So, I guess I should make good on my promise to comment on V for Vendetta, the film adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd.
To be fair, I don't have a lot of experience with graphic novels, so I can't adequately compare V to anything else. But, reliable sources tell me it's good, and I liked it, so that's all that matters. So: Novel good, expectations high.
I should be clear, though, about my approach to adaptation films: Literature and film are different, and, as such, they tell their stories differently. In books, you can say things in specific ways that can't be done with the same effect in movies (and vice versa). So I'm never one to expect a movie to be exactly like the book. In fact, I expect changes to make the story the best it can be on the new medium. Despite changes with The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Brokeback Mountain, I've been generally happy with those movies because changes were made to fit either the time of the film or elaborate the story within the spectacle of film. Adaptation is hard work, and the people who expect exact similarity between media are naive (and that's coming from me!)
Back to V for Vendetta...
I'd give it a thumbs up. It was enjoyable, entertaining movie with a lot of eye candy as a result of melding the Wachowskis with an already visually engaging graphic world. I liked watching it and I'd see it again. Any major changes to characters were there for either clarity or simplicity. The original graphic novel was a big book with lots of characters and a fair amount of dialogue. Changes had to be made, which is fair enough.
But, I do have a gripe with how pleasant the movie became. Here are a couple of producers that have said they want to make their audience think and work to be engaged in the movie (which most people would consider ironic), yet this film packages everything up into a good vs evil, Star War-esque story. Instead of being a discussion on terrorism or anarchy, it is the story about a good guy in a cool mask with unlimited resources bringing down an oppressive regime one symbol at a time. Fun, but dumb.
An now maybe I'm being naive by expecting more thinking out of a Hollywood film. Without being a spoiler, I can safely tell you that the ending is pretty tame. Good triumphs, and evil is vanquished. In fact, it turns out that the forces of evil were only being manipulated by a small handful of evil men (no evil women here, folks. You need to read the book for that), and with them out of the picture, utopia (see: England) is once again restored.
Right. Gotchya.
All I'm saying is that there could have been more opportunity for discussion. What does anarchy look like? Who are the innocent people hurt by terrorism in the name of good? How is V similar to modern day terrorists? What grows from mass chaos in the wreck of a dismantled empire?
Ack!... I am naive. Some media can only go so far, expecially the ones that have to make their millions back.
In a similar vein, we went to see Slither this weekend.
I originally resisted. Gore and horror are not my thing. I get too involved in movies to distance myself from the images and sometimes, the most horrific moments stay with me for a very long time. But, the movie was getting
good reviews and Edmontonian and Firefly/
Serenity star
Nathan Fillion is in it, so I conceded to go along.
I'm surprised, but I liked it. Yes, it was gory and it had it's "eeep!" moments, but it was also genuinely funny and likable. It was the type of horror flick to have some thought to it and it was rather refreshing. If you're up for that type of thing, I'd recommend checking it out. For folk music fans,
Corb Lund is in it too (as himself/themselves).
So, go consume!
OK, so I made that name up... but it's always a good idea to have a mascot.
