« Put The Book Back On The Shelf
Main
Fanboy Alert! »

V for Vendetta is without a doubt the best adaption of an Alan Moore graphic novel ever although Moore refuses to have his name appear in the credits and will not accept any money for the film. It's also pretty good as far as comic book movies go. It manages to be be both exciting and thought-provoking and will further help towards giving reviewers and media journalists a reason to not use the tired old "BAM! POW!" cliches when referring to comic books. That said, though the graphic novel is not one of my favorites, it is of course much more complex and nuanced than the film. Not a big surprise there and since 95% of the people that see this movie will not bother picking up the graphic novel before or afterwards they won't be put off by the dumbing down of the material here. Still, it's actually surprising how much is retained and how close the general story is to the book. The best scenes are the ones pulled right from the book (Evey's torture, Valerie's letter) and the clunkiest are the ones where they veer the furthest from it (the 'romance' between V and Evey, the ending).

Not all the changes are bad though. I like the topicality that has been added, with allusions to Bush's America and Iraq. The filmmakers deserve some recognition for not shying away from the terrorism aspect of the story and for running the risk of being accused of being supportive of it. The problem is that they frame V as more of a hero than he should be, ironing out the ambiguities of his motive. And I think they went a little too far in making the chancellor and the government power-grabbing nazis when it would be more believable for those of us living in America now to buy a fascist regime coming into power in order to protect the people and the people give up control in order to be protected. Maybe that is what happened in the story because I was a little confused by what is meant to be taken as the truth in V's story to Finch about Larkhill and St. Mary's and what the government's involvment was in the virus. I assumed what he was saying was true but in reading some online discussions about the scene I'm not so sure what the filmmakers intended us to think now.

There's a few narrative problems that don't hold up the more you examine them. They don't really explain how V escaped from Larkhill or what the roses signify (all explained in the book). When you really examine it, especially up against the book, it is a sloppy film, more interested in cool knife fighting scenes and closeup shots of rain drops than anything else. But it gets a lot right and it deserves credit for that.

Props to Hugo Weaving for not only giving a great performance as V, but was probably the only actor in Hollywood willing to star in a leading role and never show his face once.

Posted at March 20, 2006 01:15 PM