M For Movies
It's been a while since I've reviewed a film here. Maybe I was saving up or something. Or maybe something else. Anyway, here's a few quickie synopses before I get into today's main event.
Match Point: Tragic love triangle. Scarlett Johansson is hot. Brian Cox not a bad guy for once. No ninjas or zombies; some shotgun action. Nothing special.
The Upside of Anger: OMG I'M BAD BECAUSE I HAVE A PENIS KILL ME NOW. Also, Kevin Costner is boring.
King Kong: Dinosaur pileup-orgy is funny. Insect beatdown overly long. Giant worms creepy. Should have been two hours of Kong going WWF on the T-Rexes. Rexi? Rexes?
Underworld: Evolution: Vampires good. Beckinsale sexy. Continuity with first movie very good. Will there be a third? Difficult to say.
Night Watch: Russian vampire-type creatures are even cooler. Subtitles done well. Confusing. Part one of three. Little boy looked like little girl. Maybe that happens in Russia.
And with that out of the way...
V for Vendetta
Once again in my extensive movie-watching career (I should say bad-movie-watching, but that's not the point), I encounter the comic-to-film conversion. Alan Moore's story, which he began in 1981 and finally published in 1989 (these dates are relevant to those watching the film who have not read the story), is not a typical superhero comic a la Spider-Man or The X-Men. This is a tale of anarchy, of one "hero" on a mission of vengeance and revolution against an evil government. More than that, even. No epic battles between superman and supervillain here; this is about changing ideas and mindsets.
Some people who have reviewed this say that it is a weak attempt to portray today's governments, that it is a stab at the current American political system. Again, look back to the publication date: 1989. Moore's fascist Britain was apparently more of a stab at then-Prime Minister Thatcher's government. The reflection of today's potential is an interesting coincidence, though...
Note also that Alan Moore himself ultimately did not want to be associated with the film, as a result of numerous liberties and adjustments made within the movie. I suppose I'm of two minds on this- yes, there is the creative aspect, and wanting to see a faithful representation of your work is recognizable. On the other hand, there are some things that do not always convert well from book to screen, and in such cases adjustments are necessary to improve the flow of material.
The plot: Agent Smith puts on a mask and kicks British arse. But they're like Nazi British, so it's ok.
The pros: The story, even if altered from the original material, is still good. V's quest for personal vengeance and with it the overthrow of a corrupt government is an obsession, a madness, but one that you get into and want to see to completion. His slow but certain influence on the people in Future England is trackable as you watch the same groups of people slowly come around to his ideas. While we don't know everything about V's origin (unless you read the story), we see how it has changed him. His brutal transformation of Evey Hammond is shocking- is it laudable because of its effect, or reprehensible because of its methods? And John Hurt is the best Hitler-wannabe ever. Add to this the eclectic mix of music (especially Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture) and the Naziesque portrayal of Future England, and you have a very engrossing story and setting.
The cons: Exposition. In the comic, exposition is necessary, and a tool that is useful and easily understood. In a film, exposition can be boring, stopping the action like a commercial break while the characters lecture the audience. The Warchowski brothers were guilty of this, especially in Matrix 2: Matrix Boogaloo. They do it again here. And, much as I hate to say this, Natalie Portman is just a mediocre actress. She does well emoting, and using her body language, but when she talks... I don't know. It doesn't work so well. Also, excuse me for this, but the tacked-on "love moments" are completely unnecessary and totally distract from the story at hand. There is a time and place for a love interest, and this movie had no such time or place. And, finally, adherents to the original story will find quite a few changes to the story's foundation.
The verdict: Still a good movie. If you haven't read the story, I think you'll find a lot to like. Even if you have read the story, I think there's a lot of good to find as well. Also, in no other film will you hear the word "bollocks" said with greater frequency. That's worth $10 right there.
Disclaimer: IMAX movies kick ass. Bigger IS better. Don't let the chicks tell you otherwise.
Disclaimer: As Evey kisses V's unfeeling mask, I might have said "Oh V, this is just like all my Episode III love scenes." Amy hates watching movies with me. Not because I talk, but because I'm right.
Edit: I completely forgot to mention the Benny Hill segment which was brilliant beyond measure. Chase scene, proper music, and gorilla suit. That was worth admission price as well.
Match Point: Tragic love triangle. Scarlett Johansson is hot. Brian Cox not a bad guy for once. No ninjas or zombies; some shotgun action. Nothing special.
The Upside of Anger: OMG I'M BAD BECAUSE I HAVE A PENIS KILL ME NOW. Also, Kevin Costner is boring.
King Kong: Dinosaur pileup-orgy is funny. Insect beatdown overly long. Giant worms creepy. Should have been two hours of Kong going WWF on the T-Rexes. Rexi? Rexes?
Underworld: Evolution: Vampires good. Beckinsale sexy. Continuity with first movie very good. Will there be a third? Difficult to say.
Night Watch: Russian vampire-type creatures are even cooler. Subtitles done well. Confusing. Part one of three. Little boy looked like little girl. Maybe that happens in Russia.
And with that out of the way...
V for Vendetta
Once again in my extensive movie-watching career (I should say bad-movie-watching, but that's not the point), I encounter the comic-to-film conversion. Alan Moore's story, which he began in 1981 and finally published in 1989 (these dates are relevant to those watching the film who have not read the story), is not a typical superhero comic a la Spider-Man or The X-Men. This is a tale of anarchy, of one "hero" on a mission of vengeance and revolution against an evil government. More than that, even. No epic battles between superman and supervillain here; this is about changing ideas and mindsets.
Some people who have reviewed this say that it is a weak attempt to portray today's governments, that it is a stab at the current American political system. Again, look back to the publication date: 1989. Moore's fascist Britain was apparently more of a stab at then-Prime Minister Thatcher's government. The reflection of today's potential is an interesting coincidence, though...
Note also that Alan Moore himself ultimately did not want to be associated with the film, as a result of numerous liberties and adjustments made within the movie. I suppose I'm of two minds on this- yes, there is the creative aspect, and wanting to see a faithful representation of your work is recognizable. On the other hand, there are some things that do not always convert well from book to screen, and in such cases adjustments are necessary to improve the flow of material.
The plot: Agent Smith puts on a mask and kicks British arse. But they're like Nazi British, so it's ok.
The pros: The story, even if altered from the original material, is still good. V's quest for personal vengeance and with it the overthrow of a corrupt government is an obsession, a madness, but one that you get into and want to see to completion. His slow but certain influence on the people in Future England is trackable as you watch the same groups of people slowly come around to his ideas. While we don't know everything about V's origin (unless you read the story), we see how it has changed him. His brutal transformation of Evey Hammond is shocking- is it laudable because of its effect, or reprehensible because of its methods? And John Hurt is the best Hitler-wannabe ever. Add to this the eclectic mix of music (especially Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture) and the Naziesque portrayal of Future England, and you have a very engrossing story and setting.
The cons: Exposition. In the comic, exposition is necessary, and a tool that is useful and easily understood. In a film, exposition can be boring, stopping the action like a commercial break while the characters lecture the audience. The Warchowski brothers were guilty of this, especially in Matrix 2: Matrix Boogaloo. They do it again here. And, much as I hate to say this, Natalie Portman is just a mediocre actress. She does well emoting, and using her body language, but when she talks... I don't know. It doesn't work so well. Also, excuse me for this, but the tacked-on "love moments" are completely unnecessary and totally distract from the story at hand. There is a time and place for a love interest, and this movie had no such time or place. And, finally, adherents to the original story will find quite a few changes to the story's foundation.
The verdict: Still a good movie. If you haven't read the story, I think you'll find a lot to like. Even if you have read the story, I think there's a lot of good to find as well. Also, in no other film will you hear the word "bollocks" said with greater frequency. That's worth $10 right there.
Disclaimer: IMAX movies kick ass. Bigger IS better. Don't let the chicks tell you otherwise.
Disclaimer: As Evey kisses V's unfeeling mask, I might have said "Oh V, this is just like all my Episode III love scenes." Amy hates watching movies with me. Not because I talk, but because I'm right.
Edit: I completely forgot to mention the Benny Hill segment which was brilliant beyond measure. Chase scene, proper music, and gorilla suit. That was worth admission price as well.