thehefner | sometimes, it's better to not have read the book first

I should have started with the movie, enjoyed it for all the strong fun enjoyable qualities that I--somewhere, objectively, deep down--realize it possesses. I mean, the book wasn't a brilliant literary classic, but I loved how 3D the characters were, how morally gray the whole thing was, how it was damn hard to tell throughout who was the hero and who was the villain. I love good, fleshed-out characters that defy stereotypes.

What do we get here? A Rambo who's not absolutely bugfuck insane and divorced from humanity, slaughtering dozens of cops with a bloodthirsty ferocity that would make Jason Voorhees flinch? The flawed-but-sympathetic Sheriff reduced to the stereotypical "We don't like yer types in my town" caricature as only Brian Dennehy could refrigeratorally embody? The whole metaphorical parable about the generation gap between the youth and the older "establishment," neither of whom is totally right nor wrong, stuck together as the war is brought directly to America... all that shunted aside for an escapist underdog action flick?

Again, not saying that the book was a masterpiece or anything, but by comparison, the movie is like a cat that's been neutered, declawed, and had every tooth ripped out of its mouth, then saddled with Jeph Loeb-ian Hollywood dialogue.

Damn it. Not even man-god Chris Mulkey can save this experience for me. Ugh.

Ever have that experience, where you can't separate the book from the film, even when the film is actually pretty good in its own right? That you could really enjoy the movie if you hadn't read the book first? I sometimes wonder if that's the way I should have handled V FOR VENDETTA.

Man, I dunno why I should get worked up over this. It's bloody Rambo, for god's sake. I'm gonna go read more POPEYE, that'll chill me out.