excitement" for the project. if he wants to be mad and rant and say "i don't like this," that's his right. he's a writer, not a PR man for Warner Bros.

[Dazzler]

since DC aquired the rights to publish and distribute V, they also have the legal right to license it. that is, until they stop publishing it when the rights will revert to Moore and Lloyd. but of course, they'll never do that. which is part of Moore's reason for not wanting to work for DC anymore. so DC doesn't have to worry at this point about keeping Moore happy. because he's already unhappy. with Gaiman, they want him happy and agreeable so he'll continue doing work for them. so they let him end Sandman when he wanted to, they consult him on any Sandman or Tim Hunter related books, and they don't try to create a movie deal without him. Gaiman was just more fortunate, to come along at a time when the editors at DC weren't quite so sheisty. he also managed to write an incredibly seminal work right out of the gate, which has translated to success in both comics and other media. in other words, DC would be stupid to jerk around Gaiman.
ah. well that makes sense i guess. *shrug* thems the breaks then.

and Moore really didn't care about Hollywood adapting his work until just recently, with the whole LXG debacle (not the movie itself...though that too was a debacle) and Joel Silver bending the truth like a non existent spoon about Moore's "excitement" for the project. if he wants to be mad and rant and say "i don't like this," that's his right. he's a writer, not a PR man for Warner Bros.

no, he's not, but it doesn't paint him in a very good light, either, in my opinion. i don't think he has to pretend to like it (i would hate him, i guess, if he did). however, i do think he's acting a trifle spoiled about the whole thing. especially after getting himself into deals with DC (and others) and then crying over situations he gets himself into.
Anyway, like i said, i don't know how it works, so it might be totally different than that. at any rate, as brilliant as he clearly is, he's not winning any points for being gracious. I sincerely doubt he's rallying against the money he's been making off of his projects. other than things he's said of V, of course. *shrug* i dunno.

--Dazz :dazzler:

[James Groves]

I think it was intellectual James, just not as involved as the GN. It's certainly not a Kill Bill hack slash, there's symbolism and meaning in there. Just not as intertwined as the novel

Sounds good, then. I woulda loved the movie to be a straight adaptation, though - but the likes of LOEG and Constantine have led me to believe that these movies are never gonna happen - or at least not very often. Sin City was as straight an adaptation as yer gonna get, and that didn't quite work. I loved Sin City the movie, but it lacked a bit sometimes.

Reg. Moore: I'm not really that surprised he's quite precious over his books and their movie adaptations. I mean, if you've worked so hard on a piece of work...and then to see it on screen not how you wanted it to be...it's gotta irritate him.

[Dazzler]

Sounds good, then. I woulda loved the movie to be a straight adaptation, though - but the likes of LOEG and Constantine have led me to believe that these movies are never gonna happen - or at least not very often. Sin City was as straight an adaptation as yer gonna get, and that didn't quite work. I loved Sin City the movie, but it lacked a bit sometimes.
i thought sin city was stinky poo. but that's just me. ;) i think V had a little more chops to it. drastic changes or no.

Reg. Moore: I'm not really that surprised he's quite precious over his books and their movie adaptations. I mean, if you've worked so hard on a piece of work...and then to see it on screen not how you wanted it to be...it's gotta irritate him.
yeah, it would irritate the crap outta me, too, i suppose. i would hate to have my work changed so drastically. but at the same time, i would love my work to even be considered for such exposure at the same time. people's interest in the movie will cause them to seek my original vision. i really, really can see his point. it must really suck to have something you worked hard on made into something you think is sub-par no matter how much others like it. but, at the same time...it must be nice to have people notice your work at all. how many people actually have that luxury? that's where i see him as a little spoiled. and i'm not even sure i blame him (though a little irritating).

--Dazz :dazzler:

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

no, he's not, but it doesn't paint him in a very good light, either, in my opinion. i don't think he has to pretend to like it (i would hate him, i guess, if he did). however, i do think he's acting a trifle spoiled about the whole thing. especially after getting himself into deals with DC (and others) and then crying over situations he gets himself into.
Anyway, like i said, i don't know how it works, so it might be totally different than that. at any rate, as brilliant as he clearly is, he's not winning any points for being gracious. I sincerely doubt he's rallying against the money he's been making off of his projects. other than things he's said of V, of course. *shrug* i dunno.


the thing is, he's NOT making any money off of these projects. on every film that's been adapted from his works, he's signed away his royalties and given them entirely to the artists (Lloyd for V, O'Neall for LXG, Campbell for From Hell). and he's never really cared before. anytime he was asked how he felt about people ruining his works, he would pull out a copy of whatever book had been adapted, looked it over and said "looks fine to me." hell, he's on record that he rarely goes to movies anyway so he doesn't really care much. it's more some of the attitudes and things that have been said in regards to this movie that have him upset. after the LXG debacle, i think he's a little sensitive to people spreading falsehoods about him, regardless of how trivial they might be.

[spinarakboi]

Well I will just say that completely disagree on almost every point you made. I don't feel like going into detail but wanted to voice my opinion. I thought not only did it do it justice but it was thrilling not in the battles but in the speech and dialouge there was plenty to question and well yeah I thought it was great and it knew what would work and what wouldn't.

[Seth Kim]

The film was incredibly different to the novel apart from the central themes but I still really enjoyed it. Well shot, no hollow acting IMO and a powerful story. It was never going to be a carbon copy or even faithful to the source text but the things that have been changed make sense and the story still works. Watched it with a friend who's never heard about the story or read a comicbook before and she loved it as a film. Seperate from the original it's a fantastic watch. If you went there expecting the novel then you're either naieve, relentlessly optimistic or desperate to have a moan.

Alas, and I thought I would have a worthy ally in you. :(

that's true. but Gaiman doesn't own the rights to Sandman or Death either. and he manages to make sure they don't get made (yet).
i'm not even going to pretend like i know how it all works, so.... :) however, i'm not even sure where the actual right lie, since V wasn't even originally published by DC, but Warrior magazine.

--Dazz :dazzler:

I remember reading a Gaiman interview where he said that the Death movie was definitely going to happen, but it would only happen with him at the helm. So in a sense, he is keeping it from being made, but only so he can make it himself.

I haven't watched this yet, but it strikes me that it's an action-oriented version of V for Vendetta? I doubt they would overintellectualise the film because it's trying to reach a broader audience, where it would appeal to both teens and grown-ups respectively, and to people who have never heard of V for Vendetta, the GN.

Ironically, I would have enjoyed it immensely more if they kept everything the way it was and beefed up the action sequences. Scratch the tired bullet-time effects, slow-mo and CG blood and the sequences they already have would have been given a lot more credibility.

Man the possibilities of a live-action V that they missed out on...

the thing is, he's NOT making any money off of these projects. on every film that's been adapted from his works, he's signed away his royalties and given them entirely to the artists (Lloyd for V, O'Neall for LXG, Campbell for From Hell). and he's never really cared before. anytime he was asked how he felt about people ruining his works, he would pull out a copy of whatever book had been adapted, looked it over and said "looks fine to me." hell, he's on record that he rarely goes to movies anyway so he doesn't really care much. it's more some of the attitudes and things that have been said in regards to this movie that have him upset. after the LXG debacle, i think he's a little sensitive to people spreading falsehoods about him, regardless of how trivial they might be.

The injustice. It really makes you shake your head.

[Ryan Day]

Moore is pretty much the best writer the medium has ever produced, and that's in large part because he doesn't believe in artistic compromises. Sure, he could lower his standards or try to reach a wider audience... but he wouldn't be Alan Moore. We wouldn't have V in the first place, or From Hell, or Promethea or LOEG. Instead you'd get a bunch of pretty good superhero comics - maybe a decent run on Green Lantern or something - and some interesting but not great works.

Basically, you'd get the film version of V for Vendetta: A pretty good piece, intelligent by the standards of its peers, but not a great one because it never tried to be. Because, depressingly, if you want the mass-audience appeal you've got to tone things down, spell things out, and excise any ambiguity and uncertainty. That's why films based on Moore's books seldom work - producers love the ideas, but have absolutely no comprehension of the execution.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Alas, and I thought I would have a worthy ally in you. :(


to be totally fair, this IS the guy who thought the Constantine movie deserved to be on the list of top 10 Hellblazer stories. ;)

[Tan K.]

I can understand anyone who has read the novel to be not satisfied with this adaptation/version. I cannot argue one way or another as to the right/wrong of the review because I never read the GN, and if I did get around to it, it would have been 20'ish years later. I don't know if that would have made a difference to me, but at the time, I am sure it was a stand alone-never been done before piece of work.

For someone who has never read the GN, I thought it was a very good movie. Not an action movie IMO. I enjoyed the merging of the story into the real world goings on of today. I think the brothers wanted to convey certain messages in addition to the original material (i.e. someone other than the accused were behind some of the massive terrorist attacks), and with that, it would be very difficult to not be black/white. Again, from the reactions to V, maybe the subtle gray areas of the GN would not have flown as well on film. I don't really know if that is true, but maybe one of you can answer that.

Overall, as a work on its own, I thought it was very enjoyable, made me think, wasn't some generic plot or ordinary story, had great acting, some nice action sequences, left an impression with me......that's a formula for a really good movie IMO.

[Jon Hancock]

to be totally fair, this IS the guy who thought the Constantine movie deserved to be on the list of top 10 Hellblazer stories. ;)

Because of it's fame, recognisabilty and potential to make people read the book. All things that make something Top.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Because of it's fame, recognisabilty and potential to make people read the book. All things that make something Top.

never mind the fact that it bore little resemblance to the actual character or work it was supposedly adapting and was of incredibly sub par quality. ;)

[Ryan Day]

I think the brothers wanted to convey certain messages in addition to the original material (i.e. someone other than the accused were behind some of the massive terrorist attacks), and with that, it would be very difficult to not be black/white. Again, from the reactions to V, maybe the subtle gray areas of the GN would not have flown as well on film. I don't really know if that is true, but maybe one of you can answer that.


There's no reason why it can't. It's a concious choice to make it more accessible and viable as a mass-market film.

Film, like comics, can convey incredible subtlety. Watch Capote, for example, and tell me whether the title character is a great artist or an opportunistic sleaze - the line is blurred. Or A History of Violence - any given scene is open to a number of possible interpretations.

But, you say, those are more indie/artistic type films. Sure. But V, the book, has far more in common with those works than it does with your straightforward big budget flick.

I'll take the one scene that perfectly illustrates my point:
When Finch finds the agent behind the St. Mary's attack, it's totally obvious it's V in disguise. It's obviously Hugo Weaving's voice. Even if you somehow didn't realize it, it's even more obvious once the detectives realize Rockwood has been dead for a decade. Of course it's V - it has to be. Yet the film still cuts to a shot of the Rockwood disguise sitting in V's lair. Completely unneccessary, and added only so the dimmest members of the audience are completely sure what's going on.

[Greg Reeves]

I loved this movie. I didn't read the graphic novel, so I'm not even going to try and compare the two. I liked what I saw and that's that.

This is probably one of, if not my absolute favorite film. Can't wait to see it again.

[Jon Hancock]

never mind the fact that it bore little resemblance to the actual character or work it was supposedly adapting and was of incredibly sub par quality. ;)


Last word because it's woefully off topic but a) it got people to read the comics regardless of how close an adaptation it was and b) It wasn't sub par. Virtually every review I've read have praised it as a film in it's own right. It didn't make a heap of money but it didn't get panned outside of the people who read Hellblazer or hate Keanu Reeves

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

Last word because it's woefully off topic but a) it got people to read the comics regardless of how close an adaptation it was and b) It wasn't sub par. Virtually every review I've read have praised it as a film in it's own right. It didn't make a heap of money but it didn't get panned outside of the people who read Hellblazer or hate Keanu Reeves

a) i heard about maybe 5 people, total, who even considered picking up the comic after seeing the movie. and b) it would've made an awesome music video, but the writing was horrid, there were only a few decent acting jobs in it...and i've read way more reviews panning it than praising it. i know a few people whose taste i trust who saw it and liked it, but they all said because it was eye candy. not for anything to do with the actual story, characters or performances.

[Mario J. Ramos]

Though, the directing leaves a bit to be desired in some sequences (they don't have the emotional impact they could have). If there is one thing that the Wachowskis did well (and im not a big fan of them) is not only adapting the source material to another medium, but updating it to a post-9/11 world. If the comic was "engaged" as defined by Jean-Paul Sartre, in his own time, it only makes sense that the movie reflects today's world better. Does the political message and cultural references lack a certain subtlety? Yes, they do. Then again, if that what it takes to shake some people's convictions, then it's a good thing.

Is V different from the comic? Sure he is. Then again, I don't believe an adaptation should be a simple translation, but also an interpretation (an example would be David Cronenberg's A History of Violence). Comics and cinema are two, completely different mediums (no matter how "cinematographic" some comics can be). Robert Rodriguez forgot that when doing Sin City.

V for Vendetta the comic, and V for Vendetta the movie are two different approaches of the same concept. Some parts are more interesting in the comic...some are more in the movie. Alan Moore's work is not flawless, nor are the Wachowski's. The comic is my favorite, but I don't believe one is better than the other. It can be interesting to compare them, as it generates discussions. But the comparison becomes irrevelant the moment one considers something "good" or "bad".

[Will Carper]

This movie was alright. Ryan's right that it was overly simplistic, especially the ending (WTF? We're supposed to believe everything's gonna be alright after the government was just overthtrown? The ending of the GN was much more realistic. The V masks were also idiotic). I also felt that the Wachowskis should not have made Evey "redeem" V. It was much more interesting when it only appeared like V was getting vengeance, when in reality he was just clearing the board of everyone who knew about his past. Also, V falling in love with Evey was lame.

On the flip side, Stephen Rea was great and the scene with Valerie's letters was the best in the movie.

[Mario J. Ramos]

Also, V falling in love with Evey was lame.


Though he doesn't say "I fell in love with you" in the comic, he does say "I love you."

[thewrite1]

Does the film address the problem of the mask (ie. is V chilling or does he look just plain silly?)
Jonathon Ross (BBC film reviewer and confessed comic fan) said that it is impossible to convey emotion though a mask in a moving image. He blasted the film (telling his viewers to stay far away) but also admitted to not liking the GN much either.
Reading the GN I had two conflicting opinions about the mask. I liked how it made V all the more chilling because in scenes of high emotion the mask always smiles. But, it was implausible that Evie should live with him so long and not attempt to see beneath the mask (I mean, doesn't he ever sleep?)

So I haven't yet made up my mind whether to see the film, but maybe someone can tell me whether the mask does work in the movie.

[Kevin Sutton]

I thought the movie was excellent. It was not as well put together as the book was with a few elements of hollywood ham, but I think overall that the directors were able to to add something even as they fumbled a bit with some other additions or execution. There were a few added scenes that I felt were particularly strong, and in some way, simply the act of putting the work to the silver screen added some magic. There aren't many experiences as demanding as watching a movie in a theatre. (Even as rarely as I do that) The end wasn't as strong as the middle of the movie, but the middle was the most important part anyway. I think the director's deserve credit for their ability to set up scenes and montages with visual power, (though the final action was unecessary) and I don't disagree with their attempt to give the movie a modern context. Though Moore is certainly reasonable to loath changes to the original work, (especially some particulars) but tension with source material is a part of what being a movie auteur is and has been for a long time. There's little stigma with reinterpretation and reproduction in the movie world as it has such a long history with so much success. (Artistic and commercial)

Evey was okay, and she delivered in the most important parts. V likewise worked well. The opening monologue was awkward, but he did quite good for a man behind a mask. Incidentally, I don't see any problem with acting behind a mask. Sometimes an element of a performance or presentation should be cut out for the sake of the story.

V the movie was not as good or as smart as V the book. It was 'dumbed down'. But it was not dumb nor was it bad. To the contrary; it was both strong and intelligent. Perhaps, in spite of the directors and maybe regardless of the directors. My dad likened it to The Crucible for this time; he really liked it.

[Anthony Devlin]

Alan Moore on V (http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/)
For those who can’t be bothered to read the whole interview; here’s a brief summary someone posted on another board that sums up Moore’s feels more briefly: He said something to the effect that the original comic focused on anarchy and fascism as pure ideals whereas the movie is just kind of an American liberal fantasy. There's no ambiguity in the movie. V's just kind of like Zorro and the Leader is a bad parody of Hitler. In the comic, we root for V... but he's kind of crazy. We don't know if he's right or not. The point is Moore felt it was a totally different message. That's why he boycotted it. But please, read the interview and make your own mind up.

[peedi]

I read the first however many posts and skipped a bunch so I don't know exactly where the conversation ended up, but I never read V, and I definately plan to as soon as I get enough disposable income to buy myself a copy.

Why do I want to read it? Because I saw and enjoyed the movie for what it was, without the bias of having read the book. But in retrospect, if you read the book and believe it to be better, how could you not be biased, as it's natural to be!

So from the prospective of someone who has only seen the movie, it was decent, and if anything, it piqued my interest in discovering the source material. For me anyway, it could have been a horrible movie and I still would have wanted to see how the book differed, which is also normal. Not trying to argue wit anyone or change someone's opinion, I'm just giving another perspective.

[Seth Kim]

to be totally fair, this IS the guy who thought the Constantine movie deserved to be on the list of top 10 Hellblazer stories. ;)

Ouch.

Though he doesn't say "I fell in love with you" in the comic, he does say "I love you."

Yeah but the context in which V says that in the book and in the film is totally different. In the film he practically spills his guts out to Evey, telling her that he was doubtful and about all the changes that came over him after he met her blah blah blah blah. Plus we get that Evey also did love him. Pretty much in a platonic but still romantic way.

This also has to do directly with the identity of V. There's never that strong sense of who is behind the mask in the film. In the book Evey, and subsequently the reader is constantly asking if V was a black man, a gay man, Valerie herself, or even Evey's father. It clouds the line "I love you." that much more.

Not to forget the awesome line that V has. "Ave... Atque... Vale..." or "Frater, ave atque vale." which I believe translates into "Hail, brother, farewell."

I'm glad the film has people talking about it much and I'm surprised that it has such a staggering following behind it. I'm glad that it has made the populace realize that not all comic book films are crap, especially with Marvel stinking up the medium to high heaven in their latest entries into the field.

However, even outside of the context of the graphic novel, my feelings that the film is boring and ultimately a failure have not changed.

Plus, although I realize that the parallels between the film and the U.S. government are very much evident, and very much planned, I really do wish that they had side-stepped that particular topic. Like I said, does everything really have to be about Bush?

[Kevin Sutton]

Like I said, does everything really have to be about Bush?

What other movies have been?

Besides, the allusions in the movie bear an even stronger resemblance to the rise of the Nazi party than Bush and 9/11. So while the subtext is certainly timely, it's no less timeless than Moore's original commentary.

Heck, I don't think many people realize this; but the whole Guy Fawkes conspiracy was itself quite possibly a sham by the government of the day.

[peedi]

Alan Moore himself talks about how the movie was made to be related to Bush in a recent MTV.com article. He basically stated that the story of the movie is mad to represent something that the graphic novel isn't. He was very displeased with the script for V for Vendetta, but he has never liked scripts of his work. Although I don't think V the movie is bad, I can understand where he was coming from.

[Ryan Day]

I can understand the shift to a more modern setting with terrorists, viruses, and hints of George W. The original had its origins in the cold war, and that's not necessarily something audiences would relate to as well. Ultimately, I don't think the specifics of how the government came to power are as important as the general ideas - though that certainly doesn't cover the over-the-top conspiracy theory.

Though it does give one yet another reason to fear a Watchmen adaptation (as if we needed another). That's even mor anchored to its timeframe than V.

[Dazzler]

okay. that article really made me dislike Alan Moore. (no more sitting on the fence) he is acting like a total knob.

if his original vision was to make people question governmental policies as well as those fighting them, why in the world would he also object to the modernization of the subject matter to reflect a leader like Bush? or does he really expect that audiences 20 years past would still relate and react the ame way to Margaret Thatcher(esque) characters? if the original intent behind the series was to invoke questioning of motives and this movie still does that in its way, then what does Moore have to complain about except to complain for its own sake?
Peter David definitely had it right on his blog.

Which is strange because I still really like the movie, but i doubt that I will go out of my way to patronize his work anymore considering his ridiculously self aggrandizing opinions.

--Dazz :dazzler:

[Anthony Devlin]

okay. that article really made me dislike Alan Moore. (no more sitting on the fence) he is acting like a total knob.

We’ll have less of that thank you. You may not agree with the man but you will refrain from using remarks like that. You’ve been around long enough to know this is not tolerated

or does he really expect that audiences 20 years past would still relate and react the ame way to Margaret Thatcher(esque) characters?

Why do people have a need to modernise everything so that people feel they can understand it better? The piece worked perfectly as it was. And as Moore has stated on more than one occasion he doesn’t see the point of making adaptations - If it works as a comic, leave it as a comic. Regardless of this, the story of V was his personal response to Thatcher’s politics, politics he felt was going to destroy the country he loved, now by modernising that, it is no longer his story, yet it claims to be just that, when clearly it isn’t. Take a story out of the context in which it was originally wrote and it’s no longer a story the writer has a connection to, which is true here.

[Jon Hancock]

Alan Moore on V (http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/)
For those who can’t be bothered to read the whole interview; here’s a brief summary someone posted on another board that sums up Moore’s feels more briefly: He said something to the effect that the original comic focused on anarchy and fascism as pure ideals whereas the movie is just kind of an American liberal fantasy. There's no ambiguity in the movie. V's just kind of like Zorro and the Leader is a bad parody of Hitler. In the comic, we root for V... but he's kind of crazy. We don't know if he's right or not. The point is Moore felt it was a totally different message. That's why he boycotted it. But please, read the interview and make your own mind up.


See I disagree with that. I think that movie V was grey. Certainly for someone who's never read the source material. And Moore's leader is just a bad parody of a mad professor in love with his machine. Heck, the original source material is as much Moore's response to the politics of the day as it is a hit and run job on 1984. But that's fine, it's interpretation and personal touches. Just like the film. I don't think the film claims to emulate or portray the comic precisely or identically. I think the credit says based on, which it is (if you want to argue that then I'm just confused) Moore's totally entitled to his pov and I think I'd be the same in his place. As a writer he's bound to be protective over his own work, particularly that which has personal attatchment involved. I don't think though that this makes the film objectively bad.

As for Jonathan Ross, I lost a lot of respect for him after that review. He tyalked about V as though it were Gigli 2. The guy says you can't convey emotion through masks and yet raved about the Green Goblin, one of the worst masked movie villains ever. V for me was never meant to be eomtionally obvious. You never know if he's crying or laughing. In other words just how much of a softy or a cold hearted bastard he is.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

I can understand the shift to a more modern setting with terrorists, viruses, and hints of George W. The original had its origins in the cold war, and that's not necessarily something audiences would relate to as well. Ultimately, I don't think the specifics of how the government came to power are as important as the general ideas - though that certainly doesn't cover the over-the-top conspiracy theory.

Though it does give one yet another reason to fear a Watchmen adaptation (as if we needed another). That's even mor anchored to its timeframe than V.

i think Greengrass had a good take on how he was going to do it...by keeping the plot elements the same, but moving the time forward to now. i think he phrased it as portraying the events of the story in the same world as the graphic novel, just 20 years later in that world. if that makes sense. it sounded really interesting to me. shame they tabled it.

okay. that article really made me dislike Alan Moore. (no more sitting on the fence) he is acting like a total knob.

if his original vision was to make people question governmental policies as well as those fighting them, why in the world would he also object to the modernization of the subject matter to reflect a leader like Bush? or does he really expect that audiences 20 years past would still relate and react the ame way to Margaret Thatcher(esque) characters? if the original intent behind the series was to invoke questioning of motives and this movie still does that in its way, then what does Moore have to complain about except to complain for its own sake?
Peter David definitely had it right on his blog.

Which is strange because I still really like the movie, but i doubt that I will go out of my way to patronize his work anymore considering his ridiculously self aggrandizing opinions.

--Dazz :dazzler:

well, near as i can tell, the movie turns the Leader into a little Hitler figure which is the easy route to go. whereas the appeal of the Leader in the GN is that he isn't really evil at all. he is utterly mundane in every way. it shows the real banality of fascism once it's taken complete control of the society. at that point, it's not jackboots marching down the streets and what not. it's just...life. which makes it all the more dangerous because the people in the story had grown complacent, willing to live under this yoke because...well, it was there. so why not? making it more black and white does weaken some of the messages and making it a direct response to Bush also weakens it. because the themes are larger than one man or one particular era. that's the total charm of the book, is that it is still relevant today, regardless of who exactly is in power. will we be able to say the same of the movie in 20 years time? i find it doubtful. the Wachowskis may be very good at ripping off other people's ideas. but they're not that good. :P

[Ryan Day]

if his original vision was to make people question governmental policies as well as those fighting them, why in the world would he also object to the modernization of the subject matter to reflect a leader like Bush? or does he really expect that audiences 20 years past would still relate and react the ame way to Margaret Thatcher(esque) characters? if the original intent behind the series was to invoke questioning of motives and this movie still does that in its way, then what does Moore have to complain about except to complain for its own sake?

Moore complains because he wrote the book and someone adapted and changed it without ever having to ask his permission. Because V for Vendetta was his personal response to the politics of a specific era he was living in, and V's world was a world he was very afraid would come to pass. Because the act of creation is very personal and important to a writer, and having it changed without your consent is not unlike seeing you child come home from school with his hand cut off because his teacher thought it was an improvement.

As I said, I understand why the time period was updated. I also understand why Moore is ticked, though frankly that's the least of the film's offences against the book.

Interestingly, I was watching The Matrix again this weekend. Those films, combined with V and their scripts for Doc Frankenstein, present on insecapable conclusion: The Wachowski's are utterly incapable of subtlety. They spend way too much time on exposition and explanation, and most of the time it's clunky and unneccessary. Most of the time, they want to look literary and philosophical, but they don't have the skill to pull it off without looking like freshman philosophy majors.

[Jordan T. Maxwell]

amen to that. that, and they've never had a truly original idea in their career so far (this isn't even talking about playing with genre tropes...i mean they've been charged twice now for ripping off other people's screenplays. and the Matrix was...familiar refrain, altogether now...pretty much a rip off of the Invisibles. now their latest film is an adaptation of a previous work. which of course the ads are declaring as THEIR unique vision of the future. oy...)

[Anthony Devlin]

Whatever you think of the movie at least one good thing appears to have come from it: V FOR VENDETTA: THE UNSTOPPABLE TRADE (http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64938)

[Dazzler]

there's actually too much to say about that....but all i can say with certainty is: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: Creator's royalties...whatta hoot. Almost makes up for the film royalties.
--Dazz :dazzler:

[Morpheusandman]

My review, saw it the first day it came out:

Maybe it was the little screen, my bad feelings after the clips or my anger because of several factors before it, but im a bit underwhelmed (Though no, technical it cant be, because i saw WoW with only one speaker in Cinema and i liked it, and the clips also not, because i loved HP4 though i hated the clips).

Not in a "Oh my god this film is super-bad"-way, where i want my money, effort and time back or cant picture why other people do like it, but after the ingenious trailers, pics and storyboards/reviews and what design/atmosphere/message i saw in them, a bit disappointed. A mixed bag at least to the ubergenius comic- Though my sister didnt like it even without the knowledge of the gn.

But didnt come out with a broken heart of cinema, because it has to be said there were quite a few superb scenes too (of course mostly the scenes taken from the comics in their almost entire purity, but i liked the changed ending as well), i just only felt so often underwhelmed between the film.

But lets get more torough (Spoilers most possibly ahead).

First the bad side:

1. In the comic, V is a lunatic terrorist, but still a personable and attachable person, and most of all, a very classy and royal one, with all his theatricality and wit, and a bit of fighting skills.
But, when the comic was humorous (like when he spoke to Lady Libertine), you didnt think of him as a quirky, but as very reasonable and likeable person, so you didnt laugh about him, but smile about his verbosity and intelligence. And while IMHO, in the comic, hes shown firstly as the understandable victim with high plans and only afterwards a man crossing a border, here its in the different order:
First his portayed as quirky, hyperactive crazy person, who talks too fast in overlong sentences, from which the quarter is ******** to make you laugh, the other to make him sentient, and the third to tell you very important political things, only afterwards as the person i described above and wanted to see everytime.
The problem is only that you dont get most of it and after a while you hear just "blah blah" because as said hes coming like some bad joke and theres much repetition and blankness.
And, while the filmmakers claim that the film is about what can a person do to retain his rights, in the end it comes down to yes, the murders and bombings he made were good, because the people really stood up for him and themselves, hes portrayed like a hero with finch and evey agreeing with him and giving their hero the viking funeral.
In addition, theres a negative theatricality in him and the other actors (like Portman too) which is called overacting.
Because while in the trailer Weaving talks calmly and mysteriously, in the first part he talks like Mr.Smith in the Matrix Trilogy, what i didnt like as said.
The other actors did that too, plus with the music it was way too dramatic without you taking it seriously (This whole first point is only about the first two scenes, the Guy Fawkes one and the first bombing and some others until the middle of the film- They dont tell too much and theres no build up. And V isnt that person as i saw him in the comics here).
2. Sutler (aka Susan).
Stereotype, of a very annoying and useless kind. Maybe it was intentional, but on every scene he appeared (Most are when he talks big screen with the investigators, which is also somehow annoyingly made) you want to take a knife and cut his troath, really.
He just screams and raves and theres not that failed man backstory in it as in the comic, where he didnt get between the tighs of a woman and therefore falls in love with Fate, what was just so marvelous.
3. Stupid TV shows with all people watching (What you also have to).
I know i know, surely totally intentional. Still, you get sick from it.
Just this happy little average guys watching telly while go trough all the emotions a TV can deliver. Yuk. Like when they show how people think about this or that superhero in an interview in a SHfilm.
4. It was quite boring.
In the whole film there were ca. (Though, quite good) 5 actionscenes (2 bombings, 3 knife-throwing, plus some real (?) scenes of people rioting/war) and those were very short, not enough. I did not expect an action-film, but though it is important and political, it should be also enjoyable. That that works is proveable with films like Lord of War. I wasnt super-bored, but when the investigators flashed back or mentioned things you already knew, you felt a bit dumb. It was like it wouldnt hold too much content in actual happening.
5. The music wasnt so good. Im very fond of good music and i didnt feel it somehow appropriate for the film, i wanted more classical songs like when the last bombing happened, but maybe i just dont know the songs and they were supposed to be in there.
6 aka nitpickings:
-Evey loving V and trying two times to kiss him- Thats why i liked Constantine, because im sick of connecting everything with love.
-The changed V speech on the TV, because he just talked, without mentioning history with according pictures. Missed opportunity of things people normally dont know and should. Or with textfields in the end or beginning.
-Dying-sounds of investigators in the last fight- destroyed the otherwise superb action a bit.
-Overdone English words like "Bollocks" or "Bloody hell"
-Too much concentration on Eveys backstory
-scenes i wanted to see werent included
*Lady Libertine speech
*Burning the dolls
*Vicious Cabaret
*Finch taking the LSD-could be such a good horror element
*V controlling fate
*Other backstories like attempt to kill Sutler, Families of the involved etc.
-Theres not explained what the diff. between Chaos and Anarchy is.


Now to the good sides:
1. V in the second half.
Now thats what i wanted to see: A slow and intelligent speaking, stylish mysterious romantic guy- all this speeches in this section (Also from Fincher) were very good as well. Though his bodyacting is in the entire film constantly good, the outfit too.
2. Two action scenes (At the TV station/In the tunnel)- They kept the violence from the comic, and also some swearing.
3. Intact scenes of the comic which added depth, drama, romance and political statements, like all Larkhill segments, the two endings of the film, Evey imprisoned, Bombing of the parliament, Vs death, V killing the priest with Evey as bait, Domino etc.
4. Added scenes like V talking with Finch as an alter ego, Finch sees in the past, present and future, Vs at the Radio Station/at the parliament, V sending out masks, Stocks out of pharmaceuticals for deseases they let out, fearmaking, Eveys relationship to a tv-host (Changed to its comic source, but still good) etc
5. And of course all the political things, you know, totalitarian state what comes with it, why its not good, Terrorists not only bad, Violence spawns counterviolence, Rolemodels, Followers, Media-mirrorbending etc etc etc

+some Visuals
+Finch, Evey and another guy going trough changes in personality


So in sum i came out convinced of the movie thats its not a bad film and also not a bad adaptation, but it could have been easily even better and while it ran i often felt wrong.
Those who dont stand even the slightest change shouldnt see it, but if youre interested in its actors, visuals, changes or political statements etc, go watch it. Because maybe im wrong.
At least it was sometimes very well made, in dialogue, information, visual, style or being faithful to the gn; spawning political discussions, thoughts trough hints.
Its just not so over-superb what i thought it will be. Hope it doesnt happen with X-Men 3 too.
But i will watch it again sometime, maybe alone, with subtitles to really understand everything.
Because its of course much better then Garfield, Daredevil, LoeG, Hulk, Fantastic Four and all this crap (Of course!).
Oh and a last thing: Why didnt they give surveillance, eavesdropping and civil spies a greater part?
Thats a big chunk of totalitarism.

To place my opinion, here are my opinions about other comicbookfilms:

Favs:

1. Oldboy (Based on a korean comic, named the same- Great acting, very emotional and stunning).
2. X-Men (Very fun movie with great characters and visuals)
3. X-Men 2 (Longer but deeper than the first)
4. Spiderman 2 (Typical, but highly enjoyable cf)
5: Spiderman (Same as the second)
6. Constantine (Not really HB, but great film nevertheless. Rave for it because of people often finding it not so good apart from its great visuals, ideas, mood, characters and some story/meaning).
7. Hellboy (Weird and charming. Kroenen is my fav villain. And Hellboy is also cool and amusing).

What is good, but not my favs:
Batman Begins (Monumental film, but i couldnt watch it often. Also the best Batman.).
The Crow (Cool dark film, little bit too one-coloured and typical villains).
Sin City (Best adaptation to date but as film boring and unspectacular- still cult-worthy and visually striking).
Men in Black 1 and 2 (Silly but fun movies).
Casper (Dont know now but surely good for kids).
Batman and Batman Returns: Ok, but too cartoony, concentrate too hardly on villains and are a bit timid.
Road to Perdition: Lovely cinematography and decade, but not really outstanding story and so a bit long.
From Hell: Not bad film, a little bit empty. Heard that the GN is way better.

Fun but terrible movie: Fantastic Four

Halfway ok, halfway not:
Hulk (Good story but i didnt like the laughable jump-fight-scenes in it, as i dont like the whole Hulk character, though Banner himself is ok).

Dont like:
Daredevil (Some nice visuals and parts, but ridicolously painstaking).
Garfield (Good for kids, for me not).

Anticipate: Superman Returns, Spidey 3, X-Men 3, 300, SC 2 etc

Await but not so much: Ghost Rider

Want to see : Ghost World, American Splendor, History of Violence, first two Superman movies

Dont want to: Elektra, Catwoman, Batman 3 and 4

[Chris Day]

I really enjoyed V for Vendetta.

I tried reading the graphic novel a few years ago but didn't read much of it because I didn't like the art and found it difficult to read with so much tiny script everywhere...

but I enjoyed the movie quite a lot...

[Anthony Devlin]

Keep this brief - Finally watched the film, and my opinion hasn’t change. It’s a good film, but any form of subtle grey tones to the tale that the book had, have clearly been erased here for a painting-by-numbers approach to heroes and villain’s. Doesn’t detract too much from the film, but doesn’t add anything either. A fair few fight sequences had me cringing, the last one in particular. But, the stand out moment for the film, and to an extent it’s saving grace; in my eyes, was the scenes telling Valerie’s tale. I’m glad this wasn’t messed with, and it was the one moment that stayed in my thoughts after the end credits fell, I thought personally they managed to pull the scene of admirably; it definitely pulled on my emotions. But, that doesn’t mean I was in awe of the movie as a final piece, I wasn’t. It’s watchable, and I would recommend it to anyone, but it’s not a patch on the book. My main problem with the film is that story clearly advocates you, the reader/viewer, to think, but clearly the producers have removed this element from the movie, and replaced it with a more simplistic portrayal of both sides, one that the audience doesn’t need to think about – You are told the Government is bad, and that V is good, you don’t need to think about their actions, or weigh up the possibilities and come you your own conclusion, they spell it out clearly for you, when it’s not always that clear cut.

[Andrew Stoneham]

I saw the movie this afternoon. I really enjoyed it course its not as good as the book but it was a pretty decent adpation. Like Dev already said was really glad the didn't tinker with Valerie’s that was my fav part of the film really invoke some strong reactions. I though Hugo Weaving was particuallary good there were a few scenes that came off a bit cheesy but he did a great job overall. Portman was watchable but not too impressive.

[Anand Khatri]

Saw the movie with The Boss (my girlfriend. So what?? I'm whipped. Sue me. I mean sure, she's the boss and I'm like an employee sometimes, but damn the benefits are great. ;) ), and we enjoyed it. Seriously though it doesnt do teh book justice at all. As Seth said, if you haven't read the book, don't if you plan to see the movie first.

[neuwanstein]

I have just seen the movie, it was introduced in hungary only now. I have been eagerly anticipating this movie for almost a year now, because the book is really my favorite comic book, and I have to say I was sooooo bitterly disappopinted, that I simply can't explain.

Anyway I try, while my feelings are still fresh.

I try to summarize why I am let down so much: I feel so bad, because there were things in the movie which were so well done, and that just emphasizes the things which were terrible. I mean, if the whole movie would have been a piece of crap, I could happily say, that I did not lost anything. But IMO there were some parts which are faithfully adapted and had a definite mood, and this somehow generates inside me the feeling that it could have been great, and instead it became pretty mediocre. All-in-all it wasn't a bad run, but it is far from what it could have been, and this hurts most. I almost wish the whole movie would have been extremely bad, because then I wouldn't feel the loss of opportunity. I believe you get what I mean here.

I have to say my expectations were really high. I love the book so much, that I wanted to see some of my favorite sentences repeated word by word. That happened sometimes, but not in some key points.

What I liked:
- Delia Surridge scene: one of the most moving scenes in the early part of the book, and it was so well done. I believe it was excellent how V appeared from the darkness in the corner of the room. Also the conversation was same, I was happy with this one.

- Valerie + Interrogation scene: I was pretty happy they did this so well. Natalie Portman performed quite well here (although not when he realized the truth). The recall of Valerie life was good. This almost saved the whole movie for me.

- I liked the "betrayal" of Evey at the priest scene, I felt it realistic somehow. Sure, this can be argued but I felt a good and simple way of storytelling and moved the story.

- I think (although I am not sure:) I liked the change of Gordon-thread. This TV show was I think good idea and I could imagine a person who just is aware of the consequences what he had done. It was a good idea in my opinion to rejo

- I liked the actor who played Finch. He was good one for the role IMO.

What I did not like:
- I hated the fact, that the characters become so much one-dimensional. V became a royal even if somehow nutty liberation hero. It was clear he is the good guys, there were no worries about the fact if he was right or not.

Sutler, was nothing but a joke from the widescreen who was screaming during the whole movie. In the book, I especially liked the flashes into the into the mind of the Leader, he was a multi-dimensional character with his own problems which were believable. Here clearly he was the bad guy. Was far too much simplified for my taste after the book.

- I hated the ending. Thousands of V? Ordinary people facing guns without a moment of repulsion, just moving silently, bravely like undead ghosts onto them? ridiculous. On the contrary there was a short scene earler, where frenzied people attacked a fingerman who shot an innocent girl. Now that had the mood. That was something like from the book.

- I believe some senteces just did not have the same effect like in the book. For example in the book, when evey is "rescued" and Evey asked, "why" it was so effective V's answer: "Because I love you. Because I wanted to set you free". But in the movie it started mumbling, that "I hated myself too when I did" "I didn't want" etc. It crushed the effect for me. But maybe only just for me.

- Also that incredible platonian love setting between V and Eve. It was out of the picture for me. Somehow it just did not fit the whole movie, I felt the sce