V Thoughts
Mar. 18th, 2006 01:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerI think the saddest (most ironic?) thing that can be said about the V FOR VENDETTA movie is that some people will go to see it and they will say, "Wow, this felt like such a comic-book movie." It's a description I abhor, because it's always said by people who don't know what the fuck a comic really is, they just use it to write off something that's flashy, colorful, juvinile, and campy as "comic book." I hate that, I really do. And what makes this all the more sad/ironic is that the original comic, the graphic novel of V FOR VENDETTA, was not as "comic book" as the movie.
That's not to say that I thought the movie fit all those descriptions, or to say I didn't like it. I liked the movie a hell of a lot, more than some of my other friends. I was actually able to get past the changes from the original book for the most part and just enjoy the movie as a movie. That's saying a lot coming from me; something has to be damn good on its own merits to justify changing a brilliant and pefectly adaptable original story.
Still, while I did like it, in the end I fear it's hardly, as so many over-enthusiastic geeks on Ain't It Cool News put it, "the most dangerous movie of the year." This movie is not a world-changer, and you know why? Because they didn't have the balls to go as far as the book did. Which raises such an interesting question, because they so easily could have. They pushed it just so far that they could have taken it futher without much effort or fear of worse controversy. It wouldn't have made a difference.
This movie was, at best, "anarchy lite." Or as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chickenhat put it best: "LAND OF THE DEAD had better political commentary."
And as much as I love Romero, a movie of V FOR VENDETTA should have better, more angry, more provocative political commentary than a zombie movie. This isn't a story, a message, that should just reach your average horror movie audience; I was expecting/hoping for a political bombshell disguised as a flashy box-office hit. And it almost got there so many times. I just don't get why the hell they didn't go that extra mile... hell, that extra three feet, in some instances. It wouldn't have cost them anything.
But let's talk about what they did do right, what really worked. First and foremost, bravo to them for doing justice to the entire prison sequence. Because that, more than anything else, is the most important part of the original book, and for all their inexplicable changes of dialogue, bravo to them for keeping the letter from Valerie almost word for word the same from the comic. Also, this is one of those instances where in so many cases, they actually did capture the "spirit" (that oh-so-elusive turn of phrase) of the original. And the scene with the dominos gave me chills, if only because of the memories it evoked of the comic.
The actors were all excellent. It's so awesome seeing Stephen Fry, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt all on the big screen together. Natalie was very good, although looking a little freaky thin (not that she shouldn't be... in the second half, not the first). Hugo Weaving was simply delightful as V, even if the script did wimpify him just the teeniest bit.
And ok, what the FUCK is with Americans that we have to make everything a love story? I mean, I wanted to smack the idiotic audience I was with for laughing at inappropriate moments, but at the close up of Evey kissing V's mask, even I wanted to titter.
I was also amused to know thatwhimmydiddle shared my exact same thoughts during the last couple minutes of the movie: "This is stupid, this is stupid, this is stupid, oh ok, yeah, it works." But for god's sake, Natalie's last lines should have been fucking cut. I don't know what's worse, filmmakers who feel like they have to throw subtlety to the wind and pound the movie's message into the ground... or the idiotic movie audiences who wouldn't get the message otherwise. I really like to think that those people don't exist, I want to think better of my fellow man, but no, I fear that your average moviegoer needs to have it all spelled out for him. Why is that?
Anyway, it was ultimately a great movie, perhaps even an excellent movie, but a so-so adaptation and not as brilliant and provocative as it should have been. And in some ways, isn't that worse than just being a bad movie?
That's not to say that I thought the movie fit all those descriptions, or to say I didn't like it. I liked the movie a hell of a lot, more than some of my other friends. I was actually able to get past the changes from the original book for the most part and just enjoy the movie as a movie. That's saying a lot coming from me; something has to be damn good on its own merits to justify changing a brilliant and pefectly adaptable original story.
Still, while I did like it, in the end I fear it's hardly, as so many over-enthusiastic geeks on Ain't It Cool News put it, "the most dangerous movie of the year." This movie is not a world-changer, and you know why? Because they didn't have the balls to go as far as the book did. Which raises such an interesting question, because they so easily could have. They pushed it just so far that they could have taken it futher without much effort or fear of worse controversy. It wouldn't have made a difference.
This movie was, at best, "anarchy lite." Or as
chickenhat put it best: "LAND OF THE DEAD had better political commentary."And as much as I love Romero, a movie of V FOR VENDETTA should have better, more angry, more provocative political commentary than a zombie movie. This isn't a story, a message, that should just reach your average horror movie audience; I was expecting/hoping for a political bombshell disguised as a flashy box-office hit. And it almost got there so many times. I just don't get why the hell they didn't go that extra mile... hell, that extra three feet, in some instances. It wouldn't have cost them anything.
But let's talk about what they did do right, what really worked. First and foremost, bravo to them for doing justice to the entire prison sequence. Because that, more than anything else, is the most important part of the original book, and for all their inexplicable changes of dialogue, bravo to them for keeping the letter from Valerie almost word for word the same from the comic. Also, this is one of those instances where in so many cases, they actually did capture the "spirit" (that oh-so-elusive turn of phrase) of the original. And the scene with the dominos gave me chills, if only because of the memories it evoked of the comic.
The actors were all excellent. It's so awesome seeing Stephen Fry, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt all on the big screen together. Natalie was very good, although looking a little freaky thin (not that she shouldn't be... in the second half, not the first). Hugo Weaving was simply delightful as V, even if the script did wimpify him just the teeniest bit.
And ok, what the FUCK is with Americans that we have to make everything a love story? I mean, I wanted to smack the idiotic audience I was with for laughing at inappropriate moments, but at the close up of Evey kissing V's mask, even I wanted to titter.
I was also amused to know that
whimmydiddle shared my exact same thoughts during the last couple minutes of the movie: "This is stupid, this is stupid, this is stupid, oh ok, yeah, it works." But for god's sake, Natalie's last lines should have been fucking cut. I don't know what's worse, filmmakers who feel like they have to throw subtlety to the wind and pound the movie's message into the ground... or the idiotic movie audiences who wouldn't get the message otherwise. I really like to think that those people don't exist, I want to think better of my fellow man, but no, I fear that your average moviegoer needs to have it all spelled out for him. Why is that? Anyway, it was ultimately a great movie, perhaps even an excellent movie, but a so-so adaptation and not as brilliant and provocative as it should have been. And in some ways, isn't that worse than just being a bad movie?
