Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trace

V for Vendetta

Recommended Posts

I have 114 DVDs or something, from that Spiderman 1, Spiderman 2, Hellboy, X-Men, X-Men 2, Batman Begins Constantine, Sin City, Oldboy and Fantastic Four are the comicbookfilms.

 

I dont want to buy V, but i want to see it definetly again with subs, because im not giving up fast on something that isnt completely shit.

 

V is definitely better than/as good as almost half the movies on that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it isnt- Thats why i give it a second try, because i saw much good in it- I just saw bad in it too :)

(At this point, its at least better than F4 n Sin City for me, and as good as the others yes. Maybe Oldboy is the best from those films)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that list, I'd say V was not as good as Batman Begins, perhaps Sin City (depends on the mood I'm in), and quite possibly Oldboy (I haven't seen it yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said it isnt- Thats why i give it a second try, because i saw much good in it- I just saw bad in it too :)

(At this point, its at least better than F4 n Sin City for me, and as good as the others yes. Maybe Oldboy is the best from those films)

 

You did say you didnt want to buy it which is why I pointed out that if you bought the crappy FF4, its certainly worth it to buy V.

 

It's tons better'n both FF4 and Constantine and, IMO, at least as good as the Spiderman films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did buy F4 because i didnt see it then and it was cheap :)

I will see if i buy it, but first i watch it again.

And while maybe its better than the films you said, i have more fun with Spiderman or likewises.

I think i just expected too much, as with SC.

But as said, i give it a chance.

Just because i saw it and have to spare my money now, i have to restrain myself, yer know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine, if you will, a man running a lengthy and gruelling race. A marathon, perhaps. Along the way, he stumbles a few times. He possibly loses a shoe. But he keeps going, and upon reaching the final straight, with the finishing line a mere metre or two away, he has achieved a more than comfortable lead. Victory, it seems, is assured. A brave performance, a hard race run well.

 

Then, instead of crossing the line, he stops. Stands still for a moment, glances around as though to make sure of his surroundings. Reaches under his vest, pulls out a gun, and, slowly and calmly, shoots himself in the face. He falls to the ground, dead, the race lost. Defeat, snatched from the very jaws of victory.

 

 

I saw V For Vendetta this evening. Now, let us never speak of it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine, if you will, a man running a lengthy and gruelling race. A marathon, perhaps. Along the way, he stumbles a few times. He possibly loses a shoe. But he keeps going, and upon reaching the final straight, with the finishing line a mere metre or two away, he has achieved a more than comfortable lead. Victory, it seems, is assured. A brave performance, a hard race run well.

 

Then, instead of crossing the line, he stops. Stands still for a moment, glances around as though to make sure of his surroundings. Reaches under his vest, pulls out a gun, and, slowly and calmly, shoots himself in the face. He falls to the ground, dead, the race lost. Defeat, snatched from the very jaws of victory.

 

 

I saw V For Vendetta this evening. Now, let us never speak of it again.

 

Another satisfied customer!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to speak about it again, but what does this exactly mean?

That it was quite till the end but then it got destroyed?

Or that it could have been good but it wasnt?

Or is the man first the GN, successfull, and afterwards the film, failing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When everyone in London became V, except for Evey, and Finch has nothing to do with V's death. That's not so much altered from the book as it is totally fucking antithetical to it, and it destroyed the ending of the story. When the line "I fell in love with you, Evey" is the most forgivable of the changes made to the conclusion, something somewhere has gone horribly wrong.

 

Shame, because up until the final 15 minutes or so, while occasionally flawed, it was a damn good adaptation, which, while not perfect, updated the source material nicely and even improved on it in one or two instances. That just makes the total, gobsmackingly arse fucking-up of the conclusion, both textually and subtextually, all the more frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after early script spoilers, as well as the crowd of V's on some of the film posters, I was perfectly prepared for an ending that would suck to no end...Thus I wont let it colour my opinion of the film as a whole...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on...so the fact that the ending was terrible isn't going to adversely affect your opinion of the film as a whole, just because you knew about it in advance?

 

Sorry, I don't follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I was saying, I was going into the cinema with low expectations for this film, when I didnt need to. The ending, as hackneyed as I was expecting it to be (and as hackneyed as it actually was), doesnt bring down the whole film...

 

I might have misunderstood what you said (in fact, I probably did), but when you say that you saw V4V and now lets never speak of it again, the ending seems to have had a much more adverse effect on you? Dont know if you were aware of spoilers or not mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the ending wasn't that it was hackneyed or unconvincing (both of which it was) - it's that it totally undermines two of the most significant character arcs in the book, and along with them, the ultimate point of the story.

 

Over the course of the novel, both Evey and Finch undergo a series of trials and challenges which are explicitly paralleled to V's own experiences. As a result of this, Finch ultimately destroys V, while Evey replaces/becomes him. In the film version, Finch has absolutely nothing to do with V's death, and everyone in London becomes V except for Evey, who just sort of vanishes from the story following the destruction of Parliament. It's hard to imagine how much more wrong they could have got it, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I pretty much agree with you about the ending but it didnt sink the movie for me. Granted, its a betrayal of much of what the GN was about. But I went in with such low expectations that the final product was mostly a relief to me. I managed to do this time what I also tried to do with Constantine - look at it from a standalone POV. This way, its a pretty decent film with a preachy, somewhat cheesy ending. It's not the adaptation it couldve been but its certainly a pretty good standalone movie, which is more than I can say for Constantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem with the ending wasn't that it was hackneyed or unconvincing (both of which it was) - it's that it totally undermines two of the most significant character arcs in the book, and along with them, the ultimate point of the story.

 

Over the course of the novel, both Evey and Finch undergo a series of trials and challenges which are explicitly paralleled to V's own experiences. As a result of this, Finch ultimately destroys V, while Evey replaces/becomes him. In the film version, Finch has absolutely nothing to do with V's death, and everyone in London becomes V except for Evey, who just sort of vanishes from the story following the destruction of Parliament. It's hard to imagine how much more wrong they could have got it, really.

The Evey change didn't worry me too much, as I always saw her transformation into V as a representation of the need for the everyperson to rebuild/heal society after a period of oppression, whereas the film makers chose the less subtle (and less effective) route of turning the everyperson into V.

 

The change to Finch on the other hand was a real shame, I still expected V to stumble into him after being shot and for some kind of dialogue to emerge to complete the circle of their flawed but similar characters. I'm guessing they must have felt that having shown the good character of Finch arrive at a similar conclusion as V, was enough to question the morality of V's actions, but it wasn't. Nowhere as good as it could have been, but even so, still not a show stopper for me. Incidently the two people I went with who have never read the novel, loved the film, apart from, in both cases, the satirical TV show and the inclusion of the martyrs at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadnt got much against the changes, only that theys didnt use surveillance and secret civilian police.

Oh, and the love thing, Sutler and V being an idiot in the first half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited version of the review posted on my website

 

I thought that Hugo Weaving was very powerful as V and Stephen Rea did a great job as Inspector Finch. Natalie Portman was merely adequate as Evey and her accent was not as awful as some have written but she was a little wooden in her performance. The movie lasted two hours and yet it felt like a lot had been edited out. There was very little characterisation outside of the central few main characters all the others such as Sutler and Creedy seemed like stereotypes painted in broad strokes.

 

I think the general mood of the film was established well, it was visually stunning and there were a number of very powerful scenes especially the fingerman's shooting of the girl and the subsequent uprising of the townspeople.

 

In many ways the movie felt like it was set in some parallel universe version of Britain rather than a dystopic near future of our own Britain, possibly due to it being an American production. The Britain of the movie was very twee and a little off, Rupert Graves as a copper using the word "chummy" when apprehending V, eggy in a basket and the Benny Hillesque TV satirical attack on the Channcellor.

 

A number of things in the movie make me feel like the points of the original graphic novel were lost or misunderstood by the writers. V was too overly made to be identified with Guy Fawkes who in the introductory scene is portrayed as a freedom fighter rather than the religious nutcase that he actually was. I thought that the Guy Fawkes mask in the graphic novel was a useful disguise which was merely appropriate given the date of key events in the story and a shared interest in blowing up public buildings. But the motivations of V and Guy Fawkes are in no way the same.

 

In fact Guy Fawkes has more in common with the Islamic fundametalist terrorists our society is being made to fear at the moment. The character of V is different but is no hero either really he is a force for change through destruction, rebirthing society by destroying it's institutions so something better can be born out of the ashes.

 

The surveillance aspects were altered and there was no sight of surveillance cameras in the movie odd given their ubiquitousness in modern Britain and given the totalitarianism surely there should be even more in evidence. Plus the populace do not seem cowed by the authorities, living in constant fear of speaking out of turn. Certainly this so called dystopia is to my eyes a lot deal better than we can really hope to expect several years down the line from now once we have a National Identity Register, cameras that can scan our faces to identify us and track our movements and legislation that gives the ruling party pretty much free reign to do whatever it wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent seen the film YET so i cannot comment but -

 

It's also for Valueless gibberish. Yet another graphic novel has been bulldozed on to the screen, strutting its stuff for an assumed army of uncritical geeks - a fanbase product from which the fanbase has been amputated.

Peter Bradshaw - http://film.guardian.co.uk/

 

I do so hope this man falls down a flight of stairs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, i am glad i don't think as deeply about things as some of you, a bit much thought from some of you, that precludes any possibility of enjoying someones work, ( imho ) even the very BEST adaption, can't make a BOOK, into a movie, even a comic book has some things that just won't come across in film.

 

I emjoyed it a lot, and one of my nephews mates went with us, had never seen it even mentioned, had no idea what was coming, or in fact what was happening half the time. The soundtrack drowned the voice track a lot, i thought.

 

I agree that the crwd of Vs at the end was a broad stroke, but it DID give them the instant sense of belonging, empowerment, and anonymity that ( just my reading of your character as a nation, Englishmen, no offense ment ) English people would need to indulge in instant-civil disobedience. The footie ratbags with their flags and scarfs and funny hats spring to mind.

 

Complaining about V-googleplex is like complaining that the riot police had machineguns but no shields'n'batons, of course it was rubbish, for a start, SOME of the people would have been anal-retentives, and refused to WEAR the mask/cloak. Just an image they were reaching for.

Might as well complain about the crowd being safe from debris from an explosion sufficent to shunt thousand tonne stone walls 20 feet sideways in the first seconds of effect. If there WERE such an explosion, it would spray death from hundreds of mtres. AGAIN, just a VISUAL effect. Why complain at one effect they were trying for, and not another?.

 

I actually LIKED the TV producers Benny Hill pastiche / poke of the tounge at Sutler. Can't you guys imagine say, KENNY EVERRIT having done the same?. If you wanted to poke fun at some figure that people were afraid of, would it be natural to reach for some communal imagery like the B.Hill legacy?. And he didn't understand the pressure Sutler was under, he thought he was safe because he was popular. That smacked of truth to me.

 

 

I didn't like that Evey didn't adopt the mask too, but nothing is perfect.

 

If they had made a carbon copy of the comic, it would have been a shame, imo.

 

I enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
( imho ) even the very BEST adaption, can't make a BOOK, into a movie, even a comic book has some things that just won't come across in film.

 

 

:icon_2gun: LONG RANT AHEAD :icon_twosgun:

 

I've stressed this before.

When adapting something from one meduim into the next (especially when the first uses it's meduim so well), one needs to re-atomise it completely and rebuild it into the next meduim.

 

A great example is Kurosawa's Throne of Blood.

This filmed adaptation of Macbeth, sets it in feudal japan, drops all Shakespiere text, alters the narrative and yet is hailed as one of and personally the best film adaptation of Macbeth!

All those changes insure that it is a film first and foremost and an adaptation second.

 

What is the most important thing about a text/ book/comic?

Hopefully, it is the core themes, insights and mood.

Narrative is not the most important part.

Hopefully the narrative is really there to reach and explore those themes and to illustrate those insights.

 

Throne of Blood achieves and enhances Macbeth's themes, and the changes personally are for the best.

All these changes may appear to be the equivalent of what a idiotic Hollywood producer might do, but in this case it is thankfully it's Kurusawa doing it.

The point is (in the right hands), you have got to be cruel to be kind.

 

Avaunt, what you said, is what exactly what I feel about Sin City.

To slavishly port straight from comic to film, is to deny both meduims unique languages.

You have got to find the other meduims algebraic equivalent.

 

Normally I would pray that other comic book daptations get the same loving treatment that Rodriquez gave Sin City.

By inlarge Sin City, was much better than other very poor Schumacher-esque interpretations.

But ultimately Sin City needed adaptation, ironically it's very kindness undermined it's film adaptation.

 

Take Misery for example, with it's use of the handwriten "n" or the very fact that the protagonist is actually a writer.

All that looses it's impact in a filmed adaptation.

 

Likewise with Ghostworld and it's filmic adaptation (now admittadly i have not read the comic, but I am told that it uses the comic within a comic device ala Watchman, correct or not I shall continue with this in mind).

Surely a film adaptation to achieve the same or atleast a similar meaning would use films within films ala American Beauty.

 

Page 1 of Watchman, proves that in it's comic incarnation, it is unfilmable.

From the get go, it uses comic books lack of actual sound and the anonymity of undirected dialogue to it's favour.

 

Films like the Hulk and it's attempt to portray it's comic book origin through painfully pretentious editing and multiscreens 9 acinematic abberation), actually show how little they understand comic book language.

 

The closest I've seen to this understanding (albeit an inadvertant one) is Chris Marker's "La Jetee" (of which Twelve Monkeys was a good but unwieldly remake).

He attempts to break the timed image, as his poetic short film is comprised of stills.

 

So basically in the right fucking hands, it is fully possible for an artist/practioner in a specific meduim to find the equivalent of anothers meduim's strenghs in their own practicing meduim.

 

It just helps if you dont hire muppets. :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...