V for Vendetta Review

[quote]harris447 wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
vermilion wrote:
I’m sure Alan Moore hated it. He’s probably sitting at home right now, weeping into huge piles of cash…

I’ll wait for DVD as, my Moore jibe aside, there’s just no way it can live up to the book.

Indeed, it’s always tough to see a movie after you’ve read the book upon which it is based, due to the fact that you form your own images in your mind as you read the book, and it’s odd to see your images contradicted with someone else’s onscreen.

That stated, however, I think this movie does just about as good a job as putting powerful images to a novel as I’ve seen, besides maybe Lord of The Rings.

It’s a comic book.

What does the fact that it’s a comic book mean?

A work of fiction’s medium doesn’t have any bearing upon its relevance/worth.

Comic books have won the pulitzer prize.

[/quote]

Not to mention that many graphic novels lately are not to be considered “for kids”. I think people relate this media with the shit they used to read on Sunday morning in the newspaper.

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Hey sport, where are you getting your intel?
[/quote]

Sport? Who the hell calls someone ‘sport?’ Hey Chump, I’ll give you the link to the interview with Moore and you can read it yoruself, minus my misrememberings :slight_smile:

http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html#more

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Sport? Who the hell calls someone ‘sport?’ Hey Chump, I’ll give you the link to the interview with Moore and you can read it yoruself, minus my misrememberings :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I like ‘chump’ too. I actually use that one much more than ‘sport’.

I have a new one though: ‘broheme’
(you gotta see A History of Violence to get that one). This one carries a bit more affection, though it can be used with indignation if you’ve got the acting chops. It’s definitely more personable than the defensive attitude of ‘chump’ or the light sarcasm of ‘sport’.

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
It’s a comic book.

harris447 wrote:

What does the fact that it’s a comic book mean?

A work of fiction’s medium doesn’t have any bearing upon its relevance/worth.

Comic books have won the pulitzer prize.

I’m with you, harris, but pinheads like that aren’t worth it. Save your breath … or fingertips[/quote]

He replied “It’s a comic book” in response to the post: “Indeed, it’s always tough to see a movie after you’ve read the book upon which it is based, due to the fact that you form your own images in your mind as you read the book, and it’s odd to see your images contradicted with someone else’s onscreen.”
When you read a comic book, or graphic novel, you don’t need to form images in your head because they’re already on the paper in front of you. I love comics, but when they’re made into movies it’s a little different than when actual novels, like Lord of the Rings, are made into movies.
Maybe you oughta read the posts and figure out what’s going on Simon. Pinhead?

[quote]Xvim wrote:

Sport? Who the hell calls someone ‘sport?’
[/quote]

Travis Bickle.

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Hey Chump, I’ll give you the link to the interview with Moore and you can read it yoruself, minus my misrememberings :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I can see how Moore’s problem with movie adaptations started with TLOEG. They really fucked with the overall concept on that one.

To be commercially viable, it had to be greatly dumbed down and the presentation of some of the nuances/secrets of the characters compressed. I enjoyed the movie from a Big Dumb Fun point of view, knowing full well that the literary bent of the graphic version would be 99% lost on American audiences. My biggest complaint was the addition of Tom Sawyer to the League — it was the most obvious clue that the film’s producers “didn’t get it”.

I still don’t get him going on about Constantine though. He really only created the bare ‘chassis’ for that character. Subsequent writers were responsible for fleshing him out and expanding the back story.

I do wish the movie could have been done with the character as a cockney Brit though, I think people would have dug it. If they didn’t want to go with a real Brit, I think that someone like Brad Pitt could have pulled it off. He’s definitely got the scruffiness down.

Interestingly, Moore doesn’t mention From Hell, which was a very well done adaptation IMO. The main difference with the graphic novel was that it went into way, way more detail on the Freemason background and Gull’s internal monologues (i.e. descent into Looneyville).

I believe From Hell was self-published and one would hope that Moore profited nicely from selling the film rights for that one.

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Xvim wrote:
Hey Chump, I’ll give you the link to the interview with Moore and you can read it yoruself, minus my misrememberings :slight_smile:

I can see how Moore’s problem with movie adaptations started with TLOEG. They really fucked with the overall concept on that one.

To be commercially viable, it had to be greatly dumbed down and the presentation of some of the nuances/secrets of the characters compressed. I enjoyed the movie from a Big Dumb Fun point of view, knowing full well that the literary bent of the graphic version would be 99% lost on American audiences. My biggest complaint was the addition of Tom Sawyer to the League — it was the most obvious clue that the film’s producers “didn’t get it”.

I still don’t get him going on about Constantine though. He really only created the bare ‘chassis’ for that character. Subsequent writers were responsible for fleshing him out and expanding the back story.

I do wish the movie could have been done with the character as a cockney Brit though, I think people would have dug it. If they didn’t want to go with a real Brit, I think that someone like Brad Pitt could have pulled it off. He’s definitely got the scruffiness down.

Interestingly, Moore doesn’t mention From Hell, which was a very well done adaptation IMO. The main difference with the graphic novel was that it went into way, way more detail on the Freemason background and Gull’s internal monologues (i.e. descent into Looneyville).

I believe From Hell was self-published and one would hope that Moore profited nicely from selling the film rights for that one.
[/quote]

From Hell was brilliant. I have that dvd with me right now. I think the credit for that also goes to the Hughes brothers (twin directors) who simply “got it”. They also did Dead Presidents and Menace to Society which only didn’t get as much praise because of reasons that I won’t even go into right now because that is another debate entirely.

A book adaptation can be made and broken by the director. There are very few who do it right, but when they do, they deserve much credit for it.

[quote]jjphenomenon wrote:
Maybe you oughta read the posts and figure out what’s going on Simon. Pinhead?
[/quote]
Gee, I guess someone woke up a little grumpy today.

Do you KNOW that this was the insight that the Cap’n was going for? Are you telepathic?

I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion, but I’m still not seeing the whole fleshed-out story that you seem to be getting from those four words.

Perhaps we both read something different into his simple statement. Too bad he couldn’t have expressed himself graphically — maybe then there’d be less room for interpretation!

Scott

[quote]Professor X wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Xvim wrote:
Hey Chump, I’ll give you the link to the interview with Moore and you can read it yoruself, minus my misrememberings :slight_smile:

I can see how Moore’s problem with movie adaptations started with TLOEG. They really fucked with the overall concept on that one.

To be commercially viable, it had to be greatly dumbed down and the presentation of some of the nuances/secrets of the characters compressed. I enjoyed the movie from a Big Dumb Fun point of view, knowing full well that the literary bent of the graphic version would be 99% lost on American audiences. My biggest complaint was the addition of Tom Sawyer to the League — it was the most obvious clue that the film’s producers “didn’t get it”.

I still don’t get him going on about Constantine though. He really only created the bare ‘chassis’ for that character. Subsequent writers were responsible for fleshing him out and expanding the back story.

I do wish the movie could have been done with the character as a cockney Brit though, I think people would have dug it. If they didn’t want to go with a real Brit, I think that someone like Brad Pitt could have pulled it off. He’s definitely got the scruffiness down.

Interestingly, Moore doesn’t mention From Hell, which was a very well done adaptation IMO. The main difference with the graphic novel was that it went into way, way more detail on the Freemason background and Gull’s internal monologues (i.e. descent into Looneyville).

I believe From Hell was self-published and one would hope that Moore profited nicely from selling the film rights for that one.

From Hell was brilliant. I have that dvd with me right now. I think the credit for that also goes to the Hughes brothers (twin directors) who simply “got it”. They also did Dead Presidents and Menace to Society which only didn’t get as much praise because of reasons that I won’t even go into right now because that is another debate entirely.

A book adaptation can be made and broken by the director. There are very few who do it right, but when they do, they deserve much credit for it.[/quote]

I don’t know about [i]brilliant.[i] Definitely enjoyable, and I do give the Hughes Brothers credit for adapting what most thought to be unadaptable.

The source material is somewhere around 600 pages of Moore’s ramblings about magic, the British royals, the Freemasons, and London Architecture. The Johnny Depp character is nowhere near the lead of the story in the GN; it’s mostly about Sir William Gull (Ian Holm.)

[quote]harris447 wrote:
I don’t know about [i]brilliant.[i] Definitely enjoyable, and I do give the Hughes Brothers credit for adapting what most thought to be unadaptable.

The source material is somewhere around 600 pages of Moore’s ramblings about magic, the British royals, the Freemasons, and London Architecture. The Johnny Depp character is nowhere near the lead of the story in the GN; it’s mostly about Sir William Gull (Ian Holm.)
[/quote]

Perhaps they needed a few more million dollars for production in order to squeeze out “brilliant”. Either way, it was a good attempt and the acting was very good.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
They also did Dead Presidents and Menace to Society which only didn’t get as much praise because of reasons that I won’t even go into right now because that is another debate entirely.

A book adaptation can be made and broken by the director. There are very few who do it right, but when they do, they deserve much credit for it.[/quote]

Slightly off topic on my part, but I own both those movies and I think they’re excellent. I thought that Menace to Society got some critical acclaim though?

Also, I am terrified to see some mention to the movie A History of Violence earlier in this thread… that movie was by far the worst I saw in 2005, probably in my top 10 worst of all time.

The Hughes Brothers did a great job. You’re right about the director having an important part.

“Ramblings” is an excellent way to put it. I enjoy Moore’s work, but never made it through the entire graphic novel. I got bored around pg 400 and something.

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Also, I am terrified to see some mention to the movie A History of Violence earlier in this thread… that movie was by far the worst I saw in 2005, probably in my top 10 worst of all time.[/quote]

Really? What made it so bad (in your opinion)?

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Also, I am terrified to see some mention to the movie A History of Violence earlier in this thread… that movie was by far the worst I saw in 2005, probably in my top 10 worst of all time.

Really? What made it so bad (in your opinion)?[/quote]

The fact that they took a great book, which had a storyline that should’ve made a fantastic movie, and totally fucked it up.

That acting was so horifically over-dramatic it was nauseating. And the ending? Good grief, give me a break.

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it. I have honestly wondered if maybe they accidentally showed a different version of it to the theater I was in. The fact that they had predicted multiple Oscar nominations for different things from that movie made me question the entire film industry, I thought it was a conspiracy.

It was just painful to watch in my opinion. Maybe a total of 4 minutes of nice violence, but the unraveling of his “secret past” was just awful, and that’s basically what the movie is supposed to be all about.

[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:

Gee, I guess someone woke up a little grumpy today. [/quote]

That’s the only way to wake up.

Good point.

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Also, I am terrified to see some mention to the movie A History of Violence earlier in this thread… that movie was by far the worst I saw in 2005, probably in my top 10 worst of all time.

Really? What made it so bad (in your opinion)?

The fact that they took a great book, which had a storyline that should’ve made a fantastic movie, and totally fucked it up.

That acting was so horifically over-dramatic it was nauseating. And the ending? Good grief, give me a break.

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it. I have honestly wondered if maybe they accidentally showed a different version of it to the theater I was in. The fact that they had predicted multiple Oscar nominations for different things from that movie made me question the entire film industry, I thought it was a conspiracy.

It was just painful to watch in my opinion. Maybe a total of 4 minutes of nice violence, but the unraveling of his “secret past” was just awful, and that’s basically what the movie is supposed to be all about.[/quote]

If that was your top ten, you didn’t see Ultraviolet.

I just watched A History of Violence. I thought it was a little weak but I didn’t think is as bad you did. There wasn’t enough character development or backstory. If I was writing it, I would have started the movie years earlier before he changed his identity. Either way, it is watchable, unlike UltraCrap.

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it.[/quote]

Do people really do this? I mean c’mon, with the price you pay, how can one not stay to the bitter end?

-FC

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
The fact that they took a great book, which had a storyline that should’ve made a fantastic movie, and totally fucked it up.

That acting was so horifically over-dramatic it was nauseating. And the ending? Good grief, give me a break.

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it. I have honestly wondered if maybe they accidentally showed a different version of it to the theater I was in. The fact that they had predicted multiple Oscar nominations for different things from that movie made me question the entire film industry, I thought it was a conspiracy.

It was just painful to watch in my opinion. Maybe a total of 4 minutes of nice violence, but the unraveling of his “secret past” was just awful, and that’s basically what the movie is supposed to be all about.

Professor X wrote:

If that was your top ten, you didn’t see Ultraviolet.

I just watched A History of Violence. I thought it was a little weak but I didn’t think is as bad you did. There wasn’t enough character development or backstory. If I was writing it, I would have started the movie years earlier before he changed his identity. Either way, it is watchable, unlike UltraCrap.
[/quote]
I like History. The beginning part was very deliberately syrupy. I knew Cronenberg was setting up a story of ultra-contrast (please pardon me for using the prefix ‘ultra’).

The end was the only part I didn’t care for. If he really, really loved his family, he wouldn’t have been there.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Also, I am terrified to see some mention to the movie A History of Violence earlier in this thread… that movie was by far the worst I saw in 2005, probably in my top 10 worst of all time.

Really? What made it so bad (in your opinion)?

The fact that they took a great book, which had a storyline that should’ve made a fantastic movie, and totally fucked it up.

That acting was so horifically over-dramatic it was nauseating. And the ending? Good grief, give me a break.

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it. I have honestly wondered if maybe they accidentally showed a different version of it to the theater I was in. The fact that they had predicted multiple Oscar nominations for different things from that movie made me question the entire film industry, I thought it was a conspiracy.

It was just painful to watch in my opinion. Maybe a total of 4 minutes of nice violence, but the unraveling of his “secret past” was just awful, and that’s basically what the movie is supposed to be all about.

If that was your top ten, you didn’t see Ultraviolet.

I just watched A History of Violence. I thought it was a little weak but I didn’t think is as bad you did. There wasn’t enough character development or backstory. If I was writing it, I would have started the movie years earlier before he changed his identity. Either way, it is watchable, unlike UltraCrap.

[/quote]

I was actually planning on seeing Ultraviolet until I saw your comments about it on here. Thanks for saving me the ticket price. I went and saw The Hills Have Eyes instead, which was at least moderately entertaining…

[quote]FlawlessCowboy wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:

I counted around 10 people who walked out of it.

Do people really do this? I mean c’mon, with the price you pay, how can one not stay to the bitter end?

-FC

[/quote]

I agree. Not so much for the price that I paid for the ticket, but just the principle of it. If I start watching a movie, I’m going to finish it, if for no other reason than be to able to say “and did you see the ending!? Now that part REALLY sucked!”