03-17-2006, 06:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2006, 06:20 PM by Occhidiangela.)
It is unusual for me to find a movie better than the book it came from, but my viewing last night of V For Vendetta arrived at that judgment.
A graphic novel is somewhat like a rough screenplay and story board combined, or it can be. This feature makes the transition from book to film less dramatic for me, since I don't have as many pictures built in my own head before the film clashes with them.
Moore's novel suffered from some trouble with character differentiation among the government officials and cops. The film gave an explicit face and voice to each one.
The 10:00 PM show was filled mostly with college aged folk, and I found myself surprised by where in the film they laughed . . . unless some of them were laughing at jokes whispered to one another.
Natalie Portman redeems herself somewhat as an actress, in my eyes, after the abominations she foisted upon the movie audiences recently, in both the Star Wars mess and Closer. Tough role, she handled it pretty well.
Hugo Weaving does a fine job as V, which is a bit tough to do, what with the mask and all.
I found an eerie similarity to Serenity when a commander used the term "Stand Down" at the end. The discipline of the soldiers in both films, in not shooting unless explicitly ordered in a very tense situation, was strikingly portrayed.
This movie is well worth a look, and well directed. That said, it mainains a few of the same plot holes, and challenging suspensions of disbelief, as the graphic novel
-- V's hideout never being found, given where it is? Right
-- How did he get electricity down there without the computerized control and billing system tracking down the stray juice?
-- V's unearthly agility
-- Where V got all the stuff to cram onto the train
So, a well done to the team who put that film together. A few of the political references from the Thatcher era to the current context were expected, and of course provided. The Brit-Centric nature of the film was preserved, thank goodness.
My only real complaint was that John Hurt's dictator/chancellor character was never calm, always ranting. That was, IMO, a mistake made on the nature of the dictator/chancellor. It made him more cartoonish, not more real. Why the director chose to make him less believable, and more cartoonish, escapes me. The film would have resonated better had that character been icy cool, which Hurt pull off quite well.
Occhi
A graphic novel is somewhat like a rough screenplay and story board combined, or it can be. This feature makes the transition from book to film less dramatic for me, since I don't have as many pictures built in my own head before the film clashes with them.
Moore's novel suffered from some trouble with character differentiation among the government officials and cops. The film gave an explicit face and voice to each one.
The 10:00 PM show was filled mostly with college aged folk, and I found myself surprised by where in the film they laughed . . . unless some of them were laughing at jokes whispered to one another.
Natalie Portman redeems herself somewhat as an actress, in my eyes, after the abominations she foisted upon the movie audiences recently, in both the Star Wars mess and Closer. Tough role, she handled it pretty well.
Hugo Weaving does a fine job as V, which is a bit tough to do, what with the mask and all.
I found an eerie similarity to Serenity when a commander used the term "Stand Down" at the end. The discipline of the soldiers in both films, in not shooting unless explicitly ordered in a very tense situation, was strikingly portrayed.
This movie is well worth a look, and well directed. That said, it mainains a few of the same plot holes, and challenging suspensions of disbelief, as the graphic novel
-- V's hideout never being found, given where it is? Right
-- How did he get electricity down there without the computerized control and billing system tracking down the stray juice?
-- V's unearthly agility
-- Where V got all the stuff to cram onto the train
So, a well done to the team who put that film together. A few of the political references from the Thatcher era to the current context were expected, and of course provided. The Brit-Centric nature of the film was preserved, thank goodness.
My only real complaint was that John Hurt's dictator/chancellor character was never calm, always ranting. That was, IMO, a mistake made on the nature of the dictator/chancellor. It made him more cartoonish, not more real. Why the director chose to make him less believable, and more cartoonish, escapes me. The film would have resonated better had that character been icy cool, which Hurt pull off quite well.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete