Reviews Comments: As usual, the book is better than the film
As usual, the book is better than the film
I actually read V For Vendetta back when it was first issued in my country in the early 90's. The story itself is not very subtle about being a Nazi Germany rip-off but somehow, and this is where the writers showed their genius, it just... works wonders. The premises are particularly well-rendered with David Lloyd's art and his smooth shading that underlines the darkness of the novel's universe. Suspense and tension can be cut through with a knife and it's amazing just how the main plot and sub-plots carry each other to fruition. It's really worth noting how the world V created for himself in the Shadow Gallery brims with dark poetry and ironic beauty, the same way he kills most of his chosen victims. V is also the only case I know of a heroic, Warrior Poet-like, Monster Clown. All of this explodes in a terrific finale and a hopeful conclusion that leaves many questions unanswered nonetheless. As for the film now, it was expectedly disappointing. First off, the whole overhauling of the plot was disastrous and made the movie into a big cliché-driven mess. Second, Character Derailment, ahoy. Cutting off Rosemary and Helen Heyer, the two most powerful female characters after Evey, irritated me to no end since, as a female viewer, I'd really like to stop being reminded that Most Writers Are Male and I'm only a periphery demographic of any given non-Chick Flick film. Additionally, making Gordon Dietrich a Gay guy just didn't work, plus it could pass off as some gross pandering. And really, expanding the role of Creedy into some kind of stock Big Bad Wannabe was unnecessary. Third, the choice of actors was really not that judicious. Yes, Natalie Portman can act but, as Evey, she really didn't convince me. To finish on a lighter note, I do understand that many people might have liked the film if they never read the book before. But, as is often the case, the original novel is way superior to the film.
I liked the movie and never read the novel but I'll take your word for it because that's how it usually goes.
comment #8965 McSomeguy 30th Jul 11
I've read the novel and seen the movie, but I really don't find the movie all that bad. It's just that the novel and movie are so completely different, that you couldn't call the movie an adaptation of the novel, but merely a movie that happened to be inspired by the novel. The movie did show V as being more Heroic than he was in the novel, and as being more of a person. But I don't think showing V as being a human character is the point of V; he is not a man, but the physical embodiment of Anarchy. V is the lovechild between Batman and The Joker. On the other hand, Hugo Weaving made a strong, compelling performance as V, and the V in the movie felt more like the dashing, gallant rogue that V envisioned himself as being. But good review though. You made plenty of good points in it. Well, what do you know? This comment was written on the 5th of November ;)
comment #11241 CrazyDawg 5th Nov 11 (edited by: CrazyDawg)
I agree. The film seemed to pander too much towards one particular audience... and the book was a lot more ambiguous about whether what V was in the right. He is basically a psychotic terrorist, after all. Well, what do you know? This comment was written on the 20th of May
comment #14365 HandyHandel 20th May 12 (edited by: HandyHandel)
- I liked the movie and never read the novel but I'll take your word for it because that's how it usually goes.
comment #14381 Magenta 22nd May 12
In order to post comments, you need to