V For... Very Good, Actually
It's been a while since I've been able to wax lyrical about a movie. But over the weekend we went to see "V For Vendetta" and it was very good indeed. Now I've not actually read the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. I always meant to "get around to it", but never actually found the time/energy/motivation to actually go out and get it. And then, of course, when I found out the movie was coming out, I thought I'd see that first as there's nothing worse than being disappointed with a film because you're familiar with the source material (like I know my missus will be disappointed with the DaVinci Code flick as she's just read the book - whilst I'm holding off until after the movie!).
But, no, V For Vendetta was excellent, a very intelligent and slick looking political thriller. Any movie where the opening act is the Old Bailey being blown to smithereens has gotta be good. I'd imagine Daily Mail readers will get all flustered about V walking into a building in "suicide bomber" garb, but if you can get past that, it's brilliant. Highly recommended.
Labels: Graphic Novel, Movies, V For Vendetta
posted by SilentBazz at
8:42 am
2 Comments:
As I say, having not yet read the original Graphic Novel I cannot comment. However it was very un-Hollywood. Alan Moore, according to an interview he gave this month's Empire magazine, has taken his name off every movie version of his work after the fiasco that was "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (and he hated "From Hell" too). Empire remarked, however, on the irony of this being the first film without his name as it is actually a good adaptation of the work. Gonna get the novel soon anyway so may be able to comment better. However it's certainly not very Hollywood at all, entertained me for 2 hours anyway..
Okay bought the Graphic Novel yesterday and have got about three quarters of the way through..
And I can honestly say that the film doesn't stray that far from the book.. as to what I've seen so far (not finished the book yet), here's how the two compare:
++ SPOILER ALERT ++
Unlike the book, the film saves the detonation of Parliament as a finalé - but instead begins with V blowing up the Old Bailey.
The government is still a overly religious, facist movement.
V in both versions was the patient in room five at Larkhill and had experiments performed on him.
A lot of the movie is concerned with V getting revenge on those who selected him for treatment at Larkhill and who were present there.
The catholic priest still has a taste for very young girls in both versions.
V still leaves a rose at each murder scene.
V does walk into the television studios wearing explosives to take over the emergency broadcasting system with his message (in the movie though it's BTN -the British Television Network, not NTV)
In both versions V captures Evey and tortures her until she comes round to his way of thinking (or he sets her free, depending upon what spin you put on it). This sequence is lifted directly from the book - even down to the rat in Evey's cell.
Valerie's story is intact in the movie.
The comparisons go on and on, I think this is fairly decent translation. Okay "Fate" (the computer) is missing and in the movie, the government poison it's own population and use fear broadcast via stories of food shortages (and avian flu - ha! ha!) to take control as opposed to a nuclear war, but I think that makes the movie government even more nasty. Additionally I don;t think that the movie shows the ethnic cleansing as much as the book did (the homosexual issue is raised instead) - but then I guess it's a bit of a volatile issue for a movie.
The film is very anti-American too, due to the fact that the film makers don't like their president very much. There are numerous references to the USA having become a third world country, with England ("England Prevails") sending aid to it.. So the Hollywood argument falls a bit flat there too..
All in all it's a pretty damn good movie and worth a look..
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home